Should gay marrige be allowed?

burnleymik

Civil Ceremony is virtually the same thing. It seems to me like some homosexual couples insist on pushing their beliefs and thoughts down everyone else's throat under the terms of 'Equal Rights'. If a religion doesn't believe in same sex marriages, then that is their prerogative, whether you agree with it or not, you should not be able to force them into a practice they do not believe in or agree with.

By engaging in a Civil Ceremony, they are committing to all the exact same things as a Marriage, just without the religious overtones.

System

burnleymik wrote: »

If a religion doesn't believe in same sex marriages, then that is their prerogative, whether you agree with it or not, you should not be able to force them into a practice they do not believe in or agree with."

BUT...what if said religion believes in, for example, stoning adulterers to death? Is that ok then? no dissent, no change, no progress, no human rights because 'religion' is 'static' ?

We are no longer living in biblical times when the words of the bible were taken literally, if we were many of the women on this site would be 'outside society' and ostracised accordingly by the church...including me ( single mum = fallen woman lol.)

burnleymik

Forcing them to introduce something that is a moral issue is completely different from allowing them to practice illegal activities.

Would you force a muslim to eat Pork because that is what you believe in?

MamaMoo_2

burnleymik wrote: »

By engaging in a Civil Ceremony, they are committing to all the exact same things as a Marriage, just without the religious overtones.

Not true. A civil marriage (between a man & woman) is a non religious marriage, however homosexuals cannot have the same ceremony etc. They must have a civil union
They are not classed as married, but are just given the legal status of a married couple, and it's there that the problem lies. Gay people aren't getting married just for legal rights, they're getting married to be a married couple, whatever that means to them personally.
To me, my marriage symbolised love, commitment, and affirming my feelings in front of my family and friends. It meant far more than legal wording. It was a celebration.
I'm happy and proud to announce "I'm married!", something which homosexuals cannot do, as they're legally not married, and that's not fair. Bearing in mind that a civil marriage has no religious connotations, I cannot understand why homosexuals are denied this kind of union.
I also see no reason why religious homosexual weddings should not be allowed by law. I don't think law should come into it.
If certain religions have priests etc who are willing to conduct said ceremonies, and if particular branches of a religion condone homosexuality (in practice) then there shouldn't be any reason for the law to step in and stop a religious union from occurring.
Similarly, though, I don't believe the law should be able to force the church etc into performing any such ceremony that they didn't want to.
If a fundamental belief of a religion is that homosexuality is wrong, then they should have the right to deny any ceremonies. It would be equally as unfair to force Jews to eat non-Kosher food.
I agree that the church has to move on with certain issues, such as stoning adulterers (although is that a religious belief? Did Jesus not say "Let him without sin cast the first stone") but when the church as a whole condemns an activity, you cannot force that religion to re-write itself based on what the government tells them to.
At the same time, I can't see why homosexuals would want to marry in front of a God and a religion who condemned their lifestyle, and even their very existence.

Ben84

burnleymik wrote: »

Civil Ceremony is virtually the same thing. It seems to me like some homosexual couples insist on pushing their beliefs and thoughts down everyone else's throat under the terms of 'Equal Rights'. If a religion doesn't believe in same sex marriages, then that is their prerogative, whether you agree with it or not, you should not be able to force them into a practice they do not believe in or agree with.

By engaging in a Civil Ceremony, they are committing to all the exact same things as a Marriage, just without the religious overtones.

To let one group dictate when, how and where religious ideas are used while stopping another group from using them is basically granting ownership of the religious concepts. So, who do you believe owns religious ideas?

So far large religious groups have bought about the decision that registry office weddings cannot refer to anything religious in the ceremony, and some religions also want to restrict the idea of marriage to straight couples. Why exactly are religious groups being allowed to influence the way people get married in registry offices? Registry offices are not officially owned or controlled by any religious groups and many atheists and people of diverse religious beliefs (not always related to a major religion) get married there. What next, consult Christians on how Hindus (arbitrary examples) are allowed to get married? It would seem fair to conclude that these religious groups who are affecting how marriages take place in registry offices are the intruders, not the other way around. The people they're trying to affect have not chosen their idea of religion.

Now the major question is do they or anyone for that matter have the right to claim ownership to the religious ideas to the extent that they can dictate when and where they're used or not?

So, if we do conclude that religious groups do own religious concepts, as they seem to be claiming and getting away with right now, I predict a bit of a fight over Jesus... or should that be Jesus with a little copyright (c) and some attached terms and conditions regarding use?

burnleymik

MamaMoo wrote: »

Not true. A civil marriage (between a man & woman) is a non religious marriage, however homosexuals cannot have the same ceremony etc. They must have a civil union
They are not classed as married, but are just given the legal status of a married couple, and it's there that the problem lies. Gay people aren't getting married just for legal rights, they're getting married to be a married couple, whatever that means to them personally.
To me, my marriage symbolised love, commitment, and affirming my feelings in front of my family and friends. It meant far more than legal wording. It was a celebration.
I'm happy and proud to announce "I'm married!", something which homosexuals cannot do, as they're legally not married, and that's not fair. Bearing in mind that a civil marriage has no religious connotations, I cannot understand why homosexuals are denied this kind of union.
I also see no reason why religious homosexual weddings should not be allowed by law. I don't think law should come into it.
If certain religions have priests etc who are willing to conduct said ceremonies, and if particular branches of a religion condone homosexuality (in practice) then there shouldn't be any reason for the law to step in and stop a religious union from occurring.
Similarly, though, I don't believe the law should be able to force the church etc into performing any such ceremony that they didn't want to.
If a fundamental belief of a religion is that homosexuality is wrong, then they should have the right to deny any ceremonies.
At the same time, I can't see why homosexuals would want to marry in front of a God and a religion who condemned their lifestyle, and even their very existence.

Ok, fair points. I didn't realise it was was called Civil Union specifically.

I concede and agree then that Civil Marriages should be allowed, but fully agree with your last point RE the Church weddings.

MamaMoo_2

burnleymik wrote: »

Forcing them to introduce something that is a moral issue is completely different from allowing them to practice illegal activities.

Would you force a muslim to eat Pork because that is what you believe in?

I agree with you on this point. I think what worries me is if religious marriage was legalised, and religions could be forced to allow homosexuals to marry in that religion, or else risk breaking laws re human rights

System

I hate to quibble ( but I do a lot of it lol)

"I can't see why homosexuals would want to marry in front of a God and a religion who condemned their lifestyle, and even their very existence. "

God hasn't actually spoken on the matter! Only the authors of the bible and their interpreters since have...but since God 'creates' the person ( if one is truly religious one cannot argue that point) then God creates the straight/homosexual/bi-sexual...it ISN'T a 'career choice' or indeed a lifestyle or moral one...what you are is what you are.

MamaMoo_2

Purbeck wrote: »

I hate to quibble ( but I do a lot of it lol)

"I can't see why homosexuals would want to marry in front of a God and a religion who condemned their lifestyle, and even their very existence. "

God hasn't actually spoken on the matter! Only the authors of the bible and their interpreters since have...but since God 'creates' the person ( if one is truly religious one cannot argue that point) then God creates the straight/homosexual/bi-sexual...it ISN'T a 'career choice' or indeed a lifestyle or moral one...what you are is what you are.

Although you say "God hasn't actually spoken on the matter", I know that I, as a Catholic, believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the God in the Bible is the God who Catholics believe in. There for, as a Catholic, I believe that my God views homosexuality as a sin. (please be aware that although I am a Catholic, this is not a view I share) and therefore when I got married, I did so in a non-religious ceremony, as I did not want to marry in front of a God who would disagree with my lifestyle choice, even if the physical and spiritual act of marriage was occurring between an 'accepted' coupling. (I'm not homosexual, but my husband and I are bisexual, and I didn't want my marriage condemned by my God. It's a long and unnecessary story...)

Similarly, I cannot understand why a homosexual would want to affirm their relationship in front of a god who does not agree with their relationship (Assuming as above that belief in a religion, or branch of a religion, is belief in the ideas of their god as put forward in holy scriptures etc)

Should there be a branch of a religion that condones homosexuality (there are shedloads of branches of Christianity alone, each with an individual interpretation of scripture, and each with an individual idea of what their god believes) then by all means, marry under that God, or that interpretation of a God.

System

Do you cover your hair MamaMoo?...St Paul says one should ( but very few Christian 'branches' follow that edict, even in the place of worship now) ...but is that his word or God? This is the stumbling block for me, thank God, that I read what is there and know I personally cannot believe it is all the authentic word of a compassionate God. There are too many contradictions, too much pity in Jesus for me to believe he would condemn someone for loving...

Think I'd better stick to the money threads lol...

but to all...may your God go with you