oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Reading this today... I mean seriously, have people got nothing better to do then fight the world on every issue ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835 Fighting for the right to a "civil partnership"... ffs I get their point but come on, there are far more important things going on in the world when it comes to discrimination etc. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Live and let live is fast becoming my adopted mantra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I get your point zeros but I actually really like it. 1.) Its set-up by Peter Tatchell, the "famous" gay-rights campaigner as a step towards Gay people being allowed to marry. 2.) If civil partnerships are only allowed to be between 2 people of the same sex, but has the same benefits of marriage (in terms of tax etc.) then that is discriminatory towards those people who don't want to marry for religious reasons, i.e. they're atheists or even for other reasons (which costs more)? In terms of discrimination what this is trying to do is make things a level playing field unlike some of the other stuff going on at the moment, previously championed by Harriet Harman which was essentially making positive discrimination legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spadam Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Good on them. Everyone should be able to get a civil partnership and everyone should be able to get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I get your point zeros but I actually really like it. 1.) Its set-up by Peter Tatchell, the "famous" gay-rights campaigner as a step towards Gay people being allowed to marry. 2.) If civil partnerships are only allowed to be between 2 people of the same sex, but has the same benefits of marriage (in terms of tax etc.) then that is discriminatory towards those people who don't want to marry for religious reasons, i.e. they're atheists or even for other reasons (which costs more)? In terms of discrimination what this is trying to do is make things a level playing field unlike some of the other stuff going on at the moment, previously championed by Harriet Harman which was essentially making positive discrimination legal For me its just what name you are giving to it now... They used the term civil partnership to avoid as much as possible the fighting with the church and being in that arena it certainly did the trick. People are I talk too by and large within the church don't like it but they always say, at least they don't call it marriage. And this is, I think, the whole reason why people still want to fight it and call it the same thing. The thing is I think you come to a point where you have to just accept that people think different things and hold different ideals. It is VERY important that every citizen gets the same rights as the next guy. But if you can name something slightly different, avoid a whole out war and everyone gets the same real rights then I say let things rest. Unfortunately you will never have a world where everyone feels and thinks the same, compromise is the best thing overall. I think this fight looks at stirring up more dust than it aims to settle. I also think some people are just hell bent on kicking it off as much as possible, I question the need or the healthiness of that though. Just so there is no misunderstanding I was 110% behind civil partnerships. I wouldn't be if it was being termed marriage. I just simply believe marriage is between a man and a women. For no other reason. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 As soon as I read the name "Tatchell" I lost interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 My heart sank when I realised after clicking on this thread it wasn't an Alan Partridge one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 My heart sank when I realised after clicking on this thread it wasn't an Alan Partridge one. I thought Cliff Richard has re-released his 1987 hit. (Note what I did there on the semi-religious side ....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I don’t see what business religion has in it given that a heterosexual pair of atheists can legally get married with a priest or a prayer in sight? My view is that people should be entered into whatever legal arrangements they like with each other and call it whatever they like, regardless or whether they are fans of god-bothering, cockfun or both or neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I don’t see what business religion has in it given that a heterosexual pair of atheists can legally get married with a priest or a prayer in sight? My view is that people should be entered into whatever legal arrangements they like with each other and call it whatever they like, regardless or whether they are fans of god-bothering, cockfun or both or neither. I think in this country religion and politics are still very much entangled... In both reality and in peoples heads... So civil or political issue can very quickly become the business of the religious minded voters. Its not really "the religion" but the people / voters who take issue and at that point their feelings need to be considered. Just like the opposite feelings need considering and why I always lean on the side of compromise. While people can say the state and religion should be separate and I have a lot of support for that idea, the reality is always going to be far more complicated. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Equal Love plans to launch a legal challenge on the basis of human rights legislation. sake...more lawyers getting more dosh for all...edit if necessary.... joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 The compromise is that we let people who worship stones and believe in Resurrection, cosmic justice, fairies at the bottom of the garden and so on live amongst us believing what they like, it’s not that we do or don’t do things in order to keep them happy in their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) The compromise is that we let people who worship stones and believe in Resurrection, cosmic justice, fairies at the bottom of the garden and so on live amongst us believing what they like, it’s not that we do or don’t do things in order to keep them happy in their beliefs. You kind of skipped / ignored my point there... We are all aware of certain posters opinions towards religion in general and it would be nice to have a discussion without it just getting personal and :censored:ty like this about what people believe. The point I was making is you can't separate out religion from politics. Its so tightly entangled when the electorate still carry certain thoughts and feelings. Maybe at the next census it will show a huge swing towards people not following a religion. Until we find evidence to the contrary I think the majority of people are still religious and while that is the case it will play a big part in politics. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Not intended to be personal - the point I was making is that it's getting quite personal asking other people to run their lives according to your beliefs - where, "your," covers any of the religions. I don't think there is any cause at all for the none-religious to do this, I believe religion should be treated in the same way as any other lifestyle choice should be, if you want to follow it then that's your freedom but don't expect the rest of the world to go out of their way to accomodate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Not intended to be personal - the point I was making is that it's getting quite personal asking other people to run their lives according to your beliefs - where, "your," covers any of the religions. I don't think there is any cause at all for the none-religious to do this, I believe religion should be treated in the same way as any other lifestyle choice should be, if you want to follow it then that's your freedom but don't expect the rest of the world to go out of their way to accomodate it. It isn't a singular person I am talking about... Its a group or a body of people... That can be a scout group, religious group, a play group, a nursery, a union, a watchdog or a political party etc... They are all interest groups who form together and will want a say on the running and structure of this country and that will then present itself in the form of a political agenda which effects other peoples lives. So anything civil isn't this separate thing. It is just the whim of the electorate. Just because "you" have a certain belief that marriage should be for everyone doesn't mean it should be. It is down to what the voters / people want. So it can never be separate until these interest groups don't exist ? Which we know you would like Surely you get where I am coming from ? Even if you would like it to happen in a different way. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 It isn't a singular person I am talking about... Its a group or a body of people... That can be a scout group, religious group, a play group, a nursery, a union, a watchdog or a political party etc... They are all interest groups who form together and will want a say on the running and structure of this country and that will then present itself in the form of a political agenda which effects other peoples lives. So anything civil isn't this separate thing. It is just the whim of the electorate. Just because "you" have a certain belief that marriage should be for everyone doesn't mean it should be. It is down to what the voters / people want. So it can never be separate until these interest groups don't exist ? Which we know you would like Surely you get where I am coming from ? Even if you would like it to happen in a different way. I think there is a difference though – sure, people form pressure groups for all kinds of reasons, mostly naked economic or other personal self-interest (whatever colour they nail to their mast), but I think religion differs in that it claims a higher authority. Hence for example calls for blasphemy laws from certain groups, because they think that their beliefs are more important than anyone elses and therefore deserving of special protection. Nobody thinks it should be the government’s job to tell absolutely ghastly people that they can’t marry each other, mothers can marry convicted peados and so on, yet a pair of perfectly decent off-roaders can’t get married because a particular group don’t like the idea. Re: this particular campaign by the way, whilst in principle I would agree with it I agree that it wouldn’t top my priority list at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I'd just like to take a moment to sincerely congratulate oafc0000 on his seemingly improved grammar and articulation. My prayers are being answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 There is a god and I have seen him. His name is Sir Andrew Ritchie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I think there is a difference though – sure, people form pressure groups for all kinds of reasons, mostly naked economic or other personal self-interest (whatever colour they nail to their mast), but I think religion differs in that it claims a higher authority. Hence for example calls for blasphemy laws from certain groups, because they think that their beliefs are more important than anyone elses and therefore deserving of special protection. Nobody thinks it should be the government’s job to tell absolutely ghastly people that they can’t marry each other, mothers can marry convicted peados and so on, yet a pair of perfectly decent off-roaders can’t get married because a particular group don’t like the idea. Re: this particular campaign by the way, whilst in principle I would agree with it I agree that it wouldn’t top my priority list at the moment. It isn't really different though, it is exactly the same... Does a trade unionist not believe their beliefs are more important than anyone else's ? Feminists ? The gun lobby ? I mean you could pick anything out of the air and that group exists because they believe they are right on something... There are lots of group pushing their will on other people all the time. Religion goes into many different areas but its still fundamental values and beliefs people think is right... If a very big chunk of the electorate is made up of religious people then religion will always play a part in politics. Just the way it is... Its the very nature of politics. Anything else would be less than democratic. Edited October 28, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.