eviltwin wrote: » Don't tar humanity with your very bigoted brush. I certainly have no issue with homosexuality at all, I don't know anyone who is "disgusted" by it as you say.
lazygal wrote: » Why would you not agree with full civil marriage rights for same sex couples? As a married person, no one else's marriage has any impact on my marriage or that of anyone I know. I'd hate to think should any of my children be gay that they wouldn't enjoy exactly the same rights as their parents did when it came to marriage. One's marriage would have to be on pretty shaky grounds if it would be affected by say two men getting married, or two women getting married. It's great about Governments no longer tolerating bigotry dressed up as concern from religious people. I read a lot of the debate on the civil partnership legislation and it was brilliant to see the blatant homophobia, disguised as 'concern' and 'respect' for the 'traditional' family and marriage being totally blasted away by common sense, respect and tolerance. A great triumph of civil and State law over religious influences.
SoulandForm wrote: » Why do homosexuals have much higher rates of all these things?
SoulandForm wrote: » If you replace a belief in a universe that has a natural order and a goal of ultimate Transfiguration with one that is meaningless and that there is nothing to life to self-assertion than how cannot it not cause problems? If I didnt believe in God I couldnt see much reason not to kill myself if times got tough.
philologos wrote: » If the Government stifles the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues etc to disagree with redefining marriage I'm opposed. If the Government doesn't provide sufficient safeguards for all of the legal issues raised by Aidan O'Neill QC I'll be in touch with the local MP in my area. You mightn't be concerned for freedom of religion, but I suspect in an area which at the last census had 36% Christians, 23% Muslims, 11% Hindus, 6% Sikhs and 4% Jews there will be more concern about freedom of religion than not. Unless the Government addresses these concerns I've got every right to raise them. Secularism doesn't mean ignoring concerns from faith groups about freedom of religion. Indeed those concerns are what started secularism in the United States for example.
lazygal wrote: » Why are you concerned about two adults who love each other getting married in a state ceremony?
philologos wrote: » I've already made that clear in the last two posts. Read this: http://www.c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf
lazygal wrote: » You haven't. You've referred to marriage in a religious sense. Why would you stop two adults who love each other getting married in a state marriage ceremony? Bigotry dressed in religious cloaks is still bigotry and needs to be eliminated.
philologos wrote: » Read the document. Read my posts. Don't respond to my posts if you're going to ignore what I've said. That would be a waste of time both for you and for me. Also stop the dramatics. Disagreeing with you on marriage just isn't bigotry.
lazygal wrote: » That 'legal opinion' is laughable. I've studied law and none of the 'freedom of conscience' cases are legally sound. Are you not worried that if I ignore what you say I might lose the chance to be saved? And I've purposed to give witness whenever I see bigotry dressed up as calls for 'religious freedom' when it might affect state and civil law.
philologos wrote: » So you think the legal opinion of an expert in UK law (particularly in the civil liberties and human rights fields) is laughable? I think many others would disagree with you in respect to his credentials. Either way if there is even the slightest cause for doubt I'll need clarification.
lazygal wrote: » Are you saying the opinion isn't the slightest bit biased because of religious influence? And can you address my point on how ignoring your posts might mean I won't be saved, are you worried about that? Also, do you think Jesus or God or whoever is more worried about two people loving each other than lobbying to limit the rights of others in a secular legal system? Should I be able to refuse to teach Christian children because it offends my conscience?
philologos wrote: » It's a legal opinion. The Coalition For Marriage gave him a number of different scenarios asking him what the impact of the law would be on these areas. He gave answers on the basis of current UK law. The concerns hold up on assessing the law.
philologos wrote: » Read the document. Read my posts.
SoulandForm wrote: » The fact is that if someone was to come out and state clearly that homosexuality goes hand in hand with all these problems because of what it is their acedemic career would be in serious trouble. The fact also is that homosexuality is increasingly socially acceptable and so-called "homophobia" increasingly socially unacceptable while these problems with the homosexual community are increasing. There were not so many homosexuals being so self-destructive before "liberation".
Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?
lazygal wrote: » The Coalition For Marriage, they couldn't possibly be biased! If its so keen on marriage why does it want to stop marriage between gay people? As someone who's actually studied law, as opposed to scripture, I feel purposed to tell you that interest groups will interpret legal opinion to further their aims, regardless of the actual law. Not worried about me being saved, no?
philologos wrote: » So you think the legal opinion of an expert in UK law (particularly in the civil liberties and human rights fields) is laughable?
philologos wrote: » Aidan O'Neill is not a member of C4M. He was asked these questions by C4M and gave a legal rundown on each scenario.
When leading lights of the legal world disagree, what are the chances of us ordinary mortals settling this question? Slim, perhaps. But there are some facts we can agree on.Same-sex marriage is already the law in Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Spain, and as far as we know, none of those countries have faced a legal challenge like this at the European Court of Human Rights. If there were such a challenge, there’s no guarantee it would be successful – even the Church of England doesn’t go that far. They are relying on an obiter dictum, a remark made by the judges, rather than a substantive ruling. All the actual rulings made by Strasbourg suggest that the court is generally reluctant to interfere with law passed by national parliaments on this issue. And even if a human rights challenge was upheld, that doesn’t automatically mean judges in Europe would actively force clergymen to carry out same-sex marriages. The Church itself concedes that the most the Court could do is leave open the possibility of them doing so. As Eric Pickles said, closing off that possibility might require further legislation, perhaps years down the road. But there is no reason why the government could not change the law later to adjust for a possible intervention from the European Court of Human Rights. It’s up to the reader to decide whether these highly nuanced, hypothetical legal arguments are good enough reasons to stop the progress of legislation on gay marriage. In the meantime, there seems to be little realistic possibility of any religious institutions being forced to carry out gay weddings any time soon.Source
lazygal wrote: » And C4M wouldn't pick and chose what suited it? If its so into marriage, why oppose gay marriage? And you're not worried about me being saved, or are you ignoring this chance for my salvation?
koth wrote: » From Channel 4 Fact Checker about the suggestion that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their wishes:
philologos wrote: » A marriage in a Christian sense is meant to reflect the union between Christ and the church as it's bride. It's not a good argument for churches changing God's word. Civil partnership in Britain at least is regarded as identical in court in terms of rights. The difference is that a civil partnership is a separate type of union. Of course the Tories (or at least Cameron's supporters) are trying to redefine marriage. They claim that it won't affect the rights of churches to disagree but on legal analysis from Aidan O'Neill QC there are a number of grounds on which the Church of England would be liable to legal challenge if the law goes ahead. In so far as those challenges to freedom of religion exist I'll be opposed and will probably be in touch with my MP in the next few days. I don't particularly mind if the Commons want to pass this legislation as long as it doesn't affect the right of faith groups to disagree. At present it doesn't and as a result I'll let my views be known on a political level as well as a church level. Unfortunately the point where I can expect the Government to support freedom of religion has gone and I can't really trust them on this.
philologos wrote: » These concerns are specific to the UK implementation of the law. What I'm going to ask my MP to ensure is that all of the concerns raised are legally addressed. Other implementations are irrelevant. The legal opinion is about UK law. That's what I'm interested in because that will affect me in a way that Portuguese law won't. That's obvious.
philologos wrote: » These concerns are specific to the UK implementation of the law. What I'm going to ask my MP to ensure is that all of the concerns raised are legally addressed.Other implementations are irrelevant. The legal opinion is about UK law. That's what I'm interested in because that will affect me in a way that Portuguese law won't. That's obvious.
koth wrote: » So you're concerned that the English government will force churches to perform same-sex marriages under equality legislation? Tell me, do the churches currently have to allow for female priests under the same legislation? No they're not as the pdf you linked to says "The legal opinion suggests that an outright ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under European human rights laws." Why are you ignoring that part of the document?
lazygal wrote: » How will two gay people getting married in a state ceremony affect you in any way whatsoever? How others get married and whom they marry has no effect on my marriage or that of anyone I know, even those who are religiously inclined. Of course private clubs don't have to marry people - they can set their own rules about what adults can and cannot do on their premises - but State property and State marriage ceremonies are not the place for religiously inspired discrimination.
philologos wrote: » Read the document. It probably will.
philologos wrote: » I'm not ignoring it. Your argument is poor because this hasn't gone to the ECHR yet.
O’Neill says that churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether.
koth wrote: » the linked document has the ECHR as the reason for concern regarding forcing churches to have gay-marriage. You're ignoring the foundation upon which the author of document builds his case for potential problems between church and state with regard to gay-marriage. The document becomes a non-issue if you remove the ECHR from the discussion.
