Gay Marriage

[Scouse]

So, let me get this straight rynnor.

You in one post say it's not true and then in your second you rebuff your own argument?

Nice. I'll have what you're smoking

 

[rynnor]

So, let me get this straight rynnor.

You in one post say it's not true and then in your second you rebuff your own argument?

Nice. I'll have what you're smoking

The village would have had a broader genetic pool than cousins and who knows how long they have been exclusively marrying cousins?

My point is there are far more hazardous mixes than isolated incest but we keep it illegal because of ?

I was brought up being told homosexuality was abhorrent and illegal by society and now its fine - its clear that immorality has no objective basis so why do we still have laws based on a disregarded religious view?

 

[Scouse]

My point is there are far more hazardous mixes than isolated incest but we keep it illegal because of ?

We keep it illegal because "isolated incest", which IS incredibly dicey, could very quickly and easily become a long term family affair.

 

[rynnor]

We keep it illegal because "isolated incest", which IS incredibly dicey, could very quickly and easily become a long term family affair.

Yet we allow cousin inbreeding? I'm not seeing a clear divide here from a logical viewpoint.

 

[Job]

The last civilisation that went for a free for all was Rome...just sayin.

 

[Wij]

Legally no they are the same with the same rights. A Civil Partnership is like getting married but at a Registrars Office rather than a Church. The only reason to force the Church to allow same sex marriages is because you can. As has been said why do you need to get married in a building where the religion says what you are doing is wrong? It is like suing to make a Synagogue allow me to have a hog roast there. I do not need to have it there but because I can't I need to fight it. If the gays really are looking for acceptance they need to realise they are already accepted by the majority and shit like this is not necessary.

There's been marriage outside of church since before there was marriage IN church and marriage outside of church still exists. I didn't get married in a church. What the fuck business is it of the church if marriages outside of it are between same-sex couples?

 

[Aoami]

What the fuck business is it of the church if marriages outside of it are between same-sex couples?

Absolutely none. I do believe that gay couples should have the same marriage rights as straight couples in the eyes of law, but the act of getting married inside a church is different.

 

[soze]

There's been marriage outside of church since before there was marriage IN church and marriage outside of church still exists. I didn't get married in a church. What the fuck business is it of the church if marriages outside of it are between same-sex couples?

If a gay couple want to get "Married" in a Registrars Office I doubt the Church would give a single fuck. It is people trying to force the Church to allow same sex marriage that I am against. But some people call it a Civil Partnership when done by the council and a Marriage when done by the church.

 

[Wij]

If a gay couple want to get "Married" in a Registrars Office I doubt the Church would give a single fuck. It is people trying to force the Church to allow same sex marriage that I am against. But some people call it a Civil Partnership when done by the council and a Marriage when done by the church.

Wrong. Most of the opposition from the religious is that gay marriage should not be allowed anywhere. Read what they actually say.

The bill will not force any religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages.

 

[Raven]

You could argue the church should not be allowed to ban gay couples due to their sexuality, in the same way B&B owners can't.

What if it was blacks they decided they didn't like because of some voodoo mumbo jumbo?

 

[Wij]

You could argue the church should not be allowed to ban gay couples due to their sexuality, in the same way B&B owners can't.

If it was me I would, but that's not what's in the bill so they should shut the fuck up.

 

[Ormorof]

apparently a lot of the kerfuffle is over the way divorce laws work apparently there is no legally defined way for a gay relationship to be consummated... (yes i laughed at this one too)

also it seems there is no legally defined term for gay adultery...

I for one dont see why not, if straights can get married outside of a church why shouldnt gays too? Churches shouldnt be forced to perform gay marriages, they have a right to refuse anyone they like (gay or otherwise) but if the various religions had any sense of the way this one is swinging they would leave it up to the individual priest to perform blessings at their own discretion, thus all you have to do is find a non swivel eyed loon priest and voila, gay marriage in a church

 

[soze]

Wrong. Most of the opposition from the religious is that gay marriage should not be allowed anywhere. Read what they actually say.

The bill will not force any religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages.

Poorly worded. My opinion is that Same Sex marriage or civil partnerships should be 100% legal. It is nobody's business to tell someone who they love. So in a Registrars Office I do not believe that the Church should have any say in blocking marriage. In the same way local government should have no say in forcing a church to allow it. So all in all gay marriage has no place in a church unless we are going to force Mosques to let Women go in there uncovered wearing boots. Not saying it is on the cards but it was the direction of the thread.

 

[DaGaffer]

The last civilisation that went for a free for all was Rome...just sayin.

You probably shouldn't take history lessons from Hollywood and Spartacus episodes.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think there seems to be some misunderstanding here; the new laws don't force the Church to do anything; any church can refuse to marry a couple, any couple, on any grounds (for instance I can't get married in a Catholic church because I'm divorced), and this law doesn't change that. If any particular church wants to allow gay marriage, that's an internal issue for that church to decide. Eventually the Church of England will leave it to individual priests (as they do with divorcees), whilst the more reactionary faiths will keep it banned.

 

[Raven]

Correct, however If they come out and say it is because you're gay, they should be prosecuted accordingly. (imo)

 

[Adari]

You could argue the church should not be allowed to ban gay couples due to their sexuality, in the same way B&B owners can't.

What if it was blacks they decided they didn't like because of some voodoo mumbo jumbo?

This. It's about equality, even if this would be untraditional. There's a lot in the bible that people don't adhere to anymore because of modern standards.

Also: equal rights do constitute social acceptance in any way. The legal side of things is taken care of in most western european states but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Killswitch]

For pretty much any argument against gay marriage (or, as I fervently hope it will soon be renamed, marriage) you can replace the word "gay" with "interracial" and then see if it still makes sense. For a long time blacks were considered inferior or even a different race entirely and sex between a black man and white woman would be seen as little better than bestiality. I think we've managed to just about overcome that little social hurdle except for some places in the Deep South (like Finchley).

The idea that gay marriage is somehow some kind of gateway drug into legalised paedophilia, bestiality, devil worship and so on seems a little far-fetched to me. The idea that because we allow same-sex adult couples to say they are married we are somehow going to forget about the notion of informed consent just doesn't seem likely somehow.

The simple answer (in my mind anyway) is to have a single marriage (or civil partnership...or blarghspangle...or whatever you want to call it) which is a legal, witnessed agreement entered into by two consenting adults. This should be the *only* thing which carries any weight of law behind it in terms of pensions, tax credits, power of attorney, inheritance or anything else. Then you can have a ceremony in a hotel, church, synagogue, mosque, field, dive bar or on the bottom of the Thames in an giant inflatable model of Harold Bishop from Neighbours and say whatever words make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That would seem to cover all the bases, as far as I am concerned. I would like to see this idea of "premises licensed for marriage" vanish as well. It seems very arbitrary to me.

I'm somewhat divided on the issue of allowed people or institutions to opt-out of discrimination legislation on the basis of some very selective cherry-picking from a book which may or may not have been divinely inspired two-thousand years ago or more. It would be fun (but not constructive) to allow churches to refuse to marry homosexual couples but only if they also accept every other proscription from Leviticus. So no gays married in your church but only if you also don't eat seafood, lie about anything ever, eat any fat, reap crops from the edge of your field (or herb garden, I suppose), grow different things in your field (or herb garden), wear any clothes made of blended fabrics, shave, work on a Sunday, blaspheme or sell land. That'd soon show how serious these people were about their "Thou Shalt Not" theology.

To be honest, I believe that pretty much all arguments against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, discussion of homosexuality in schools and so on can basically be boiled down to a single, very simple argument which I shall state clearly for the record;

"EEEEEEWWWWWWWWW ICKY!!!!"

This whole "religion says this", "we shouldn't mess with tradition", "you never read about Adam and Steve" and so on just seem like fancy dungarees on the above.

 

[TdC]

That'd soon show how serious these people were about their "Thou Shalt Not" theology.

yeah that's the whole point, no? Selective bible bashing I mean. screw that shit.

 

[Killswitch]

yeah that's the whole point, no? Selective bible bashing I mean. screw that shit.

While it might be a tad vulgar to point out, at the most basic level it is in fact the urge to "screw that shit" that got us in this ungodly mess in the first place...

I'll get my coat.

 

[Turamber]

They can call it what they want, whether God accepts same sex couples are married is quite another thing. Does seem odd that the Government are so determined to push through something that wasn't in their manifesto though, no wonder the party faithful are unhappy about it.

 

[TdC]

weeeelll ok, there is that. I wasn't even being facetious

 

[TdC]

whether God accepts same sex couples are married is quite another thing.

Who will let us know that? tbh I'm willing to let the LGBT people face whatever they have coming when they meet their maker, just like I am doing myself.

 

[Raven]

God supposedly doesn't accept all sorts of every day stuff, he also requires all sorts of horrible stuff. The church will change eventually, as it has in the past...most will any way. Those that don't will sink (even further) into obscurity.

 

[Killswitch]

God supposedly doesn't accept all sorts of every day stuff, he also requires all sorts of horrible stuff. The church will change eventually, as it has in the past...most will any way. Those that don't will sink (even further) into obscurity.

So ironically the Church needs to evolve in order to compete for resources in an ever-changing environment. I bet Darwin is having a good old chuckle somewhere.

They can call it what they want, whether God accepts same sex couples are married is quite another thing. Does seem odd that the Government are so determined to push through something that wasn't in their manifesto though, no wonder the party faithful are unhappy about it.

I don't believe the manifesto is designed to be a compete guide to all future law that can ever exist. The Tory manifesto was about 130 pages (I think) and I would expect that they've probably around passed substantially more than 130 pieces of legislation. Maybe they didn't think this would be a big deal.

 

[Raven]

It is constantly evolving depending on society. If they had their way they would still be torturing non believers and scientists and scamming the poor.

 

[Scouse]

The last civilisation that went for a free for all was Rome...just sayin.

Are you seriously saying Rome fell because of botty sex?

 

[Turamber]

It is constantly evolving depending on society. If they had their way they would still be torturing non believers and scientists and scamming the poor.

Why not go back to the true Christian path, that of Jesus and his disciples? The Roman Catholic church is more Roman than Christian after all.

 

[Raven]

That would be fine but then wouldn't you have to remove most of the organised part of the religion? And un-rewrite half the bible?

 

[Killswitch]

God supposedly doesn't accept all sorts of every day stuff, he also requires all sorts of horrible stuff. The church will change eventually, as it has in the past...most will any way. Those that don't will sink (even further) into obscurity.

Organized religion is increasingly becoming a rather cringeworthy parody of itself, to the point where I think Jon Stewart has a pretty good chance of being elected the next pope.

In a more serious vein, it seems that religious people are increasingly breaking into two distinct groups; the loud, lunatic fringe and the slightly embarrassed, moderate middle. There are many reasons for this, certainly in the US, of which one is the Tea Party movement and the other is the apparent realisation by several Christian leaders that the core tenets of Christianity are fundamentally (*snigger*) incompatible with what could be viewed as a more modern viewpoint. To explain what I mean, consider this fairly simple argument;

• Theologians calculate the age of the Earth to be around 6000 years (the so-called Young Earth Creationists)
• This date is calculated using timescales from the Bible from Genesis onwards using things like distances travelled and a great deal of "begatting"
• Science disagrees and makes it's own calculations suggesting that the Christians are off by a pretty substantial margin
• Our theologian friends realise something important around this point
• No Garden of Eden
• Therefore no Adam and Eve
• Therefore no Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge
• Therefore no Fall of Man
• Therefore no Original Sin
• Therefore Christ dying on the cross loses any and all meaning
• Therefore Christianity is fundamentally broken

So this has led to a huge doubling-down from the extremely influential "Christian Right" and a pretty big move towards Young Earth Creationism, literal Bible intepretation (you can get a Bachelors Degree in Pre-Flood Geography in the US...) and things like Christian Patriarchy and the Quiverful Movement.