The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Delirium · 25-01-2013 12:40PM

philologos wrote: »

Its still a concern. A case could be brought, and it could be ruled that the CofE must carry out gay marriage.

We don't know until it actually happens. That's why other implementation is irrelevant.

No, they're not as no other country with gay marriage has seen a case being brought against any of the churches. The churches in the UK haven't been taken to the ECHR for not allowing women to be priests.

Plus would it not contravene freedom of religion if the ECHR ruled that churches must provide same-sex marriage?

Penn · 25-01-2013 12:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Its still a concern. A case could be brought, and it could be ruled that the CofE must carry out gay marriage.

We don't know until it actually happens. That's why other implementation is irrelevant.

I know I've had discussions with you about those legal opinions before, so I'll just reiterate what I said there:

Any legislation which is brought in to allow same-sex marriage should be carefully considered and worded in such a way as to not infringe on the religious rights of any other person. However, if those religious rights mean that you can no longer perform your job to the requirements of your employer and the law, that does not come under an infringement of religious rights.

If, for example, the registrar does not wish to marry same-sex couples and it comes up as part of their job that they have to, they can either do so, they can quit their job or they can risk losing their job. Their religious rights are not being infringed. Part of their job is now to marry same-sex couples. There is no right to disregard the requirements of their job or the law based on their religious beliefs.

If their religion comes into conflict with their job, they must choose between their religion and their job. No religious rights are being infringed, because it's their choice. They can still practice their religion. They can not change the requirements of the law or the terms of their employment to suit their religion.

Peregrinus · 25-01-2013 12:55PM

koth wrote: »

No, they're not as no other country with gay marriage has seen a case being brought against any of the churches. The churches in the UK haven't been taken to the ECHR for not allowing women to be priests.

Plus would it not contravene freedom of religion if the ECHR ruled that churches must provide same-sex marriage?

Actually, there is an issue here. The Church of England is a national church with national responsiblities, and one of those is to celebrate marriage. In England you have a legal right to be married in the CofE; you don't have to be an Anglican, or even a Christian. Hence, if same-sex marriage is legalised, the question arises of whether the CofE will be required to celebrate same-sex marriages. This wouldn't be something imposed by the ECHR.

The UK government proposes to insert provision in same-sex marriage legislation to ensure this doesn't happen. There's some debate, as I understand it, over whether those provision (a) are apt, or (b) will be effective (or (c) should be included at all). I've got no opinion about that, but there is a genuine issue.

Delirium · 25-01-2013 01:03PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there is an issue here. The Church of England is a national church with national responsiblities, and one of those is to celebrate marriage. In England you have a legal right to be married in the CofE; you don't have to be an Anglican, or even a Christian. Hence, if same-sex marriage is legalised, the question arises of whether the CofE will be required to celebrate same-sex marriages. This wouldn't be something imposed by the ECHR.

The UK government proposes to insert provision in same-sex marriage legislation to ensure this doesn't happen. There's some debate, as I understand it, over whether those provision (a) are apt, or (b) will be effective (or (c) should be included at all). I've got no opinion about that, but there is a genuine issue.

So it's a problem because England has a national religion and they have legislation stating anyone can get married on a CofE church. (Probably a daft question) Can they not separate church and state, as well as remove the legislation and thus remove any legal quandry that may arise regarding CofE and same-sex marriage?

Delirium · 25-01-2013 01:10PM

This literally just popped up in my twtter timeline a few minutes ago. A pdf of the proposed bill for same-sex marriage in the UK.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2012-13 via Parliament.uk website

MrPudding · 25-01-2013 01:42PM

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.

Any chance someone could upload the PDF for me? This site is blocked from where I work. I wonder why...

MrP

Delirium · 25-01-2013 01:56PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Any chance someone could upload the PDF for me? This site is blocked from where I work. I wonder why...

MrP

Done

tommy2bad · 25-01-2013 01:56PM

Parliament UK is blocked where you work!!! or was it the 'sex' word on the page?

MrPudding · 25-01-2013 02:19PM

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.

Kim Kardasian (72 days) - fine
Britney Spears (55 hours) - fine
Denis Rodman (9 days) - fine

But two peopel of the same sex that love each other and want to spent the rest of their lives together...? No, that would devalue marriage.

koth wrote: »

Done

Wrong one!

tommy2bad wrote: »

Parliament UK is blocked where you work!!! or was it the 'sex' word on the page?

No, it is the C4M website that is blocked.

MrP

Delirium · 25-01-2013 02:23PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Wrong one!

No, it is the C4M website that is blocked.

MrP

my bad

should be the right one now

NuMarvel · 25-01-2013 03:05PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there is an issue here. The Church of England is a national church with national responsiblities, and one of those is to celebrate marriage. In England you have a legal right to be married in the CofE; you don't have to be an Anglican, or even a Christian. Hence, if same-sex marriage is legalised, the question arises of whether the CofE will be required to celebrate same-sex marriages. This wouldn't be something imposed by the ECHR.

The UK government proposes to insert provision in same-sex marriage legislation to ensure this doesn't happen. There's some debate, as I understand it, over whether those provision (a) are apt, or (b) will be effective (or (c) should be included at all). I've got no opinion about that, but there is a genuine issue.

According to this document, there's already an exception for the CoE when it comes divorced people remarrying:

"The Church of England teaches that marriage is for life. It also recognizes that some marriages sadly do fail and, if this should happen, it seeks to be available for all involved. The Church accepts that, in exceptional circumstances, a divorced person may marry again in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.

If you are thinking about asking to be married in church, you should discuss this with your local parish priest. Please do this well before choosing a date for your wedding.

Some priests may be willing to take such a marriage, others may not be prepared to do so, on grounds of conscience, and may not allow the use of their church either. The law of the land permits them this choice."

So in some circumstances, the CoE can refuse to marry a man and a woman, within the confines of the law. Those people can still avail of a civil marriage.

I can't see a reason why same sex marriage can't operate with similar provisions for the Church of England, but there may be other specific laws that I'm not aware of.

But if there aren't other relevant laws, allowing the CoE the option to refuse same sex marriages shouldn't result in ECHR cases. After all, the Church has a derogation in respect of the remarrying of divorced people, in accordance with the Bible's stance on the issue, and that hasn't been brought to the ECHR, let alone been overturned. Why would same sex marriage be any different?

MrPudding · 25-01-2013 03:29PM

koth wrote: »

my bad

should be the right one now

That document is worthless. It is a non-legal opinion of a legal opinion.

Unless you are merely interested in having your own opinion re-enforced, there is nothing in that document to actually help with further understanding of the issues.

MrP

lazygal · 25-01-2013 04:41PM

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, you might address this when you get a chance.

philologos · 25-01-2013 04:53PM

lazygal wrote: »

Philologos, you might address this when you get a chance.

I've pointed you to a document as to how it could affect me and others who disagree.

It isn't bigotry to disagree with you about marriage.

lazygal · 25-01-2013 04:57PM

philologos wrote: »

I've pointed you to a document as to how it could affect me and others who disagree.

It isn't bigotry to disagree with you about marriage.

But how will gay marriage affect you? In your own words, not those of someone else. As a married woman, I can tell you, in my own words, with no questionable legal opinion from ay interest group, that gay marriage, or anyone else's marriage, or the right of anyone to marry, has zero effect on my marriage. So how would, say, my gay friend's marriage affect you? He lives in the UK, wouldn't be religious and would like to marry in a civil ceremony on state property. How is that going to affect the marriage of anyone else?

Do you conduct civil marriage ceremonies as your paid employment? Are you worried you'll have to resign your employment because your religious beliefs would prevent you from implementing marriage equality? Can you answer my questions without recourse to third party documents? How could a state marriage ceremony, conducted on state property, by state employees, have any impact on your life whatsoever?

25-01-2013 05:00PM

philologos wrote: »

I've pointed you to a document as to how it could affect me and others who disagree.

That's what C4M said. What O'Neill said was:

that churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether.

Not that they could be forced to do it, only that they would be better protected if they didn't do it at all. Since C4M haven't published the full-text of the opinion, the document is essentially worthless.

And you haven't addressed any of the points raised in relation to:

countries which already have legalised gay marriage
the CofE's own opinion on the matter
the CofE's ability to prevent previously-divorced people from getting married
the actual wording of the proposed law which was posted.

Bannasidhe · 25-01-2013 05:27PM

philologos wrote: »

I've pointed you to a document as to how it could affect me and others who disagree.

It isn't bigotry to disagree with you about marriage.

That document does not address the question which was:

How will two gay people getting married in a state ceremony affect you in any way whatsoever?

Apart from the fact that you want the State to concede ownership of the word 'marriage' to religious organisations...

Penn · 25-01-2013 05:38PM

philologos wrote: »

I've pointed you to a document as to how it could affect me and others who disagree.

From my reading of it though, many of the issues raised in that document are still there whether or not same-sex marriage is introduced:

(Apologies for formatting)

1. A Church of England minister is also the chaplain at an NHS
hospital. While conducting a wedding service in his parish
church he preaches that marriage is only for one man and one
woman. His NHS bosses find out, and he is later disciplined for
breaching the NHS diversity policy.
Aidan O’Neill QC advises that under the Equality Act 2010 the
NHS managers would have proper grounds for justifying their
action, even if the chaplain was preaching in his own church
outside work time.

- Surely this can already happen as the NHS Diversity Policy and the Equality Act 2010 are already in place? If the minister said homosexuality was a sin, he could be disciplined for the exact same thing

2. TEACHER
A primary school teacher is asked to use a storybook about
gay marriage called “King & King”. It is recommended by the
local authority and by a gay rights charity. The teacher says
using the book would conflict with her religious beliefs about
marriage. She is told that she faces dismissal unless she
backs down.
O’Neill says “yes”, the school would be within its legal rights to
dismiss the teacher if she refuses to use the material.

- Again, that can already happen with any other comparable situation where her religious ideals conflict with her job

3. PARENTS
Parents ask for their child to be withdrawn from school lessons
on the history of gay marriage, for deeply-held religious
reasons. The parents say they have a right to withdraw their
child under European Convention on Human Rights. But the
school refuses, saying it is under a legal duty to promote
equality.
O’Neill says the parents do not ultimately have a right to insist
that their child be withdrawn from such history lessons, and the
parents “will have little prospects of success in challenging the
schools insistence that their child attend” the lessons.

- Again, religious beliefs are the issue, not same-sex marriage. If the play was about the history of Islam, the same situation could occur

4. FOSTER COUPLE
A couple applies to be foster carers. They tell social workers
they are motivated to care for children because of their
Christian faith. On hearing this, the social workers ask them
whether they support gay marriage. The couple says they do
not, and the social workers halt the application because of
equality and discrimination policies.
O’Neill says “yes”, a local authority fostering agency would
have legitimate legal grounds for acting this way.

- Could easily be the same as if the couple were racist. Again, not an issue exclusive to same-sex marriage

5. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A church hires a council-owned community centre each week
for its youth club. The church website states that it will only
conduct opposite-sex marriages. Someone complains to the
council, and while the church can’t be forced to conduct gay
weddings, it is stopped from hiring the community centre.
Aidan O’Neill says “yes”, the council would be within its legal
rights to do this.

- This could apply to the religious beliefs of any other religious organisations in the community wishing to use the centre

6. MARRIAGE REGISTRAR
A local authority decides to accommodate the religious beliefs
of one of its registrars by not designating her to be a ‘civil
partnership registrar’. Other registrars within the local
authority’s team are sufficient to provide the service to the
public.
Aidan O’Neill says that if gay marriage becomes law, “that kind
of adjustment to accommodate a registrar’s particular beliefs
would no longer be an option for any employing authority
because there would then be only be one system of marriage
(rather than, as at present, a distinct civil partnership regime
for same sex couples).”

- Again, race is a comparable issue here. It's the belief of the registrar, not the couple getting married which would be causing the issue.

7. RELIGIOUS GAY WEDDINGS
The O’Neill legal opinion also addresses whether religious
marriage celebrants could be forced to conduct gay weddings
against their will. The legal opinion suggests that an outright
ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under
European human rights laws.
If a law is passed which allows religious gay weddings for
those who wish to conduct them, but doesn’t compel anyone to
act against their conscience, that could be challenged under
domestic equality laws. O’Neill says that churches, in general,
would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped
holding weddings altogether.

- As I said, protection should be implemented so this does not and can not occur.

8. SEX EDUCATION
The O’Neill opinion also considers the impact of redefining
marriage on teaching within schools. It says that the law will
require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education
lessons. This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education
Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State “to issue
guidance” ensuring that pupils “learn the nature of marriage
and its importance for family life and the bringing up of
children”. If gay marriage becomes law then “its importance for
family life and the bringing up of children” must be taught as
part of sex education.

- I think they chose their words carefully there. It's not that the importance for family life and the bringing up of children in gay marriage will be taught, it's that the importance for family life and the bringing up of children in marriage (as a whole) will be taught. It would also be part of their sex education to learn that gay couples cannot biologically have children. This is a non issue.

- I've left out two of the points from the PDF (Faith Schools and Established Church) because they're pretty much repeats of the preceding points

So from my reading of it, same-sex being introduced won't suddenly bring in these things which affect you and others, because these things are already in place.

philologos · 25-01-2013 07:32PM

Penn wrote: »

1. A Church of England minister is also the chaplain at an NHS
hospital. While conducting a wedding service in his parish
church he preaches that marriage is only for one man and one
woman. His NHS bosses find out, and he is later disciplined for
breaching the NHS diversity policy.
Aidan O’Neill QC advises that under the Equality Act 2010 the
NHS managers would have proper grounds for justifying their
action, even if the chaplain was preaching in his own church
outside work time.

- Surely this can already happen as the NHS Diversity Policy and the Equality Act 2010 are already in place? If the minister said homosexuality was a sin, he could be disciplined for the exact same thing

Why should what he preaches in his church about marriage or about sexual ethics cost him the chaplaincy.

A chaplain is in a chaplaincy precisely because they are able to minister specifically to Christian patients who request it.

Forcing people to change Christian beliefs to do this is wrong.

2. TEACHER
A primary school teacher is asked to use a storybook about
gay marriage called “King & King”. It is recommended by the
local authority and by a gay rights charity. The teacher says
using the book would conflict with her religious beliefs about
marriage. She is told that she faces dismissal unless she
backs down.
O’Neill says “yes”, the school would be within its legal rights to
dismiss the teacher if she refuses to use the material.

- Again, that can already happen with any other comparable situation where her religious ideals conflict with her job

The question is how does refusing to teach propaganda about gay marriage make someone a worse teacher?

If anything it makes them better.

3. PARENTS
Parents ask for their child to be withdrawn from school lessons
on the history of gay marriage, for deeply-held religious
reasons. The parents say they have a right to withdraw their
child under European Convention on Human Rights. But the
school refuses, saying it is under a legal duty to promote
equality.
O’Neill says the parents do not ultimately have a right to insist
that their child be withdrawn from such history lessons, and the
parents “will have little prospects of success in challenging the
schools insistence that their child attend” the lessons.

- Again, religious beliefs are the issue, not same-sex marriage. If the play was about the history of Islam, the same situation could occur

The play? What?

Please clarify your point.

4. FOSTER COUPLE
A couple applies to be foster carers. They tell social workers
they are motivated to care for children because of their
Christian faith. On hearing this, the social workers ask them
whether they support gay marriage. The couple says they do
not, and the social workers halt the application because of
equality and discrimination policies.
O’Neill says “yes”, a local authority fostering agency would
have legitimate legal grounds for acting this way.

- Could easily be the same as if the couple were racist. Again, not an issue exclusive to same-sex marriage

Nonsense. Disagreeing on the definition of marriage isn't comparable to racism. There was a very good article posted a few pages ago which challenged that assumption.

Disagreement on this issue doesn't make them worse foster caters.

5. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A church hires a council-owned community centre each week
for its youth club. The church website states that it will only
conduct opposite-sex marriages. Someone complains to the
council, and while the church can’t be forced to conduct gay
weddings, it is stopped from hiring the community centre.
Aidan O’Neill says “yes”, the council would be within its legal
rights to do this.

- This could apply to the religious beliefs of any other religious organisations in the community wishing to use the centre

It shouldn't be the case that agreeing with same-sex marriage is a prerequisite for using public buildings.

6. MARRIAGE REGISTRAR
A local authority decides to accommodate the religious beliefs
of one of its registrars by not designating her to be a ‘civil
partnership registrar’. Other registrars within the local
authority’s team are sufficient to provide the service to the
public.
Aidan O’Neill says that if gay marriage becomes law, “that kind
of adjustment to accommodate a registrar’s particular beliefs
would no longer be an option for any employing authority
because there would then be only be one system of marriage
(rather than, as at present, a distinct civil partnership regime
for same sex couples).”

- Again, race is a comparable issue here. It's the belief of the registrar, not the couple getting married which would be causing the issue.

The race argument is nonsense as mentioned previously.

7. RELIGIOUS GAY WEDDINGS
The O’Neill legal opinion also addresses whether religious
marriage celebrants could be forced to conduct gay weddings
against their will. The legal opinion suggests that an outright
ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under
European human rights laws.
If a law is passed which allows religious gay weddings for
those who wish to conduct them, but doesn’t compel anyone to
act against their conscience, that could be challenged under
domestic equality laws. O’Neill says that churches, in general,
would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped
holding weddings altogether.

- As I said, protection should be implemented so this does not and can not occur.

The point why this was produced is because there are significant holes even in the so called quadruple lock in the legislation.

8. SEX EDUCATION
The O’Neill opinion also considers the impact of redefining
marriage on teaching within schools. It says that the law will
require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education
lessons. This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education
Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State “to issue
guidance” ensuring that pupils “learn the nature of marriage
and its importance for family life and the bringing up of
children”. If gay marriage becomes law then “its importance for
family life and the bringing up of children” must be taught as
part of sex education.

- I think they chose their words carefully there. It's not that the importance for family life and the bringing up of children in gay marriage will be taught, it's that the importance for family life and the bringing up of children in marriage (as a whole) will be taught. It would also be part of their sex education to learn that gay couples cannot biologically have children. This is a non issue.

On this point I think it depends on how it is taught.

So from my reading of it, same-sex being introduced won't suddenly bring in these things which affect you and others, because these things are already in place.

This shows that we can't trust non-Christians to care about religious freedom.

lazygal · 25-01-2013 08:01PM

Will you elaborate on how state marriage conducted on state property by a state employee affects your life?

philologos · 25-01-2013 08:04PM

lazygal wrote: »

Will you elaborate on how state marriage conducted on state property by a state employee affects your life?

Why are you asking that question if you're not actually reading my posts?

lazygal · 25-01-2013 08:15PM

philologos wrote: »

Why are you asking that question if you're not actually reading my posts?

All you've done is link to documents. How, in your own words, will any state marriage, on state property, conducted by a state employee, affect your life? It doesn't affect me when two evangelical Christians marry in a religious ceremony.

philologos · 25-01-2013 08:27PM

lazygal wrote: »

All you've done is link to documents. How, in your own words, will any state marriage, on state property, conducted by a state employee, affect your life? It doesn't affect me when two evangelical Christians marry in a religious ceremony.

The document shows the impact the law could have on society as a whole.

By the by I don't disagree with formalising same-sex relationships. It's just called a civil partnership.

lazygal · 25-01-2013 08:38PM

philologos wrote: »

The document shows the impact the law could have on society as a whole.

By the by I don't disagree with formalising same-sex relationships. It's just called a civil partnership.

What difference will it make to your life if gay people get married? I think you're being extremely disingenuous in regard to civil partnerships. Would you accept the terms of one in lieu of marriage? Why do two men deserve less than me and my husband? You can dress it up all you like and link to questionable legal opinion, but the bottom line is that religious bodies want a monopoly on what constitutes state marriage. And they are just going to have to realise most people don't want gay people to be discriminated against in regards to civil marriage legislation. All the bleating about religious freedom is irrelevant to a state marriage conducted on state property by a state employee.

Silvio.Dante · 25-01-2013 08:48PM

lazygal wrote: »

What difference will it make to your life if gay people get married? I think you're being extremely disingenuous in regard to civil partnerships. Would you accept the terms of one in lieu of marriage? Why do two men deserve less than me and my husband? You can dress it up all you like and link to questionable legal opinion, but the bottom line is that religious bodies want a monopoly on what constitutes state marriage. And they are just going to have to realise most people don't want gay people to be discriminated against in regards to civil marriage legislation. All the bleating about religious freedom is irrelevant to a state marriage conducted on state property by a state employee.

If is pacifies the Liberalistas let them call the State ceremony Gay marriage.

Just don't expect Catholic Churches to officiate such cereonies...

lazygal · 25-01-2013 08:56PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If is pacifies the Liberalistas let them call the State ceremony Gay marriage.

Just don't expect Catholic Churches to officiate such cereonies...

I don't expect any religion to perform state ceremonies, even though.in Ireland they do as part of their religious ceremonies already. But I don't want religious bodies lobbying against any form of civil marriage. I couldn't care less about interal Catholic marriage rules.

Bannasidhe · 25-01-2013 08:57PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Just don't expect Catholic Churches to officiate such cereonies...

Who is asking them to?

What is being demanded is that the State treats all citizens equally.

If two opposite sex people can be married in the eyes of the State then equally two same sex people should be able to get married in the eys of the State.

What the churches wish to do is their own business.

Silvio.Dante · 25-01-2013 09:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is asking them to?

What is being demanded is that the State treats all citizens equally.

If two opposite sex people can be married in the eyes of the State then equally two same sex people should be able to get married in the eys of the State.

What the churches wish to do is their own business.

Grand, just don't impose the sanction on the Church to perform any of said ceremonies...

Links234 · 25-01-2013 09:06PM

philologos wrote: »

The question is how does refusing to teach propaganda about gay marriage make someone a worse teacher?

If anything it makes them better.

"Propaganda" :rolleyes:

Yeah, because the possibility of a teacher acknowledging that same sex marriage exists (such as reading a story book like in that example) in a country that will soon legalize same sex marriage is somehow "propaganda"!? That's not propaganda, that would be the curriculum being accurate, that would be the truth! You think that a teacher lying to their pupils because of their prejudices would somehow make them better?

It shows the real contempt you have for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people that you would consider even the possibility that teachers might have some literature on the curriculum that reflects accurately the legal status of LGBT people is "propaganda"! The contempt you show is that equality for a whole demographic is worth less than some teacher, possibly, conceivably having to accurately represent the truth! That equal status of relationships of so many is worth so much less than upsetting some freaking straw man teacher!? It's yet more stupid ****ing whataboutery!

You know something? Arguing on threads like this upset me so much. I don't like reading that I am "sexually perverted" and I don't like reading that my rights are so very worthless, or that my existence, my relationships is something that should not be even ackowledged or it should be hidden, and I don't like reading your opinions on this subject, or those of anyone else of the same mindset.

Do you know what I'd like? I'd like it if I didn't have to worry about any of this! I'd like it if I could just get on with my life, just get on with regular everyday worries, and if I wanted, get married! I wish I could ignore religious trolls, and have no further interaction with them, unless they shared some mundane interest with me and we talked about that, like maybe what we thought of a pair of shoes, or something like that? But no, you and people like you inject yourselves into our lives and impose your will on us, over something that DOES NOT EFFECT YOU! So I can't ignore the religious trolls because my rights are subject to their whim! And you see Strawman O'Malley over there? Well, his concerns are so much more important than equality.

Well I am not a strawman, and neither are the millions like me who are campaigning for marriage equality. But your dumb strawmen like the teacher? That's just whataboutery... nonsense "what if" scenarios designed to distract. You ask asked before why I contribute to this thread? Well this is why, so that you and your "disagreements" don't go unchallenged, that they don't go without getting called out for the rubbish they are. And I don't post to try and change your mind, because I know you never will, I post so that any people reading this who might be on the fence can see it, and aren't subject to one sided views. I post here because I want my voice heard.

You don't know how much it hurts that I can't get married. That no matter how much I love my girlfriend, no matter how much I care for her, that we could not get married. You've no idea how much it hurts, and I don't think you ever will. I'd love it if you and people like you would stop fighting us at every corner, and just let us stand on the same level in society as you.

So please Phil, stop opposing us so we can talk about things that really matter, like what do you think of these shoes, think they'd suit me? Please answer that at least.

Bannasidhe · 25-01-2013 09:08PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Grand, just don't impose the sanction on the Church to perform any of said ceremonies...

I repeat - no-one has asked them too.

This is purely a civil matter.

It is up to the different religions and denominations to decide for themselves.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments