-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
The Gay Marriage Topic!
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
Dave
TS Founding Member
There isn't anything wrong in people not understanding the difference, a lot of people this isn't a big deal for them without them being homophobic.
A collegue of mine asked exactly the same question and she isn't homophobic by any stretch of the imagination. It is just never something she has needed to look into.
A collegue of mine asked exactly the same question and she isn't homophobic by any stretch of the imagination. It is just never something she has needed to look into.
Rowe said:
This is going to lead to a argument I can see this but I agree with the right to say what you think without prejudice and it needs to be said.
I'm not homophobic and believe everyone is equal and should be allowed to love whoever they like if they are that way inclined however there are differences and this should be pointed out.
Homosexuality is not natural, humans naturally have to procreate to produce children and last time I looked that's not possible without fiddling the system with science.
So in that way your argument falls down as having children is not always a choice for heterosexuals, it happens naturally.
I'm not against marriage equality I just don't see how a system that contains a husband and wife can lend itself to two male or two females, and when did religion come into it as last time I looked you can get marred at a registry office.
I just think they should change the name of civil partnerships to civil marriage and allow both Hetrosexuals and homosexuals to both use this system.
If Hetrosexuals want to get married in a church than that is a religious marriage, it think that's a fair system.
Right I've got my tin hat on and I'm off.
Dave
TS Founding Member
There is already civil marriage, its existed for 158 years.
And indeed homosexuality has been found in most species so the nature idea doesn't really work unless an infertile person is considered abnormal.
If your defination of normal is purely biological then homosexuality is normal.
And indeed homosexuality has been found in most species so the nature idea doesn't really work unless an infertile person is considered abnormal.
If your defination of normal is purely biological then homosexuality is normal.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Ok, I am asking a question, God literally forbid anyone who calls me a homophobe for it, let's get that straight and out of the way.
Now, as I find marriage, it is that within religion and not something I subscribe too as a straight man. What I am confused by here, is where did marriage begin? What or whom owns that title? If it is religious, and I don't have understanding either way, and will not listen to either sides rhetoric on the matter, only hard facts, then neither gay people nor non-religious straight have a right to "marriage" as it were.
Religions are entitled to their beliefs, and inner sanctums/practices so long as they hurt no one. If marriage is one of those, they can do with it as they like - no different to any other religious practice from any denomination or faith.
So what I am interested in, to really have a proper opinion on the matter, is where is marriage from? There are clear rules defined in Christianity and other religions. I choose not to follow them, but I respect their beliefs, just as a respect a persons right to be whatever sexuality that nature has decided for them (never call it choice).
So in essence, if marriage came from an institution not aligned to this faith, everyone has the right to "marry" - if however, it is defined by religion etc, then clearly we don't, and that should be respected each way.
To answer bigT though:
Homosexuality is rife throughout nature, it has been proven to be very natural and I also seem to recall psychological studies (not 100% on this though) that defined a line that included Gay, Bi, Straight, Transsexual and all in between (er not literally, though that may be fun ha-ha!) and that we all fall at different points along that very, very large scale. A high percentile of individuals also apparently experience a degree of attraction to the same sex at different points in their life.
Far from being "not natural", it is in fact, very common indeed - hence my more pragmatic view on marriage, if it is religious leave it alone, if it is common institutional in its beginnings (not I must add, variants there of, because Civil Partnerships gay/straight whatever are that) then it should be for all.
Hope you all take the post in the spirit it is meant.
Now, as I find marriage, it is that within religion and not something I subscribe too as a straight man. What I am confused by here, is where did marriage begin? What or whom owns that title? If it is religious, and I don't have understanding either way, and will not listen to either sides rhetoric on the matter, only hard facts, then neither gay people nor non-religious straight have a right to "marriage" as it were.
Religions are entitled to their beliefs, and inner sanctums/practices so long as they hurt no one. If marriage is one of those, they can do with it as they like - no different to any other religious practice from any denomination or faith.
So what I am interested in, to really have a proper opinion on the matter, is where is marriage from? There are clear rules defined in Christianity and other religions. I choose not to follow them, but I respect their beliefs, just as a respect a persons right to be whatever sexuality that nature has decided for them (never call it choice).
So in essence, if marriage came from an institution not aligned to this faith, everyone has the right to "marry" - if however, it is defined by religion etc, then clearly we don't, and that should be respected each way.
To answer bigT though:
BigT said:
Homosexuality is rife throughout nature, it has been proven to be very natural and I also seem to recall psychological studies (not 100% on this though) that defined a line that included Gay, Bi, Straight, Transsexual and all in between (er not literally, though that may be fun ha-ha!) and that we all fall at different points along that very, very large scale. A high percentile of individuals also apparently experience a degree of attraction to the same sex at different points in their life.
Far from being "not natural", it is in fact, very common indeed - hence my more pragmatic view on marriage, if it is religious leave it alone, if it is common institutional in its beginnings (not I must add, variants there of, because Civil Partnerships gay/straight whatever are that) then it should be for all.
Hope you all take the post in the spirit it is meant.
Scott
Former TS Team Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Whether or not it originated within religion is fairly irrelevant in modern times. Our country is not run by religion and it welcomes people of all faiths and backgrounds to come here and live and work. Marriage is enshrined within law. A law that stated that only a man and a woman could come together and be married. It is a law thing, not a religion thing.
The one point which is religious is whether gay marriage should be allowed in church or not. That is obviously a much more contentious matter and one that is wholly based around religion.
The one point which is religious is whether gay marriage should be allowed in church or not. That is obviously a much more contentious matter and one that is wholly based around religion.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
I don't agree Scott. Though the obvious example is Divorce being made legal for a particular king... that doesn't take away from the original meaning and definition though.
I do not claim myself to be a Christian because I am not (though I am spiritual, another story), therefore I would not demand part of their practice. It is enshrined in law based on a Christian basis of that law. I would not ask to be married in the Hindu faith, so why the Christian?
As I say, it is indeed the definition of marriage that is the issue for me. If it based around religion, then law has no place to intervene unless there is cruelty involved. Let's not forget, Church ruled in essence, so becoming enshrined in law is obvious.
I think this touches area outside of just "gay marriage", and in fact has challenged peoples ideas of what marriage actually is, where it comes from, and how relevant it is in that form today - hence it has had more issues getting through.
Divorce as I say, was made law, but it doesn't make it "Christian". The most critical thing for me, is tackling institutional prejudice, ensuring everyone has equitable rights, but not forcing our ways of life, upon religious folk in return for that being reciprocated lol!
What I did very much enjoy reading though, was that clergyman responding after addressing his conscience. That ultimately is supposed to be our direct connection to whatever God you believe in, ultimately being part of something far greater. I found his words kind, inspiring, and of good nature. I don't have the adequate knowledge to fully engage in this topic, but even with a very close gay relative, you will not find me jumping on either bandwagon for the sake of it, without being fully and completely versed in the facts, and respecting everyone's rights equally - be that to be gay, or to devote their life to strict worship.
It is quite possible that they are mutually exclusive of each other in some regards, we have to respect that of each other.
I have to say, that if Marriage is defined by religion and not law, then I find people whom are not of that religion demanding their practice to be as offensive, as those bigots whom stand within those religions and cast judgement upon how others live their lives faithfully and lovingly to a partner.
Neither of those is right, no matter how much people may want it to be so.
Now.... Gay & Christian brings many philosophical questions! Did God make this person this way, if so why, etc etc... if anyone has a right to be both extremely confused, and VERY, VERY pee'd off, as then it is a gay Christian denied the "sanctity of marriage", despite being made in Gods own image.
I just don't feel this is as cut and dry and yelping about freedoms and rights one way.
I do not claim myself to be a Christian because I am not (though I am spiritual, another story), therefore I would not demand part of their practice. It is enshrined in law based on a Christian basis of that law. I would not ask to be married in the Hindu faith, so why the Christian?
As I say, it is indeed the definition of marriage that is the issue for me. If it based around religion, then law has no place to intervene unless there is cruelty involved. Let's not forget, Church ruled in essence, so becoming enshrined in law is obvious.
I think this touches area outside of just "gay marriage", and in fact has challenged peoples ideas of what marriage actually is, where it comes from, and how relevant it is in that form today - hence it has had more issues getting through.
Divorce as I say, was made law, but it doesn't make it "Christian". The most critical thing for me, is tackling institutional prejudice, ensuring everyone has equitable rights, but not forcing our ways of life, upon religious folk in return for that being reciprocated lol!
What I did very much enjoy reading though, was that clergyman responding after addressing his conscience. That ultimately is supposed to be our direct connection to whatever God you believe in, ultimately being part of something far greater. I found his words kind, inspiring, and of good nature. I don't have the adequate knowledge to fully engage in this topic, but even with a very close gay relative, you will not find me jumping on either bandwagon for the sake of it, without being fully and completely versed in the facts, and respecting everyone's rights equally - be that to be gay, or to devote their life to strict worship.
It is quite possible that they are mutually exclusive of each other in some regards, we have to respect that of each other.
I have to say, that if Marriage is defined by religion and not law, then I find people whom are not of that religion demanding their practice to be as offensive, as those bigots whom stand within those religions and cast judgement upon how others live their lives faithfully and lovingly to a partner.
Neither of those is right, no matter how much people may want it to be so.
Now.... Gay & Christian brings many philosophical questions! Did God make this person this way, if so why, etc etc... if anyone has a right to be both extremely confused, and VERY, VERY pee'd off, as then it is a gay Christian denied the "sanctity of marriage", despite being made in Gods own image.
I just don't feel this is as cut and dry and yelping about freedoms and rights one way.
Dar
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Taron
Marriage now is not a religious thing. To be recognised as married is a legal definition.
If a Hindu was married in a Hindu ceremony and a Christian was married in a Christian ceremony, their marriages are the same in the eyes of the law. The law doesn't make a distinction for different types of marriage.
I remember reading that marriage in ancient times was a form of payment for land, animals or services! In ancient Greece, there was no formal marriage ceremony the parties just agreed to be faithful to each other.
If a Hindu was married in a Hindu ceremony and a Christian was married in a Christian ceremony, their marriages are the same in the eyes of the law. The law doesn't make a distinction for different types of marriage.
I remember reading that marriage in ancient times was a form of payment for land, animals or services! In ancient Greece, there was no formal marriage ceremony the parties just agreed to be faithful to each other.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Marriage in this country hasn't been defined by the Christian faith for 158 years so that argument has long since past. You may marry as a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, Muslim or any other faith or you can marry (as the majority do) in a non-religious manner.
Marriage has been a process defined 100 times over by many cultures so no-one can claim ownership to it really.
Marriage has been a process defined 100 times over by many cultures so no-one can claim ownership to it really.