General Chat

I second that - Sue does hardly say single word - she says hundreds!!! just doesn't know when to zip it!!!! :-D :-D

ROFPMSL

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

ChAoTicisasChAoTicdoes

Report

17 Feb 2013 18:05




"supercrutch Report 14 Feb 2013 18:39

I have absolutely nothing to say "


Well that's a first



CHEEK!!!!!!

I'll have you know I struggle to find the confidence to post :-( If you meet me I am as quiet as a mouse and hardly say a single word cos I am so shy :-(

:-D :-D :-D :-D

is there a large take up in canada or is it like hear where most are not that bothered and are quite happy to just live together (assuming in this country not bothering is more against civil partnership and would take up the chance to marry)

Well said Sylvia. I agree with everything you've said :-)

beautifully put - and as you say "the sky has not fallen in" you should have come on here earlier :-) :-) :-)

I haven't previously posted on this thread, but I do have a contribution to make


We have had legal gay marriages in British Columbia since 2003, and in Canada as a whole since 2005.

Existing bans on same sex marriage were ruled unconstitutional by several courts of law.

The sky has not fallen in.

It is all perfectly natural.


All churches, of whatever faith, can conduct gay marriages or not conduct gay marriages, just as the vicar/minister/rabbi and congregation determine they want.


Yes, there were problems at the beginning .........

....... the Anglican Bishop of Vancouver was one of the first to declare in 2007 that gay marriages could be conducted in his diocese, IF the congregation and their vicar so desired ................. after much discussion, deliberation and voting at the annual Synod. I think it took about 3 Synods for the vote to be positive.

Some vicars refused point-blank to conduct marriages, and decided to remove themselves and their congregations from the Diocese. One or two of them deliberated aligning themselves with a very conservative African Bishop. They all assumed that they could just get themselves under another Bishop, even from the other side of the world, and continue life as normal, conducting services in the church they had always used.

However, it turned out, after many years of legal wrangling and court cases, that church buildings, the land on which they stand, and all "furnishings" within the buildings actually belong to the Diocese. So the congregation would have to find another place to meet if they decided to leave the Diocese.

Now, most of the vicars of these congregations have been replaced, and most of the congregants have returned to the Diocese.

If the incumbent does not want to conduct a gay marriage and the congregation agrees with that ........ then no gay marriages take place in that church.


Personally .......... I see absolutely nothing wrong with two same sex people marrying in a church or a synagogue.


Love is love, and the need for a religious ceremony is the same whether the couple be hetero- or same sex.


As the law stood, no man could marry another man, nor could any woman marry another woman.

If you change the wording of that "no man could marry another man, nor could any woman marry another woman"

to ...................

two people in love are forbidden to marry in church solely because they are of the same sex ............ then you DO have inequality and discrimination.

People who are otherwise good citizens are forbidden to do something because their sex is wrong ...................


................. and discrimination on the basis of sex (or religion!) is against the law



If you now look at the belief that some have that marriage is about being fruitful ....... bearing children, raising a family ..................


Marriage might have been for that reason once ..........

.................. I prefer to think that marriage is for LOVE between 2 people.

If children happen, they happen.


It is also not true that gay marriages are "sterile" in that they cannot be "fruitful"


There are many lesbian and gay marriages where there are children being raised by same sex couples.

Because a couple is same sex does not mean that they do not want children, many do ............ and for exactly the same reasons that traditional couples do ..................to love and raise, or children to work for the family, to care for the parents and grandparents (as was the case 100 or more years ago),

Most of them are very successfully raising children .......... from Elton John down to the couple in the next street!

There have even been suggestions that gay couples are doing a better job than a large number of traditional couples!

Gay couples marry for exactly the same reason as any other couple ................. including wanting children. It is now possible for male couples to have a child by a surrogate mother, using sperm form one of them or from some other male. Lesbian couples can bear their own child, using sperm from a willing male or a sperm bank.

Plenty of heterosexual couples have to use a sperm donor, an egg donor, both, or a surrogate mother.

Or they adopt a child, just as many gay couples also do.


So, to say gay marriages are sterile is patently untrue.



I think you can see my beliefs ............

.......... that I see no reason why gays should not be married in church (synagogue, mosque, or other religious ceremony) if they wish to do so, and if the vicar of that church and his congregation are willing to do conduct gay marriages.



sylvia

re the nitty gritty
asked the old boys last night and they have never heard of its use in slavery terms and as it has gained its own meaning anyone complaining must be struggling to score political points
one did suggest flotsam and jetsam could just as easily have been used and looking it up the date could be right
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/flotsam-and-jetsam.html
but again it has passed into general usage

:-D :-D :-D :-D

:-D :-D :-D <3 Ann

Congratulations Ann :-D :-D

>>>>>>>>>>>>runs before Sue comes back :-P

maggiewinchester :-D ;-)

Congratulations Ann :-D :-D :-D

Gins,
Whilst Gay marriages were being debated, the Justice Bill sailed through with hardly any MP's in attendance and minimal opposition.

As you say, a good way to distract.

Sue - at 18:05 your character was libelled on this thread ;-) ;-)

many happy returns of the day to OH :-D :-D :-D :-D <3 <3

It's OH birthday so just popped on to check

CONGRATULATIONS :-D :-D :-D :-D

You have done it lass.Congrats. :-D :-D :-D

Congratulations Ann. :-D

well there's a nice surprise - thank you all <3