Church of England to get militant over same sex marriages

Sheldon_Cooper

goater78 wrote: »

I don't need to go on one of my crusades to realise you are wrong (again)

Before you make a complete fool of yourself, click this.

Note, particularly: "The Church of England forms part of the structure of the state and is headed by Queen Elizabeth."

I thought this was common knowledge.

Judith_W

I'm genuinely ignorant - I didn't think same sex people were allowed a civil marriage - but a civil partnership with all the same post union rights as marriage?

The reason I ask is because I think the term 'marriage' is important as the definition is the formal union of a male and female. It is a religious ceremony that has been adopted into non-religious status.

wary

I'm anti homosexuality ... but only because I've got a sore a$$

PaulJM

Judith_W wrote: »

The reason I ask is because I think the term 'marriage' is important as the definition is the formal union of a male and female. It is a religious ceremony that has been adopted into non-religious status.

If marriage is completely religious, at its roots, I'd be very surprised. I'd hedge a bet that it was a social contract that religious people hijacked. But I'm not sure, so it's a very open comment, however religion has hijacked a lot of other stuff, so it's within the realms of fairness for me to say that your comment here is wrong.

If you were to argue it was religious, then surely you'd have to argue that it belonged to one particular religion, which would then follow that people married in certain religions weren't actually 'married' in your view.

So for that reason, it has to be a state recognised and non religious activity, so then surely everyone who contributes to the state should then be allowed to get on with it, with the same flipping rights!

If god is so bloody kind, what's he doing judging people on the type of human they love?

Judith_W

Didn't mean to offend. I can see that some dictionaries have extended the definition of marriage to include same sex unions so I bow out of the discussion.

PaulJM

Judith_W wrote: »

Didn't mean to offend. I can see that some dictionaries have extended the definition of marriage to include same sex unions so I bow out of the discussion.

You didn't. I think you're ignorant in the proper definition of the term though. Your view is important, that said.

I don't think the dictionary 'Extended' their definition. I rather expect that they had it as a religious thing without looking at it historically though, so maybe they've 'corrected'

bargainbetty

Judith_W wrote: »

The reason I ask is because I think the term 'marriage' is important as the definition is the formal union of a male and female. It is a religious ceremony that has been adopted into non-religious status.

Actually, marriage is a concept pre-dating the Christian church by some 4000 years. It was a symbolic union for the druids and a legal union for the Greeks and Romans.

The union between two individuals bringing together households, wealth, armies, or political alliance was commonplace throughout ancient history. It was not a religious system, merely a way of tracking the children and lineage for purposes of inheritance, taxation and wealth distribution.

It was shanghaied by the Christian Church during the Dark Ages. Note that, the Dark Ages. That glorious period of history where religious superstition destroyed advances in medicine while also wiping out herb-lore and natural remedies (burn the witches), prevented advances in science and development (Galileo, anyone?) and thoroughly knackered the world.

If you must pursue this misguided belief that the Church invented a system that had been functioning for four thousand years before Christ was alleged to have been born, please recognise that since we no longer trade women for cows, men are not permitted to take 'lesser' wives, women are not forced to marry their rapists for fear of shame and men are not forced to offer dowries alongside their less-attractive daughters, we have already somewhat redefined the concept of marriage as it stood in Christian biblical times.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we need to stop putting the faith of a few before the rights of the many. Marriage is a legal union between two persons. A married man is a husband, a married woman is a wife. No redifnition is needed - simply an application of the basic rights of equality laid down in law. If you don't approve, don't marry someone of your own gender.

I think I broke my soapbox!

robpw2

John_Jizzle wrote: »

I have a question - not meant to offend or anything just honestly interested in what people think and the reasons why and why not.

men and women have separate changing rooms. A gay man will share a changing room with straight men. Is there any difference in this between a straight man sharing a changing room full of women (or vice versa)

what next should we have seperate changing rooms for gingers, blacks, people with blue eyes, etc

Azari

PaulJM wrote: »

You didn't. I think you're ignorant in the proper definition of the term though. Your view is important, that said.

I don't think the dictionary 'Extended' their definition. I rather expect that they had it as a religious thing without looking at it historically though, so maybe they've 'corrected'

Dictionaries define the usage of words (although they may give their history and origin [etymology]).

Even if there was cast iron evidence that a word had some very specific meaning when it was derived that would not prevent dictionaries from listing the main, current, meaning as something completely different.

It is not a 'correction', but a change to reflect current usage.

The most complete dictionary of the English language, OED2, lists the histories of words so you can trace their changed or augmented meanings over the decades and centuries.

robpw2

goater78 wrote: »

If you're worried about it then the trick is to get changed with a towel. That way there is no need to display the good stuff to any potential homosexual who may be in the vicinity.

I'm not sure what the implications would be of a homosexual seeing you naked but i imagine the implications would be horrific......

its like blood to vampires we just cannot help ourselves we feel the need to ravage every single naked man we set eyes on :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: