I think hobbes is quite reasoned, giving the church the power to decide if it will or will not have gay marriage ceremonies is not actually anything more than semantics, as I said before Cameron can say he wants all gay people to have the same rights as other couples, because love is valued equally, if it is not made law it is meaningless, if it’s a choice it just means most churches will opt out. That said it changes one thing, the more liberal churches will offer the service and I suggest all gay couples change their Christian faith to those who offer them. A marriage grants tax incentives to married couples, it means it’s harder to divorce someone, it encourages couples to stay together. This is a good thing but the way we are going about it is so wishy washy and useless that it seems as I already said just pandering to the EU without actually doing anything meaningful. The only people I would find who are being homophobic are those who don’t care about the issue. Well I guess I care, in as much as all people have the same rights regardless of sexuality which is a right the EU has made its members sign up to. If a gay civil man does not have the same tax breaks as a straight married couple they are still not afforded the same rights. The problem is of course the more orthodox churches are just going to say no, no way not going to happen.
So signed up as you are to the secular humanist no discrimination against sexuality, age, sex, religion, and so on eventually we must actually not be just lip service signatories. Every man or womans’ rights are inviolate if and only if they do not superseed or make violate or inequitable another man or womans’ rights by giving one person more rights and privileges than another.
The original point was that some countries in the world do not recognize civil partnerships for visa reasons, but do recognize gay marriages formed abroad. It was a simple point and very easy to grasp. First you flippantly accused me of needing to check my facts, now you’ve finally understood the point you are ignoring it completely. You obviously have a viewpoint here that the bill is ‘just semantics’ and you are obviously bending over backwards to ignore or resist anything that contradicts the viewpoint.
If it is just semantics, you should just forget about it. Don’t worry, don’t care - it’ll go through parliament and make some people happy, and to you it’ll mean nothing.
Yes, because first time I posted the point, you said ‘it wasn’t an argument’, then you disputed another fact related to the point in a way that was clearly irrelevant by referring to a completely different time, NOW you are asking me to cite the original point. Thus giving me the impression that your next move will be to attack the citation, make more irrelevant counter points or basically do whatever you can to resist accepting the original point again.
I have this thread figured out now. You originally posted something that looked like a genuine call for information from someone who knew she didn’t know enough to have an opinion on the issue, and I mistakenly took it at face value. I’ll remember for next time.
I think you have some issues.
I’ve no idea why you are continuing with this.
If you think you have anything to add then do so. But nothing you have said has indicated that the rights and privileges between “civil partnership”, and “marriage” are in any way different.
Maybe you have failed to understand the query in the first place?
For anyone following the news today from the Lords, where the Bill has been passed to move forward by a large majority, there seems to be one factor that has emerged that is additional to what has been presented as a wholly semantic argument. The rules, should the Bill go ahead will change the church from not being allowed to marry, to the state of being able to opt out.
Not much of a difference