Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

religious freedom rights are greater than sexual preferance rights it seems

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Civil partnerships are not marriage, they never will be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Civil partnerships are not marriage, they never will be.

    which is why it was done at a civil registrars which aren't religious nor in a house of god :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Civil partnerships are not marriage, they never will be.

    They already are. You and no-one else has control over language, and people are already calling them gay marriage, so I'm afraid it's pretty inevitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The word marriage is important in law. If you check out the history of marriage, for a very long time it was a two party contract, with only the two parties concerned agreeing the terms. You cannot do that anymore. It is a three party contract with terms dictated by the third party.

    So you could say that the third party does control the language.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it was a Christian belief it would be a tenet of faith that gay people should not have a civil partnership. As Namaste righly points out, civil partnerships are not marriage, and the only christian belief that comes close is that marriage is a contract made in the presence of God between a man and a woman in order to procreate and bring up children. A civil partnership is a legal contract bestowing certain rights between two people of the same sex. This woman has corrupted the two meanings together, which is her problem. Another christian may have no problem with civil partnerships at all, because they rightly see that a marriage and a civil partnership are separate and distinct from each other.

    If this lady was applying her thought process correctly she would realise that every wedding she has ever carried out is also against her belief system because they were not made in the presence of God and therefore not legitimate from a christian perspective.
    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it was a Christian belief it would be a tenet of faith that gay people should not have a civil partnership. As Namaste righly points out, civil partnerships are not marriage, and the only christian belief that comes close is that marriage is a contract made in the presence of God between a man and a woman in order to procreate and bring up children. A civil partnership is a legal contract bestowing certain rights between two people of the same sex. This woman has corrupted the two meanings together, which is her problem. Another christian may have no problem with civil partnerships at all, because they rightly see that a marriage and a civil partnership are separate and distinct from each other.
    The name civil partnerships is entirely politically motivated, and they weren't even shy about admitting this. There's a slightly difference in the process of entering into a civil partnership (i.e. there's no need for signatures to occur at the same time), but other than that to my knowledge, they are identical. For all the semantic gymnastics you might want to play to justify it not being against a particular faith, anyone including this woman can see that it is just gay marriage under another name.
    If this lady was applying her thought process correctly she would realise that every wedding she has ever carried out is also against her belief system because they were not made in the presence of God and therefore not legitimate from a christian perspective.
    No disagreement there. She's a hypocrite. I suspect that this woman has married divorced couples in the past too, which is absolutely not up for debate in Christianity. The rule on divorce isn't something that is hidden in some obscure verse in the Old Testament, it comes straight from the horse's mouth:
    Jesus wrote:
    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
    Mark 10:11-12

    Although now you mention it, "in the prescence of God" isn't exactly definable. It can effectively mean whatever you want it to mean, because in reality, it's a statement that says nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You don't quite understand the nature of civil marriages, for whatever reason. Any mention of religion is explicitly banned during civil ceremonies. God (or Allah, or Yahweh...) is not there because religion cannot be discussed.

    All a civil marriage is is a non-religious legal agreement between two people, registered with the state. A civil partnership is the same, you're quite right, because it also has no religious connotations.

    A civil marriage is not religious so using religion to justify bigotry should not be allowed. Religion is banned from the registry room so there's no justification for what this woman does.

    The only religious marriage which is legally binding is a Church of England marriage, for the record, as only CoE clergy are allowed to act as registrars. For any other marriage the legal and religious marriages are entirely separate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know all that. But in practical legal terms, are there any differences between the two? Other than the signing arrangement I've mentioned already.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dangerous precedent in my opinion, don't work in a civil registrars if you define yourself a christian is the lesson i think

    Prescedent already exists for objecting to the law in general. Doctors don't have to take part in abortions if it goes against their beliefs, they are not told that they should either do it or lose their jobs. I don't see why this should be different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect that this woman has married divorced couples in the past too, which is absolutely not up for debate in Christianity. The rule on divorce isn\'t something that is hidden in some obscure verse in the Old Testament, it comes straight from the horse\'s mouth:

    Originally Posted by Jesus
    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    Put away is not the same as divorce. Back in the day, of course. As I said earlier the legal rules have changed over the last couple of millenia.
Sign In or Register to comment.