cheesemonster2005 Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 I think from the poll's votes that people don't have a problem with a gay marriage as such, but think that, for the sake of those who have a traditional view of marriage that there is no big deal in giving it the same status but a slightly different name... That seems a great compromise, to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah but for gay couples it seems like an insult. If the churches don't want to do the ceremonies then fine but why should a ceremony outside of the church have to have its name changed just to satisfy Christians? Equally I agree that hetrosexual couples who wish to have their partnership recognised without a "marriage" should be allowed to do so just like Ken Livingstone has tried to encourage in London. The church and the church-going minority don't rule over us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 i dont get it. is it like saying "well i dont really want to get married, but now i do because those straight people can, so i want it too" or something. its a ring, and who care if your married or not? it just means you have to stop haing sex, doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 i dont get it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dont claim to know but if I had to guess it would be something along the lines of social status on the one hand and property and inheritance rights on the other. I voted for civil partnership as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 i dont get it. is it like saying "well i dont really want to get married, but now i do because those straight people can, so i want it too" or something. its a ring, and who care if your married or not? it just means you have to stop haing sex, doesnt it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair enough, marriage aint that special and it's the only proven way to divorce! But it's about civil rights - why should only hertosexual people be entitles to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Yeah but for gay couples it seems like an insult. If the churches don't want to do the ceremonies then fine but why should a ceremony outside of the church have to have its name changed just to satisfy Christians? The church and the church-going minority don't rule over us! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law. The more appropriate question would appear to be: why should the definition be changed to satisfy the requirements of a vocal minority? N.B. no mention of church or church-goers in the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 The more appropriate question would appear to be: why should the definition be changed to satisfy the requirements of a vocal minority? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because as it stands the definition is excluding some people and if the definition is changed, it's not going to hurt or harm anybody and will then equally embrace everyone? Marriage is a fool's game IMO. But I support the right of fools of all persuasions to be sucked in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 The more appropriate question would appear to be: why should the definition be changed to satisfy the requirements of a vocal minority? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alternatively, why shouldn't it? Dictionary definitions are not set in stone, they really only reflect the usage of the word at a given time. And they change all the time. If the usage changes so does the definition. So if it is decided that Gay Marriages are ok - the definition will be rewritten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 3, 2005 Author Share Posted September 3, 2005 Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law. The more appropriate question would appear to be: why should the definition be changed to satisfy the requirements of a vocal minority? N.B. no mention of church or church-goers in the definition. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well change the definition. Marriage means different things for different countries and religions. Nothing is set in stone and times change. Why deny this right to a sizeable minority when it will do no harm to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chutney Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Well change the definition. Marriage means different things for different countries and religions. Nothing is set in stone and times change. Why deny this right to a sizeable minority when it will do no harm to others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who says it will do no harm to others. I see it as a another small step erodeing and gnawing away at the moral fabric of society. Such liberal views have brought us to where we are today with a society where individuals care only about themselves and care not at all what others do. Ultimately It is our children and theirs that suffer the consequences. We simply do not see a particular consequence just a decline in moral standards. Right about the dictionary though, it changes to suit the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 Who says it will do no harm to others. I see it as a another small step erodeing and gnawing away at the moral fabric of society. Such liberal views have brought us to where we are today with a society where individuals care only about themselves and care not at all what others do. Ultimately It is our children and theirs that suffer the consequences. We simply do not see a particular consequence just a decline in moral standards. Right about the dictionary though, it changes to suit the times. So by allowing same-sex partners to marry we may do harm to mixed-sex people? How exactly? Would it be insulting or degrading to married people? How exactly will children suffer? By denying the same rights to some 10% of the population we are caring only about the majority and ignoring the rights of a minority. These liberal views are there for society not the individual! I've not read such rubbish outside of a Tory, BNP or Republican manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 i dont get it. is it like saying "well i dont really want to get married, but now i do because those straight people can, so i want it too" or something. its a ring, and who care if your married or not? it just means you have to stop haing sex, doesnt it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair enough, marriage aint that special and it's the only proven way to divorce! But it's about civil rights - why should only hertosexual people be entitles to it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i understand the point and the sentiment, i just dont agree with it. if you wanna spend your life with someone, then do so. i dont care if your gay, straight, bi, tri, or evn celibate, i just think the whole thing is absolutley futile, acheives nothing, and causes more arguments than it settles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Who says it will do no harm to others. I see it as a another small step erodeing and gnawing away at the moral fabric of society. Such liberal views have brought us to where we are today with a society where individuals care only about themselves and care not at all what others do. Ultimately It is our children and theirs that suffer the consequences. We simply do not see a particular consequence just a decline in moral standards. Right about the dictionary though, it changes to suit the times. So by allowing same-sex partners to marry we may do harm to mixed-sex people? How exactly? Would it be insulting or degrading to married people? How exactly will children suffer? By denying the same rights to some 10% of the population we are caring only about the majority and ignoring the rights of a minority. These liberal views are there for society not the individual! I've not read such rubbish outside of a Tory, BNP or Republican manifesto. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i understand the sentiment to that one. if its the catholic church thats doing the marriage, then it shouldnt happen. the bible forbids it. and to update, or to change "the word of god" would be tantamount to saying that god is fallible. if you believe in god, and gods word, shouldnt you believe it utterly? why get married in a church, when doing so is a direct contravention of the rules set in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 if you believe in god, and gods word, shouldnt you believe it utterly? If you're referring to what's in the bible - then no. I don't know what they say is true, I'd rather follow my own interpretation of a god. Some religions encourage you to question their teachings (e.g. Buddhism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Does anyone believe the Bible utterly? However, it is up to each church to make up its own rules on whether to allow gay marriages. Or for that matter the re-marriage of divorcees. Or letting non-Church goers wed there. It is their party and they can be wrong if they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 if you believe in god, and gods word, shouldnt you believe it utterly? If you're referring to what's in the bible - then no. I don't know what they say is true, I'd rather follow my own interpretation of a god. Some religions encourage you to question their teachings (e.g. Buddhism). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> then youre not a catholic, or a christian. you follow an interpretation of catholicism, if you get me. its like saying "yeah, im catholic, but i dont believe that stuff about angels, and i know the world wasnt created in seven days, and i know that evolution is more feasible than creationalism, and heaven is unlikely, hell even more so, but yeah im catholic" how can you follow a faith, and yet discount so much of it? buddhism is not strictly speaking a religion. its a philosophy. of course, it does depend on which strain of buddhism you mean (excludng shinto, indian, jainism and the like), but its generally put into the religion category for efficiencies sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.