It's a matter of faith but also of convention. When I tell people I'm married to a woman people wholly accept it. Where there is no 'civil partnership' box on forms, I tick 'married' and that's considered correct.
And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. That's where the whole thing goes wrong.
Of course as far as gay marriage is concerned that's exactly what the UK government are doing - they are not calling it marriage to uphold people's faith who don't think it is. Legally - it's marriage. It's the same thing. It's purely a name, and a differentiation (which I think is more dangerous that the name because it brings in the capacity to differentiate on issues eg what Roseanne Sturgeon tried to do with the adoption bill.)
And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. Absolutely. And yet the head of state has the title "Defender of the Faith" and is not allowed (by law) to be a Catholic. Members of the CofE get seats (and votes) in the House of Lords.
And as you rightly point out it's never _just_ a name :->
I disagree entirely. People should be free - and probably even encouraged - to talk about their ideas, beliefs, and feelings. They shouldn't be told that certain of them aren't fit for public consumption.
People should be free - and probably even encouraged - to talk about their ideas, beliefs, and feelings. They shouldn't be told that certain of them aren't fit for public consumption. I agree and that's not what I'm saying at all. But there aren't enough buses if people are going to engage in tit-for-tat campaigns. Also, I think people should also be free not to talk about beliefs etc - buses and billboards shove it in people's faces.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
an aside
Date: 2009-01-07 10:56 pm (UTC)Not in the UK, by your definition.
Gays have a right, legally, to a civil partnership. Any assertion on the part of a same sex couple that they're married is entirely a matter of faith.
I think gays have a right to marry - for me that's a matter of faith, and that right is not being upheld in the country in which I live.
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:04 pm (UTC)And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. That's where the whole thing goes wrong.
Of course as far as gay marriage is concerned that's exactly what the UK government are doing - they are not calling it marriage to uphold people's faith who don't think it is. Legally - it's marriage. It's the same thing. It's purely a name, and a differentiation (which I think is more dangerous that the name because it brings in the capacity to differentiate on issues eg what Roseanne Sturgeon tried to do with the adoption bill.)
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:20 pm (UTC)Absolutely. And yet the head of state has the title "Defender of the Faith" and is not allowed (by law) to be a Catholic. Members of the CofE get seats (and votes) in the House of Lords.
And as you rightly point out it's never _just_ a name :->
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:42 pm (UTC)Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 04:02 pm (UTC)Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 04:10 pm (UTC)With the buses bit?
People should be free - and probably even encouraged - to talk about their ideas, beliefs, and feelings. They shouldn't be told that certain of them aren't fit for public consumption.
I agree and that's not what I'm saying at all. But there aren't enough buses if people are going to engage in tit-for-tat campaigns. Also, I think people should also be free not to talk about beliefs etc - buses and billboards shove it in people's faces.
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 04:13 pm (UTC)If you want to ban people from advertising on buses at all then I'll go with that.
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 06:58 pm (UTC)