Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ali smack

Gay Marriage

are you in favour of gay marriage?   31 members have voted

  1. 2. are you in favour of Gay Marriage

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      6
    • Not bothered either way
      5
    • yes. But only in a registry office
      3
    • I am undecided
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

94 posts in this topic

never knew they could not say "we`re married" but very much think they do say it.

I have said before, religion has caused enough problems, so they have no right to dictate. Marriage does not just relate to religion, again, i am not religious but am married and see no difference today why John and Paul can not say the same....as long as they do not try and enforce it in the church!

Where do you think the term "marriage" comes from? It is a religious sacrament. So whether or not you are religious, you were a participant in a religious ceremony. I myself would not participate in any religious ceremony i did not believe in. Just because these days marriages performed by/in the church are "ratified" by the state/country they are performed in does not make them any less religious.

If gay marriage was legal, once a church refused to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation they could be prosecuted for breaching human rights. They could argue freedom of religion, but either way someones human rights will be breached. Why not leave things the way they are, where we are all equal and none of these issues would arise.

And just a side point, i was wondering if shakespeare was wrong with the "rose" line? Does the name matter more than the substance? In other words, would we still appreciate roses if they were called stinkers?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you think the term "marriage" comes from? It is a religious sacrament. So whether or not you are religious, you were a participant in a religious ceremony. I myself would not participate in any religious ceremony i did not believe in. Just because these days marriages performed by/in the church are "ratified" by the state/country they are performed in does not make them any less religious.

First of, marriage is not a term owned by any religion and it predates all current ones. The ceremony is only religious if you choose it to be.

Marriage has, of course, changed a great deal. It is an institution built on change. When it originally came about, it was about the man claiming ownership of the woman. Now it is about love, women have to consent to marry, marriages can be also be terminated by either or both parties and interacial and interfaith marriages are legal. All these are fairly new things as far as the instituion of marriage is concerned, yet most people are happy with those changes. On top of that marital rape is now illegal.

Now all those changes have happened and they have made marriage better. This change is just the latest in the long line and the opposition is largely down to name calling.

Reigions opinions on marriage simply don't matter. As I've said beore, catholics won't marry divorcees, but that doesn't stop divorcees marrying.

As mariage is a civil insistitution not a religious one (marriage is only legal with a lisence from the government) it's up to the government not any reigion to decide on marriage.

If gay marriage was legal, once a church refused to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation they could be prosecuted for breaching human rights. They could argue freedom of religion, but either way someones human rights will be breached. Why not leave things the way they are, where we are all equal and none of these issues would arise.

That's a p*** poor arguement. In all the countries gay marriage is legal not once has such a case been fought for and won. Yet reigious grops happen like the opposite has happened.

Here in the Uk religious groups will have an opt in and, I'll bold for emphasise here, those that don't can't be prosecuted and they can't be forced to. Such clauses are common in gay marriage laws to cover that specific point.

Originally the law was going to be a blanket ban that no church coud perform marriages, until some groups pointed out that they actually want to be able to marry people.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of, marriage is not a term owned by any religion and it predates all current ones. The ceremony is only religious if you choose it to be.

Marriage has, of course, changed a great deal. It is an institution built on change. When it originally came about, it was about the man claiming ownership of the woman. Now it is about love, women have to consent to marry, marriages can be also be terminated by either or both parties and interacial and interfaith marriages are legal. All these are fairly new things as far as the instituion of marriage is concerned, yet most people are happy with those changes. On top of that marital rape is now illegal.

Now all those changes have happened and they have made marriage better. This change is just the latest in the long line and the opposition is largely down to name calling.

Reigions opinions on marriage simply don't matter. As I've said beore, catholics won't marry divorcees, but that doesn't stop divorcees marrying.

That's a p*** poor arguement. In all the countries gay marriage is legal not once has such a case been fought for and won. Yet reigious grops happen like the opposite has happened.

Here in the Uk religious groups will have an opt in and, I'll bold for emphasise here, those that don't can't be prosecuted and they can't be forced to. Such clauses are common in gay marriage laws to cover that specific point.

Originally the law was going to be a blanket ban that no church coud perform marriages, until some groups pointed out that they actually want to be able to marry people.

I want to start this post disputing some of your points. In red. My partner was (and still is) married in the Philippines. There is no devorce. Her husband, although he has another partner and children, does not consent to a mutual separation. Her assets are therefore still with him. She can get a deforce here (at much cost), but it will not count for anything in filipino law. This is because of the RELIGIOUS beliefs in that country. Funny isn't it, when you so elegantly point out that religion has nothing to do with marriage......

Are you really saying that marriage has no connection to religion? Its connection to religion is why i would rather have a civil union than a marriage. The changes in law you have referred to are all about updating the law and applying it to a marriage contract. None of which i disagree with. But none of the changes have revolutionised marriage enough to change its definition.

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to start this thread disputing some of your points. In red. My partner was (and still is) married in the Philippines. There is no devorce. Her husband, although he has another partner and children, does not consent to a mutual separation. Her assets are therefore still with him. She can get a deforce here (at much cost), but it will not count for anything in filipino law. This is because of the RELIGIOUS beliefs in that country. Funny isn't it, when you so elegantly point out that religion has nothing to do with marriage......

In countries where religious belief has a stranglehold over the country then yes, you'll see it has laws along the lines of that religion (not just about marriage). That's unfortunate as religion should always be serperate ffrom government.

Are you really saying that marriage has no connection to religion? Its connection to religion is why i would rather have a civil union than a marriage. The changes in law you have referred to are all about updating the law and applying it to a marriage contract. None of which i disagree with. But none of the changes have revolutionised marriage enough to change its definition.

Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Marriage does have a connection with religion, but it is not OWNED by religion. In much the same way that funerals are connected to religion, but funerals aren't owned by religion.

All those updates to marriage have actually changed the definition of marriage. For example originally marriage could be defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race and same religion. The update to interracial and interfaith marriage removed the later two clauses making it between a man and a woman. This is just another change to the deinition that one day people will look back on and wonder why it wasn't there already (like we do about interacial marriages being illegal).

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

It basically comes under the whole concept of 'serperate but equal' thing. A lot of gay people see civil partnerships/unions as a second rate version marriage. It's not seen as being the same as marriage, it's seen as something that's created simply to appease religious people.

We're lucky here in the Uk. Civil partnerships are pretty much identical to marriages in legal terms. But theres a lot of places where the differences between civil unions and marriage is quite staggering and glaring.

Now you say you'd be happy in a civil union. That's your choice and the important thing there is choice. You can choose to have a marriage or a civil union. Yet do gay people have that choice? For the most part, no.

Let me ask you something directly: would you be comfortable telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry, that they could only have a civil union and that all such marriages were now civil unions? Do you think those people would react positively to that? And if so, why not? After all it is just 'semantics' isn't it?

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you something directly: would you be comfortable telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry, that they could only have a civil union and that all such marriages were now civil unions? Do you think those people would react positively to that? And if so, why not? After all it is just 'semantics' isn't it?

It up to a person to decide what they do within the law. I would talk to any person who wants to get married about their reasons and ask if they feel comfortable proping up a religious sacrament when there is a perfect alternative without the religious overtones.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy answer is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now the real question is, why change the definition of marriage when there is already ceremonies availiable that grant you the exact same rights.

So this thread is not about equal rights, its about the name of the ceremony. Hence me saying "a rose by any other name..." except that in this case it obviously doesn't smell as sweet to some.

When studying rocks you use Geology, when studying marriage you use Anthropology. So:

The anthropological definition of marriage is –

A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Such marriage rights and obligations most often include, but are not limited to sex, labor, property, child rearing, exchange, and status. Thus defined, marriage is universal.

I don't see anything about men and women or anything abut religion in that, do you?

This thread is about rights. You are the one arguing semantics, and out dated wrong ones at that.

It is widely accepted throughout the world that marriage is between a man and a woman. People who have same sex ceremonies have the same rights. What difference does the name make?

Actually the most wanted form of marriage throughout the world is polygamy.

So i will ask you directly. Why is there a need to call a same sex couples ceremony a "Marriage"? What right are we denying homosexuals?

You're trying to deny them their right to marry the one they love.

It up to a person to decide what they do within the law. I would talk to any person who wants to get married about their reasons and ask if they feel comfortable proping up a religious sacrament when there is a perfect alternative without the religious overtones.

That’s not really an answer. You just side stepped the question.

"Would you be fine telling non-religious hetrosexals that they can't marry?"

Edited by Odin11
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separation of Church and State SHOULD be adhered to. A State should not have any authority over a Church (when operating within Common Law) and vice versa.

Gay Marriage - no issues at all, it is the affirmation of love and consent between 2 people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage. A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it. Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes. On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage. One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords. Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

Thankfully christians don't control the country and not every christian believes as you do.

During the consultation prcess several christian groups actually wanted same sex amrriags to happen and wanted to perform them (hence religious marriages beig allowed)

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

This is a misnomer The government deals with many issues at the same time. Dealing with gay marriage doesn't mean the goverment's not dealing with the economy, immigration and europe and other issues anymore than when the goverment tackles any other issue. Of course the other issues are important, but the government doesn't grind to a halt to deal with one issue at a time. If that was the case the government would be pretty ineffective.

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage. A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it. Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Polls seem to be all over the place. I've seen at least half a dozen that have said anywhere from 58-78+% of people have been in favor. The majority of gay people (when asked) are in favor, I dunno where you've got that from.

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes. On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage. One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords. Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

What world are you living in? No one is trying to underimine traditional marriage. That's like saying your marriage is under threat because a pair of people you've never met, but are divorced, married too. Get a grip.

Also you would do well to recall that traditional marriage (as we know it) is actually a fairly new concept. For the most part marriages have had nothing to do with love and the woman had no say in who they married. Do you honestly want marriage to take a time warp and become static? And do you honestly think that married hetrosexuals would support you?

Personally we need more seperation of church and state so the church can't threaten that. However there is an act of parliament that can get around the house of lords decision and the equalities minister has said they were willing to use it if necessary so it really is a childish, empty threat.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian I am completely against gay marriage and also homosexuality.

The government is wrong to try and get gay marriage legalised in Britain and there are far more important things that the government should be concentrating on rather than this, such as the economy, immigration and the EUSSR.

Also, polls show that the majority of the British people are against gay marriage. A poll on Sky News the other day showed that 58% of people are against it. Not only that, but even the majority of gay people are against it.

Britain's ruling Left Wing Establishment has bizarre thought processes. On the one hand it is against traditional, heterosexual marriage and does eveything it can to undermine it, despite the fact that children brought up with a married mother and father get on better in life and are less likely to be involved in crime, whereas on the other hand it is doing everything it can to legalise gay marriage. One good example of this is how the Left, such as the LibDems and Labour, are against the Tories' plans for tax breaks for married couples to try and get more heterosexual couples to marry (almost every other European country has some form of tax break for married heterosexual couples), whilst at the same time they are trying to put forward legislation to legalise gay marriage.

Thankfully, though, it is highly unlikely that the gay marriage bill will progress through the Lords. Remember, there are Church of England clergy in the Lords and they will do all they can to kill off the bill.

The Tories are attempting to play for the votes of minority groups instead of actually representing the regular British people. All they need to do is stop immigration, exit the EU and start our rise back to prominance and they'd take 80% of the votes at the next election. But sadly they dont for some bizarre reason.

Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. Therefore gay marriage is also a sin. The Church of England will block it in the House of Lords just like they block assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. I too dont think it will even get that far as the House of Commons will throw it out due to low support. You are very much right that the majority of people in this country dont want gay marriage and neither do most of the gays.

I suspect its a small number of 'in your face' homosexuals trying to rub the Churches nose in it by undermining marriage. I dont know why Cameron is alienating large numbers of voters to please a smaller number. But then again his strategical thinking clearly isnt any good as he didnt manage a majority at the last election!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories are attempting to play for the votes of minority groups instead of actually representing the regular British people. All they need to do is stop immigration, exit the EU and start our rise back to prominance and they'd take 80% of the votes at the next election. But sadly they dont for some bizarre reason.

Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. Therefore gay marriage is also a sin. The Church of England will block it in the House of Lords just like they block assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. I too dont think it will even get that far as the House of Commons will throw it out due to low support. You are very much right that the majority of people in this country dont want gay marriage and neither do most of the gays.

I suspect its a small number of 'in your face' homosexuals trying to rub the Churches nose in it by undermining marriage. I dont know why Cameron is alienating large numbers of voters to please a smaller number. But then again his strategical thinking clearly isnt any good as he didnt manage a majority at the last election!

Sin is a human creation, just as marriage is.

As humans we get to choose what concepts will govern our lives. The time is right to accept that we are all born with equal rights to form partnerships with whoever our biological urges dictate.

This is about equality before the law and it will get passed, if not this time, then some time in the near future. The times are a changing and human dignity is the new guiding principle.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. Therefore gay marriage is also a sin.

So? The bible says many things are sins, yet the law does not agree The bible says sex before marriage is a sin, yet sex before marriage is legal (as an example). So sorry, becase the bible says so is not an excuse you can use here because the bible is not law. If we locked up everyone who sinned everyone (yourself included) would be in jail or have a criminal record.

Edited by shadowhive
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sin is a human creation, just as marriage is.

As humans we get to choose what concepts will govern our lives. The time is right to accept that we are all born with equal rights to form partnerships with whoever our biological urges dictate.

This is about equality before the law and it will get passed, if not this time, then some time in the near future. The times are a changing and human dignity is the new guiding principle.

Br Cornelius

In the UK the House of Commons proposes a bill and votes on it. Then for it to become law it needs to go through the House of Lords for a vote there too. Often there is much revision back and forth until it gets to the point where the House of Lords agrees to pass a finished bill.

In the UK the Church of England holds no power in the House of Commons but it does in the House of Lords. The Archbishop of Canterbury and prominant religious figures all have seats there.

In the UK legal process the House of Lords sits at the top not the House of Commons. Therefore you can only appeal to the House of Lords and thus if you are pushing for gay marriage or assisted suicide or something else at odds with Christainity it gets blocked. As they always have been. This isnt the US the Church isnt seperated from the state.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? The bible says many things are sins, yet the law does not agree The bible says sex before marriage is a sin, yet sex before marriage is legal (as an example). So sorry, becase the bible says so is not an excuse you can use here because the bible is not law. If we locked up everyone who sinned everyone (yourself included) would be in jail or have a criminal record.

What sin have I committed?

The Bible does not say all sins are on an equal footing. It quite clearly tells us homosexuality is abomination and a grave mortal sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sin have I committed?

The Bible does not say all sins are on an equal footing. It quite clearly tells us homosexuality is abomination and a grave mortal sin.

There's so many you've bound to have done something. The bible is manufactured in such a way to guarantee we're all sinners.

And the bible has been (gasp) wrong before. The bible says that the world was created in 7 days, that there was a talking snake, that at least two of every animal species fit on a boat.

The bible says says that a man that lies with another man should be stoned. Now what do you think would happen to you if you stoned a gay man to death in this country? Do you think you'd be arrested and locked up or let of because you did what the bible said?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK the House of Commons proposes a bill and votes on it. Then for it to become law it needs to go through the House of Lords for a vote there too. Often there is much revision back and forth until it gets to the point where the House of Lords agrees to pass a finished bill.

In the UK the Church of England holds no power in the House of Commons but it does in the House of Lords. The Archbishop of Canterbury and prominant religious figures all have seats there.

In the UK legal process the House of Lords sits at the top not the House of Commons. Therefore you can only appeal to the House of Lords and thus if you are pushing for gay marriage or assisted suicide or something else at odds with Christainity it gets blocked. As they always have been. This isnt the US the Church isnt seperated from the state.

The Bishops hold a small share of the power in the Lords. The assumption you make is that they would automatically vote against the will of the nation as expressed by the House of Commons. I think you are wrong on this and these two factors will mean that the Bill will ultimately go through both houses.

Ultimately the House of Lords can only ever delay the will of the House of Commons.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are no longer a Christian nation - we are an overwhelmingly secular nation with minority religious sections.

Those of a religious disposition have no more right to dictate the nations behaviour than the secular majority.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption you make is that they would automatically vote against the will of the nation

The bishops would not be voting against the will of the nation. The majority of the British people are AGAINST gay marriage.

But it was mentioned on Sky News last night that the Bill is going to find it very difficult to get through the Lords.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of a religious disposition have no more right to dictate the nations behaviour than the secular majority.

And Britain has clergymen in its parliament representing Britain's national and established Church, so religious personnel DO have a say on laws.

There are 25 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords and they will all be against the Bill. So, too, will the vast majority of the 212 Tory Lords.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sin is a human creation

Christians will disgree with you. Sin is the violation of God's will.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so many you've bound to have done something. The bible is manufactured in such a way to guarantee we're all sinners.

And the bible has been (gasp) wrong before. The bible says that the world was created in 7 days, that there was a talking snake, that at least two of every animal species fit on a boat.

The bible says says that a man that lies with another man should be stoned. Now what do you think would happen to you if you stoned a gay man to death in this country? Do you think you'd be arrested and locked up or let of because you did what the bible said?

If I was on trial for stoning some guy I would refuse to take the oath on the Bible. Why? In the Bible it tells us that swearing oaths on the Bible or in Gods name is actually a serious sin. So unable to get me to swear to tell the truth on trial there would be serious problems in legal proceedings. If I got held in contempt I'd have the judge for religious discrimination as he requires me to violate my faith.

I wouldnt stone the guy anyway. I prefer to bury my head in the sand instead.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Britain has clergymen in its parliament representing Britain's national and established Church, so religious personnel DO have a say on laws.

There are 25 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords and they will all be against the Bill. So, too, will the vast majority of the 212 Tory Lords.

Just because theyre Tory doesn't mean they'll vote against it. Around about half of the Tory party voted for it in the house of commons.

The bishops would not be voting against the will of the nation. The majority of the British people are AGAINST gay marriage.

But it was mentioned on Sky News last night that the Bill is going to find it very difficult to get through the Lords.

Polls are an odd thing. Thre was a poll recently by a catholic group but the poll was amiguous. It was worded something like 'do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman?' Which people voted overwhelming yes on. But do you see the problem with that questio? It's missing a key word: only and that means the results don't say anything about gay marriage, just regular marriage. An yet it was quoted time and again as if it meant something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bishops hold a small share of the power in the Lords. The assumption you make is that they would automatically vote against the will of the nation as expressed by the House of Commons. I think you are wrong on this and these two factors will mean that the Bill will ultimately go through both houses.

Ultimately the House of Lords can only ever delay the will of the House of Commons.

Br Cornelius

You live in a constituitional monarchy not a republic. The higher chamber makes the laws and holds the power not the lower one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was on trial for stoning some guy I would refuse to take the oath on the Bible. Why? In the Bible it tells us that swearing oaths on the Bible or in Gods name is actually a serious sin. So unable to get me to swear to tell the truth on trial there would be serious problems in legal proceedings. If I got held in contempt I'd have the judge for religious discrimination as he requires me to violate my faith.

I would stone the guy anyway. I prefer to bury my head in the sand instead.

Murder's a serious sin and it is also a serious crime. Even if the murder is religiously motivated. Would you expect a muslim that committed an 'honor killing' to get a free pass because their religion oks it?

Religion does not work as an excuse to murder people freely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murder's a serious sin and it is also a serious crime. Even if the murder is religiously motivated. Would you expect a muslim that committed an 'honor killing' to get a free pass because their religion oks it?

Religion does not work as an excuse to murder people freely.

By the way the would was a typo which I've corrected. Its wouldnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.