Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

Bazooka · **Joined:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm **Posts:** 1401

Quote:

Britain is on course to adopt gay marriage after the House of Commons voted to give the marriage (same sex couples) bill a second reading by a majority of 225. The bill will still have to receive line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, and then it will have to get through the Lords, but the size of the majority, and the fact that the leaders of all three main parties are in favour, suggest that it is now inevitable that gay marriage will become law.

Source; The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog

Can a believing member of the Church now in good conscience vote for any of the major political parties given all their Leaders support for this bill?

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1064

In the process of the vote the British Prime Minister alienated almost half his own party who strongly opposed his move to promote the issue and bring it to a vote. This could prove costly for him since there were cracks in his leadership position even before the vote. Of additional concern in the UK, certainly to churches, is the thought that they may eventually be required by law to extend the right of church marriage ceremonies to same sex couples. This is a real possibility since the Church of England in particular is an "established" church whose head is The Crown. There is no written constitutional standard that requires "separation of church and state". This vote is only the beginning of much turmoil on the issue in the future IMV.

bcspace · **Joined:** Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm **Posts:** 14251

A huge step backwards as liberals attempt to gain legitimacy and government support for their perversions. Regressives.

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

Bazooka wrote:

Quote:

Britain is on course to adopt gay marriage after the House of Commons voted to give the marriage (same sex couples) bill a second reading by a majority of 225. The bill will still have to receive line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, and then it will have to get through the Lords, but the size of the majority, and the fact that the leaders of all three main parties are in favour, suggest that it is now inevitable that gay marriage will become law.

Source; The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog

Can a believing member of the Church now in good conscience vote for any of the major political parties given all their Leaders support for this bill?

Yes, quite easily.

bcspace · **Joined:** Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm **Posts:** 14251

Quote:

Can a believing member of the Church now in good conscience vote for any of the major political parties given all their Leaders support for this bill?

To my knowledge, the UK already has same sex marriage in all but word only and this bill is merely a change in nomenclature.

subgenius · **Posted:** Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:24 pm

bcspace wrote:

Quote:

Can a believing member of the Church now in good conscience vote for any of the major political parties given all their Leaders support for this bill?

To my knowledge, the UK already has same sex marriage in all but word only and this bill is merely a change in nomenclature.

they have civil unions...which Elton John has thoroughly endorsed.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:53 am

Lybia has one more step before UK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world ... d=all&_r=0

Quote:

Hinting at an End to a Curb on Polygamy

TRIPOLI, Libya — It was just a passing reference to marriage in a leader’s soberly delivered speech, but all week it has unsettled women here as well as allies abroad.

In announcing the success of the Libyan revolution and calling for a new, more pious nation, the head of the interim government, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, also seemed to clear the way for unrestricted polygamy in a Muslim country where it has been limited and rare for decades.

It looked like a sizable step backward for women at a moment when much here — institutions, laws, social relations — is still in play after the end of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s 42 years of authoritarian rule.

In his speech, Mr. Abdel-Jalil declared that a Qaddafi-era law that placed restrictions on multiple marriages, which is a tenet of Islamic law, or Shariah, would be done away with. The law, which stated that a first wife had to give permission before others were added, for instance, had kept polygamy rare here.

“This law is contrary to Shariah and must be stopped,” Mr. Abdel-Jalil told the crowd, vowing that the new government would adhere more faithfully to Shariah. The next day he reiterated the point to reporters at a news conference: “Shariah allows polygamy,” he said. Mr. Abdel-Jalil is known for his piety.

subgenius · **Posted:** Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:20 pm

There is an exception to this thread's title. Arguably, and more likely, it is a step backward.

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

ludwigm wrote:

Lybia has one more step before UK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world ... d=all&_r=0

Quote:

Hinting at an End to a Curb on Polygamy

TRIPOLI, Libya — It was just a passing reference to marriage in a leader’s soberly delivered speech, but all week it has unsettled women here as well as allies abroad.

In announcing the success of the Libyan revolution and calling for a new, more pious nation, the head of the interim government, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, also seemed to clear the way for unrestricted polygamy in a Muslim country where it has been limited and rare for decades.

It looked like a sizable step backward for women at a moment when much here — institutions, laws, social relations — is still in play after the end of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s 42 years of authoritarian rule.

In his speech, Mr. Abdel-Jalil declared that a Qaddafi-era law that placed restrictions on multiple marriages, which is a tenet of Islamic law, or Shariah, would be done away with. The law, which stated that a first wife had to give permission before others were added, for instance, had kept polygamy rare here.

“This law is contrary to Shariah and must be stopped,” Mr. Abdel-Jalil told the crowd, vowing that the new government would adhere more faithfully to Shariah. The next day he reiterated the point to reporters at a news conference: “Shariah allows polygamy,” he said. Mr. Abdel-Jalil is known for his piety.

Your article makes no sense, why post it?

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:52 am

Bhodi wrote:

ludwigm wrote:

... polygamy ...

Your article makes no sense, why post it?

For me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates.

For coluorblinds, these pictures (please show them for future readers...)
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%2014%20with%207.jpg[/img]
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%202%20%20with42.jpg[/img]

are grey (or something I can not detect)

Did You get the "7" and the "42" ?
Do they make sense? Then be happy, You are not coluorblind!

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

ludwigm wrote:

For me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates.

For coluorblinds, these pictures (please show them for future readers...)
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%2014%20with%207.jpg[/img]
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%202%20%20with42.jpg[/img]

are grey (or something I can not detect)

Did You get the "7" and the "42" ?
Do they make sense? Then be happy, You are not coluorblind!

You misunderstand. The article you quoted is factually incorrect. You quoted gibberish and thought it made a point. This is silly.

The Quran states that polygamy is limited to 4 wives. Most modern jurists would even disagree with this, since the limitation is based on treating each equally, which they say is impossible, so the Quran is actually saying only 1, but still, even loosely interpreted, the limitation is 4. The article you quoted says…
“In announcing the success of the Libyan revolution and calling for a new, more pious nation, the head of the interim government, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, also seemed to clear the way for unrestricted polygamy in a Muslim country where it has been limited and rare for decades.”

This is wrong, the author does now know Islamic limitations, either Abdel-Jalil is NOT calling for unrestricted polygamy, or Abdel-Jalil is NOT advocating Shariah. In either case, the article is rubbish.

Why did you post it? Do you know anything about Islamic jurisprudence? If not, why wade into a discussion where you have no understanding?

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:06 am

ludwigm wrote:

For me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates.

For coluorblinds, these pictures (please show them for future readers...)
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%2014%20with%207.jpg[/img]
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%202%20%20with42.jpg[/img]

are grey (or something I can not detect)

Did You get the "7" and the "42" ?
Do they make sense? Then be happy, You are not coluorblind!

You have no balls to show my pictures.
Private social problem of cowards.

bhodi wrote:

You misunderstand. The article you quoted is factually incorrect. You quoted gibberish and thought it made a point. This is silly.

Thank You for the kind words. Should I know everything better than any news articles available on the internet?
I've read an article...
Sometimes I read Your comments. Should I know where You are lying or where You are making any error?
Or where You are the Word of The Times?
I read many thing, then make a comment.

bhodi wrote:

Why did you post it?

As I wrote above: "for me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates". Got it?

bhodi wrote:

Do you know anything about Islamic jurisprudence? If not, why wade into a discussion where you have no understanding?

Oh My God, I am sorry very sorry for all my sins. because they are despising oh Lord, oh are!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Please give me the number of Your Red Phone. From now on, I will ask You every time what should I comment, what may I comment, or it is proper - at all - to open my mouth.
Thank You for Your mercy.

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

ludwigm wrote:

For me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates.

For coluorblinds, these pictures (please show them for future readers...)
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%2014%20with%207.jpg[/img]
[#img] http://colorvisiontesting.com/plate%202%20%20with42.jpg[/img]

are grey (or something I can not detect)

Did You get the "7" and the "42" ?
Do they make sense? Then be happy, You are not coluorblind!

You have no balls to show my pictures.
Private social problem of cowards.

bhodi wrote:

You misunderstand. The article you quoted is factually incorrect. You quoted gibberish and thought it made a point. This is silly.

Thank You for the kind words. Should I know everything better than any news articles available on the internet?
I've read an article...
Sometimes I read Your comments. Should I know where You are lying or where You are making any error?
Or where You are the Word of The Times?
I read many thing, then make a comment.

bhodi wrote:

Why did you post it?

As I wrote above: "for me, polygamy and same sex marriage are - someway - cognates". Got it?

bhodi wrote:

Do you know anything about Islamic jurisprudence? If not, why wade into a discussion where you have no understanding?

Oh My God, I am sorry very sorry for all my sins. because they are despising oh Lord, oh are!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Please give me the number of Your Red Phone. From now on, I will ask You every time what should I comment, what may I comment, or it is proper - at all - to open my mouth.
Thank You for Your mercy.

Is all of this melodrama necessary? You posted an article about a subject you knew nothing about, why not simply learn before posting? Seems far simpler.

The Erotic Apologist · **Posted:** Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:31 am

ludwigm wrote:

For coluorblinds, these pictures (please show them for future readers...)

are grey (or something I can not detect)

Did You get the "7" and the "42" ?
Do they make sense? Then be happy, You are not coluorblind!

ludwigm makes a good point.

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

ludwigm makes a good point.

How does being colorblind inhibit him from thoughtful and coherent research involving the articles he posts? What point do you think he is making?

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:28 am

Bhodi wrote:

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

ludwigm makes a good point.

How does being colorblind inhibit him from thoughtful and coherent research involving the articles he posts? What point do you think he is making?

- same sex marriage and polygamy are someway cognates (in both case people mix state laws with religion, so the standpoints can near very slowly)

- that is why I dared cite that article

- is that article factually incorrect? Who cares? We can read it and can shape an opinion about. I found it interesting, You found it incorrect.

- do I know anything about Islamic jurisprudence? Should I? I can read...

- why did I wade into a discussion? Kind words. Need I Your permission?

- I don't know, what colourblinds see and what not - because I am not colourblind. Fortunately, with the help of that few bleak circle, I can test the colourblindness. Colourblind people, see wrong/different numbers.

- I don't know, what different people think. After reading their opinion about written texts, I can determine if their thoughts are similar or different, compared to my one.

That is all help I can offer to You.

Brits made one step from the direction of religion.
Libyans make one step towards religion.

An American reporter cited the words of a Libyan leader.
I cited his article with a cynical oneliner.

You called my comment silly and gibberish, and wrote: "You posted an article about a subject you knew nothing about, why not simply learn before posting?"

Did You checked the pictures?

The Erotic Apologist · **Posted:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:27 am

Bhodi wrote:

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

ludwigm makes a good point.

How does being colorblind inhibit him from thoughtful and coherent research involving the articles he posts? What point do you think he is making?

RTFP, dude. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Is Operation Foot Bullet going as well as you hoped?

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

Quote:

How does being colorblind inhibit him from thoughtful and coherent research involving the articles he posts? What point do you think he is making?

RTFP, dude. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Is Operation Foot Bullet going as well as you hoped?

If you could explain it, why not do so?

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

ludwigm wrote:

- same sex marriage and polygamy are someway cognates (in both case people mix state laws with religion, so the standpoints can near very slowly)

- that is why I dared cite that article

- is that article factually incorrect? Who cares? We can read it and can shape an opinion about. I found it interesting, You found it incorrect.

- do I know anything about Islamic jurisprudence? Should I? I can read...

- why did I wade into a discussion? Kind words. Need I Your permission?

- I don't know, what colourblinds see and what not - because I am not colourblind. Fortunately, with the help of that few bleak circle, I can test the colourblindness. Colourblind people, see wrong/different numbers.

- I don't know, what different people think. After reading their opinion about written texts, I can determine if their thoughts are similar or different, compared to my one.

That is all help I can offer to You.

Brits made one step from the direction of religion.
Libyans make one step towards religion.

An American reporter cited the words of a Libyan leader.
I cited his article with a cynical oneliner.

You called my comment silly and gibberish, and wrote: "You posted an article about a subject you knew nothing about, why not simply learn before posting?"

Did You checked the pictures?

There are a number of comprehension issues here, likely the result of differing languages, but do you really think you made a point by posting an poor article on a subject you seem to only have passing familiarity with?

The Erotic Apologist · **Posted:** Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:22 pm

Bhodi wrote:

If you could explain it, why not do so?

Because it's largely self-explanatory. Why must you be so obtuse?

Nice lure. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else.

Bhodi · **Joined:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:51 am **Posts:** 514

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

Bhodi wrote:

If you could explain it, why not do so?

Because it's largely self-explanatory. Why must you be so obtuse?

Nice lure. Maybe you should go troll somewhere else.

I understand why you are calling names, but consider the names being used. The person who repeatedly says they have an answer but won't tell it should likely not be calling others a troll. If it makes you happy, however, have at it.

Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

Who is online