• 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!

Marriage isn't religious. Christian marriage is.

You can get married in a non-religious place, with no connection to religion and with no ties to a God of any kind. By that, marriage is a legal act which was based upon the law stating that it could only be done by one man and one woman and now has thankfully been changed. Therefore there is every right to change this law to make it work for the people of 2013. Many things in this country stem from Christianity - as this country used to be far more religious than it is now. However, those things have changed and moved with the times as they have become legal issues and not issues of faith.

As I said previously, the only religious issue would be gay marriage in a Church. The law isn't forcing religious change. The only people that may still be unhappy with today's result would be gay Christians. Basically, what I am saying is that marriage - regardless of where it has come from - is exclusive from religion. You can be married without being religious and thus that is why it is important that today's vote in law took place.
 
Dar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. So in essence then what is being asked for is "Gay Marriage" like, "Hindu Marriage", or a "Christian Marriage" - rather than having it defined as something separate?

That makes sense to me. I am genuinely interested here, as I have no concept of where "Marriage" came from, and wonder if this is what has created confusion in the debating chambers. Thought, there will obvious just be people who object because it is gay. No point denying it, still plenty of bigotry and prejudice out there.

EDIT BASED ON NEW POSTS:

So basically, what is being requested here, is that it is called Marriage and not Civil Partnership? A great friend of mine is a well connected former actor turned teacher in the USA, and very vocal supporter of gay equality, and a history teacher (not telling you who though, as he was voted one of the world's fittest men lol!). Really I should have asked him but I only just thought about it!

I just don't subscribe to banging drums or agreeing/disagreeing with something for the sake of it, regardless of how contentious, but I thank you for the measured responses and consider myself far more clued up on the matter!

One thing is for sure, all should be free to live their lives in a manner that hurts no one, free of judgement and prejudice. I will always stand for that regardless of technical or legal issues.
 
TheMan said:
Dar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. So in essence then what is being asked for is "Gay Marriage" like, "Hindu Marriage", or a "Christian Marriage" - rather than having it defined as something separate?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Currently gay people can only enter into a "civil partnership" - which discriminates them from being married due to their sexual orientation. Today's ruling means that gay people can now marry and thus their partnership is recognised equally with any other kind of marriage that you can enter in within this country.
 
Right so which one of you lot is getting married first and I better be invited lol!!!

;D
 
BigT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amazing, just amazing.
 
BigT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sexuality isn't about procreation. Bear in mind that humans are one of the few creatures that have sex for fun (dolphins being another). What's more, I take personal offence to homosexuality being 'not natural' as you put it - not because I'm homosexual (I'm not) but because I know full well that I have no say in my sexuality.

Before I started my hormone therapy, I considered myself bisexual but was much more into women than I was into men. After I started, I became attracted to women less and less and men more and more. My sexuality certainly feels natural - because it is. So please don't call a different orientation 'not natural', and remember that same sex attraction has been recorded in hundreds of other animals too.
 
Wish I could find those chuffing figures about how many people experience at least a period of time with bi/homosexual thoughts of some kind. It was ludicrously high, and from memory I seem to recall if you don't, you are in fact are the minority.

As has been said too many times, homosexuality is prevalent right through nature, and I do think with today's science and psychology available, we can all be well past the idea that your sexuality is chosen personally.

Your sexuality is not something you can change, well perhaps you may well be able to in the future, after all we can change sex now (or perhaps, correct it, when mind and body are not in sync as it were). I wish I could remember that scale as well argghh! Cannot believe I not think to put it somewhere safe for a debate on a rollercoaster forum.... ;D

AshleeKel said:
Before I started my hormone therapy, I considered myself bisexual but was much more into women than I was into men. After I started, I became attracted to women less and less and men more and more. My sexuality certainly feels natural - because it is.
Click to expand...

This to me is fascinating Ashlee I hope you don't mind me saying. The fact that as you went through one process of a change, another was taking place - almost like complete polarity reversals. Obviously what matters though is you feel more comfortable with yourself now. I find your honesty and openness very refreshing and actually, quite brave by all accounts.

I know that is a little off topic but I do.
 
TheMan, the roots of 'marriage' go back so far that it is impossible to answer your question with "cold hard facts". There is only "evidence" which leaves a lot to interpretation.

However, I'd venture this considered opinion based on scraps of "facts": The creation of human society is inseparable from religious or spiritual belief, and marriage is pretty much as old as human society itself. No one religion "owns" marriage. Humans own marriage, and at different times and in different cultures, the same basic idea has been administered in myriad ways: I believe that some societies through history have even consecrated same-sex marriage. [citation needed - I'm being pestered to do uni work though, so can't look myself]

Since the Middle Ages, marriage has been a legal battleground. In Roman Catholic Europe, the Church pretty much controlled the rite, but mostly it was administered by individual states. This isn't to say that the Church's power wasn't contested though: wars were fought over whether marriages were legal or not (c.f. Wars of the Roses in particular - though a great deal of Anglo-French strife obtained from the annulment of Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage to Louis VII of France and her subsequent marriage to Henry II of England).

Then we get to the Reformation, or to be more specific, the English Reformation (i.e Henry VIII using theological strife gripping most of the Western Church to wrestle POWER (and therefore MONEY) from Rome and throw over his ugly wife - again). This is where "redefinition" of marriage really comes in. Church and State are merged, this then allowed for the modernisations of the 19th Century, which introduced civil marriages.

It's important to note that since 1836 there haven't been "2 systems" of "religious marriage" and of "civil marriage" and as I read it, this Bill does not intend to change that. There will just be "marriage" available to all.

[EDIT: repunctuated]
 
Go on Simon, that's what I'm talking about mate!! Really chewy gristly gruesome old England facts!! Much of what you says rings bells from my RE/Theology A Level, most of which has long been forgotten.

Great post Simon, thank you for the time to get that together, very much appreciate it - of course I back the ideals of equitable rights, that should be a given now - it seems once again this is more about who "owns" marriage, rather than whether gay people should be able to get "married" given the Civil Partnership status.

Fascinating stuff, let's hope for the right result.
 
Bit of a crossover of topics here, but let's have a laugh at how the readers of The Express have reacted to the news.

BCXg62QCMAAWFyt.jpg:large


My favourite quote has to be "let's see if he forces this on the Muslims" as if Cameron is 'forcing' people to marry someone of the same sex, and only white Christians.

It's also interesting that they're not bothering even giving the bill a mention on its front page.
 
Ah, you've got to love the Diana 'HATE EVERYTHING THAT'S PRO-GAY, PRO-EU, PRO-EQUALITY' Express. :p
 
Thank god the nations government has, for a change, made the right (if blindingly obvious) , the only question for me is why the bigoted ageing politicians presented such a barrier in the first place?

Anyway huzzah ... now where's my proposal ;)
 
There is copious amounts of evidence that shows marriage pre-dates any of the existing modern religions if not religion itself, therefore it's ridiculous to allow churches to define the term.

However, I kind of see that as a pointless point anyway, because it avoids the issue of addressing religion's bigotry. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume marriage is property of a particular religion. Let's now imagine that religion declared that black people couldn't get married. Would that be acceptable? No, we all know it wouldn't. We wouldn't stand for it. Why would you defend the right of religion to discriminate against homosexuals then? There's clearly no difference.

The Christian religion (and most others) is bigoted and they should not be given license to discriminate. If the values of Christianity fails to meet the standards and values of our equal modern society, then it's time to force them to change their practices.

As is freedom of speech, the religious can continue to say that it's morally wrong to be gay, or to be atheist, or to be whatever, but as a service provider they should be awarded no exceptions from implementing the same level of human rights we expect of all other institutions.

As for whether homosexuality is natural or not, I shall refer to this:

Homosexuality is scientifically identified in at least over 450 species. Homophobia is identified in only 1. Which seems more unnatural now?
 
Just because it's found in other species doesn't make it natural, if everyone had all your attitude none of us would exist.

Evolution gave us a penis and a vagina for a reason, to make baby's. So someone suggest how a homosexual couple do this naturally.

Edit: remark removed after request.
 
BigT said:
So it's natural to play in the sewer works rather than the playground, give me a break.
Click to expand...

Ok, THAT'S homophobic.

I'd also like to point out that anal sex (for that is obviously what you are referring to there) is carried out by more than just gay men. Give it a try sometime - you may like it.

Just because it's found in other species doesn't make it natural, if everyone had all your attitude none of us would exist.
Click to expand...

That's homophobic, too.

Same gender attraction isn't common, but it's still natural. You cannot control who you are attracted to. It's part of who you are. Everyone's sexuality is natural to them.

Evolution gave us a penis and a vagina for a reason, to make baby's. So someone suggest how a homosexual couple do this naturally.
Click to expand...

Humans don't only have sex to produce offspring. People all over the world have sex for fun. Hell, MOST people only have sex because it feels good. Genitals have more than one use.

If you've ever used birth control, you're a hypocrite if you really want to take the line that penises and vaginas are only for making babies.
 
BigT said:
So it's natural to play in the sewer works rather than the playground, give me a break.

Just because it's found in other species doesn't make it natural, if everyone had all your attitude none of us would exist.

Evolution gave us a penis and a vagina for a reason, to make baby's. So someone suggest how a homosexual couple do this naturally.
Click to expand...

Serious question, what actually affects you about the possibility of homosexuals being allowed to marry in the traditional sense? Like, what about it affects your health and livelihood?
 
Forgive me, but what is 'natural' and any definition of that term is irrelevant.

If we were to deal with things that are 'unnatural', surely we should start by tackling the ones that are both unnatural AND harmful? So I look forward to topics on smoking, car driving etc before we can continue the argument against this on unnatural grounds with any credibility.


-Sent from a mobile phone-
 
BigT - Evolution doesn't have intent. All natural selection means is that those who pro-create pass on genes that survive. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' just 'advantageous' and 'disadvantageous'.

Everything in your biological make-up is naturally occurring, therefore being gay is as natural as being straight, even if it is disadvantageous in terms of natural selection.

I have to say I really think you crossed a line with the 'sewer works' comment. Anal sex is worth no less than Vaginal sex, which is just another type of intercourse, and to say so is not only provocative but could be needlessly offensive to many on these forums. I would suggest you revise that part of your post.
 
The fascination with gay sex by opponents of equal marriage is most odd, don't you think?

I thought we were talking about love, commitment and stable relationships.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top