Should gay marrige be allowed?

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

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.

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.

Where did I say any of the above? I am not outlining my views on being gay or gay practice, but those of the church. I am defending their right to differentiate according to their beliefs between the gay person (with whom they have no issue) and the gay person who engages in gay sexual practices by choice, an act the churches do not agree with. You may not agree with that view but they are entitled to hold it.

23n1th wrote: »

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

No, you asked me to clarify what gay practice was so I told you, and my answer was clear and correct for the question asked. You then went onto say that was I was confused when it was apparent that you were not referring to the same question but another which you had not actually posed.

23n1th wrote: »

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???

No, people choose to believe or not when they are old enough to do so prior to that their parents choose a faith or none for them as with every other parental duty. Many do leave the churches, so how can they be indoctrinated? if that was the case no one would leave.

23n1th wrote: »

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

Choice brings with it onus, you choose to do xyz you cannot do abc.

23n1th wrote: »

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.

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.

It is a fact that the required state of a catholic priest is celibacy, the fact that some are not does not alter that requirement. The point was being made to the poster who stated no healthy adult goes without sex.

23n1th wrote: »

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

No one is entitled, they meet the criteria or they don't meet the criteria.

23n1th wrote: »

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).

Oh but thats what you do based on outdated superstitious believes.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

No one said religions own marriage but they are entitled to have and express a view on how they conduct them and between whom.

23n1th wrote: »

"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!"

Or you could simply do as others do and go elsewhere to have your needs met if you cannot/don't want to adhere to the rules.

23n1th wrote: »

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

Gender is innate, sexual practice is not.

23n1th wrote: »

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.

No, we marry for love as does everyone but we accept that if we want to marry within the church we have to state that if children come along they will be brought up in that faith. Or we can go elsewhere. As for divorce, those who are divorced cannot get married in a catholic church, so they too have to go elsewhere.

23n1th wrote: »

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

They can choose to accept the restrictions the church places on them re sexual contact, or they can join a church which does not have those restrictions, just as divorcees or those who don't want any children brought up in the faith have to do.

Again all about choice.

clemmatis

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?

There's a lawsuit now on this very point. By agreement between the couples, a mixed sex couple are suing for the right to have a civil partnership and a gay couple are suing for the right to have a civil marriage. It -- the mixed sex suit -- is supported by gays.

Driver8

In the 60's a Cabinet Ministers son was arrested for being homosexual that is why and only why the law was changed because a minister did not want his son jailed.

Had it not been a Cabinet Ministers son, homosexuality may well still be illegal.

Unfortunately i have to work with a homosexual who speaks like a four year old girl, he is a thirty year old man, a "man" allegedly.

esuhl

MamaMoo wrote: »

You said that there was no non-religious alternative to a religious marriage...

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that...?!

Antrobus said that there is an alternative to marriage for non-religious heterosexual couples. I pointed out that there isn't - there is only marriage. It's confers the same legal and social recognition whether you included religion or not, and whether you had sword dancers or flame throwers or naked eskimos pole dancing.

You can't say that the alternative to marriage is civil marriage - it's like saying the alternative to living in England is living in Hampshire.

esuhl

Driver8 wrote: »

Unfortunately i have to work with a homosexual who speaks like a four year old girl, he is a thirty year old man, a "man" allegedly.

I've heard that really irritating heterosexuals exist too... And some people are still annoying despite being celibate. If it seems obvious that there's a connection between sexuality and the degree to which someone annoys you, I think you're probably mistaken.

ceebeeby

23n1th wrote: »

And in 2026 people will be fighting for the right to marry their goldfish, cat or dog?

IN MY OPINION: God made man. God made woman. Man + woman = marriage.

esuhl

ceebeeby wrote: »

IN MY OPINION: God made man. God made woman. Man + woman = marriage.

But why should your "opinion" be more than other people's? You're welcome to live your life as you wish and marry a heterosexual partner, but if you're going to tell other people what to do you're going to be called bigoted unless you can justify your beliefs with a bit more than bold, underlined capital letters.

johnnyboyrebel

It's perfectly clear that this thread has gone way off the rails. I actually understand exactly the point poet123 is trying to state in that it should be down to the individual church whether they are comfortable in marrying a gay couple. The problem is poet is coming out with all sorts of pedantic statements just to wind folk up by the looks of it.

It is perfectly clear to the majority of us that this question is a no-brainer. Noone has the right to state that anyone cannot marry the one they love ( and in response to the idiot that suggested this means I am saying incest and bestiality is ok then clearly I don't mean this)

The biggest problem here is that the religious clan cannot be dealt with as it is all 1 sided. They cannot hear anything other than their own views and never Will. They will debate until they are blue in the face so this thread may aswell be closed.

The question is should gay people be allowed to be married and the answer overall is yes. Whether every church should have to marry them is another debate. Religion is fickle and as pathetic and outdated it can be it will always be there as long as people missing something in their lives insist on being a part of it rather than taking stock of their lives.

Either that or until, sadly, something evil does happen in their lives which makes them think that maybe a bearded man in a robe doesn't exist as if he does and "sees all"he must be the devil himself to allow it. It's all hypocracy of the highest order but hey I'm sure the god squad will tell me my opinion means nothing.

Deep down we all know the real answer to the question, it just depends if certain are man enough to accept it.

Torry_Quine

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It is perfectly clear to the majority of us that this question is a no-brainer. Noone has the right to state that anyone cannot marry the one they love

The biggest problem here is that the religious clan cannot be dealt with as it is all 1 sided. They cannot hear anything other than their own views and never Will. They will debate until they are blue in the face so this thread may aswell be closed.

The question is should gay people be allowed to be married and the answer overall is yes. Whether every church should have to marry them is another debate. Religion is fickle and as pathetic and outdated it can be it will always be there as long as people missing something in their lives insist on being a part of it rather than taking stock of their lives.


Deep down we all know the real answer to the question, it just depends if certain are man enough to accept it.

Deep down I know the answer that sadly homosexual marriage probably will happen and although I will have to accept that it's legal it doesn't mean I will think it's right.

antrobus

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".

But there is.

If you want to include religion in your marriage, you get married in a church or similar, and it's a "religious marriage". See http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_family/family_index_ew/getting_married.htm under 'Religious marriage ceremonies'.

If you don't want to include religion in your married, you get married in a register office or similar. No God allowed - and that's a legal requirement.

It's a choice. I'm not sure that it makes any difference whether one option might be regarded as being more 'special' than the other; people (or at least hetrosexual people) are faced with the alternative.

The relevance to the topic at hand would be, that whilst the state can make up whatever rules it likes regarding civil marriages, this doesn't prevent individual religions making up their own rules as regards marriage. For example, it is the case that the Roman Catholic Church does not do divorce. There are individuals who are Catholic who have got divorced and want to get married again. They are obliged to opt for a civil marriage, because the RC Church will refuse to allow them to get married. (Although I understand that some priests will conduct some kind of 'blessing'.)

As far as homosexuals are concerned, I expect that what will happen is that law will be changed so that they can opt for a civil marriage. Which in practice will mean that they can go through a ceremony known as a 'wedding', resulting in a state known as 'marriage', as opposed to being formally called something else as is currently the case. Individual religions will please themselves as to what they do. Presumably the law will be such that authorised ministers etc will be able to register such marriages but can decline to do so, in the same way that RC priests can decline to marry divorcees.