We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[Shaker]

LOL.

Try forming a coherent argument, Vlad. You may get a taste for it.

[Shaker]

Guess who's been to the pub this Sunday lunchtime

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try forming a coherent argument, Vlad. You may get a taste for it.

Oh like the destruction of species which has been going on, Global warming, the return of economic inequality on a grand scale. The level of internet crime, modern slavery, etc, etc.

[Shaker]

Oh like the destruction of species which has been going on, Global warming, the return of economic equality on a grand scale. The level of internet crime, modern slavery, etc, etc.

No, as those are nothing to do with the human/civil rights I mentioned. I was thinking along the lines of votes for women; decriminalisation of homosexuality and equal marriage; anti-discrimination legislation for women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and so forth; freedom of religious belief and practice; freedom of expression, etc You can even add animal welfare laws as an example of the same general historical trend asserting individual autonomy, the endeavour to counter discrimination and to protect the defenceless and disadvantaged.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, as those are nothing to do with the human/civil rights I mentioned. I was thinking along the lines of votes for women; decriminalisation of homosexuality and equal marriage; anti-discrimination legislation for women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and so forth; freedom of religious belief and practice; freedom of expression, etc You can even add animal welfare laws as an example of the same general historical trend asserting individual autonomy and the endeavour to counter discrimination.

Trade union rights, rights to privacy, local democracy all going in reverse. and several of the things you mention above especially the peculiar understanding of freedom of religious belief and practice by Secular Humanists and New atheists which involves censorship of innocuous church activities. The rights of certain individuals to more law than others vis industrial tribunals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes.....But holy matrimony is a matter for us not you

Which rather proves my point. If same sex marriage was only in a civil context then there would be no option for religious organisations to decide whether or not to extend their 'holy matrimony' to same sex couples. But that isn't the case - they do have that choice and already some religious organisations are conducting holy matrimony for same sex couples.

Marriage equality is not merely available within civil setting - it is already available in some religious settings and others have the choice to provide it should they chose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Marriage equality is not merely available within civil setting - it is already available in some religious settings and others have the choice to provide it should they chose.

.....And again.....what has that got to do with you?

[ProfessorDavey]

.....And again.....what has that got to do with you?

It has to do with me because firstly I am concerned with equality, and secondly because the law that provides the ability of religious organisation to choose or not to choose to extend holy matrimony to same sex couples is due to a law enacted by the government which represents everyone, not just religious people.

But that isn't really the point. You were implying that same sex marriage is only a civil marriage issue. It isn't, you are wrong - same sex marriage can take place in religious settings as part of religious marriage should those religious organisations choose to do so, and indeed some already have or are in the process of doing so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It has to do with me because firstly I am concerned with equality, and secondly because the law that provides the ability of religious organisation to choose or not to choose to extend holy matrimony to same sex couples is due to a law enacted by the government which represents everyone, not just religious people.

But that isn't really the point. You were implying that same sex marriage is only a civil marriage issue. It isn't, you are wrong - same sex marriage can take place in religious settings as part of religious marriage should those religious organisations choose to do so, and indeed some already have or are in the process of doing so.

How does a religious issue affect you though?

[ProfessorDavey]

How does a religious issue affect you though?

I will answer your question once you have retracted your earlier view that same sex marriage was only a civil marriage issue, as indicated in reply 45.

You are engaging in the classic diversionary tactic - throw an irrelevant side issue into the mix to avoid having to admit you were wrong on an earlier point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I will answer your question once you have retracted your earlier view that same sex marriage was only a civil marriage issue, as indicated in reply 45.

You are engaging in the classic diversionary tactic - throw an irrelevant side issue into the mix to avoid having to admit you were wrong on an earlier point.

Ah well, it looks as though my question will have to go unanswered.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah well, it looks as though my question will have to go unanswered.

Actually I have already answered it - see reply 57.

Your evasion is duly noted. Clearly the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 covers both civil marriage and marriage within religious settings, so it isn't merely a matter for civil marriage.

Also, of course, it has to be said that marriage, any marriage, in the UK must be sanctioned by the secular law. No religious organisation is permitted to conduct marriage except with authorisation from the civil authorities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, of course, it has to be said that marriage, any marriage, in the UK must be sanctioned by the secular law. No religious organisation is permitted to conduct marriage except with authorisation from the civil authorities.

Bingo............... I knew we'd get to you trumpeting secular power over religion sooner or later.......However the idea of a man in a bowler, raincoat with a small toothbrush moustache and papers representing the ''civil authorities'' serving notice on God about what the by laws are is highly comical.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bingo............... I knew we'd get to you trumpeting secular power over religion sooner or later.......However the idea of a man in a bowler, raincoat with a small toothbrush moustache and papers representing the ''civil authorities'' serving notice on what the by laws are God is highly comical.

What are you on about - this is hardly new - for a wedding to be legally binding it has to follow rules set by the civil authorities, including that it is conducted by an authorised celebrant - authorisation, of course, granted by the civil authorities. This has pretty well always been the case, so why is this suddenly an issue for you.

Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.

[Shaker]

What are you on about - this is hardly new - for a wedding to be legally binding it has to follow rules set by the civil authorities, including that it is conducted by an authorised celebrant - authorisation, of course, granted by the civil authorities. This has pretty well always been the case.

Certainly since January 1st 1837 [/pedant] 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.

Yes. but don't be running away with the idea that civil authorities equals Secularising authorities. I'm sure the Lord's spiritual would have something to say about that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.

So having waxed lyrical about marriage.....do you think that religious marriages aren't marriages at all?

[Shaker]

I'm sure the Lord's spiritual would have something to say about that.

Don't worry, nobody will take any notice 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't worry, nobody will take any notice 

No one except New Atheists, The NSS and ''The Association''.....as the British Humanist Society has taken to call itself these days.

[ProfessorDavey]

do you think that religious marriages aren't marriages at all?

If they are authorised under civil law according to the secular law of the land, then of course. If they aren't authorised under civil law then of course not - who on earth would consider that a 'marriage' that doesn't accord with civil law and isn't authorised is a 'marriage' - to isn't in anyone's book.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If they are authorised under civil law according to the secular law of the land, then of course. If they aren't authorised under civil law then of course not - who on earth would consider that a 'marriage' that doesn't accord with civil law and isn't authorised is a 'marriage' - to isn't in anyone's book.

Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?
Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?

[Shaker]

Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?

It's usually just called 'the law,' Vlad.

Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?

No - if a secular government says it is

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ir's usually just called 'the law,' Vlad.No - if a secular government says it is

I'm glad you recognise we have one. I'd hate to think you would just want secular humanists to have power.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?
Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?

In this context the term 'secular' law is used to make a distinction with 'religious' law (or Canon law in the case of Christian organisations). So secular law is that enacted by the UK government or its devolved bodies, such as Scottish parliament etc. It is, of course, a very well accepted term. Call it the law of the land, civil law, government law - whatever.

Religious 'marriage' only has validity if it is authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term). If someone participates in a religious 'marriage' ceremony that is not authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term), then they aren't married - simple as that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In this context the term 'secular' law is used to make a distinction with 'religious' law (or Canon law in the case of Christian organisations). So secular law is that enacted by the UK government or its devolved bodies, such as Scottish parliament etc. It is, of course, a very well accepted term. Call it the law of the land, civil law, government law - whatever.

Religious 'marriage' only has validity if it is authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term). If someone participates in a religious 'marriage' ceremony that is not authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term), then they aren't married - simple as that.

As if that would change Christians who believe that holy matrimony is in the sight of God.

I'm loving your reaction when imagined secular humanist 'authority' is challenged.