Should gay marrige be allowed?

johnnyboyrebel

youropinioncounts wrote: »

Thats society you have your view others have there's.

as burnleymik said some people view marrige with procreation.

If it had been adam and adam we would not be here would we?

Sorry but I will swear. !!!!!!!!!

Clearly noone has any right to state two people should not be able to get married, same sex or not. Using the "this is just my opinion" cop out is garbage. Opinion does not count on a subject like this as there is only one answer and yours isnt it.

As mentioned earlier, if a couple cannot have children then they also should not be allowed to get married according to your "opinion". I notice yourself or your 1940's themed friends have not commented on that.

Adam and Adam? Why bring a story into this? We are talking reality not a made up fantasy film with talking snakes.

johnnyboyrebel

esuhl wrote: »

My sister got married in a ceremony with no religious element. So it would be perfectly reasonable for a gay couple to do the same.

In fact, there's no reason at all why a gay couple couldn't get married and have a religious element to their ceremony. I can't see why there would be a problem (unless they chose a bigoted religion with teachings that contradict the couple's lifestyle).

I myself got married with no religious element as am strongly against the teachings of Catholicism despite being brought up with it.

There is clearly no reason why a gay couple couldn't do the same.

System

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Sorry but I will swear. !!!!!!!!!

Clearly noone has any right to state two people should not be able to get married, same sex or not. Using the "this is just my opinion" cop out is garbage. Opinion does not count on a subject like this as there is only one answer and yours isnt it.

As mentioned earlier, if a couple cannot have children then they also should not be allowed to get married according to your "opinion". I notice yourself or your 1940's themed friends have not commented on that.

Adam and Adam? Why bring a story into this? We are talking reality not a made up fantasy film with talking snakes.

technically people do have a right to say certain people can't get married. I have no problem with same sex marriage however I would have a problem with a man marrying a minor,or siblings marrying each other!

johnnyboyrebel

goater78 wrote: »

technically people do have a right to say certain people can't get married. I have no problem with same sex marriage however I would have a problem with a man marrying a minor,or siblings marrying each other!

Dont be an idiot. Clearly no-one is saying family members should be able to be married or minors.

The thread is about gay marriage therefore no, people do not have the right to say anything as it has nothing to do with us. If they want to get married then they shall be allowed to.

System

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Dont be an idiot. Clearly no-one is saying family members should be able to be married or minors.

The thread is about gay marriage therefore no, people do not have the right to say anything as it has nothing to do with us. If they want to get married then they shall be allowed to.

You said clearly nobody has the right to say two people can't get married. I was just pointing out that's wrong.....

johnnyboyrebel

goater78 wrote: »

You said clearly nobody has the right to say two people can't get married. I was just pointing out that's wrong.....

Don't be pedantic

poet123

As was pointed out on another thread, the consultation re gay marriage (as opposed to the currently available civil partnership) specifically excludes religions and is purely aimed at the change of a law to enable same sex partnerships to be on an equal footing with civil marriages.

TheSaint_2

It's just another sign of the times.
Let them get married if they want - the civil partnership is exactly the same thing (i think). As long as they don't force a church that does not agree with it to perform a ceremony as that goes against their beliefs.
It is clearly against the teachings in the bible, but then people seem to disregard the bits they don't like.
sigh.

johnnyboyrebel

TheSaint wrote: »

It's just another sign of the times.
Let them get married if they want - the civil partnership is exactly the same thing (i think). As long as they don't force a church that does not agree with it to perform a ceremony as that goes against their beliefs.
It is clearly against the teachings in the bible, but then people seem to disregard the bits they don't like.
sigh.

The bible is just a story, who cares what is written in there. It has no bearing on reality and has no place in the modern world.

essex1990

ian_duncan_smith wrote: »

If you claim to follow a faith then at least stick to the tenants (I don't know if thats how you spell it but you know what I mean) of that faith. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all forbid the practice of Homosexuality. To have a religious element from any of those faiths in a Gay "marriage" would be a joke. It would be like having an element of Klu Klux Klan ritual at a black wedding, or a rabbi in a nazi uniform at a Jewish wedding, just for them to show that they are integrating with other elements of wider society.

Well my local reverend i spoke to said that there is nothing in Christianity that forbids homosexuality. The only references which can be INTERPRETED as such are in the Old Testament (aka The Torah!). He also told me that the bible should not be taken literally as it was written a long time ago by man and not by God himself. He told me that the use and meaning of language can change and that translations of other languages into english are not always accurate.

Sounds like to me the reverand told me there is nothing wrong about being gay and God wouldn't love me any less nor want me to be unhappy.

You will also find that before in Britain it used to be legal to have a handfastening - a 'marriage' for a year and a day initially then renew their vows on the day after to be 'married' for eternity. It was allowed to be between ANYONE old enough to consent and the last country to abolish this was Scotland. Now these ceremonies are no longer legally binding and people are forced to include either a civil ceremony or a registry office signing.

Also the European Court of Human Rights have recently announced that the 'right to marriage' does not extend to homosexuals despite the prologue implying that these are basic rights afforded to every citizen that lives within the European Union. I would argue that the judges that decided that were saying what their personal thoughts about it was not what the European Convention of Human Rights dictated. Interesting that the court which is meant to be championing human rights and equality would give this judgment though. Thankfully none of those judgments are actually binding on any country but are only used as influence - it does however legitimise the homophobes.