Indifference to equality in civil partnership.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Owlswing]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bubbles]

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.

[Owlswing]

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!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Hope]

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.

[Outrider]

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 Marriage^TM'. 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.

[Aruntraveller]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.