What is in Kelvin's Head?

Equal Marriage – Questions people haven’t thought of #1

01/08/2012

Here’s one for church folk and any passing ethicist.

Suppose a couple get a civil partnership and they then have a service of blessing in an Episcopal Church – rings, promises, nuptial mass, the whole enchilada, with lovely prayers drawn from the Scottish Episcopal marriage liturgy. (As happens).

Supposing that is all done with and then suddenly the government come along and offer to make those who have civil partnerships married at the stroke of a pen.

What is the moral difference between that and a straight couple getting married in church?

[My interest in this question is to see whether the answers divide between people who say, “There’s no difference, therefore same-sex couples don’t need marriage” and those who say, “There’s no difference, so we should stop shilly-shallying about and wed same-sex couples on the same basis as every else.”]

Furthermore, might couples expect to go through another ceremony to mark this change of status or not?

equal marriage, questions

8 responses to “Bin Ladin”

Hermano David | Brother Dahâ€¢veed

02/05/2011

I agree with him entirely.

Then I think my friend that you join him in a conclusion that at this moment cannot be substantiated by fact. There is no evidence that bin Laden was executed. He died in a fire fight when the team tasked with his capture tried to do so. To claim more than the facts currently state is to jump to a conclusion based in personal prejudice.

Aside from that one discrepancy, I also agree with much of what he said.

Reply
Agatha

02/05/2011

It did occur to me that the UK does public rejoicing (see Friday) better than the US (see this morning).

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

03/05/2011

We have no room for complacency – remember ‘Gotcha’ in the Falklands war???

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  Yes, that was vulgar too.
  
  Reply
David

04/05/2011

Irrespective of the terrible atrocities masterminded by individuals such as Osama Bin-Laden…and…regardless of the improbable scenario of his being captured alive and put on trial, the rejoicing that followed his death was both tacky and tactless. Comments (albeit by family members of 9/11 victims) alluding to …”God placing him in Hell to rot for eternity…” similarly did nobody any favours. If anything, the backlash from extremists eager to avenge his death (martyrdom?) will now cost further innocent lives. The phrase that jumps to mind is: ‘least said soonest mended…’

Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

I’m not sure that pacifist prooftexting is any lbetter than the other kinds. It’s surely morally permissable to celebrate the death of a legitimate, significant military target. And much of the “fanning the flames” rhetoric is inane – people can argue over whether nominally Islamic terrorism can be appeased , but the idea of Al-Queda dialing back their actions or reforming their ethos because (say) the world didn’t overly celebrate killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. Wouldn’t capturing him alive and forcing him to endure infidel courts be even more provocative than a martyr’s bullet and burial at sea?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  I don’t think I like the idea of celebrating the death of anyone, Ryan.
  
  That’s the kind of thing we find too often in the Bible, isn’t it? And it is vulgar there too.
  
  I don’t like lynch mob mentality no matter who is on the receiving end.
  
  Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

Indeed – I agree that the “get it up ye!” response very much does not represent humankind at its best. But not celebrating *anyone’s* death is quite different, to me, to the most popular current arguments that largely emphasise that Bin Ladin personally is an inappropriate figure for Sic Semper Tyrannis triumphalism.

I found the Vatican’s reaction interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Europe

Reply