I believe that's largely because of Papal doctrine (which still exists) which stipulates that children in such a marriage must be raised Catholic.Originally Posted by Burgey
It's the reason why the Act of Settlement forbids heirs to the British Crown from marrying Catholics (technically it forbids the heir to the throne from marrying non-Anglicans).
63*
Protestant married a Roman Catholic.I've no idea what this means, but awta.
On another note, Murphy shouldn't do serious. FFS.
Last edited by Burgey; 05-03-2011 at 02:27 PM.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Oh ****, was he doing serious...
Can't say I've ever heard of the phrase 'rock chopper' - elaborate please.
Simply a reference to the initials RC I believe. It's very old. I'll try to find out more.
It's ok, you clowns are allowed to have an opinion.
Just a shame that it's wrong though
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
Thought this was a great argument as to why conservatives should support gay marriage.
If marriage is so good, why not invite everyone in?
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Half expecting that link to be the Kohli glory hole picture.
Also Benchy, SilentStriker's comparison with interracial marriages, and definitions with regards to what a person was, is absolutely a perfect comparison to your argument. It is a metaphor to the current situation.
Whether you realise or not, you are letting a historical term define your thoughts.
SS' question as to whether you'd agree that interracial marriages should not be "marriages" if they were defined as only between the same race, but were allowed as civil unions, is the exact same situation as the gay marriage one.
Men and females are different, yes. But white and black people are different. As are Asians and Indians etc. etc.
Haha that would have been awesome.
That's a flawed argument.
My thoughts on the definition of marriage is not based on a historical definition, it's based on what I believe the definition should be.
fwiw, even if you don't believe me, I would have been strongly against the restriction of interracial marriages if I was around then. A gender is a far more powerful difference than merely the colour of ones skin. It's two different things.
If it would make you feel better, call gay unions a marriage and heterosexual unions a civil union, it honestly doesnt matter, however it is my belief that there should remain a distinction, not to negatively discriminate, but by pure fact they're two different unions, however equally important.
You can argue all you want with me on this topic, but you're not going to change a fundamental belief I, and many others, have. And there's no way I will change your mind either.
It's not a belief which aims to hurt homosexual couples, and if you read my posts you will find I'm as strong an advocate for equal codified rights as you will find.
Last edited by benchmark00; 05-03-2011 at 08:34 PM.
I don't think you're setting out to hurt anyone, and frankly, equal rights is the big target. However, equal rights doesn't necessarily mean equal. By calling it a different name, you're making a distinction which would be absolutely distasteful if made for an interracial couple. You say gender is a bigger difference than race, and that may be right (arguable, but I might agree with you), but I don't think there is a difference in the feelings people have for each other and it should be given equal recognition, as well as equal treatment.
Anyway, as you say, I don't think we'll change each other's minds, and I'd be very happy with full equal rights. But not quite content until it's equal in all ways, not just in legal rights.
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
I really don't care who calls themselves what. I've read the last few pages and if I've understood this correctly, Benchy just thinks there should be a distinction between the names and not on anything else. I don't find that really controversial. The two types of marriages are different. It'd be like creating two terms for accuracy reasons in a way. I'll give an example: in Persian there are two names for "Uncle" - Amu and Daei. Amu just means the brother of your father and Daei means the brother of your mother. I guess the two different terms could aid language in terms of conversation. If you ask someone if they have a partner and whether they say they are married or in a civil union it lets others know right away the type of partner they have.
Last edited by Ikki; 05-03-2011 at 09:05 PM.
★★★★★
Right, but we're making an analogy between interracial couples and homosexual couples. Why would calling one a different name than 'marriage' be controversial when this shouldn't be?
I can see the point you are trying to make but I do not think gender and race are comparable in the context of marriage. It's like arguing that people with the same hair colour should be called one thing and people with different hair colours should be called another thing or saying that unions with mixed hair colours carry the same difference as same *** marriage.
There is a difference between two dogs of the same breed getting together, two dogs of different breeds getting together and a dog and a cat getting together. We may give them all equal rights () but pretending they are the same - or pretending the differences are of equal measure - denies the fundamental difference between them.
Last edited by Ikki; 05-03-2011 at 09:26 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
