Forum

by **Phatscotty** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:08 pm

Just trying to be talkative, friend

by **Symmetry** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:16 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Just trying to be talkative, friend

Ah the multifarious benefits of getting the unfoed message from you on my wall...

by **spurgistan** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:58 pm

This thread has now had the words "shambolic" and "multifarious."

by **chang50** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:06 am

spurgistan wrote:This thread has now had the words "shambolic" and "multifarious."

Shambolic is a portmanteau word,combining shambles and symbolic,like smog or brunch among others..an indication of our evolving language.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:07 am

chang50 wrote:
spurgistan wrote:This thread has now had the words "shambolic" and "multifarious."

Shambolic is a portmanteau word,combining shambles and symbolic,like smog or brunch among others..an indication of our evolving language.

like moobs? (man boobs hehe)

by **chang50** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:11 am

Phatscotty wrote:Is the Queen the head of the Church of England?

But paradoxically she could not be a bishop..how bizarre is that?

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:33 am

chang50 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Is the Queen the head of the Church of England?

But paradoxically she could not be a bishop..how bizarre is that?

That's probably only a big deal to people who aint on the "shup" level

by **Funkyterrance** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:40 am

Do you realize the utter bias the title of this thread exudes?
It reads like the front page of a tabloid ffs.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:40 am

Funkyterrance wrote:Do you realize the utter bias the title of this thread exudes?

by **Funkyterrance** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:42 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Do you realize the utter bias the title of this thread exudes?

No kidding.

by **crispybits** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:42 am

What would you rather the thread title was Funky T?

by **daddy1gringo** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:28 am

I think FT is referring to the claim that he is saying that it is gay marriage, and not the proposed legal action, that is undemocratic.

As I have said before, nobody is advocating laws that would prevent anyone from marrying whom they like. That is, to "love" whom they like, live with whom they like, sleep with whom they like, and to go to one of the many clergy who will perform the ceremony. All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.

You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.

Now in what I just said, I am speaking about the United States, but I believe it also applies to the UK, despite the different relationship between the church and the secular government.

by **crispybits** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:35 am

Couple of absolutely genuine questions from that post:

daddy1gringo wrote:All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.

You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.

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?

Edit - our government is less secular than yours - bishops of the church of england get seats in one of our parliament houses (house of lords) purely because they are bishops

by **daddy1gringo** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:54 am

crispybits wrote:Couple of absolutely genuine questions from that post:

daddy1gringo wrote:All that people are saying is that there will be negative consequences from the government officially declaring that legally equal to traditional marriage.

You can, as always happens, go on to say that that is still unjust, and we could debate that point, but it is not the same thing and it is disingenuous to go on speaking as if it is.

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?

I could legitimately get out of answering by saying, "you'd have to ask the archbishop who made the staement." Technically, I wasn't taking that position, but only pointing out a problem with the way the debate was framed up to this point (and usually is). However, although that would be true and legitimate, it would be a wussy thing to do.

Give me some time to get back to you with an answer worthy of absolutely genuine questions; this is a complex and sensitive subject.