Should gay marrige be allowed?

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

The onus is on the poster who claims something is incorrect or confused to give their version. If you don't, that usually means you can't, being disingenuous doesn't alter the conclusion of those who read the comments.

I said it was confused not incorrect you only have a little bit of what being gay is.

Sex is part of any relationship where two people love each other. Being gay isn't a "practice". Do you practise being heterosexual? Or are you just heterosexual.

You really don't get the nuance of debate do you? I said hadn't dismissed the issue you were using to point score, that didn't imply I hadn't dismissed the way you brought it to the table. If you inferred that you were incorrect.

Your "point score" was a valid point to your inference catholic priests are celibate (something that is not natural). It was also stated as a way of refuting religion having a valid say on anything to do with this issue (gay marriage). According to you its just "that old chest nut".

According to religion being gay is "wrong" but molesting/abusing children is ok as long as you don't get caught and when you are caught its still ok we'll protect you.

They are indoctrinated, yet indulge in practices (awaits revised definition here) which are proscribed by those religions. I don't think it is my logic that is flawed.:D

They don't engage in "practices", they do what comes natural to them and they shouldn't be discriminated against because of it.

Religion also forbids the wearing of clothes with two types of material, divorce, sex before marriage, working on sundays, etc, etc. I take it none of the people that do any of the above shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Or are we just discriminating against certain people?

antrobus

poet123 wrote: »

For those for whom marriage has nothing to do with religion there is a civil alternative.

esuhl wrote: »

No there isn't - not if they're heterosexual.

Yes there is. It's called civil marriage, as in when you get married in a register office or any other building approved for that purpose.

esuhl

poet123 wrote: »

Fair point.

I believe there are mixed sex couples who want civil partnerships and I am not sure why they should be denied that right. So, on the one hand we have pressure from the gay lobby to change their rights and give them both gay marriage and civil partnership options, yet the same rights are not accorded to mixed sex couples. As I understand it it is not envisaged this consultation will include the latter so why are those crying discrimination not up in arms?

You seem to imply that it is hypocritical of the "gay lobby" to demand the right to get married and have civil partnerships when straight people can only get married.

That's like feeding fillet steak to all but one of your children, and giving one child dry bread to eat instead. "What do you mean you want steak like all the others?! They weren't allowed steak and dry bread! Only you are allowed dry bread, you lucky thing."

Gay people don't want it both ways (insert joke here) any more than straight people do. It's just that civil partnerships do not confer the same social and legal recognition that marriages do. Why should a gay couple eat dry bread whilst everyone around them is eating steak?

Isn't it degrading for both gay and straight people to have their relationship recognised in different ways depending on the type of genitalia they collectively possess?

As MamaMoo says, the mixed-sex couples who are trying to get heterosexual civil partnerships legalised are doing so on a point of principle. If gay people can have civil partnerships, why can't straight people? Also, if the courts ruled that it is unjust to permit a loving couple from being civil partners on the grounds that they are heterosexual, then that judgement would be likely to set a precedent that would in turn lift the ban on homosexual marriage.

Once both gay and straight couples can choose between marriage and marriage light ("civil partnership"), who would choose the latter, unless there are more financial benefits?

Of course, it would also be unethical to provide any kind of tax breaks or other financial relief to couples who get married or "civilly partnered" since it unfairly discriminates against people who are asexual, unmarried priests, etc.... But maybe that's a discussion for a different day?

esuhl

antrobus wrote: »

Yes there is. It's called civil marriage, as in when you get married in a register office or any other building approved for that purpose.

A civil marriage isn't an alternative to marriage. It's still marriage.

You might as well say that there's a special kind of marriage for people who want to include religion in their marriage - called "religious marriage".

poet123

MamaMoo wrote: »

Because the people lobbying for mixed sex civil unions are doing so in the hope that it will then stand to reason that homosexuals can have civil marriages.
Also, as civil marriages and religious marriages are both already afforded to mixed sex couples (which contain the same rights as civil unions, plus more) it's unnecessary for heterosexuals to have a civil union.

Apparently though there are some who wish to have it designated as a civil partnership for their own reasons but are precluded from doing so as that designation is available only to same sex couples.

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

I said it was confused not incorrect you only have a little bit of what being gay is.

Sex is part of any relationship where two people love each other. Being gay isn't a "practice". Do you practise being heterosexual? Or are you just heterosexual.

The point (which clearly went over your head) was that the churches do not preclude those who are gay, they preclude those who act on that by their sexual practise. Of course I indulge in heterosexual practices. The explanation or definition was in response to your question about the practices,not a definition of gayness. It is not me who is confused, you ask one question and then confuse the answer with that of a different question.

My stance is that I defend the right of the church to set the rules if you cannot or don't want to adhere to them why want to join?

Lots of people are in love but do not engage in certain or particular sexual practices. Judging from some posters on MSE it is also common for no sex relationships to exist too. So, whilst for most of us it is a prerequisite, that cannot be universally true. We make choices according to what is most important to us.

23n1th wrote: »

Your "point score" was a valid point to your inference catholic priests are celibate (something that is not natural). It was also stated as a way of refuting religion having a valid say on anything to do with this issue (gay marriage). According to you its just "that old chest nut".

I did not infer (or imply;)) that catholic priests are celibate, it is a fact. That you chose to trot out the abuse card was not unexpected, but was totally irrelevant to the point being made in response to another poster regarding adults who choose not to have sex for whatever reason.

As religions are in the business of marriage they do indeed have a valid reason for being interested and vocal on this issue. The fact that you do not like what they say is, again, irrelevant, they are still entitled to have a voice.

23n1th wrote: »

According to religion being gay is "wrong" but molesting/abusing children is ok as long as you don't get caught and when you are caught its still ok we'll protect you.

No one I know condones what occurred (and many of us have made representations to have those concerned brought to book) but you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. If we did that all Irish people would be designated terrorists, similarly Muslims, patently ridiculous and offensive in the extreme. Yet the minute priests are mentioned up pops the same old issue.

23n1th wrote: »

They don't engage in "practices", they do what comes natural to them and they shouldn't be discriminated against because of it.

And that is fine,but if you wish to join any private organisation you abide by the rules, or don't join. No one is forced to act in a certain way sexually, you can abstain.

23n1th wrote: »

Religion also forbids the wearing of clothes with two types of material, divorce, sex before marriage, working on sundays, etc, etc. I take it none of the people that do any of the above shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Or are we just discriminating against certain people?

Those are extraneous issues which do not go to the core belief that marriage, for those who are religious, is a man/woman and is primarily for procreation (age dependent) Which is why, had my non catholic husband to be not agreed to bring any children up in the faith we could not have been married in church. There are rules which we all have to abide by or go elsewhere. It is all a matter of choice....for everyone.

poet123

esuhl wrote: »

You seem to imply that it is hypocritical of the "gay lobby" to demand the right to get married and have civil partnerships when straight people can only get married.

That's like feeding fillet steak to all but one of your children, and giving one child dry bread to eat instead. "What do you mean you want steak like all the others?! They weren't allowed steak and dry bread! Only you are allowed dry bread, you lucky thing."

Gay people don't want it both ways (insert joke here) any more than straight people do. It's just that civil partnerships do not confer the same social and legal recognition that marriages do. Why should a gay couple eat dry bread whilst everyone around them is eating steak?

Isn't it degrading for both gay and straight people to have their relationship recognised in different ways depending on the type of genitalia they collectively possess?

As MamaMoo says, the mixed-sex couples who are trying to get heterosexual civil partnerships legalised are doing so on a point of principle. If gay people can have civil partnerships, why can't straight people? Also, if the courts ruled that it is unjust to permit a loving couple from being civil partners on the grounds that they are heterosexual, then that judgement would be likely to set a precedent that would in turn lift the ban on homosexual marriage.

Once both gay and straight couples can choose between marriage and marriage light ("civil partnership"), who would choose the latter, unless there are more financial benefits?

Of course, it would also be unethical to provide any kind of tax breaks or other financial relief to couples who get married or "civilly partnered" since it unfairly discriminates against people who are asexual, unmarried priests, etc.... But maybe that's a discussion for a different day?

I have absolutely no issue with gay marriage under a civil banner.

My issue is that the churches be protected against those who would force them to also marry gay people when it is outside their core beliefs.

MamaMoo_2

esuhl wrote: »

A civil marriage isn't an alternative to marriage. It's still marriage.

You might as well say that there's a special kind of marriage for people who want to include religion in their marriage - called "religious marriage".

You said that there was no non-religious alternative to a religious marriage, and it was pointed out that civil marriage (aka marriage by a registrar in a register office or other designated place) IS a non-religious union.

Just in case there's any confusion, the definition of civil marriage is

Civil Marriage
Definition: A civil marriage is one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.
A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale.

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

The point (which clearly went over your head) was that the churches do not preclude those who are gay, they preclude those who act on that by their sexual practise.

Yes they do and what you're saying it still discrimination; based on something natural people can't help, and the bigoted views of an out-dated 2000 year old book.

Of course I indulge in heterosexual practices. The explanation or definition was in response to your question about the practices,not a definition of gayness. It is not me who is confused, you ask one question and then confuse the answer with that of a different question.

No I was clarifying what you thought "gay practice" was so I could understand that you think being gay is natural but gay sex is unnatural. That is was is confused.

You made the big deal about my "definition" of gay practices not me, I asked for clarification.

My stance is that I defend the right of the church to set the rules if you cannot or don't want to adhere to them why want to join?

You act like its a choice. Children are indoctrinated from birth (gay or straight) to believe this carp. "god" apparently created gay people why should the church discriminate against "gods" creation???

Lots of people are in love but do not engage in certain or particular sexual practices. Judging from some posters on MSE it is also common for no sex relationships to exist too. So, whilst for most of us it is a prerequisite, that cannot be universally true. We make choices according to what is most important to us.

That’s fair enough, until you start discriminating against people for doing certain things.

I did not infer (or imply;)) that catholic priests are celibate, it is a fact.

Whilst for most it is a prerequisite, that cannot be universally true, and you can't state it a fact just because that’s the way it should be.

That you chose to trot out the abuse card was not unexpected, but was totally irrelevant to the point being made in response to another poster regarding adults who choose not to have sex for whatever reason.

No I simply stated a fact that refutes your absolutism that all catholic priests are celibate. Hell some of the popes of the past weren't celibate.

As religions are in the business of marriage they do indeed have a valid reason for being interested and vocal on this issue. The fact that you do not like what they say is, again, irrelevant, they are still entitled to have a voice.

Its funny that you think certain groups are entitled to certain things whilst thinking its perfectly acceptable that certain others groups aren't entitled.


Besides which religion doesn’t own marriage, they aren't mutually exclusive. Remove religion people would still get married and do, unless you're gay that is (which is wrong).

No one I know condones what occurred (and many of us have made representations to have those concerned brought to book) but you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. If we did that all Irish people would be designated terrorists, similarly Muslims, patently ridiculous and offensive in the extreme. Yet the minute priests are mentioned up pops the same old issue.

Oh but thats what you do based on outdated superstitious believes. And the issue is a valid one.

And that is fine,but if you wish to join any private organisation you abide by the rules, or don't join. No one is forced to act in a certain way sexually, you can abstain.

"We're not forcing you to act in a certain way people, but if you don't do it this way you'll go to hell... your choice!"

You would have killed equal rights for women in its tracks!

Those are extraneous issues which do not go to the core belief that marriage, for those who are religious, is a man/woman and is primarily for procreation (age dependent)

Ok thats where we're having our problems you marry for procreation (sex), I marry for love. Besides which divource does go to the core belief of marriage, something about letting no man put asunder.

Which is why, had my non catholic husband to be not agreed to bring any children up in the faith we could not have been married in church. There are rules which we all have to abide by or go elsewhere. It is all a matter of choice....for everyone.

But its not a matter of choice. Gay people, they have no choice. That's the point.

23n1th