Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 19, 2016, 07:42:18 PM
-
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.
My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.
What a devious bunch.
-
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
Many were not - Peter Tatchell is the first and most obvious example that springs to mind, who campaigned vigorously (maybe still does, for all I know) for civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples.
Likewise, many people thought (myself included) that while on its face civil partnerships seemed to be a step forward, a move in the right direction, in practice they were a typically British fudge, a half-hearted, milk-and-water stopgap designed to appease the "icky" brigade (who are primarily religionists, inevitably). It should have been full marriage equality from the start - plenty of other countries have managed it, why not us? We got there in the end, but "in the end" is a nonsense because the "in the end" includes several years of more fudge than Devon can produce in a century.
My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.
Doesn't have to be just the one or the other, you know, Vlad ;)
-
Yes, I think the reason most in favour of marriage equality - not all of them atheists - haven't campaigned on civil partnership equality is because most people don't see them as necessary.
-
Many were not - Peter Tatchell is the first and most obvious example that springs to mind.
Likewise, many people thought (myself included) that while on its face civil partnerships seemed to be a step forward, a move in the right direction, in practice they were a typically British fudge, a half-hearted, milk-and-water stopgap designed to appease the "icky" brigade (who are primarily religionists). It should have been full marriage equality from the start. We got there in the end, but "in the end" is a nonsense.
I have praised PeterTatchell in previous posts on this subject.
I do not believe Mr Tatchell to be an antitheists interested only in sticking one on the church under a pretext that was phony or secondary to the purpose of antitheism................whereas some of the folks around here..........
-
I have praised PeterTatchell in previous posts on this subject.
I do not believe Mr Tatchell to be an antitheists interested only in sticking one on the church under a pretext that was phony or secondary to the purpose of antitheism................whereas some of the folks around here..........
Whereas you have absolutely no evidence whatever of their motivations being "phony", only innuendo and assertion. What a revelation ::)
-
I'm not silent - if they want it let them have it.
It was a fudge to start with, so as to not frighten too many (mainly theist) horses, instead of just removing discrimination within marriage. So if it is to remain as an option, and from what I've read for some (perhaps a minority) it is the option they prefer to marriage, I can't see that there should be a problem with amending what needs to be amended to let it happen without restriction.
That is the problem with interim fudges when followed by the full Fruit and Nut: you end up with both, and there will always be some who prefer the taste of the fudge.
-
Yes, I think the reason most in favour of marriage equality - not all of them atheists - haven't campaigned on civil partnership equality is because most people don't see them as necessary.
Argumentum ad populism
What about the equality issue?
The reason people on this forum didn't bother with it was because there was no antichristian mileage to be had for antitheists humbuggery.
Cut the guff.
-
Argumentum ad populism
What about the quality issue?
The reason people on this forum didn't bother with it was because there was no antichristian mileage to be had for antitheists humbuggery.
Cut the guff.
Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.
-
I take it, Vlad, that this is one of those threads where most of us say we have no problem but you won't take 'yes' for an answer, preferring instead your usual tactics of faux indignation followed by copious misrepresentation
-
What about the quality issue?
Well, you've never had the slightest concern about quality before...
-
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
I spoke for it then, I still speak for it now.
What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.
Some with some evidence, not your typical flatulent dribblings about the Red Peril Anti-Theists TM.
My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.
Your idea will be borne out regardless of the evidence, because it's not about reality, it's about how you see the world and what you choose to look at to bear that out.
What a devious bunch.
So devious, in fact, that they massively over-run the forum, yet never leave a trace!!!!
O.
-
Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.
What about the equality and privilege issue?
-
Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.
I hope so, as others have noted they have worked as a stepping stone but seem to have been no one's end aim or ideal solution despite the lies that Vlad is touting in this thread as he is won't to do.
-
I hope so, as others have noted they have worked as a stepping stone but seem to have been no one's end aim or ideal solution despite the lies that Vlad is touting in this thread as he is won't to do.
Apparently people want this and Mr Tatchell campaigns for it.
To have someone who uses a hyperbolic " no one " talk about me lying seems pretty ironical.
-
Apparently people want this and Mr Tatchell campaigns for it.
To have someone who uses a hyperbolic " no one " talk about me lying seems pretty ironical.
First of all adding those in, still mean no one (large sense) wanted the current solution with its segregation.
Second no one (small sense, on this board) has suggested that there shouldn't be equality across the board and that is what you lied about in your OP
And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.
-
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
Not me - I think that civil partnerships (if they continue to exist) should also be available to couples regardless of gender. And I have said so on several occasions on this MB.
I suspect however that the notion of civil partnerships may end up redundant, no longer necessary now that there is equal marriage.
-
First of all adding those in, still mean no one (large sense) wanted the current solution with its segregation.
Second no one (small sense, on this board) has suggested that there shouldn't be equality across the board and that is what you lied about in your OP
And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.
I've made it clear that people were indifferent to it and views are only being expressed now that I have brought it up so you are misrepresenting me there.
They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.
-
And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.
Nearly sane creeps in............ craps...............and creeps out again.
-
They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.
Don't be daft, Vlad, what we have here is the downside of creating one thing so as to avoid adjusting another thing, and then doing what was being avoided in the first place. I think you'll find that so far those responding think that CP's should be available to all or else scrapped as being inadequate from the outset.
-
I've made it clear that people were indifferent to it and views are only being expressed now that I have brought it up so you are misrepresenting me there.
They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.
OK, tempted back. I have seen no post from you condemning wife beating, ergo by your 'logic' you support it. Forget about pissing on bonfires, stop pissing on your beliefs. There isn't an atheist or anti theist on this board that could begin to damage the theist position as much as you do with your bitter posturing. If I could only begin to conceive that someone could have spent as long as you coming out with this stuff as a deliberate windup, I would conclude you were an antitheist trying to make theists look bad. You would be the ultimate POE. But my incredulity on that amount of dedication, leads me to think you are just a tedious lying no mark who doesn't actually understand or see that your approach is a constant pissing on the views of those theists who have any grace.
-
Don't be daft, Vlad, what we have here is the downside of creating one thing so as to avoid adjusting another thing, and then doing what was being avoided in the first place. I think you'll find that so far those responding think that CP's should be available to all or else scrapped as being inadequate from the outset.
Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.
-
Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.
My recollection of the thread at the time was a number of us pointed out that with SSM the need for CP's was redundant but our legislators didn't (or wouldn't) tackle CP's as part of the package - but getting SSM in was the priority.
So I'd say that CPs need reviewed in order to remove the limitation or bin the idea as redundant: this is a self-inflicted problem that needs fixed one way or another.
-
Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.
Why does it have a huge antitheist bonus - why would extending marriage to loving couples have anything to fucking do with antitheism. Isn't it to do with two people loving each other, committing to each other, affirming their relationship before family, friends and society.
Fuck me, you could probably knit conspiracy theories out of diarrhoea.
-
Why does it have a huge antitheist bonus - why would extending marriage to loving couples have anything to fucking do with antitheism. Isn't it to do with two people loving each other, committing to each other, affirming their relationship before family, friends and society.
Fuck me, you could probably knit conspiracy theories out of diarrhoea.
It would give him something to do, at any rate.
-
Even for you,Vlad, this is a scummy thread: no more that wumming really.
I'll leave you to it!
-
Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.
Notwithstanding the error in the phrase 'extending the definition of marriage', as though it had a 'correct' breadth to start with - because the number of people adversely affected by the former is significantly larger than the latter.
You seem to fail to realise that the overwhelming majority of people in favour of amending the law the allow gay people to marry did it because it was discriminatory to exclude them from a civil institution. The church wasn't affected by the law change, and can continue to be regressive and discriminatory if it wants. It wasn't about the church, it still isn't about the church.
Can I recommend you go see someone, professionally, regarding this 'anti-theist' paranoia you have.
O.
-
Notwithstanding the error in the phrase 'extending the definition of marriage', as though it had a 'correct' breadth to start with - because the number of people adversely affected by the former is significantly larger than the latter.
More spin.
Marriage had a working definition of the union of a man and a woman, a man and many woman and even a women and many men.
Same sex marriage was not until recently an issue. The definition has therefore been extended. The statement does not contain any suggestion of correct breadth. That is in your head.
-
You seem to fail to realise that the overwhelming majority of people in favour of amending the law the allow gay people to marry did it because it was discriminatory to exclude them from a civil institution. The church wasn't affected by the law change, and can continue to be regressive and discriminatory if it wants. It wasn't about the church, it still isn't about the church.
This thread is not concerned with that one way or another.
It is about flagging up the hypocrisy of those prepared to use the equality argument for extending the definition of marriage and being indifferent to the equality argument in the case of civil partnerships.
To put it simply concerning equal marriage.....equality argument my arse, that was just a pretext for antitheism.
-
More spin.
By which you mean 'more commentary that isn't what I would have said'.
Marriage had a working definition of the union of a man and a woman, a man and many woman and even a women and many men.
And now it has a definition, in this country, of any two people of sufficient age and mental capacity, who aren't already married. It's a change, it's not an extension.
Same sex marriage was not until recently an issue.
Why, because the media wasn't covering it extensively enough? It was an issue for as long as it was prohibited, it's just that society wasn't prepared to do anything about it.
The definition has therefore been extended.
No, still just changed. Just like when inter-racial marriages were legalised that wasn't 'an extension', either.
The statement does not contain any suggestion of correct breadth. That is in your head.
It was, just as soon as it dribbled out of your head and onto the keyboard.
O.
-
This thread is not concerned with that one way or another.
Well, you see, it is, because you keep accusing the near-mythic 'anti-theists' of being behind it, when it wasn't about the church in any way, shape or form. It was about gay people and the civil definition of marriage in the law.
It is about flagging up the hypocrisy of those prepared to use the equality argument for extending the definition of marriage and being indifferent to the equality argument in the case of civil partnerships.
And who are those people? These 'anti-theists' that only you're aware of.
To put it simply concerning equal marriage.....equality argument my arse, that was just a pretext for antitheism.
You can tell it was about anti-theism by the way they all went quiet when the church was disestablished and banned...
O.
-
By which you mean 'more commentary that isn't what I would have said'.
And now it has a definition, in this country, of any two people of sufficient age and mental capacity, who aren't already married. It's a change, it's not an extension.
I'm glad you agree with me.....as you said ''And now it has a definition'' yes Outrider one that has been extended from what it was.
-
Good point, big O.
Do tell us Vlad - if, as you claim on precisely zero evidence, that the real reason for support for marriage equality was a chance to stick one on the church from your roving bands of antitheists, how is it that the measures taken apply only to civil marriage and churches remain free to discriminate and deny exactly the same as they've always done?
-
Good point, big O.
Do tell us Vlad - if, as you claim on precisely zero evidence, that the real reason for support for marriage equality was a chance to stick one on the church from your roving bands of antitheists, how is it that the measures taken apply only to civil marriage and churches remain free to discriminate and deny exactly the same as they've always done?
Because human agencies cannot dictate to God what he means by Holy matrimony. You as a non believer can marry who you like and so can I. Whether God accepts that as holy matrimony is up to him.
-
Because human agencies cannot dictate to God what he means by Holy matrimony. You as a non believer can marry who you like and so can I. Whether God accepts that as holy matrimony is up to him.
So everybody but God should be satisfied, right? And I'm sure you think he's big enough to take care of himself.
-
So everybody but God should be satisfied, right? And I'm sure you think he's big enough to take care of himself.
Yes, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of those arguing equality for marriage yet being indifferent or even anti civil partnerships does it?
-
Yes, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of those arguing equality for marriage yet being indifferent or even anti civil partnerships does it?
I see no hypocrisy involved - indeed, the situation has been explained to you more than once in a few hours even on this short thread.
-
I'm glad you agree with me.....as you said ''And now it has a definition'' yes Outrider one that has been extended from what it was.
Glad to see that fundamental dishonesty you strive to hide continues to shine through. It hasn't been 'extended', it's been changed, as it has been changed many, many times over history, before the Christians adopted it and since.
Suck it up, buttercup, it's not your institution.
O.
-
Because human agencies cannot dictate to God what he means by Holy matrimony. You as a non believer can marry who you like and so can I. Whether God accepts that as holy matrimony is up to him.
Nobody tried to, hardly anyone cares what you people think your imaginary deity thinks about marriage. This wasn't about religious definitions, it was about civil and legal definitions.
O.
-
Yes, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of those arguing equality for marriage yet being indifferent or even anti civil partnerships does it?
And who are these hypocritical people? Are they the same imaginary people as your demon anti-theists, or are they different 'hypothetical' people that you're so outraged about?
O.
-
Yes, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of those arguing equality for marriage yet being indifferent or even anti civil partnerships does it?
Hypocrisy - hypocrisy - hypocrisy!
Vlad, you are starting to sound like a BA clone!
-
Marriage had a working definition of the union of a man and a woman, a man and many woman and even a women and many men.
And who exactly is the arbiter of the 'working definition' Vlad - or is this simply something you have made up.
To me your working definition completely missed two points, first that the union is consensual and second that it is loving. Finally marriage is always a public commitment and a legally recognised union - two people aren't married simply because they commit to themselves in private.
And isn't it amazing how you seem to be wholeheartedly committing to polygamy - do you really believe polygamy is OK Vlad? To my mind polygamy can never be accepted (unless all the partners marry at the same time which isn't usual). Why - because it cannot be properly consensual.
So I'd have thought a much better working definition would be a legal and consensual union between a loving couple. Sure traditionally that has been a man and a woman, but changing that to two men or two women doesn't really affect the 'core'. By contrast your working definition seems so wide of the mark that it crumbles with the slightest scrutiny.
-
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.
My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.
What a devious bunch.
No I think civil partnerships at that time, was such a huge step in the right direction, (not because it was equal) but because gay people were finally acknowledged that they had relationships too and wanted them recognised in law.
Therefore no one, who wanted gays recognised, was going to spoil that for them.
It was a stepping stone.
Not anti theist at all.
-
No I think civil partnerships at that time, was such a huge step in the right direction, (not because it was equal) but because gay people were finally acknowledged that they had relationships too and wanted them recognised in law.
Therefore no one, who wanted gays recognised, was going to spoil that for them.
It was a stepping stone.
Not anti theist at all.
I would think that there is only one person in the world who doesn't recognise this - guess who!
-
Vlunderer,
Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.
What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.
My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.
What a devious bunch.
Your anti-theists under the bed paranoia is getting worse.
Suggest you seek help before you start shouting at people in the street for anti-theistically stepping off the pavement without looking.
-
Likewise, many people thought (myself included) that while on its face civil partnerships seemed to be a step forward, a move in the right direction, in practice they were a typically British fudge, a half-hearted, milk-and-water stopgap designed to appease the "icky" brigade (who are primarily religionists, inevitably). It should have been full marriage equality from the start - plenty of other countries have managed it, why not us? We got there in the end, but "in the end" is a nonsense because the "in the end" includes several years of more fudge than Devon can produce in a century.
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow.
How is it not equal? How can I measure the difference between a relationship God, Allah, FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn approve of, and one that they don't?
If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
I think you missed the trademark from 'Real MarriageTM'. You wouldn't want someone to go hijacking the patented, trademarked, copyrighted institution that you guys totally didn't rip off from prior cultures, now would you?
O.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
Why is it a mirage?
What is "real" marriage?
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
This is desperate and unpleasant stuff, Hope: the smug idea that SSM is somehow a second-class institution that will appease the non-Christian masses while some of you Christians (but not all, thankfully) delude yourselves into thinking that there is a superior 'real' version that just happens to fit your prejudices.
There isn't, and so you are dead wrong, again.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow.
Why do you use the phrase so-called? So-called equality would be 'looks a bit like equality but is not actual equality', and now there is actual equality in terms of marriage between straight and gay people. Equal marriage - equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples - is a legal reality. In some other countries it has been for years. More and more countries are making it a reality. There's nothing fictitious about it, so why are you implying that there is?
Why are there scare quotes around the word equality?
Why is equal marriage a mirage?
If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
What's "real" marriage? The union of any two people (though let's not be parochial - it could be more) who love each other and intend to share their lives for a certain period (however long that actually works out in practice) is a real marriage to me. What's your definition?
I don't actually expect answers to any of these questions, since there's a very long and utterly abysmal record of straight questions put to you being completely ignored by you or waved aside with an excuse of one kind or another.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
In what way exactly Hope - as far as the law and the vast majority of people are concerned marriage between two people of the same gender is equal to marriage between two people of different genders. And given that marriage is a societal and legal construct that's all there needs to be.
You can snipe and moan all you like from the sidelines but real marriage (stupid term because real marriage is what is defined in law) includes same sex couples. Get over it, move on and get into the real world. You might not like change, but you cannot pretend it hasn't happened.
-
Here's a rather sad reminder of how bigoted some people can be.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/01/20/australia-refuses-to-recognise-marriage-of-gay-man-who-died-on-his-honeymoon/
-
Bigotry I exect from the usual witless suspects, but the insinuation or implication that there's a hierarchy of really real as opposed to less real (or, presumably, unreal) marriages, where those on the lower rung are deemed to be somehow spurious, fake, imitation versions of a genuine article, leaves me in the position that I am unable to say what I actually think since I like it here and although Gordon has seemingly endless patience and has given me an inordinate amount of rope in the past, even he would have to put his foot down at some stage >:(
-
I very much hope that the couple at present going to court to be able to have a civil partnership as a heterosexual couple will succeed and that the law is altered to make it so for all who choose to do that.
Mind you the best step would be to leave God out everywhere. That would be progress indeed.
-
I very much hope that the couple at present going to court to be able to have a civil partnership as a heterosexual couple will succeed and that the law is altered to make it so for all who choose to do that.
Yes I saw this in the paper today and I agree - it would be good for them to win their case and expedite a change to the law. I doubt actually that the current government disagrees on principle with extending civil partnerships - the lack of action is down to there being other priorities and a push from the courts might force the issue.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
You do talk a load of bollocks. Fortunately the one with the delusion about marriage is you. Your beliefs are dying out and will soon be irrelevant. Real marriages are those where two people love each other. I wonder if you even know what that means.
-
You do talk a load of bollocks. Fortunately the one with the delusion about marriage is you. Your beliefs are dying out and will soon be irrelevant. Real marriages are those where two people love each other. I wonder if you even know what that means.
I agree he is talking bollocks.
But I'd say that real marriages are ones that meet the legal requirements as set out in UK law that covers marriage. If it doesn't meet those legal requirements there is no marriage - if it does there is - simple.
-
I agree he is talking bollocks.
But I'd say that real marriages are ones that meet the legal requirements as set out in UK law that covers marriage. If it doesn't meet those legal requirements there is no marriage - if it does there is - simple.
Then there's the personal element - far harder to define or categorise, obviously, I realise that. Two people can be legally married but can be emotionally turned off each other or emotionally invested elsewhere, in one or both cases. Parties (usually two, but I suppose it could be more) who love, care for and support each other and want to entwine lives and share experiences for however long that may be - that makes a real marriage as far as I'm concerned. I've asked for Hope's definition of what he thinks a real marriage is but I don't expect him to answer. He doesn't exactly have a stellar record of answering questions put to him about his assertions, after all.
-
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
I always wondered what the polished turds that Vlad likes so much were. You and your post would seem to be one. It's like cymruddinion in a cheap suit.
-
Then there's the personal element - far harder to define or categorise, obviously, I realise that. Two people can be legally married but can be emotionally turned off each other or emotionally invested elsewhere, in one or both cases. Parties (usually two, but I suppose it could be more) who love, care for and support each other and want to entwine lives and share experiences for however long that may be - that makes a real marriage as far as I'm concerned. I've asked for Hope's definition of what he thinks a real marriage is but I don't expect him to answer. He doesn't exactly have a stellar record of answering questions put to him about his assertions, after all.
I agree. A legally defined marriage can still not be 'real' in the sense that it isn't a sharing of support, interests, time and love.
-
It's like cymruddinion in a cheap suit.
Not sure about that - more like Cymru in an expensive suit that is designed to hide and flatter the hideous body within.
-
Not sure about that - more like Cymru in an expensive suit that is designed to hide and flatter the hideous body within.
I don't think anything is hidden. Just tries to have the thin veneer of respectability, but still stinks of foetid hatred.
-
I don't think anything is hidden. Just tries to have the thin veneer of respectability, but still stinks of foetid hatred.
Maybe not hidden exactly - but a certain amount of obfuscation occurs due to convoluted use of the English language.
As to your other points - yep.
-
I agree. A legally defined marriage can still not be 'real' in the sense that it isn't a sharing of support, interests, time and love.
But you can have all those elements without there being a marriage - lots of people have relationships of that type without being married.
So perhaps the legal elements are the starting point - without these there is no marriage regardless of the nature of the relationship. And we can presume that the vows made as part of a legal marriage ceremony (if given truthfully) indicate that the other relationship elements are in place too. Over time the relationship may change to a point where the key components are lost and I guess this would be sufficient (were the couple to chose) for them to apply for a divorce - and if they do the 'legal' aspect would catch up with the relationship aspect.
-
But you can have all those elements without there being a marriage - lots of people have relationships of that type without being married.
So perhaps the legal elements are the starting point - without these there is no marriage regardless of the nature of the relationship. And we can presume that the vows made as part of a legal marriage ceremony (if given truthfully) indicate that the other relationship elements are in place too. Over time the relationship may change to a point where the key components are lost and I guess this would be sufficient (were the couple to chose) for them to apply for a divorce - and if they do the 'legal' aspect would catch up with the relationship aspect.
I don't disagree with any of that - I'm going through a divorce myself from a marriage that hasn't been 'real' for a very long time, although it's still (just) a legal one.
-
I don't disagree with any of that - I'm going through a divorce myself from a marriage that hasn't been 'real' for a very long time, although it's still (just) a legal one.
Sorry to hear that.
-
Sorry to hear that.
Thanks, PD.
-
This thread is being left severely alone by Hopeless, isn't it?
-
This thread is being left severely alone by Hopeless, isn't it?
I mentioned it in a reply to him elsewhere so it will be interesting to see if the pops in here to explain himself - or not.
-
What's to explain that we didn't know already?
-
Yes I saw this in the paper today and I agree - it would be good for them to win their case and expedite a change to the law. I doubt actually that the current government disagrees on principle with extending civil partnerships - the lack of action is down to there being other priorities and a push from the courts might force the issue.
I agree with you and with the poster above you. There is a good case for two friends of the opposite sex, who have no romantic connection but who live together, share resources etc, having a civil partnership. It could be something as simple as having to sign legal documents in front of witnesses, not necessarily at the Registrar.
-
And who exactly is the arbiter of the 'working definition' Vlad - or is this simply something you have made up.
Oh of course marriage was always thought of as between people of opposite and the same sex......Well....... actually the same sex aspect is a recent thing.
-
While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.
That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.
-
While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.
That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.
They might, if they even exist.
You purport to.
I don't.
So who are they?
-
Glad to see that fundamental dishonesty you strive to hide continues to shine through. It hasn't been 'extended', it's been changed, as it has been changed many, many times over history, before the Christians adopted it and since.
Suck it up, buttercup, it's not your institution.
O.
Oh so it's an antitheist institution like ''weaponising'' same sex marriage under the pretext of ''equality''.
-
While many were genuinely and recently moved to concern that same sex marriages were not legal. IMHO many antitheists ''weaponised'' the issue and kept the thing under a camouflaged tarpaulin made to look like ''equality''.
That it was ersatz was borne out by apathy and antipathy toward heterosexual civil partnership........you know who you are.
Another Christian on this thread talking bollocks. Weird.
-
Oh so it's an antitheist institution like ''weaponising'' same sex marriage under the pretext of ''equality''.
No, it's an institution open to anyone who wants to be committed to it.
-
Vlunderer,
Your anti-theists under the bed paranoia is getting worse.
Suggest you seek help before you start shouting at people in the street for anti-theistically stepping off the pavement without looking.
Not paranoia................. Hillside antitheists are an abnormal minority.......in the statistical sense of course.
-
Another Christian on this thread talking bollocks. Weird.
Bollocks eh?.....raising your level of philosophical debate a bit aren't you.
-
Bollocks eh?.....raising your level of philosophical debate a bit aren't you.
I needed to aim it at your level, Vlad.
-
I needed to aim it at your level, Vlad.
Stop talking bollocks.
-
Stop talking bollocks.
There you go. :)
-
Oh so it's an antitheist institution like ''weaponising'' same sex marriage under the pretext of ''equality''.
If marriage is an anti-theist institution, why are the church still providing it?
How has 'gay' marriage (is that marriage that just happens to involve gay people, or is that a special sort of marriage, like 'Christian MarriageTM) been 'weaponised'? Who do gay people 'aim' their marriages at?
You appear to have a vastly inflated sense of your church's importance: people don't get married 'at' the church, they get married to each other, and the church seems to think it has sufficient relevance to have an input, regardless of whether anyone involved gives two shits.
Of course, that's nothing compared to your personal arrogance of deciding you know better than people what their motivations for their support for marriage equality was and is.
If it's the humble that inherit the Earth, what do the arrogant get?
They pour out their arrogant words; all the evildoers boast
O.
-
If marriage is an anti-theist institution, why are the church still providing it?
How has 'gay' marriage (is that marriage that just happens to involve gay people, or is that a special sort of marriage, like 'Christian MarriageTM) been 'weaponised'? Who do gay people 'aim' their marriages at?
You appear to have a vastly inflated sense of your church's importance: people don't get married 'at' the church, they get married to each other, and the church seems to think it has sufficient relevance to have an input, regardless of whether anyone involved gives two shits.
Of course, that's nothing compared to your personal arrogance of deciding you know better than people what their motivations for their support for marriage equality was and is.
If it's the humble that inherit the Earth, what do the arrogant get?
O.
It's all in your head Outrider.
Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency.
But you have brought up another issue. If as you say you don't give a toss about the church.....why are you on here all axe grindy and vehemently against it?
-
Stop talking bollocks.
No mate - your bollocks are what the lady is aiming at - she has to in order to ensure she blows your brains out!
-
It's all in your head Outrider.
Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency.
But you have brought up another issue. If as you say you don't give a toss about the church.....why are you on here all axe grindy and vehemently against it?
Humble? Nothing is humble about you Vlad - least of all your rather pathetic opinions on anti-theism and SSM's and CP's.
-
No mate - your bollocks are what the lady is aiming at - she has to in order to ensure she blows your brains out!
No...you got that wrong ....she has to aim at mine because you don't have any.
-
No...you got that wrong ....she has to aim at mine because you don't have any.
You promidsed that you wouldn't tell anyone as long as I blew you!
Traitor!
-
No sign of Hopeless then?
Oh well.
-
It's all in your head Outrider.
Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Could you name them please.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything
So many people thought it OK because there was no reason to oppose it. Oh my dog! How evil is that... oh, wait.
and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency.
At the cost of alienating people like you. He probably thought that was a fair swap.
But you have brought up another issue. If as you say you don't give a toss about the church.....why are you on here all axe grindy and vehemently against it?
Who started this thread? I would have thought that person must be the most axe grindy.
-
It's all in your head Outrider.
What is? The anti-theists or the intercontinental ballistic gay marriages?
Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
But I guess I wouldn't know them, right... they live in Canada? I would have thought, if someone wanted to wield a weapon against they church, they'd campaign against their tax exempt status, not force them to not become involved in offering marriage equally in the country...
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency.
'Many' strikes me as a weasel word, here.
You seem to have missed the overwhelming majority of people who supported marriage equality because they believe that equality is something to strive for. Maybe they were all hiding behind your imaginary anti-theist?
But you have brought up another issue. If as you say you don't give a toss about the church.....why are you on here all axe grindy and vehemently against it?
Because the church gives a toss about me and what I do, and still has reserved spaces in the legislature, and still supports institutional homophobia whilst wielding undue influence in the education system. I don't care about the church, I care about its actions for as long as it still has influence.
As to why I'm on here - because fantasists like you need to be addressed when they spout nonsense.
O.
-
What is? The anti-theists or the intercontinental ballistic gay marriages?
But I guess I wouldn't know them, right... they live in Canada? I would have thought, if someone wanted to wield a weapon against they church, they'd campaign against their tax exempt status, not force them to not become involved in offering marriage equally in the country...
'Many' strikes me as a weasel word, here.
You seem to have missed the overwhelming majority of people who supported marriage equality because they believe that equality is something to strive for. Maybe they were all hiding behind your imaginary anti-theist?
Because the church gives a toss about me and what I do, and still has reserved spaces in the legislature, and still supports institutional homophobia whilst wielding undue influence in the education system. I don't care about the church, I care about its actions for as long as it still has influence.
As to why I'm on here - because fantasists like you need to be addressed when they spout nonsense.
O.
So it doesn't matter to anybody but it does.....is that right?
I think it doesn't matter to a lot of people but they probably don't share your unreasonable hatred of it.
I rather think you imagine a universally homophilic secular Britain.
-
the intercontinental ballistic gay marriages?
well, polishing the rocket makes a change from polishing the turds I suppose.
-
Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything
And your evidence for either of these statements is? Oh yes I forgot you have no evidence at all.
I think most people supported gay marriage because they believed it to be the right (and moral) thing to do Because they felt that preventing a couple form marrying because they are gay was just flat out wrong.
-
So it doesn't matter to anybody but it does.....is that right?
Increasingly few people care for its future or its health, but they do care about the effect it still has in the public arena, even as they are happy that it's in decline.
I think it doesn't matter to a lot of people but they probably don't share your unreasonable hatred of it.
I think those people it matters to are probably as existent as my 'unreasonable hatred' and are living in a space station with Elvis, Bob Marley and the Legion of Anti-Theists, which I'd heard was going to kick off Marvel's phase 4...
I rather think you imagine a universally homophilic secular Britain.
That rather depends on how you interpret 'homophilic'. I'd like a secular Britain, yes - we're mostly there, but there's still a few bits and pieces to go - and I'd like a Britain that didn't change its response based on your sexuality - if that's what you consider 'homophilic' then yes, I'm in favour of that.
I do imagine that's where we're headed, and I think that's a good thing - don't you?
O.
-
Another step in the right direction.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/01/21/this-school-has-done-something-wonderful-for-its-trans-students/
-
Amusing thread..
The usual leading question to do some ranting and raving followed by some comic assertions ;D
Especially:
"Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency."
I think you get mixed up (purposely) what an atheist is.
I don't care what strange notions you believe any more than I do people who believe in unicorns/aliens/bigfoot but the big difference is that they don't try force the rest of us to have those beliefs or try indeed try and influence society in general with any bigoted views they might hold due to those delusions.
Despite your dribble about gay marriage the reason I support it is the reason that I let you have your church. Tolerance, acceptance and a belief that everyone is entitled to live the way they want if it adheres with the laws of the land and it doesn't harm anyone else. :)
-
Amusing thread..
The usual leading question to do some ranting and raving followed by some comic assertions ;D
Especially:
"Many Antitheists supported gay marriage as a weapon against the church.
Many others in this country IMHO thought it ok because it doesn't affect them and it wasn't going to cost the taxpayer anything and Cameron wanted it to attract a bigger political constituency."
I think you get mixed up (purposely) what an atheist is.
I don't care what strange notions you believe any more than I do people who believe in unicorns/aliens/bigfoot but the big difference is that they don't try force the rest of us to have those beliefs or try indeed try and influence society in general with any bigoted views they might hold due to those delusions.
Despite your dribble about gay marriage the reason I support it is the reason that I let you have your church. Tolerance, acceptance and a belief that everyone is entitled to live the way they want if it adheres with the laws of the land and it doesn't harm anyone else. :)
I am not talking about atheists or gay marriage but antitheists and even then just those who campaigned vehemently against the church under the banner of equality the showed complete antipathy or apathy over the equality issue in heterosexual civil partnership.
That also rendered much of the ''privilege'' schtick of some antitheists as just humbug.
-
Ok I'll play.
The situation regarding Civil Partnerships is in some respects similar to that regarding race discrimination, and domestic violence. In all three matters the original lobbyists have seen their original project superseded by events. However in the case of the latter two, despite the best endeavours of some within the Afro Caribbean community, and some within the feminist movement, the projects have expanded way beyond their original terms of reference because of increased public interest. There is no such wider interest regarding civil partnerships, and whilst I do feel sympathy with the two elderly spinster sisters who wished to form a civil partnership to safeguard their family home, there is more mileage in wearing a pink carnation than a withered carnation.
As for Vlad's rant regarding antitheists, quite frankly antitheists will slag religion any chance they get, I slag London every chance I get, all's fair in love and war,
-
antitheists are an abnormal minority.......in the statistical sense of course.
What do you mean by 'abnormal minority' - given that you refer to statistic then I think that you mean a small minority, maybe a few percentage of the population.
In which case, by your own definition then regular church goers (who also represent a tiny minority - just a few percent of the population) are also an 'abnormal minority'.
But of course the word abnormal is redundant if you are talking any kind of sense, and the usual pejorative rubbish that we've come to expect from you Vlad.
Out of interest you seem to think that people supporting equal marriage are anti theist - but what about all those religious people who supported extending marriage - are they also anti theist, are they actually against themselves Vlad?
-
What do you mean by 'abnormal minority' - given that you refer to statistic then I think that you mean a small minority, maybe a few percentage of the population.
In which case, by your own definition then regular church goers (who also represent a tiny minority - just a few percent of the population) are also an 'abnormal minority'.
But of course the word abnormal is redundant if you are talking any kind of sense, and the usual pejorative rubbish that we've come to expect from you Vlad.
Out of interest you seem to think that people supporting equal marriage are anti theist - but what about all those religious people who supported extending marriage - are they also anti theist, are they actually against themselves Vlad?
Reply 96 states exactly who I have in mind.
I have not found on this forum a theist who fits the bill.
-
Ok I'll play.
The situation regarding Civil Partnerships is in some respects similar to that regarding race discrimination, and domestic violence. In all three matters the original lobbyists have seen their original project superseded by events. However in the case of the latter two, despite the best endeavours of some within the Afro Caribbean community, and some within the feminist movement, the projects have expanded way beyond their original terms of reference because of increased public interest. There is no such wider interest regarding civil partnerships, and whilst I do feel sympathy with the two elderly spinster sisters who wished to form a civil partnership to safeguard their family home, there is more mileage in wearing a pink carnation than a withered carnation.
As for Vlad's rant regarding antitheists, quite frankly antitheists will slag religion any chance they get, I slag London every chance I get, all's fair in love and war,
Astute.
-
Reply 96 states exactly who I have in mind.
I have not found on this forum a theist who fits the bill.
Tellingly you haven't found one of your mythical antitheists either, Vlad ;)
-
Reply 96 states exactly who I have in mind.
I have not found on this forum a theist who fits the bill.
A theist who fits the bill as what? As someone who supports equal marriage - there are loads on this MB and out in the real world. And in your view people supported equal marriage because they are anti-theists, so by your own argument there are theists who are anti theist, in other words against themselves.
-
A theist who fits the bill as what? As someone who supports equal marriage - there are loads on this MB and out in the real world. And in your view people supported equal marriage because they are anti-theists, so by your own argument there are theists who are anti theist, in other words against themselves.
Nope someone who used the issue as an attack on the church under guise of an equality argument and then was apathetic or even antipathetic toward heterosexual partnerships and let me be more specific....others justified that on an ''insufficient numbers or insufficient suffering to be bothered about it'' basis. No Theists fit the bill.
-
Nope someone who used the issue as an attack on the church under guise of an equality argument and then was apathetic or even antipathetic toward heterosexual partnerships and let me be more specific....others justified that on an ''insufficient numbers or insufficient suffering to be bothered about it'' basis. No Theists fit the bill.
So where are these mythical individuals then, Vlad?
-
So where are these mythical individuals then, Vlad?
Vlad's anti-theists are about as real as the Man in the Moon and the Sugar Plum Fairy, but you have have to give Vlad top marks for imagination.
-
Nope someone who used the issue as an attack on the church under guise of an equality argument and then was apathetic or even antipathetic toward heterosexual partnerships and let me be more specific....others justified that on an ''insufficient numbers or insufficient suffering to be bothered about it'' basis. No Theists fit the bill.
You are like the most bizarre of conspiracy theorists.
I know countless people who support the change to the law on marriage (including I should add many active church-goers), I can't think of anyone who fits your bill - in other words someone who was disinterested or actually opposed but who claimed to be for equal marriage just to get at religion. None, not a single person.
I can think of some people who became more resolved to campaign for the change when face with the almost hysterical and demonising negative campaigning by some within religious organisations - but that isn't the same thing at all. Many of us were appalled by the way the churches campaigned and many churchgoers were deeply embarrassed and felt shamed by their approach. And sure that may have strengthened resolve to ensure that the argument was won and that a rare change to increase fairness and equality in the UK was grasped. I think we would have felt terrible if the negative campaigning of a small minority had been sufficient to cause parliament to lose its resolve to do the right thing - and we were going to do all we could to make sure that didn't happen.
-
Reply 96 states exactly who I have in mind. I have not found on this forum a theist who fits the bill.
So far you've not suggested anyone that fits the bill, you've just insinuated that there are anti-theists... somewhere.
O.
-
So where are these mythical individuals then, Vlad?
The only thing mythical about them is consistent support for the equality argument rather than using it for antitheist purposes already on this thread the suggestion seems to have been made that civil partnership is a non issue, one that will die a death and one where there isn't the right amount of suffering involved to warrant the equality issue.
The droves of those willing to take the inequality of the churc to task have similarly vanished.
It looks like humbuggery therefore by some atheists I'm afraid.
-
You are like the most bizarre of conspiracy theorists.
I know countless people who support the change to the law on marriage (including I should add many active church-goers), I can't think of anyone who fits your bill - in other words someone who was disinterested or actually opposed but who claimed to be for equal marriage just to get at religion. None, not a single person.
I can think of some people who became more resolved to campaign for the change when face with the almost hysterical and demonising negative campaigning by some within religious organisations - but that isn't the same thing at all. Many of us were appalled by the way the churches campaigned and many churchgoers were deeply embarrassed and felt shamed by their approach. And sure that may have strengthened resolve to ensure that the argument was won and that a rare change to increase fairness and equality in the UK was grasped. I think we would have felt terrible if the negative campaigning of a small minority had been sufficient to cause parliament to lose its resolve to do the right thing - and we were going to do all we could to make sure that didn't happen.
I think you ought to look up the term conspiracy theory. I have already said that we are dealing with a small section of pathological axe grinders within a small section of pathological axe grinders............This is no Warren Commission scenario no matter ho w big and influential you boys gussy me up to be.
-
The only thing mythical about them is consistent support for the equality argument rather than using it for antitheist purposes already on this thread the suggestion seems to have been made that civil partnership is a non issue, one that will die a death and one where there isn't the right amount of suffering involved to warrant the equality issue.
You're conflating the issue with Parliament's likelihood of doing something about it. You also still haven't actually produced one of these wolf in sheep's clothing anti-theists, yet.
The droves of those willing to take the inequality of the churc to task have similarly vanished.
Really? I think you need to read more.
It looks like humbuggery therefore by some atheists I'm afraid.
Just atheists? Not 'anti-theists'? Looks like back-pedalling, therefore, from some Vlad, I'm afraid...
O.
-
I think you ought to look up the term conspiracy theory. I have already said that we are dealing with a small section of pathological axe grinders within a small section of pathological axe grinders............This is no Warren Commission scenario no matter ho w big and influential you boys gussy me up to be.
I don't need to look it up - the term conspiracy theorist fits you perfectly. The notion of a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who are unable to accept the obvious truth and prefer to conjure a bizarre alternative world in which some people are out to get them.
'pathological axe grinder' - interesting term - there is only one person on these boards who seems to fit that bill, and that's you Vlad with your continual 'pathological axe grinding' about this fantasy group of people you call anti theists who in you warped world seem to be continually out to get you and your religion.
-
I don't need to look it up - the term conspiracy theorist fits you perfectly. The notion of a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who are unable to accept the obvious truth and prefer to conjure a bizarre alternative world in which some people are out to get them.
'pathological axe grinder' - interesting term - there is only one person on these boards who seems to fit that bill, and that's you Vlad with your continual 'pathological axe grinding' about this fantasy group of people you call anti theists who in you warped world seem to be continually out to get you and your religion.
Ah I love the sound of barrels being scraped in the morning.
-
Ah I love the sound of barrels being scraped in the morning.
No doubt, Vlad: so you really need to avoid spending quite so much of your time scuttling about the bottoms of barrels.