Same Gender Marriage

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
Thomas
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 11
Posts: 1499
Credit: 1,345,576
RAC: 0
France
Message 1315539 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 11:59:20 UTC - in response to Message 1315530.  

Maybe Bernie spoke of having faith in each other and not necessarily in religion...
ID: 1315539 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1315559 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 12:27:36 UTC

Just let me ask one thing, does a Christian gay person have less rights than a heterosexual non Christian

No they both have the same rights. By that I mean that I don't think either should properly be married in a church.


But a heterosexual non Christian CAN get married in a church. So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual no Christians from church marriages

So let me re ask the question in a different way

Does a gay Christian have less rights than a heterosexual Christian?
ID: 1315559 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1315583 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 14:08:18 UTC - in response to Message 1315568.  

Does a gay Christian have less rights than a heterosexual Christian?

Now that is a different question altogether. I personally would say no in general society terms. But according to the Bible same-sex relationships were evil in God's eyes, therefore in a church environment, they do apparently have less rights.

There are two separate questions here which are in danger of being mixed up.
    1. Should same gender marriages be permitted in Society.
    2. Should same gender marriages be permitted by the Church


In answer to question 1 I would say, in the modern 21C, yes. In answer to question 2, I don't make the religious rules the Church does, based upon the Bible. If the Bible says it is unacceptable, then in religious terms it is.

Now then, if the worlds religious leaders all got together and re-wrote the Bible to allow same sex relationships, then I would have no objection to same gender people being married in a church. As it stands at present it is not acceptable. I might not agree with a lot of the religion about, but I respect it. That is probably mainly as a result of my generation being brought up in the 40's and 50's, but there we are.



Different religious leaders will read the same text with differing views. I would say leave it up to the churches and then people can vote with their feet.
Not all churches are X-tian. Not all use the same "books" in their bible.

People have the right to define their own marriage (between consenting adults as with ANY binding legal agreement, marriage is in fact a partnership) and governments intruding on that in any way are over stepping their bounds.

Anyone that is offended by it needs to be offended.
Janice
ID: 1315583 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1315589 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 14:56:54 UTC - in response to Message 1315586.  

Chris, I would certainly say a church is relevent to the members. It should not matter in any way as far as our laws are concerned. In other words YOUR church is not relevent to ME. Nor mine to you.
Janice
ID: 1315589 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1315600 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 16:10:34 UTC

Say you and your four wives are married at the mosque, are you married in a Catholic church? A Baptist church? A Mormon church? A Jewish temple?

ID: 1315600 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1315620 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 17:09:42 UTC

The reason for this thread was that Chris stated in another thread that he was against same sex marriages in Church!

Simple and unambiguous.

I then asked;

Just let me ask one thing, does a Christian gay person have less rights than a heterosexual non Christian


Chris replied

No they both have the same rights. By that I mean that I don't think either should properly be married in a church.



But still not answered this
But a heterosexual non Christian CAN get married in a church. So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual non Christians from church marriages


Which to me is the crux of the matter, how can you justify a heterosexual non christian couple being allowed to marry in church and yet a christian gay couple cannot!

In this modern day and age that attitude is 100% discrimination.
ID: 1315620 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1315645 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 17:44:28 UTC - in response to Message 1315624.  

Why have marriage in the first place? If there is no marriage, then there can't be any discrimination.

A wonderful insightful comment that brings nothing to the conversation.

Why don't you start a thread on the reasons for and against marriage?
ID: 1315645 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1315650 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 17:50:06 UTC

Marriage has always been a business transaction, always been about property, possessions etc.

That is why it was invented.

The reason why it is so important to recognise the rights of gay people to marriage is because the awful situation where some people were left in when their long term partners died.

I've known situations where on the death of a loved one, the deceased's family (who never approved of the relationship) moved in and took over the funeral arrangements and left the bereaved person unable to say good bye, attend the funeral, and not even have any rights of the possessions they shared together. They were given no say over the hospital care, and the estranged family were able to come in make decisions for the sick person when they don't even know what their wishes were.

This is obviously wrong and heartbreaking.

Imagine, spending your life with the person you love, at at the moment when you both need each other the most, being driven away and excluded as if you were nothing.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1315650 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1315657 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 17:59:33 UTC - in response to Message 1315655.  

But still not answered this

But a heterosexual non Christian CAN get married in a church. So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual non Christians from church marriages

Which to me is the crux of the matter, how can you justify a heterosexual non christian couple being allowed to marry in church and yet a christian gay couple cannot!

In this modern day and age that attitude is 100% discrimination.


I knew I shouldn't have started this, I really should have known better ....

1. It is up the the Church concerned, whether or not they wish to conduct a marriage service for heterosexual non christians or not. Some churches and pastors/vicars will, some wont.

2.Generally speaking churches will not conduct marriage services for gay couples, as it is against the bibles teachings.

In the first case if you are not Christian then it doesn't seem right to have a christian marriage. In the second case I didn't write the Bible, so I simply respect those that adhere to its teachings.

If people think all this is discrimination, then make your case to the Church, not to me.

So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual non Christians from church marriages

Of course not. It would not bother me one way or the other if non Christians were married in church. It also would not bother me one way or the other if same gender couples were to be married in church. At the present moment I don't think that either should be out of respect for the churches teachings, whether or not I agree with them.


The church used to consider woman property. Thankfully people have become a little more enlightened since then
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1315657 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1315673 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 18:44:43 UTC - in response to Message 1315660.  

Marriage has always been a business transaction, always been about property, possessions etc.


OMG! There's a name for people like this. Amsterdam displays them in windows. Thailand has bars full of them. It's legal everywhere in Nevada except Las Vegas.

Now you are starting to understand a little why the feminist movement has fought so hard to change things.

I am glad your shocked. It's a shameful part of our history.

As a person whose gender identity is tied to his penis, I'm totally offended by this.

Good. It is offensive.

Marriage began as a way to ensure that property was passed down to ones male airs. The other side was to ensure that a man knew exactly who had fathered his children.

Dowries were not phased out so long ago, and are still around in some cultures. When a man married a woman she became his property along with any property she possessed. That has only changed recently with women being allowed to vote and own property in their own right.

Marriages were used to forge alliances between the ruling classes, and heaven help any woman who married against the families wishes. There are still remnants if this with tradition of the groom having to ask the brides father for permission. Remember, the woman was the property of the father until she was passed to the husband.

Until the Victorian era, not everyone got married. The poor had common law marriage and didn't always feel the need to actually wed.

Marriage is not an institution with a noble history...and your analogy of the prostitutes is a little off as women were considered little more than property. Prostitutes have a little more say in who they sell themselves to.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1315673 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1315680 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 19:03:53 UTC

I knew I shouldn't have started this, I really should have known better ....

Possibly, possibly not. It was your statement:

"I'm also not happy with their support of gay marriage." In reference to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats support that made me question how I felt about it and found I agreed with them.

If gay people are accepted in society and are allowed "civil" partnerships and all the rights associated with that, it seems strange that one organisation, the Church, can deny them those same rights.

I actually know the reasons and I know that many people in the Church have a problem with women priests, let alone homosexuals. I do not suspect the Church will move in the 21st century in my lifetime.

"Politics and Religion" two subjects destined to cause fierce arguments, as a close friend always reminds me!!




ID: 1315680 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1315752 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:41:25 UTC - in response to Message 1315692.  

In for a penny in for a pound ....

"I'm also not happy with their support of gay marriage."

Yes I did say that. As I have said I have no problem with gay or same gender relationships, but it is traditionally only the 10% minority of society that wish to live in that way. As an ordinary dead boring straight bloke, I don't fully understand it, but I'm happy to live and let live.

By suporting Gay Marriage the Lib Dems are in danger of losing voters. I have heard people say that "there is enough of it about these days as it is, we don't need to encourage it." I wouldn't go as far as that my self though. Politically I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, and personally you already have my views.

If gay people are accepted in society and are allowed "civil" partnerships and all the rights associated with that, it seems strange that one organisation, the Church, can deny them those same rights.

They have no choice Bernie, they are hamstrung by the Bibles teachings which are the cornerstone of their faith.

No not fierce arguments, more a strong disagreement of views. Looking back on these few posts we are almost in agreement that it is the church that is the problem. And I accept that it is my age group that is still lumbered with their outdated views.

Oh and by the way, we have a number of women priests around my way and jolly good they are too, I would like to see more of them.


I thought it was a Christian church. Christ makes no comment on homosexuality.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1315752 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1315755 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:53:12 UTC - in response to Message 1315690.  

Well I guess I had it all wrong then.

I thought the purpose of marriage was to produce offspring,

Guess what, gays can do this.

to work as a team to raise those offspring to be productive members of society that has order,

They can do this to.

and to fulfill natural human desires.

Like love? Companionship? If you knew anything about biology you might be surprised to find that humans aren't the only species to be naturally gay.

It's natural. Deal with it.

If it's purely about gaining wealth, I went about it all wrong.

Those are its foundations.

Government can take care of raising the offspring as a result of unmarried breeders trying to fulfill their natual human desires.

This sentence doesn't actually make any sense to me. You seemed to have briefly parted way with rational thought.

Nobody needs anybody in their life to trust as long as government is always there for them.

Again, you are just making random statements that have no connection with any of your assertions. This is confusing to the reader.

And who are we to deny anything some people pursue as their natural human desires as long as it's done consentually and doesn't deny other's their rights and freedoms?

Exactly

"Same gender marriage" is an oxymoron.

Do you know what oxymoron means?

What about "interspecies marriage," or "objectum marriage," or "polygamy," or "polyandry?"

I thought you said marriage should be consensual? How can an animal or an object consent?

Polygamy and polyandry seems like hard work to me.

It's not about marriage here or there, it's about the discrimination. Do away with marriage and you do away with discrimination.

Meh. I don't care either way. Marry, not marry. Here in Canada I am protected by the law. I get all the rights of being married without some stupid expensive ceremony. I get the rights of the next of kin and I get a say of whether to turn off his life support or not if he ever gets into a nasty accident. The only reason I have to get married is because he has his little heart set on it.

What you need to ask yourself Guy. Is why do you care so much what other people do. It has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. No one is going to force you to marry another man just because gay marriage is legal. Why on earth do you even care???
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1315755 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1315756 - Posted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:54:40 UTC

I thought it was a Christian church. Christ makes no comment on homosexuality.


Unfortunately the Bible does, or does it?

The Bible refers to homosexuality several times, and has historically been interpreted as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.
Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, arguing any of several points: (i) that the passages yield different meanings if placed in historical context, for instance the historical interpretation of Sodom's sins as being other than homosexuality; (ii) there may be questions surrounding the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages that some interpret as referring to homosexuals; (iii) both the Old Testament and New Testament contain passages that describe same-sex relationships; and/or (iv) that loving and committed relationships are not condemned in the passages.
All of these assertions are disputed by more conservative scholars, however.

ID: 1315756 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.