Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ming]

Yeah... he wants to go back to the days of arranged marriages, plague, morons thinking the world is flat, and so much other silliness... because he thinks that was the only time that love was grand... pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Chaucer had at least three different views of marriage in Canterbury. Two characters advocate contrasting roles - one of male-dominance, one of female-dominance.

The final character advocates a superficially equal relationship structure, but on closer inspection it's an idealized, unrealistic relation where every participant takes the most self-negating, foolishly generous choice and trusts in everybody else to treat their generosity with respect, restraint, and moderation.

This rarely works.

In fact, the model of marriage he advocates is so blatantly impractical that at various points during the story he has to break the fourth wall and address the reader directly and basically say "Now, before you say this is all BS, wait till you see the end, which will justify all that has gone before". The ending he speaks of is a series of consecutive emotional Deii Ex Machinae so improbable that they could only have happened in a story. The husband agrees to let his wife keep her foolish agreement to sleep with another man, the other man turns her down out of generosity, and even the uninterested accomplice releases the other man from a contract to pay him an immense fortune.

I suppose this sort of unrealistic idealism falls perfectly within the definition of a "faith-based relationship" though.

[Q Classic]

Well, all relationships, to an extent, are faith-based.

After all, you have to have faith that the person you're with won't end up like some faux-Jedi dick.

[Krill]

Kirk votes to back gay minister


Church of Scotland leaders have voted to uphold the decision to appoint a gay minister to a church in Aberdeen.

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted by 326 to 267 in support of the Rev Scott Rennie, 37, after more than four hours of debate.

Mr Rennie was backed by the majority of his congregation at Aberdeen's Queen's Cross Church and the local presbytery.

However, about 20 people protested against the appointment at the meeting of Church leaders in Edinburgh.

Divide church

Mr Rennie, a divorced father-of-one, was previously a minister at Brechin Cathedral and said he was open with the congregation at Queen's Cross about being gay and living with his male partner.

Arriving at the assembly earlier, he said: "There are many gay ministers in the Church of Scotland and I hope that justice is done for them tonight."

He also dismissed claims the issue would divide the Church.

"The same talk was about when women were ordained and I think that argument suits those that don't want any change," he said.

He added: "We don't stone women, we don't stone adulterers, we've moved on from that."

However, more than 400 Kirk ministers and almost 5,000 Church of Scotland members are said to have signed an online petition opposing the appointment.

'Acknowledge diversity'

One of those ministers, the Rev David Randall, said he believed that "a minister is somebody who ought to live by the Bible".

He said: "We believe that the Bible's teaching is quite clear in this matter - that marriage is the right and only context for sexual relationships."

The demonstration at The Mound in Edinburgh on Saturday was led by Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow.

"We are absolutely opposed to that on the basis of what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible," he said.

But earlier, the Rev Ewen Gilchrist, caretaker minister at Queen's Cross, said there should be more acceptance.

"Sexuality is something that the church doesn't have a good track record about", he said.

"We constantly lock it up and frown about it. Here's an opportunity to welcome it, to acknowledge the diversity of human sexuality and to bring that richness into our life and worship."

Something to keep Ben entertained for hours and let Ming vent on.

[MrFun]

Holy ****! Isn't the Church of Scotland very, very conservative!?

[Ben Kenobi]

Holy ****! Isn't the Church of Scotland very, very conservative!?

Uhh, no.

If anything they are more liberal then the Anglicans.

Church of Scotland = Anglican church for Scottish people.

True Scotsmen, and not simply transplanted Anglos, are Presbyterian, (after Knox), or Catholics, (after Good queen Mary).

[Ben Kenobi]

Ye gods, in these debates you usually have people mocking the fundies for wanting to turn the clock back to the 14th century but you don't normally have the fundies actually go along with that.

No, most of the time you mock us for wanting to turn back time to the 19th.

Pining for the 14th century is so unbelievably moronic that I don't even know where to begin...

That's because you are either a modernist, or a postmodernist. I'm something rather different. If you prefer a more recent example, other then Chaucer, perhaps you'd prefer Keats?

In any case Ben, you have really no idea what you're talking about. I doubt that you have the slightest idea what its like to be part of a marriage.

I've not been married, so I don't know what it's like from the inside, but I do see the outside. Anyone who tells you that nothing changes in marriage, is lying either to themselves, or to you or perhaps to both.

Getting married really doesn't change much of anything at all it just helps tie up some legal loose ends. Now having a child, that's taking a sledgehammer to absolutely everything there is in your previous life and starting over. The magnitude isn't even remotely comparable.

Considering as I don't believe you should have one without the other, I'm guessing you don't really have a clue about where I'm coming from in the comments that you make.

[Ben Kenobi]

Chaucer had at least three different views of marriage in Canterbury. Two characters advocate contrasting roles - one of male-dominance, one of female-dominance.

Hush, I'm making fun of the stereotype that everyone in the middle ages all thought the same way, and that they were stupid peasants in the muck, just like monty python.

What are you bringing some education into this thread? Horrors!

The final character advocates a superficially equal relationship structure, but on closer inspection it's an idealized, unrealistic relation where every participant takes the most self-negating, foolishly generous choice and trusts in everybody else to treat their generosity with respect, restraint, and moderation.

The reference was to Griselda, in the Clerk's tale which was an interesting story. Not so much from the part of the one testing, but the one being tested. Modern society really doesn't have an equivalent, it tends to find the story offensive to our sensibilities.

What if we read into it, not that we should look for Griseldas, but rather, that we wanted to love someone that much.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah... he wants to go back to the days of arranged marriages, plague, morons thinking the world is flat, and so much other silliness... because he thinks that was the only time that love was grand... pretty stupid if you ask me.

Yeah, they'd never seen an eclipse before.

And if you'd read the story, you'd know I wasn't speaking about arranged marriages but about true love.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't prove that...

Statistics show a far lower divorce rate.

Plus, just how do you know how close people's relationships are? Many wife beaters do a very good of hiding the fact that they are abusing their wife. The point is, there is no way you as an outsider can truely know just how close another person's relationship is.

That is true, but I'd regard an order of magnitude difference in divorce rates as an indicator that something positive is happening.

More moronic crap... you are now equating somebody killing you to gay marriage. There is one fact in life... that change happens.

Well, that's the culture of death for you, Ming. I know you don't like euthanasia, but it's coming. Do you really want us making these decisions for you?

Nice try... but you still aren't admitting that the statement you made was dead wrong and not even close to fact.

In English law it dates back less then 200 years, and is a modern invention, which is the claim I made. You were arguing something about ship marriages, which isn't far off from Og and his cavewoman getting married by club. I think they even called them 'club marriages' or something of the sort.

In Canada, the legal definition and regulation of common law marriage fall under provincial jurisdiction. A couple must meet the requirements of their province's Marriage Act for their common-law marriage to be legally recognized.

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, as of 2007, a common-law relationship is true if at least one of the following applies

If you scroll a bit further down, your source in wikipedia says:

In British Columbia and Nova Scotia, a couple must cohabit for two years in a marriage-like relationship.

As I don't live in cultural backwaters like QC, it's 2 years here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

I've always maintained that it should be up to consenting adults. I don't think children are in a position to truely consent.

Well, that's just your opinion. Other cultures have child marriages all the time. Why shouldn't children be able to get married too?

Yeah... the good ole days, when women were treated like property, where marriages were arranged by parents when sometimes, they had never met each other before. Where for the price of a cow, you could get somebody to take your daughter off your hands... When many marriages were set up for economic or political reasons... ah yes, true love.

Reference completely over your head, but not over Ali's who caught it.

Oh... so only people that believe in god can understand the concept of right and wrong... That's what laws and common sense are for.

So if it's a law, that makes it right? I guess you approved of the Jim Crow laws then.

You have to explain why gay marriages would water down your own marriage.

I gave an analogy, you'd hardly consider bleachers the equivalent of box seats.

Are you really saying that true love between a hetrosexual couple changes because some gay couple, who are strangers to you, get married. You are the one that can't even begin to understand true love if you think this.

I don't think you truly understand marriage, if you believe that you marry simply because you love someone. I love many people, but you'd hardly claim I should get married to all of them simply because I love them.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA... There is a reason why they call it fiction. Yeah, all those wonderful times when people were having affairs because they didn't love their partners from forced weddings... the good ole days.

Yes, the good old days. You seriously believe things are better now? Honestly? I think it's much, much worse.

Yeah, it sucks to be a Muslim when you home gets overrun by Christians.

Uh, the Christians lived there for 600 years before the Muslims came.

Hmm, that's about twice as long as there have been Americans in America.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

It wasn't homosexuality that brought down the Romans. For a historian, you seem to have some misguided understandings.

Point being, if it didn't work for them, why would it work for us. Did gay marriage make them stronger, or is the reality, that they didn't even do 'gay marriages' back then?

I find it hilarious that people want to keep doing things the way that doesn't work, and then claim that just because the Romans did it makes it good for us.

Why is that any different then me saying that because the Church does things we should do them too? The one claim is not greater then the other simply because the 'Romans' are the purer race of secularists.

Has everyone gone mad with Gibbon?

Actually, I think the analogy is more like this: Ming bought box seats to a Cubs game (his straight marriage). Turns out, they've done some renovation to the field, and added a bunch more box seats because of demand. Only these are on the other side of the field (gay marriage).

But they aren't the same thing. You are assuming, that Ming would be just as happy on the other side of the field, as he is in his box seat. And I'm sure Ming would argue no.

There are, but you're so full of hate and bigotry that you seem to think that people who do have it shouldn't embrace it.

That's like saying I'm hating someone by telling them to stay off meth. I'd be hating them if I encouraged them to live as they are because then they would get sick and die sooner.

You don't know how to love properly. There are plenty of others who do. Perhaps I'm wrong to look for the right man, but I'm sure he's out there. Who the **** are you to tell me that what I'm looking for, or the kind of partnership I want is wrong?

You can want many things, so do I. Doesn't make it anymore right what I want, over what you want. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. Whether I want it or you want it is irrelevant.

You're welcome to pursue whichever path of love you want, but when someone warns you the consequences you will face, it makes sense that you would get angry at them, but it doesn't make sense to get mad at them for not loving you.

If I really hated gay people, I'd be distributing condoms and celebrating the pride parades.

What of the "love one another as you would love yourself"? Clearly, you either hate yourself, which is why you're bigoted, or you're failing that request by some holy man rather miserably.

That's precisely it. If I were loving someone in such a way that was so distructive to my well being as homosexuality is to it's participants, would it not be a loving act to try to persuade me otherwise?

Who the **** are you to judge what makes a good marriage?

Where did I say one person's marriage was better then another. All I said is that on average, if you want to get married and stay married, go to church and pray together.

Sure, you can roll 1 d6, but who would get angry when they lose to 2 d10s? I mean seriously.

For a sinner, you're awfully quick to judge.

Where am I judging anyone? You've condemned yourself. Have I said, Mr. Ming is going to Hell? Mr. QCubed is going to hell?

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? One religion's douchitude doesn't make yours better.

Ahh, and it all comes out.

So you believe that Christians should be held to the higher standard? Why? Aren't all religions equally bunk and bull****?

Actually, your notion of the West, and your yearning for Medieval society, that had a good run for about a millennium. And then most people got fed up with it and decided to move on with their lives.

They had a little thing called a french revolution where people got their heads chopped off. An excellent beginning for the truth, justice, freedom and joy of a revolutionary age of progress.

[Ming]

As I don't live in cultural backwaters like QC, it's 2 years here.

Nice of you to point out one of your own lies.
Do you remember saying this...

The way the law up here works is that it is automatic. If you move in with your girlfriend, and live with her for longer then 2 months, you are considered married.

It seems 2 years is a lot longer than the 2 months you claimed before

[Ming]

Well, that's the culture of death for you, Ming. I know you don't like euthanasia, but it's coming. Do you really want us making these decisions for you?

Still irrelevent to the discussion. A strawman argument.
Even somebody with your lack of logical arguments has to admit that there is such a thing as good changes... like how about longer lives for more people.

In English law it dates back less then 200 years, and is a modern invention, which is the claim I made. You were arguing something about ship marriages, which isn't far off from Og and his cavewoman getting married by club. I think they even called them 'club marriages' or something of the sort.

No... your claim went a lot farther than that...

The Civil Marriage Act of 1836 in England was the first to permit 'civil marriages.' So yes, it's a modern innovation. Prior to that you had to have a priest or a pastor

That was when England passed a law, but that's not the start date of non religious marriages... again, the Romans recogonized marriages outside of the church... even before the start of Christian faiths. And many other cultures did so as well long before the Romans. So your claim that non religious marriages is a modern innovation is just wrong.

Well, that's just your opinion. Other cultures have child marriages all the time. Why shouldn't children be able to get married too?

Another straw man argument. And yeah, it's just an opinion vs opinion.

Reference completely over your head, but not over Ali's who caught it.

You only added your reference when you realized how stupid your statement was... you said...

Have you ever read any medieval literature? Amazing, amazing stuff. Blows anything we do today out of the water, particularly on love. People knew how to love in those days,

You live in your own little fantasy world, ignoring reality... as proved by the fact that you use fiction as a basis of reality

So if it's a law, that makes it right? I guess you approved of the Jim Crow laws then.

Yeah... and I guess you approve of the Spanish Inquisition. I guess you think the Catholic Church can murder and torture innocent people, it's ok because they had God behind them...

I gave an analogy, you'd hardly consider bleachers the equivalent of box seats.

While I do see the difference when it comes to seats at a sporting event, I don't see how that applies to a non religious marriage vs a religious one.
They are both a joining of people in love who want to make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together. They are vows made between lovers.
And while you can sit there and claim that without God, it's different, it's just the opinion of somebody who has never been married before.
So again... that's why we have freedom of religion and no state religion. We have the right to believe what we want, and not have one religion dictate to us on what we should believe. So what you believe is pretty irrelevent to this discussion.

I don't think you truly understand marriage, if you believe that you marry simply because you love someone. I love many people, but you'd hardly claim I should get married to all of them simply because I love them.

I love many people as well... So what is your point? From what you have posted, it seems you truly doen't understand marriage if you think the only real kind of marriage is one based on superstition

Yes, the good old days. You seriously believe things are better now? Honestly? I think it's much, much worse.

Yep... Honestly. I like the fact that society is more open, and that I'm not a slave or serf... That I can expect to live a longer and healthier life... That I'm not starving most of the time... That I got to choose my own wife instead of having my parents "make a deal" for someone I didn't even know...
That my daughters can grow up and be full time citizens and live the lives of their own choosing, instead of being considered no better than property.

You probably like the thought of the good ole days because of arranged marriages

[Ben Kenobi]

Ugh, I missed that.

Good catch Ming. I meant to say 2 years.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even somebody with your lack of logical arguments has to admit that there is such a thing as good changes... like how about longer lives for more people.

True, I'm not against all change, but there are many changes which have been for the worse.

That was when England passed a law, but that's not the start date of non religious marriages... again, the Romans recogonized marriages outside of the church... even before the start of Christian faiths. And many other cultures did so as well long before the Romans. So your claim that non religious marriages is a modern innovation is just wrong.

I'm not sure those marriages are civil in the same sense as the ones we have now. First off, a woman couldn't divorce her husband, and consent wasn't required.

I hardly think the Roman model is applicable. The modern concept of civil marriage only dates back to 1836 in England.

Another straw man argument. And yeah, it's just an opinion vs opinion.

So why should we bar children from marrying if it's ok in some cultures? Isn't that discriminatory?

as proved by the fact that you use fiction as a basis of reality

As Ali C said quite so succintly, people had differences in opinion on marriage even in the dark ages, which was part of the point. You've laid out a trope of the middle ages which doesn't match the reality.

Yeah... and I guess you approve of the Spanish Inquisition. I guess you think the Catholic Church can murder and torture innocent people, it's ok because they had God behind them...

Considering how I always take Spain and Torquemada when we play Civ, I think you know the answer to that.

Seriously, the Inquisition in reality isn't how it's portrayed.

While I do see the difference when it comes to seats at a sporting event, I don't see how that applies to a non religious marriage vs a religious one.

Well lets assume all things are equal. First off the non-religious marriage is not a sacrament, whereas the church wedding is a sacrament. So while some folks mike consider that to be hooey, it means very much more to other people, even if the advantage isn't recognised by all.

They are both a joining of people in love who want to make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together. They are vows made between lovers.

All true. I'm not saying that the vows are invalid, I am simply saying that I believe the fulness of marriage is in the church. If I did not believe this, I would not be a Catholic. That's all there is to it.

And while you can sit there and claim that without God, it's different, it's just the opinion of somebody who has never been married before.

It's the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in the Church. I've heard many of my married friends say just the opposite.

So again... that's why we have freedom of religion and no state religion. We have the right to believe what we want, and not have one religion dictate to us on what we should believe. So what you believe is pretty irrelevent to this discussion.

Exactly. However, that doesn't justify the state granting civil marriages, paid for by the state. If people want to get married without religion, they should be able to do so without the blessings of the state. I really don't get why this is a problem for you Ming. If you sincerely want the separation of state and religion, then you want the state out of marriage altogether.

However, you want the state to intervene on your behalf, which is an entirely different position. If you want the state to issue marriage licenses, then yes, my opinion is all of a sudden relevant.

I love many people as well... So what is your point? From what you have posted, it seems you truly doen't understand marriage if you think the only real kind of marriage is one based on superstition

Ming, I've been both a believer and a non-believer. I don't think your understanding is stupid, but I think Christian marriage is far more meaningful. You are welcome to disagree, but lets get it straight. Labelling my faith as superstition is not the argument of someone with an open mind.

Yep... Honestly. I like the fact that society is more open, and that I'm not a slave or serf... That I can expect to live a longer and healthier life... That I'm not starving most of the time... That I got to choose my own wife instead of having my parents "make a deal" for someone I didn't even know...
That my daughters can grow up and be full time citizens and live the lives of their own choosing, instead of being considered no better than property.

You probably like the thought of the good ole days because of arranged marriages

No, I don't thinkt that was a good thing, but I believe they had some things right, such as the importance of a family and love, which we've gotten all mixed up. Maybe it makes me foolish, but for all our gadgets, modern life has very little to offer.