Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scotland's bishops blast the government's plans to reform the marriage laws to legalize same sex marriage, but mostly because the government once again is refusing to extend the same protection to man-sheep relationships   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Scotland, same-sex marriages, protections, civil partnerships, Catholic priest, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, bishops, Jac  
•       •       •

2628 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2012 at 3:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-27 01:04:12 PM  
People often forget that the very concept of marriage was based on Judeo-Christian values. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not only be a redefinition, but fundamentally a breach of the intellectual property rights of the Catholic and relevant Christian faiths. Marriage is a "cohesive user experience" and courts all over the world have recently affirmed the value of such intellectual property with rulings for Apple against Samsung. However, when it comes to the war against religion we often see a doub...

...I am sorry I can't finish this. Can someone fix the spelling on relationships? "Realtionship?" REALLY? I work day and night to provide this quality 'content'. Proofread your damn headlines.
 
2012-08-27 01:37:09 PM  
The altar boys are feeling left out too
 
2012-08-27 02:00:59 PM  
It's only the Presbyterians in Scotland who screw sheep. Scottish Catholics, being basically very lost Irishmen, are too drunk to catch them.
 
2012-08-27 02:33:14 PM  
All hail Angus the bridge-builder!
 
2012-08-27 03:09:12 PM  

Scotland's bishops


DA BISHOP!

We wuz... too late.
 
2012-08-27 03:13:57 PM  
Baa means no.
 
2012-08-27 03:17:24 PM  

russlar: Baa means no.


I see what ewe did there...
 
2012-08-27 03:17:57 PM  

Charlie Chingas: russlar: Baa means no.

I see what ewe did there...


... but you fark ONE sheep...
 
2012-08-27 03:18:37 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Charlie Chingas: russlar: Baa means no.

I see what ewe did there...

... but you fark ONE sheep...


darnit didn't see I was beaten to the punch.
 
2012-08-27 03:20:32 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.google.com

Wake up sheeple!
 
2012-08-27 03:23:58 PM  
You'd think they'd already have this figured out, what with Wales just a few hours away.
 
2012-08-27 03:24:15 PM  
Scotland! Sex with sheep! That's humor!
 
2012-08-27 03:25:41 PM  
Legal marriage and Religious marriage are 2 very different things, I wish people would stop confusing them.

Legal marriage - legal contract for inheritance and personal asset sharing. That's it.

Religious marriage - whatever they want as long as it is adults. Usually includes stuff about love, spirituality, producing more children to spread the faith, etc.

Enough said.
 
2012-08-27 03:26:56 PM  
Haggis is weird enough...you telling me Scots also f*ck the sheep first?
 
2012-08-27 03:28:16 PM  
Ask Any Irishman, and he'll tell ya that Scotland is filled to the brim with Sheep-Shaggin bastards; but the Scotts say that in every Irish chest beats the heart of a sheep-farker. So what's really going on is pretty obvious: The sheep are just straight-up sluts, obviously
 
2012-08-27 03:29:32 PM  

Killer Cars: Haggis is weird enough...you telling me Scots also f*ck the sheep first?


They like to salt it naturally.
 
2012-08-27 03:30:05 PM  

Killer Cars: Haggis is weird enough...you telling me Scots also f*ck the sheep first?


Where do you think they get the blood?

/bloody sheep anus
 
2012-08-27 03:30:26 PM  
I think marriage should be as GOD intended. And by a stroke of luck I happen to know just what he had in mind.
 
2012-08-27 03:33:40 PM  
God believes in the sanctity of marriage, impregnates another mans wife.
 
2012-08-27 03:37:45 PM  
Those bishops. They're still mad at whoever bris'ed their caps.
 
2012-08-27 03:38:46 PM  
Let's not get the Scottish mixed up with the Welsh.
 
2012-08-27 03:38:54 PM  
It gets mighty cold in the winter, I think they have their own version of 3 sheep night, but have taken it in a much different direction.
 
2012-08-27 03:41:17 PM  

LeroyBourne: It gets mighty cold in the winter, I think they have their own version of 3 sheep night, but have taken it in a much different direction.


"...joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to ewe and me."
 
2012-08-27 03:42:51 PM  

Alunan: People often forget that the very concept of marriage was based on Judeo-Christian values. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not only be a redefinition, but fundamentally a breach of the intellectual property rights of the Catholic and relevant Christian faiths. Marriage is a "cohesive user experience" and courts all over the world have recently affirmed the value of such intellectual property with rulings for Apple against Samsung. However, when it comes to the war against religion we often see a doub...

...I am sorry I can't finish this. Can someone fix the spelling on relationships? "Realtionship?" REALLY? I work day and night to provide this quality 'content'. Proofread your damn headlines.


... double standard in favor of anti-octogenarian caucasian-causality, undermining a long-established tradition of equality and tolerance that gave rise to those very named and benign organizations who have only the highest quality and best interests at heart. This push to legalize same-sex marriage an obvious effort by the Sarmatian-run media to institute it's own values in place of those on which our great Kingdom was founded. You can say this is just another anti-Sarmatian rant but if history is any indication, once the so-called anti-monopolistic laws are re-evaluated and misguidedly break up our Abrahamic mysteries, nothing will stop the hordes of ravening Goth children from conquering us all.

Sorry. Didn't do it justice.
 
2012-08-27 03:43:02 PM  
Scotland's bishops blast the government's plans to reform the marriage laws to legalize same sex marriage, but mostly because the government once again is refusing to extend the same protection to man-sheep priest-altar boy relationships

FTFY Subs
 
2012-08-27 03:45:01 PM  
"Marriage is a unique lifelong union of a man and a woman," the letter argues.

It's not really an "argument", per se, if the basis for the whole thing is "I believe in magic, so you have to do what I say".
 
2012-08-27 03:45:35 PM  
"Marriage is a unique lifelong union of a man and a woman," the letter argues.

Divorce doesn't exist?? Oh wait, it does. In Scotland too.
 
2012-08-27 03:55:55 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: "Marriage is a unique lifelong union of a man and a woman," the letter argues.

It's not really an "argument", per se, if the basis for the whole thing is "I believe in magic, so you have to do what I say".


The Scottish Catholic church also wants a referendum on gay marriage, figuring the unwashed masses will vote their way.

Someone should remind Cardinal Keith that if there was a referendum in Scotland on whether Catholics should be denied the vote, it might be a bit dicey for him. Probably safe in a 'should Catholics be burned' referendum though - times move on, even in Scotland.
 
2012-08-27 03:56:10 PM  
This is slightly off-topic (for the USA, not Scotland), but I just had a thought:

Since Title XI applies to any organization that receives federal benefits, and assuming most organizations receive federal benefits, could Title XI be used to make moot most of the "traditional marriage" arguments?

For instance, has this been tried in civil court, perhaps between a hospital visitor and the hospital, over whether they could see their partner, a patient, after hours (i.e., during family-only times)?

//I couldn't find anything on Google about this...
//It must be so smart that nobody's tried it before!
//Or, so stupid that nobody's written about why it won't work. :(
 
2012-08-27 04:08:17 PM  
Fun fact: Ironically enough Scotland is the place that completely destroys the right wing talking point about "traditional marriage" and how it has been this unchanged human institution for (insert very large number in the thousands) of years, as well into Christian times Scotland recognized somewhere between 6 and 9 forms of legal marriage, including a marriage for only a year and a day, a marriage that lasted until the first male child was born (usually a political arrangement) etc etc
 
2012-08-27 04:08:19 PM  

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: LeroyBourne: It gets mighty cold in the winter, I think they have their own version of 3 sheep night, but have taken it in a much different direction.

"...joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to ewe and me."


LOL, nice work there.
 
2012-08-27 04:17:22 PM  
i737.photobucket.com>
 
2012-08-27 04:34:32 PM  

CaliNJGuy: [i737.photobucket.com image 263x192]>


"The ring, Vic! Don't touch the ring!"
 
2012-08-27 04:36:07 PM  
EWE SUCK

/GOT NOTHING
//SLASHIE CAP LOCKS
 
2012-08-27 04:42:47 PM  
I thought that a Scottish homosexual was a man who liked women more than whisky. But I may be wrong.
 
2012-08-27 04:45:10 PM  

Alunan: People often forget that the very concept of marriage was based on Judeo-Christian values.


This will be news to the many tribes and civiilzations who developed their own concept of marriage outside of Christianity and Judaism. No religion holds a monopoly on its definition and it's probably one of those things that naturally falls out of humans pairing off. A couple want to have a fruitful happy life so they get the local shaman / priest to "bless" them and over time it becomes a formalised ritual. It must also help glue communities together, preventing things getting too stabby by putting women become "off limits" to other men and vice versa.

Anyway none of that matters too much these days. The state can define what marriage means and if they want to include same sex partners, then what damned difference does it make to anybody else. If anything the state should always issue the marriage licence. If people want to go off to a church or make incantations or whatever they can but they should not be legal until they go down to the registrars office and sign a bit of paper conforming to the state's definition.
 
2012-08-27 05:03:43 PM  

shortymac: Legal marriage and Religious marriage are 2 very different things, I wish people would stop confusing them.

Legal marriage - legal contract for inheritance and personal asset sharing. That's it.

Religious marriage - whatever they want as long as it is adults. Usually includes stuff about love, spirituality, producing more children to spread the faith, etc.

Enough said.


Sorta kinda - religious marriage doesn't really (in general) say anything about "adults", at least in mainstream
Judeo-Christian sects and orders, which I'll assume you're angling your comment toward. I don't advocate the
opposite, frankly, but it caught your attention.

Legal marriage, on the other hand, is something that will (right or wrong) open up a big can of "wait, that law?" kinda
stuff that's not necessarily expected:

In the US:

Social Security survivor benefits (you thought your SS was underwater now)
Government and GRE (government related entities, i.e. the USPS) pensions, etc.
Military (part of the gov't, though a lot of people kind of look at it differently) pensions, etc.

In one sense, you're right - the bulk of it can be taken care of with simple contract
law. However, the above 3.5 examples (I'd be willing to wager there are more, just a
guess) make "all or nothing" answers pretty difficult to put on the table. Phasing would
help, perhaps, or some other way of pooling of interests ex post facto, which will serve
to hire $DEITY knows how many more IRS and SSA people, but the point is, it's not as
simple as "yes" or "no".

For the record, I don't give a shiat who and/or what you marry. I'm merely saying that it's
a logistical mess.
 
2012-08-27 05:10:23 PM  
l1.yimg.com

chrissywelsh.com
 
2012-08-27 05:12:41 PM  

shortymac: Legal marriage and Religious marriage are 2 very different things, I wish people would stop confusing them.

Legal marriage - legal contract for inheritance and personal asset sharing. That's it.

Religious marriage - whatever they want as long as it is adults. Usually includes stuff about love, spirituality, producing more children to spread the faith, etc.

Enough said.


You're kind of right but kind of not. There is definitely a difference between legal marriage and religious. Your point about legal marriage being for inheritance stops a bit short. While it does provide for that, the real point is to hold the father liable for the support of the children. [Speaking historically, of course, when marriage was also a sop to the royal broodmare or what we call a wife.] But the marriage was not only to pass on the wealth but to provide for the care and keeping of minor children and provide some security for the wife. This is still largely true today - try getting divorced when you have minor children and you realize that, since you and your spouse have demonstrated that you are incapable of keeping the marriage together, the law deems you unworthy of making decisions about your children, thus they become wards of the court and the court will decide with whom they live, who will be their legal guardian and who is responsible for paying maintenance and things like health and life insurance and, sometimes, eve college tuition. So legal marriage is about the rights and responsibilities of a family unit.

The problem I have with same sex marriage is that every gay and lesbian couple I know who are either in favor of or activist about it (and that includes a bunch of friends and a few relatives) ends up talking more about the benefits than about any kind of relationship. One lesbian couple in particular is very close and also very activist. One of the women is a life-long friend. I remember her pontificating at length, back in the 60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism and would soon be obsolete as an institution. Now, she feels she is being discriminated against because she and her partner are not allowed to participate in an institution she mocked just a few years ago.. What is telling to me, however, is that every time the subject comes up, she talks much more about the fact that her partner should be covered by her insurance and she should automatically have surviving spouse benefits on her government pension (she was a highly-placed government lawyer) than about being in a loving, committed relationship. And I have to wonder if the impetus behind the discussion is not more about creating a new entitled class of spouses than about love.

Understand that I have no problem with homosexuality. I am not homophobic. But at a time when every level of government is having an increasingly difficult time keeping promises to seniors and funding the safety net for the truly needy, is it morally conscionable to add a new, legally sanctioned group to the beneficiary rolls? Especially a group that is typically in the higher income and wealth bracket already?

I think same sex couples should be able to live together and pass their wealth on to each other as they see fit, I think that signing up for things like medical power of attorney for same sex couples should be an easy, standard procedure. I just have to wonder if full-blown same-sex marriage is really the way to go.

From another perspective, why would same-sex couples want to enter the legal realm of marriage? If you ever feel the need to disclose every penny of assets, have every aspect of your financial life thoroughly reviewed and and inspected, culminating with a third party deciding how your wealth, present and future, will be distributed - well you, sir, need to get a divorce! Why anyone would voluntarily sign up for that instead of just shacking up is beyond me!
 
2012-08-27 05:14:46 PM  
FTA: "Marriage is a unique lifelong union of a man and a woman," the letter argues.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: It's not really an "argument", per se, if the basis for the whole thing is "I believe in magic, so you have to do what I say".


You're right. An argument isn't just "I believe in magic, so you have to do what I say". An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
 
2012-08-27 05:29:54 PM  

neversubmit: Wake up sheeple!


Nooooooooooo! You've doomed us all!

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-08-27 05:42:19 PM  

Mr. Right: shortymac: Legal marriage and Religious marriage are 2 very different things, I wish people would stop confusing them.

Legal marriage - legal contract for inheritance and personal asset sharing. That's it.

Religious marriage - whatever they want as long as it is adults. Usually includes stuff about love, spirituality, producing more children to spread the faith, etc.

Enough said.

You're kind of right but kind of not. There is definitely a difference between legal marriage and religious. Your point about legal marriage being for inheritance stops a bit short. While it does provide for that, the real point is to hold the father liable for the support of the children. [Speaking historically, of course, when marriage was also a sop to the royal broodmare or what we call a wife.] But the marriage was not only to pass on the wealth but to provide for the care and keeping of minor children and provide some security for the wife. This is still largely true today - try getting divorced when you have minor children and you realize that, since you and your spouse have demonstrated that you are incapable of keeping the marriage together, the law deems you unworthy of making decisions about your children, thus they become wards of the court and the court will decide with whom they live, who will be their legal guardian and who is responsible for paying maintenance and things like health and life insurance and, sometimes, eve college tuition. So legal marriage is about the rights and responsibilities of a family unit.

The problem I have with same sex marriage is that every gay and lesbian couple I know who are either in favor of or activist about it (and that includes a bunch of friends and a few relatives) ends up talking more about the benefits than about any kind of relationship. One lesbian couple in particular is very close and also very activist. One of the women is a life-long friend. I remember her pontificating at length, back in the 60s and 70s, that marr ...


Okay, so you are for all the powers that marriage provides, but because the word "marriage" is attached to the legal contract you feel odd about it?

The problem is culturally marriages have religious baggage about it being "happily ever after", focus more on the wedding than the marriage, and as a forever arrangement. We as a society really have to look beyond that because it really does screw with peoples heads like your friend.

I have a feeling that many people who were in the "shacked up forever!" camp are going to be running to the courthouse once they realize the legal implications*. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Your friend is getting older and realizes that her partner needs health coverage and survivor benefits if she croaks suddenly.

Hell, even Gene Simmons is tying the knot after decades of refusal and I don't think this is a stunt for his TV show, he is getting old and wants her to be taken care of. Hell, my Uncle married after 20 years of shacking up and changing his address to circumvent common law marriage laws. Why? He was diagnosed with cancer.

For example, another Uncle died suddenly at the age of 60. My Aunt doesn't have a great job (manager of a Burger King) but she will be able to retire at 65 thanks to my Uncle's work pension and the SSA survivor benefits in addition to her own SS benefits. She inherited the SSA benefits automatically because she was in a legally binding contract called "marriage". If they had been shacked up or just had a religious ceremony without paperwork she wouldn't have gotten anything.

/*Many states have gotten rid of "common law marriage" so they will NOT be covered there
//Marriage is a legal contract, get over it
 
2012-08-27 05:55:31 PM  

arthur_toafk: This is slightly off-topic (for the USA, not Scotland), but I just had a thought:

Since Title XI applies to any organization that receives federal benefits, and assuming most organizations receive federal benefits, could Title XI be used to make moot most of the "traditional marriage" arguments?

For instance, has this been tried in civil court, perhaps between a hospital visitor and the hospital, over whether they could see their partner, a patient, after hours (i.e., during family-only times)?

//I couldn't find anything on Google about this...
//It must be so smart that nobody's tried it before!
//Or, so stupid that nobody's written about why it won't work. :(


If a man marries a man, doesn't that establish a new tradition, and is therefore traditional?
 
2012-08-27 06:00:16 PM  
i86.photobucket.com

not mine !
 
2012-08-27 06:01:08 PM  

rmdpgh: shortymac: Legal marriage and Religious marriage are 2 very different things, I wish people would stop confusing them.

Legal marriage - legal contract for inheritance and personal asset sharing. That's it.

Religious marriage - whatever they want as long as it is adults. Usually includes stuff about love, spirituality, producing more children to spread the faith, etc.

Enough said.

Sorta kinda - religious marriage doesn't really (in general) say anything about "adults", at least in mainstream
Judeo-Christian sects and orders, which I'll assume you're angling your comment toward. I don't advocate the
opposite, frankly, but it caught your attention.

Legal marriage, on the other hand, is something that will (right or wrong) open up a big can of "wait, that law?" kinda
stuff that's not necessarily expected:

In the US:

Social Security survivor benefits (you thought your SS was underwater now)
Government and GRE (government related entities, i.e. the USPS) pensions, etc.
Military (part of the gov't, though a lot of people kind of look at it differently) pensions, etc.

In one sense, you're right - the bulk of it can be taken care of with simple contract
law. However, the above 3.5 examples (I'd be willing to wager there are more, just a
guess) make "all or nothing" answers pretty difficult to put on the table. Phasing would
help, perhaps, or some other way of pooling of interests ex post facto, which will serve
to hire $DEITY knows how many more IRS and SSA people, but the point is, it's not as
simple as "yes" or "no".

For the record, I don't give a shiat who and/or what you marry. I'm merely saying that it's
a logistical mess.


It isn't a logistics nightmare, they ALL have measures and rules in place for when people get married. It doesn't matter what gender parts the couple has, it's still 2 people.
 
2012-08-27 06:21:29 PM  

Mr. Right: You're kind of right but kind of not. There is definitely a difference between legal marriage and religious. Your point about legal marriage being for inheritance stops a bit short. While it does provide for that, the real point is to hold the father liable for the support of the children. [Speaking historically, of course, when marriage was also a sop to the royal broodmare or what we call a wife.] But the marriage was not only to pass on the wealth but to provide for the care and keeping of minor children and provide some security for the wife.


No. Doubly no in Scotland, where most forms of marriage only lasted a few years.

Marriage was for property rights. That's it. Until very recently, children were property. Parents could effectively sell their kids into serfdom (or in some societies actual slavery), kick them out, give them to others to be apprentices, etc. In the higher classes, most parents didn't raise their own kids. Infanticide was common, and any rules against it were not enforced.

Even now, marriage is fairly meaningless in terms of kids. You have to pay child support based on whether the kid has your DNA, not whether you were married to the mom. If you marry somebody who has a kid, that doesn't make you responsible for the kid- that's based on adoption, not marriage.

The idea that marriage has anything to do with the care and well-being of kids is a myth.
 
2012-08-27 06:26:21 PM  

Mr. Right: The problem I have with same sex marriage is that every gay and lesbian couple I know who are either in favor of or activist about it (and that includes a bunch of friends and a few relatives) ends up talking more about the benefits than about any kind of relationship. One lesbian couple in particular is very close and also very activist.


This only tells me that you need to get new gay friends. But at least your "friends" know what civil marriage gets them. The vast majority of straight men and women I know can't tell you one legal benefit they get by signing a piece of paper.
 
2012-08-27 06:32:17 PM  

Mr. Right: Understand that I have no problem with black people. I am not racist. But at a time when unemployment is rising, should we really be considering turning thousands of units of property into thousands of more workers?

I think black people should've able to pick cotton as they see fit, I think that signing up for things like farm labor should be an easy, standard procedure. I just have to wonder if full-blown equal rights and personal sovereignty is really the way to go.

 
2012-08-27 07:08:27 PM  
"Nay-aaayyy-aaaayyyy!"

It said.
 
2012-08-27 07:18:44 PM  
All you non-UK peeps here, I hope you realise that civil partnerships have been legal for quite some time in Scotland, and that they have the same legal standing as traditional marriage? In Scotland, the difference being discussed is whether there is a religious component to the ceremony, the rest of it is the same. From Findlaw: " A civil partnership is, in effect, a legal marriage between two people of the same sex. Although there are differences between a marriage and a civil partnership, a couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple. ..... So, what's the difference?

There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership. The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way.

Therefore, the main difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is religion. During the civil partnership ceremony there will tend not be any reference to religion or church as there are still sectors of religious society strongly opposed to same-sex marriage."

That's what the church is whining about - whether gay people can invoke the name of their god in their ceremony. The issue of gay couples having the same rights and responsibilities as hetero couples was decided long ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report