Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[ICantSpellDawg]

You can keep all that. Just don't actively be against it where it doesn't concern you.

Of course it concerns me. The core of the issue is tax and entitlement benefits. Am I concerned that Methodists and Anglicans are sanctioning these things? Sure, it is ammoral. Do I have a right to do anything about it? No. Do I lose sleep over it? No.

It is precisely because it does affect me and you that it is a national/western issue. Otherwise they wouldn't require my consent to make it happen. Civil Marriage represents a societal value of a particular type of relationship. It made sense when we all valued it (which is a fantasy as people have always treated it with contempt, just now more than ever). Again, why the government has anything to do with giving me a medal for repeatedly diddling my wife makes no sense to me. Dependant tax breaks? Makes sense. The current existence of marriage in civil code is anachronistic. Single men and women raising children don't get support from the current tax structure. Married couples are now comprised almost universally of 2 income households. It is a tax break that ushers in our complicity in issues that do not concern us from a legal point of view and are an affront to us personally. Spiritually? Yes these things do matter, but I'm, not in favor of enforcing spirituality through secular law, one way or the other.

[Fragony]

You have your opinion on it that's fine with me, I agree that hetero couples should get priority with adoption by the way.

[Beskar]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

Agreed. They've completely lept over the crux of the modern institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't recognize governmental authority over it. I am married in the eyes of government because you are unable to get married in the Catholic Church in the U.S. if you do not have a marriage license with the State. This is a State restriction rather than a Religious restriction. Do I want my wife to maintain our property after my death? collect social security benefits? Absolutely. But if I wasn't married I would want those things to go to my closest relation anyway. Current structure pre-supposes that marriage is the most important social partnership. I agree, but my views that marriage is a spiritual, honor based, between 1 man/1 womna and God, no dissolution possible outside of death and annulment (seperation is not disolution, the church does not prevent couples from living seperately, spouses just cannot commit adultury during the absence) - this has nothing to do with government.

Individuals tell the state which relationships are the most important to them, the state doesn't tell individuals. I do agree that marriage is the most important institution, but when I say "marriage" it has very little to do with your (not yourse per se, nearly everyone elses) definition.

Tiaexz has a much shorter version of my underlying point

[Greyblades]

I think that we should nuke the vatican, just out of principle.

[PanzerJaeger]

Evil incarnate. We've seen this alliance at work in many states across the US. It will fail and these churches will be even more marginalized than they already are for their efforts.

The 85-year-old pope, speaking in the frescoed Clementine Hall of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace, said the family was being threatened by "a false understanding of freedom" and a repudiation of life-long commitment in heterosexual marriage.

"When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child - essential elements of the experience of being human are lost," the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholic said.

Significantly, the pope specifically praised as "profoundly moving" a study by France's chief rabbi, Gilles Bernheim, which has become the subject of heated debate in that country.

Bernheim, also a philosopher, argues that homosexual rights groups "will use gay marriage as a Trojan Horse" in a wider campaign to "deny sexual identity and erase sexual differences" and "undermine the heterosexual fundamentals of our society".

Wow. Not only is he reaffirming that gay marriage is wrong according to Catholic beliefs, but he is endorsing the idea that gay people are actively trying to undermine society through some kind of plot. This is a new and dangerous level of crazy for the institution. There are still a few nuts out there that take him seriously and may see this as some sort of papal Fatwah to save civilization.

[Kival]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

Indeed. Financial Aid and Support for Children, not for marriage, and all problems are solved. Okay, you also need to give everyone the possibility to name a person, who can decide things in hospital etc. But there should be no marriage needed for that.

[caravel]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I actually agree broadly about genetic technology, but I adimit it's just a gut feeling mostly. I associate it with scenarios like the Spacers from Asimov's SF novels, if you've read those (and even if you didn't read them, I still do)

Space Marines, Master Chief, Old Man's War... Gatica...

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.

I'm pretty shocked that you buy those stories about about twins somehow being mentally connected or whatever. I'm a pretty cynical person in general, but I also happen to know multiple (pairs of) identical twins, and to me it's all bull.

Well, believe in God, so what not.

But... what I'm really saying is I've seen enough weird stuff that I'm willing to believe something might be going on, although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.

Genetic engineering has been done for millennia as we have bred animals and plants to be more suitable for specific roles.
Given genetic engineering is altering natural DNA using natural processes I fail to see how it is "patently obvious"

Selection is different to modification though

[Montmorency]

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.

The only valid outcomes for assessment are those expressed in narrative format?

Space Marines, Master Chief,

although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.

Well, something is technically always going on, right?

[Papewaio]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

Point - but it's still pretty horrific tech.

[drone]

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

Adeptus Custodes. Glorified federales won't stop the xenos hordes.

[Beskar]

+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

[Arjos]

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

I completely agree, but at least here in Italy, after civil unions passed, one side complained that it wasn't enough, while the other pointed out how it minimized the church and what marriage represents religiously...
In the end, someone will always take issue: so democratically legislate, letting time and education weed out bigots :P

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

There's also the solution of forcing the religious minority into obedience, as has been done in Denmark and elsewhere.

That will happen eventually - so they might just as well do it and get this whole sorry joke over with.

I do think this is a joke - it will last just as long as we remain over-populated. Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

[Montmorency]

Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

How do you envision this coming about?