Bigot of the Year

[vetran]

I don't have a problem with them although, for possibly irrational reasons, I'd prefer it if they avoided the word "marriage" and stuck with "partnership".

+1

agree, I think that they feel they have tochallenge the church so they appear equal instead of revelling in their rarity

[Incognito]

+1

agree, I think that they feel they have tochallenge the church so they appear equal instead of revelling in their rarity

A marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. The church simply sanctifies your marriage in a religious ceremony, but form a legal point of view they register it the same way as a registrar. I'm not religious, should the church be able to say I can't get married? No, however they can refuse to sanctify my marriage if they wish. What's the difference to what's being proposed?

[speling bee]

A marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. The church simply sanctifies your marriage in a religious ceremony, but form a legal point of view they register it the same way as a registrar. I'm not religious, should the church be able to say I can't get married? No, however they can refuse to sanctify my marriage if they wish. What's the difference to what's being proposed?

Marriage is a personal and social contract which existed before the church, so the church should not claim any special privileges in this area. I am very happy for churches to decide whose marriages they wish to officiate over - the RC church has no obligation to marry divorcees. However, they should keep their noses out of marriages which take place outside the church. If the state was attempting to legislate to insist on church weddings or baptisms for gay couples and their children, then tere would be cause for all of us who believe in religious freedom to protest.

I wonder if anyone is old enough to remember the RC church reaction to the liberalisation of divorce in the U.K?

[Toastiness]

In my daughter's class, two boys "came out" in the last week of their last year at the school. They were 16. To me that's crazy. At that age you barely know who you are.

I believe that your sexual orientation is very much genetically based, so by 16 you should know where you stand.

How about if we rephrased your statement like this, would you think this is a sensible position to take ?

In my daughter's class, two boys said they "liked girls" in the last week of their last year at the school. They were 16. To me that's crazy. At that age you barely know who you are.

[original PM]

I believe that your sexual orientation is very much genetically based, so by 16 you should know where you stand.

How about if we rephrased your statement like this, would you think this is a sensible position to take ?

In my daughter's class, two boys said they "liked girls" in the last week of their last year at the school. They were 16. To me that's crazy. At that age you barely know who you are.

hmm males 'feeling urges' for females is linked to a predetermined urge to procreate.

This is different from having sex for pleasure.

Maybe we should split it in schools

1) Procreation education - purely biological in terms of 'This is where babies come from'

2) Sexual Education - what people do to get their rocks of and the longer term relationships which can stem from that.

This should avoid any confusion.....

[Incognito]

I wonder if anyone is old enough to remember the RC church reaction to the liberalisation of divorce in the U.K?

I'm too young for that, I'd hazard a guess though it was the old fire and brimstone type stuff, everyone going to hell and all that? In Scotland, it really is the RC church that is the most vocal, I still believe the CoS has its head up it's arris in terms of what they believe, but it seems a lot more liberal organisation as a whole. Don't get me wrong though, there are some right crank pots in amongst it as well.