Charlie Hebdo

[BR]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

[Dave]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

Being for gay marriage doesn't mean you have to marry a man.

[BR]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

Being for gay marriage doesn't mean you have to marry a man.

Will I have to marry a lesbian then?

People are saying on the one hand that the religious views of (a majority/vocal minority/establishment/... of) a country should not be allowed to influence the laws of that country*; while on the other hand saying that it is an afront that any 2 people should not be able to enter into a marriage derived from those very same laws.

*putting aside that that is nonsense and that vast majority of 'western civilisation' values/morals were derived from or with the assistance of religious dogma. I can however, appreciate the sentiment in a modern context.

[Setanta]

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy,

which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture,

sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the

Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement,

the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to

some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction

of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may

show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant

and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step;

and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had

vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."



Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London)

[BaggyTrousers]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

I on the other hand am 100% in favour of equal marriage rights. Though married myself the only part of marriage that interests me is the legal rights and obligations that Mrs Trousers and I willingly undertook to embrace.

I would like my gay son to be able to opt to have exactly the same rights and obligations should he find a like minded soul.

Over and above that I care not one jot for what the contract us called just so long as the legal rights and obligations are entirely the same as Mrs Trousers and I enjoy/endure. Civil partnerships do not provide equality therefore I support gay marriage.

All very logical I think you will accept, therefore please leave off with the historic bullshit or the notion that some ould druid or mentalist struggles to understand logical desire for equality of rights.

I await some utter Ashton suggesting a conscience clause for those who decry logic on religious grounds.

Of course ultimately I would like to see the rights that marriage entitles legally granted to all civil partnerships, either straight or gay, so that mentalists could have their own insane views of marriage without negatively impacting on society in general, hateful b1gots that most of them appear to be irrespective of their own particular version of religion across the planet.

[BR]

Strikes me as a case of - if you can't beat them; join them!

Maybe I'm just hoping that progress will continue in changing legislation to avoid discrimination against all couples. Idealist that I am.

[Hans Indaruck]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

BR - infertility is not grounds for either divorce or annulment. The lack of consummation of a marriage is grounds for annulment (but interestingly not for same sex couples).

[BR]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

BR - infertility is not grounds for either divorce or annulment. The lack of consummation of a marriage is grounds for annulment (but interestingly not for same sex couples).

Thanks - I was referring to historic cases. Wasn't one of Henry VIII's petitions based on inability to provide an heir? Didn't know if that sort of thing would still be in law in some european backwater somewhere (I'm told there are still a few around ).

There are a few of those anomilies like you mention in the laws for same-sex marriages (the England & West England model). I believe adultry (as grounds for divorce) is only with someone of the opposite sex.

For the most part, the Civil Partnership Act (fundamentally flawed legislation, that it is) has provided a mechanism for legal equality for same-sex couples. I understand that there are a few areas where it falls short, can't just remember what they are (I'm sure someone will assist), but I seem to remember them being relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

[solidarity]

I believe I'm right in saying that the institution of marriage (as originally defined) *is* about procreation. Hence the mechanism to annul/divorce on the grounds of infertility. Don't know if that us still on any statute books.

I've said before - I'm against same-sex marriage. That however does not mean that I think people should be in any way discriminated against legaly on that basis.

Argument reminds me of - it's nobody fault you don't have a womb. Not even the Romans'

I on the other hand am 100% in favour of equal marriage rights. Though married myself the only part of marriage that interests me is the legal rights and obligations that Mrs Trousers and I willingly undertook to embrace.


Over and above that I care not one jot for what the contract us called just so long as the legal rights and obligations are entirely the same as Mrs Trousers and I enjoy/endure. Civil partnerships do not provide equality therefore I support gay marriage.

quote]

Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship. I'm sure Mrs Trousers will be thrilled to know that she's a partner in a contract, not a loved companion.

[BR]

Solidarity - so being a loved companion is only possible within a marriage? Dogs up and down the country will be devastated

[rocky]

Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship.

If that is true, then why are so many Christians implacably opposed to gay marriage? Why should gay and lesbian people be denied the happiness of a "loving, committed companionship" that is freely available to heterosexuals?

[BaggyTrousers]

Christians don't say that, at its core, marriage is about either procreation or a legal contract. They teach that marriage is about a loving, committed companionship. I'm sure Mrs Trousers will be thrilled to know that she's a partner in a contract, not a loved companion.

Solidarse, I must say I haven't taken you for an idiot before. My post was very clear and precise about my convictions in this matter.

For you to draw the conclusion that you have is mind-numbingly stupid. The correct conclusion you should have drawn is that Mrs. T & I do not need anything but the legal status and the benefits in law that marriage confers. Neither of us need a piece of paper to affirm that we shall be devoted to each other for life.

How very disappointingly silly of you to seek to score a little point for mentalists in such a pathetic way. I hope it is not conclusively indicative of you being a low rent mentalist asshole, I'd rather higher hopes for you , mentalism notwithstanding.

[rumncoke]

Nobody wants to withhold rights to anyone what is sought is that defined roles are recognised and maintained . The words " this is my wife " define a relationship and roles . this my girlfriend a different type of relationship this is my companion another .
Take away the terms and you cause confusion .

While the words "my wife and I are divorced" defines a subject to be off discussion unless I permit it .
If people want rights fine but stop redefining the meaning of terms .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BaggyTrousers]

Nobody wants to withhold rights to anyone what is sought is that defined roles are recognised and maintained . The words " this is my wife " define a relationship and roles . this my girlfriend a different type of relationship this is my companion another .
Take away the terms and you cause confusion .

While the words "my wife and I are divorced" defines a subject to be off discussion unless I permit it .
If people want rights fine but stop redefining the meaning of terms .

That is a lie so monstrous that the rest of your post held no interest to me whatsoever. Hope I didn't miss something sensible on the topic, I sincerely doubt it.

[BR]

To be fair Rum, they're already pretty messed up.

This is my partner - isn't exactly clear. Business, civil, bridge, 2nd row, ...

At least if a bloke says - this is my husband, it's fairly certain what he means.