Quote: Harridan @ December 11 2012, 9:58 PM GMTActually, for the majority of history it has not been a religious institution. Even in mediaeval Christian societies most people got married by deciding that they were married and then informed the church because the church kept the records.
Yep and then both the Church and State stepped in and said 'stop messing about'. You don't have a right to get married and if you do, then it has to officiated by us.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:04 PM GMTYep and then both the Church and State stepped in and said 'stop messing about'. You don't have a right to get married and if you do, then it has to officiated by us.
Right. So the opposite of what you said, then?
Quote: Harridan @ December 11 2012, 10:02 PM GMTThat's a shitty joke even for you.
I'm just trying to highlight the new advances in technology that will protect women from predatory men. A simple thank you would have sufficed.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:04 PM GMTYep and then both the Church and State stepped in and said 'stop messing about'. You don't have a right to get married and if you do, then it has to officiated by us.
You are now in favour of state intervention then, I thought you weren't, or is it just minorities who should be dealt with by the strong arm of the law.
Quote: Harridan @ December 11 2012, 10:05 PM GMTRight. So the opposite of what you said, then?
Nope, because I threw in the word 'if'.
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 10:06 PM GMTYou are now in favour of state intervention then
When did I say that?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:07 PM GMTNope, because I threw in the word 'if'.
When did I say that?
Well you want to control all these gays and foreigns from getting too much power or the basic human dignity to declare their love in front of their God. Or did I misunderstand
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 9:59 PM GMTWhy not, it is now enshrined in law that you can't in certain churches, is that the right of Government to stop a gay Christian declaring their love in front of their God.
I suppose it depends on whether their God wants gay Christians declaring their love in front of him.
Not every God is as groovy as the Quaker, Unitarian or Liberal Judaist God.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:09 PM GMTI suppose it depends on whether their God wants gay Christians declaring their love in front of him.
Not every God is as groovy as the Quaker, Unitarian or Liberal Judaist God.
I would have thought with the way belief in a Christian God is going they should be grateful for whoever wants to join.
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 10:08 PM GMTWell you want to control all these gays and foreigns from getting too much power or the basic human dignity to declare their love in front of their God. Or did I misunderstand
You have totally misunderstood. You are attempting to impose your own views about gay marriage onto religious institutions and I am pointing out that changing laws to force these views through is both arrogant and counter productive.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:12 PM GMTYou have totally misunderstood. You are attempting to impose your own views about gay marriage onto religious institutions and I am pointing out that changing laws to force these views through is both arrogant and counter productive.
I am not trying to impose anything, I just don't see the point of introducing a a law that is to all intent and purposes useless. Make it a right or don't, don't faff about with some half hearted legislation that gets no one anywhere they weren.t already
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 8:21 PM GMTGay marriage within the Church of England is to be made against the law. What is the point of that, a law to stop something Cameron is meant to believe in, what a bunch of useless dicks this coalition are. They really haven't the foggiest. They are now introducing legislation against the very thing they are in favour of, making the need for legislation needless as that is how things stand at the moment, joined up government at its most disjointed.
Just make it legal for hetrosexual couples to have civil partnerships. Then we can all have that and religion can do one.
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ December 11 2012, 10:17 PM GMTJust make it legal for hetrosexual couples to have civil partnerships. Then we can all have that and religion can do one.
would there still be cake?
All the cake you can dream of! And twiglets!
I'm for it, I like a twiglet 
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 10:17 PM GMTa law that is to all intent and purposes useless.
No, it's a compromise and just because it's not an all encompassing gay marriage mardi gras, doesn't mean it's useless.
Homosexuality was only legalised in the 1960s, now gay marriages are recognised by both church and state.
People convert to different religions all the time, especially when marriage is involved. I can't imagine that the Quaker church is that much different to the C of E.