Gay couples make wedding plans amid angry Cat

Apparently the situation is this: in UK gays have been able to register a partnership, which is an arrangement that does not equal marriage in the eyes of the law. For instance, as far as I know, with respect to inheritance and the like. Now there a law is under debate that would enable gays to a full marriage, that is, one that the law recognizes as it would all other marriages.

The catholic church has launched a campagne from pulpits urging its flock to oppose gay marriage. I understand that this has not to do with whether the marriage is performed in a church or not.

Gay couples make wedding plans amid angry Catholic sermons

"On Sunday a letter from two senior Catholic archbishops was read in 2,500 parish churches during mass, arguing that a change to the law would reduce the significance of marriage. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the archbishop of Southwark, urged their flock to sign a petition against the move, telling them it was their "duty to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations"."

"While the new dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Rev Dr David Ison has called on the Church of England to embrace gay marriage, the archbishop of York, John Sentamu, joined the Catholic-led opposition. "I happen to believe that to change the law in the end would be forcing an unjustified change," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show."

I am thinking, is this a matter of freedom of speech?

Or is it a matter of one set of people trying to determine what others can (or, in this case, cannot) do?

If the gay people gain the right to marry, will hetero marriages loose in validity?

If you have a cherished tradition, and others use it differently but with the same name, would you loose something? Or, if different people than your group use the same tradition, would you loose something?

Would it be intruding on your tradition or, or maybe watering it down, or would it be enlarging it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I am thinking, is this a matter of freedom of speech?

---

It should certainly be a violation of the separation of Church & State (which you do NOT have in England, I believe). I should think that any preacher who makes such statements, in Church, regarding a political issue, should risk forfeiture of the Church's tax-free status. Of course, I think there should not be such a status for churches anyway.

Quote:

---

Or is it a matter of one set of people trying to determine what others can (or, in this case, cannot) do?

---

That's pretty much the gist of it. "We don't like it, so YOU can't do it." It's the Churches screaming over their loss of the ability to decide what's best for everyone, even those not in their Church.

Quote:

---

If the gay people gain the right to marry, will hetero marriages loose in validity?

---

I don't see how! Thousands of gay couples have been married, legally, in the US, and my marriage is just as strong and stable as ever.

Quote:

---

If you have a cherished tradition, and others use it differently but with the same name, would you loose something? Or, if different people than your group use the same tradition, would you loose something?

---

These people are only afraid that they will lose the right to denigrate, bully and torment gays. Just as they fought tenaciously against civil rights for non-white males, they now fight against civil rights for non-heterosexual persons. It's almost comical to hear how secularists are destroying the rights of Christians by not allowing them to oppress another group of people.

Quote:

---

Would it be intruding on your tradition or, or maybe watering it down, or would it be enlarging it?

---

I'm not much on tradition to start with. Doing something just because it's the way it's always been done strikes me as rather silly. But I don't see how someone else, for example, celebrating Easter, or Christmas, or Thanksgiving, lessens your traditions. And I don't see how allowing gays the same privileges as hetero couples diminishes those privileges. Letting a gay woman make medical and legal decisions for her spouse does not in any way lessen my ability to do so for my spouse. The "War on Marriage" is only a war in the minds of bigots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

The catholic church has launched a campagne from pulpits urging its flock to oppose gay marriage. I understand that this has not to do with whether the marriage is performed in a church or not.

So what. They like anyone else can preach pretty much whatever they wish so long as it's breaking no laws in my book.

Gay couples make wedding plans amid angry Catholic sermons

Sophistry 101...make it seem like the people trying to get married literally have to wade through reams of protestors to get hitched. Looks too me like the media yet again is trying to make mountains out of mole hills.



"While the new dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Rev Dr David Ison has called on the Church of England to embrace gay marriage.

Well there you go...the Anglican backed government will decide (and usually against the Catholics if history continues to repeat itself.

I am thinking, is this a matter of freedom of speech?

For the Catholics? Yes. For the gays wanting equal rights its a completely different kind of struggle.

Or is it a matter of one set of people trying to determine what others can (or, in this case, cannot) do?

Both, the gays in their pursuit of equal rights under the law: I am guessing would love for the Catholics to shut up as much as the Catholics would love for the gays to stop attacking what the Catholics see as something sacred. Though its more than that since the gay community isn't satisfied with an equivalency to marriage they want the titular distinction as well which is only natural. (Harkens back to the days when the civil rights movement got on about "separate but equal" segregation issues here in the states.)

If the gay people gain the right to marry, will hetero marriages loose in validity?

lol Only Catholic ones apparently.

If you have a cherished tradition, and others use it differently but with the same name, would you loose something? Or, if different people than your group use the same tradition, would you loose something?

No you dont loose anything imho yet....

...iIt can feel that way sometimes.

Ever hear an online only submissive talk about how she is collared and such a perfect sub in a room full of real life practitioners before? Kinda like claiming to have climbed Mount Everest without ever even touching so much as a climbing wall let alone an actual mountain.

That analogy I am sure will picked apart now since its sorta like comparing apples too oranges, but you do get the jist of what I am saying I hope...but perhaps we can agree to side bar it in a separate thread ahead of time huh?

Would it be intruding on your tradition or, or maybe watering it down, or would it be enlarging it?

---

Shrugs. I am all for letting gays, multiple poly couples, dog lovers, what have you...get married and have equal rights under the law and I could care less what they call the arrangement's. Heck I dont even get bothered anymore when I see bracketts with initials after a nic now days.

Gay couples make wedding plans amid angry Catholic sermons

Sophistry 101...make it seem like the people trying to get married literally have to wade through reams of protestors to get hitched. Looks too me like the media yet again is trying to make mountains out of mole hills.

Well no, they thing was that they could not, in fact, get hitched as in a 'real' marriage - as in acknowledged by law, that is the bill under debate.


"While the new dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Rev Dr David Ison has called on the Church of England to embrace gay marriage.

Well there you go...the Anglican backed government will decide (and usually against the Catholics if history continues to repeat itself.

Possibly, these things are real complicated here! I hope MyLord Leo9 will explain further ;-o

I am thinking, is this a matter of freedom of speech?

For the Catholics? Yes. For the gays wanting equal rights its a completely different kind of struggle.

Which is the eternal discussion about where a person's freedom stops, in relationship to other people. Rather complicated, that too, methinks.

Or is it a matter of one set of people trying to determine what others can (or, in this case, cannot) do?

Both, the gays in their pursuit of equal rights under the law: I am guessing would love for the Catholics to shut up as much as the Catholics would love for the gays to stop attacking what the Catholics see as something sacred. Though its more than that since the gay community isn't satisfied with an equivalency to marriage they want the titular distinction as well which is only natural. (Harkens back to the days when the civil rights movement got on about "separate but equal" segregation issues here in the states.)

A clarification: it is not titular, it is a legal matter. The laws on 'real' marriage are different from the (few) laws on registrated partnership.

If the gay people gain the right to marry, will hetero marriages loose in validity?

lol Only Catholic ones apparently.

:-)

If you have a cherished tradition, and others use it differently but with the same name, would you loose something? Or, if different people than your group use the same tradition, would you loose something?

No you dont loose anything imho yet....

...iIt can feel that way sometimes.

Ever hear an online only submissive talk about how she is collared and such a perfect sub in a room full of real life practitioners before? Kinda like claiming to have climbed Mount Everest without ever even touching so much as a climbing wall let alone an actual mountain.

Yes, I was thinking of that.

That analogy I am sure will picked apart now since its sorta like comparing apples too oranges, but you do get the jist of what I am saying I hope...but perhaps we can agree to side bar it in a separate thread ahead of time huh?

Yes I do get it. I mentioned it because I think it is in fact right on the topic, that things are not always as simple as they seem. I mean, who can say how other people should organize their bdsm life? Yet, their actions are so painful to others, who have a tradition with the same name but another content.

We'll leave it if you like, but I do not consider it a side issue, I consider it analogous.

Would it be intruding on your tradition or, or maybe watering it down, or would it be enlarging it?

Shrugs. I am all for letting gays, multiple poly couples, dog lovers, what have you...get married and have equal rights under the law and I could care less what they call the arrangement's.



Heck I dont even get bothered anymore when I see bracketts with initials after a nic now days.

But it used to? My guess would be you'd say that a sub should obey if the dom wanted it this way, but that it might feel wrong from other reasons? And that is just it.

I'd say that in the case of legal matters, people must have their equal rights, that is very important. As for like, but unlegal matters, I really do not know how that can be solved. I often wondered if there could not be more expressions for what people do, so each group could keep their traditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Gay couples make wedding plans amid angry Catholic sermons

Sophistry 101...make it seem like the people trying to get married literally have to wade through reams of protestors to get hitched. Looks too me like the media yet again is trying to make mountains out of mole hills.

Well no, they thing was that they could not, in fact, get hitched as in a 'real' marriage - as in acknowledged by law, that is the bill under debate.

The fact that the gays were not able to legally get married isnt in question...nor should be the fact that the media used sophistry to try and make matters more controversial than they actually were...the media implied that gays were somehow surrounded by the Catholics like some kind of angry mob was physically present (created a mental image there of) etc. When all that really happening is the opposition to gay marriage is expressing their opinion via perfectly legal means.


"While the new dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Rev Dr David Ison has called on the Church of England to embrace gay marriage.

Well there you go...the Anglican backed government will decide (and usually against the Catholics if history continues to repeat itself.

Possibly, these things are real complicated here! I hope MyLord Leo9 will explain further ;-o

Perhaps...I was only speaking to the history of how the Church of England conducted state sponsored persecution and restriction against the Catholics and other sects of Christianity.

I am thinking, is this a matter of freedom of speech?

For the Catholics? Yes. For the gays wanting equal rights its a completely different kind of struggle.

Which is the eternal discussion about where a person's freedom stops, in relationship to other people. Rather complicated, that too, methinks.

Well in the United States we have pretty clear laws concerning such things.

Or is it a matter of one set of people trying to determine what others can (or, in this case, cannot) do?

Both, the gays in their pursuit of equal rights under the law: I am guessing would love for the Catholics to shut up as much as the Catholics would love for the gays to stop attacking what the Catholics see as something sacred. Though its more than that since the gay community isn't satisfied with an equivalency to marriage they want the titular distinction as well which is only natural. (Harkens back to the days when the civil rights movement got on about "separate but equal" segregation issues here in the states.)

A clarification: it is not titular, it is a legal matter. The laws on 'real' marriage are different from the (few) laws on registrated partnership.

I was referring to how the law is here, where one can have a "Civil Union" which is in every legal way the same as marriage only lacking the titular distinction. Which in all ways other than the title is actually the same...unlike Segregation.

If the gay people gain the right to marry, will hetero marriages loose in validity?

lol Only Catholic ones apparently.

:-)

If you have a cherished tradition, and others use it differently but with the same name, would you loose something? Or, if different people than your group use the same tradition, would you loose something?

No you dont loose anything imho yet....

...iIt can feel that way sometimes.

Ever hear an online only submissive talk about how she is collared and such a perfect sub in a room full of real life practitioners before? Kinda like claiming to have climbed Mount Everest without ever even touching so much as a climbing wall let alone an actual mountain.

Yes, I was thinking of that.

That analogy I am sure will picked apart now since its sorta like comparing apples too oranges, but you do get the jist of what I am saying I hope...but perhaps we can agree to side bar it in a separate thread ahead of time huh?

Yes I do get it. I mentioned it because I think it is in fact right on the topic, that things are not always as simple as they seem. I mean, who can say how other people should organize their bdsm life? Yet, their actions are so painful to others, who have a tradition with the same name but another content.

Oh good I just didnt want to get us sidetracked. And I agree one can organize their affairs however they see fit...but I also reserve the right to say they are perhaps delusional is they are saying online role play is the equivalent to real life.

We'll leave it if you like, but I do not consider it a side issue, I consider it analogous.

Would it be intruding on your tradition or, or maybe watering it down, or would it be enlarging it?

Shrugs. I am all for letting gays, multiple poly couples, dog lovers, what have you...get married and have equal rights under the law and I could care less what they call the arrangement's.



Heck I dont even get bothered anymore when I see bracketts with initials after a nic now days.

But it used to?

Yes I found it quite insulting at first that something I studied for and went through traditional rigorous training to get over the course of many years was considered the "same" and something one could just get in a matter of minutes online lol.

My guess would be you'd say that a sub should obey if the dom wanted it this way, but that it might feel wrong from other reasons? And that is just it.

Obedience however doesnt require one making claims to titular distinctions one in fact as not actually earned though does it? I mean whats wrong with calling an online only submissive an "online submissive" or in one saying they are "collared online" as a distinction? Does their online relationship somehow suffer from being truthful about their actual situation?

So too would gays suffer so terribly from leaving the title of marriage alone and instead defining their unions in a new manner instead of trying to take the title of other pre-established traditions?

I'd say that in the case of legal matters, people must have their equal rights, that is very important. As for like, but unlegal matters, I really do not know how that can be solved. I often wondered if there could not be more expressions for what people do, so each group could keep their traditions.

---

I agree wholeheartedly!

Hmm, when I read the title of this thread I was picturing something like two cute guys holding hands while some tiger crouching behind them ponders which of the two he should devour first.

Now I see it's about Catholics and I haz the sad.

Sorry, back to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

Hmm, when I read the title of this thread I was picturing something like two cute guys holding hands while some tiger crouching behind them ponders which of the two he should devour first.

Now I see it's about Catholics and I haz the sad.

Sorry, back to the topic.

---

haz the sad???

lol lucy

thir I think mabey she is bleedin sum o that correct grammer stuff in from the other thread giggles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

lol lucy

thir I think mabey she is bleedin sum o that correct grammer stuff in from the other thread giggles.

---

<g> Point taken.
However, slang in a different language can sometime be tough to follow. Live and learn.