Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[Metsfanmax]

ITT: Phatscotty, who routinely tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how America works because he is from the UK, tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how England works either.

[Funkyterrance]

...a problem with the way the debate was framed up to this point (and usually is).

Yes, this.

[PLAYER57832]

Is the Queen the head of the Church of England?

Yes, ostentiably.

[jonesthecurl]

ITT: Phatscotty, who routinely tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how America works because he is from the UK, tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how England works either.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't England swing like a pendulum do?

[crispybits]

If you means wing in a sexual sense, then I think we're one of the most self-suppressed nations in the developed world. Most of Europe has far more relaxed and comfortable relationships with sex than the brits do. We've still got a little bit of the Victorian era in our psyche. That said there are also plenty who have learned to ignore that bit of our identity too

[jonesthecurl]

Bobbies on bicycles two by two.

[stahrgazer]

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?

[jonesthecurl]

Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben.

[Phatscotty]

ITT: Phatscotty, who routinely tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how America works because he is from the UK, tells Symmetry that he doesn't understand how England works either.

Clearly, I have been asking him. I stated nothing

see how ya are?

[crispybits]

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?

Personally I'd let anyone marrry anyone, so long as they are an adult, consenting, and informed of all other marriage contracts their spouse currently has active. If they are fine with that, then who am I to say they can't. There would need to be some rewriting of some laws, particularly tax laws so that marriage is not simply used as a way to get extra allowances, but that extra work shouldn't be allowed to be a barrier to a fair legal system which treats people of all genders, disabilities, ages, sexualities and races equally.

The below refers to US law rather than UK law but it's relevant just the same (just substitute the word "legal" in there instead of "constitutional"):

[spurgistan]

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?

No reason. In terms of political economics, it's probably because of the relatively small number of people who want to enter into group marriages. Also, probably because we first need to convince a lot of people that it's ok for a dude to enter into a marriage with one dudes, or at least wait for those opposed to die off. But there's no ethical reason why we should expand the definition of marriage to include dudes marrying dudes but hold the line at dudes marrying dudes and ladies (in much the same way there's no real ethical reason to allow dudes to marry ladies but not allow them to marry dudes), and most people who've accepted gay marriage also accept poly, by my rough polling.

[BigBallinStalin]

Women and children will not be spared.

[Woodruff]

Technically the Queen is still sovereign ruler, but all the power is with parliament and she's no more than a figurehead. The queens speech (well, the policy element) gets written for her by the government and she just adds in the personal and family elements (or her speechwriter does)

I think that's much the same in the church of england. Technically she's the top bod, but I don't think she ever exercises that power to actually do anything.

The royal family are in such a precarious political and economic position, and so reliant on public good will to stay on their gravy train, that they really don't have the power to make even the smallest of waves unless theyre supporting an extremely populist view (and supporting an extremely populist view isn't going to make too many waves anwyays)

But as Symmetry just pointed out she has no authority over the catholic religion

To be fair, I'm pretty sure she could take him in a knife fight.

After which, Phatscotty would claim it's a clear indication that gun proliferation is necessary in order to stop these knife-wielding thugs.

[crispybits]

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?

No reason. In terms of political economics, it's probably because of the relatively small number of people who want to enter into group marriages. Also, probably because we first need to convince a lot of people that it's ok for a dude to enter into a marriage with one dudes, or at least wait for those opposed to die off. But there's no ethical reason why we should expand the definition of marriage to include dudes marrying dudes but hold the line at dudes marrying dudes and ladies (in much the same way there's no real ethical reason to allow dudes to marry ladies but not allow them to marry dudes), and most people who've accepted gay marriage also accept poly, by my rough polling.

+1 to that 100%, but the point you and a lot of the objectors are missing is that this isn't an ethical argument. it's a legal one. As such it's not interested in right and wrong or godly and ungodly or moral and immoral, but simply fair and unfair.

The law change being brought in is fully democratic because it is a necessary change to comply with other laws, other laws that were democratically passed. We have gender and sexuality equality laws in the UK, and denying a large minority access to state endowed rights bestowed to married couples based solely on their gender or sexuality breaks those laws. The bishop, I suspect, never objected to those laws about everyone being free from discrimination based on gender or sexuality, he is coming into the argument far too late, with points that don't actually address the legal argument sufficiently (consultation and green papers are not legally necessary before a law is passed, especially if it's a change to an older law to bring it out of direct conflict with newer laws).

That's not to say there isn't a moral argument being put forward by both sides, simply that this moral argument is totally irrelevant. And while it might be fun to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in many of the moral anti arguments, it's a distraction from the fact the legal argument has already been won for several years now, and what we're going through in the UK isn't bringing in brand new laws or rights or whatever, but simply cleaning up the statute books to ensure that the law is fully compliant with itself.

[gordon1975]

mybe the catholic church should put more effort in to stopping child abuse,in there own ranks,before they tell the rest or us whats moral in the world