David Cameron: "The time has come for gay couples to marry"
Scroll to see replies
If Cameron is wise, hell sit this one out.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Original post by Macabre
If Cameron is wise, hell sit this one out.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Well firstly, marriage is a cultural institution. It is only because religion has also played a dominant role within our culture that the two have intertwined, but that still doesn't make marriage the 'property' of religion. This is most evident in the fact that it is the state which dictates the laws of marriage, and also has the power over what legal rights come with that. The compromise that has been arranged is the clear distinction between Civil and Religious ceremonies, and it is only the former which is being changed by David Cameron. He has given no indication that churches will even be allowed to marry same-sex couples even if they want to.
Besides, the reason you have given above is the exact reason that people should support this. I see so many people throwing the 'religious freedom' argument around without truly understanding how it works. As it current stands there is no religious freedom within marriage. By allowing same-sex marriage in all settings (which is what should be done, imo) you are giving individual churches the choice on whether they should marry same-sex couples or not. It is that choice which truly respects religious freedom, as you simply aren't forcing them to only marry heterosexual couples because that's what most religious groups want. There are a growing number of churches who want to marry same-sex couples, but they simply can't because the government says no and organised religion seeks to force its own morality on everybody.
Sure, telling the government to butt out may sound like a nice idea, but all it merely does is maintain the status quo on civil and religious inequality. The state is needed within this debate because of marriage being legislated on by them. If you simply tell them to butt out then nothing will ever change, as religion (thankfully) lacks the legislative power to change the institution.
Cameron is a conservative in name only. I'm sympathetic to the libertarian argument that the government doesn't understand society and should butt out and leave it to individuals to manage their own affairs: but removing laws against certain social practices is not a neutral act; it's an implicit endorsement of those practices and just as pernicious as any leftist social engineering. Could anyone seriously deny that legalising necrophilia would not bring about changes in society's values and practices?
Original post by Macabre
If Cameron is wise, hell sit this one out.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Its good that hes taken an interest on a clearly important issue and for me personally ive got nothing against it. Marriage is showing commitment for life to another person, and that is something to surely be celebrated.
However we forget that marriage itself is a religious institution and that governments only make laws, they shouldnt meddle in religious matters. If gay people were going to make a legal commitment to eachother in a registry office, then that is fine to me.
But to do it in a church would require the blessing of the faith, and that is down for the religion itself to decide and not government. We may not like the fact that they reject gay marriage, but who am i to tell them they should do things differenetly? My knowledge of the bible and the faith are a drop of water in the sea in comparison to the priests and bishops who have dedicated their lives to their faith, so in conlcusion its down to them to interperet the teachings and decide for themselves if gay marriage is acceptable in their eyes.
Marriage is not a religious insititution, it pre-existed religion as a cultural institution before it was appropriated by religion. Although religion likes to think so, they do not have the right to dictate over marriage, especially when the marriage in question (as it is here) is civil marriage i.e. entirely secular and devoid of religion. The current debate surrounding gay marriage equality is whether to legalise civil marriage, thus religious objections have no place in the debate.
I don't believe churches should be forced into perfoming marriages for same-sex couples against their beliefs, for that is rather hypocritical of us when we complain of religions attempting to ram their beliefs down our throats. However, instead of maintaining the blanket ban on religious marriage for same sex couples, I believe the freedom to choose should be allowed for all churches, for there are undoutbedly some (albeit more minor ones) churches who would like to be able to perform same-sex marriages.
Original post by JacobW
Cameron is a conservative in name only. I'm sympathetic to the libertarian argument that the government doesn't understand society and should butt out and leave it to individuals to manage their own affairs: but removing laws against certain social practices is not a neutral act; it's an implicit endorsement of those practices and just as pernicious as any leftist social engineering. Could anyone seriously deny that legalising necrophilia would not bring about changes in society's values and practices?
Necrophilia, paedophilia and incest are not similar to homosexuality, in that homosexual relationships are not only non-harmful, but that there is consent. A corpse and a child cannot give consent, and incest is demonstrably harmful.
Original post by Mad Vlad
Necrophilia, paedophilia and incest are not similar to homosexuality, in that homosexual relationships are not only non-harmful, but that there is consent. A corpse and a child cannot give consent, and incest is demonstrably harmful.
Sex toys can't give their consent either; nobody argues that using them is immoral. I don't believe the government should adopt an ideological principle like "sexual acts are morally right if and only if both parties give consent" because it can never be proven true or false. Remodelling society on the basis of universal principles is the antithesis of conservatism. By introducing and removing restrictions to facilitate change that is already occurring in society brought about by shifts in values and culture, rather than to promote change, the government can allow society to develop from individuals' judgements about things they understand, rather than the state's judgement about things it doesn't.
Legalising gay marriage would fall into the latter category and as such I think it's a bad idea.
I'm glad that Cameron is supportive of the same-sex marriage. Legalising same-sex marriage will not only will bring equality, but it will also positively impact the LGBT community. I'm kind of sad to see that there are still people - both online and offline - who believe that allowing marriage for same-sex couples will somehow lead to the destruction of society, when other countries like Canada and the Netherlands are doing just fine.
Original post by JacobW
Yes, they do.
Have you not heard how crazy the religious right are in America? They masturbation to be immoral, and shoving toys up your holes makes them froth at the mouth even more.
Original post by LPK
Yes, they do.
Have you not heard how crazy the religious right are in America? They masturbation to be immoral, and shoving toys up your holes makes them froth at the mouth even more.
Have you not heard how crazy the religious right are in America? They masturbation to be immoral, and shoving toys up your holes makes them froth at the mouth even more.
Perhaps I shoulded have added "for that reason". As loony as these people are, I haven't heard any of them argue that we violate sex toys by using them because, as inaminate objects, they can't give their consent.
Original post by JacobW
Perhaps I shoulded have added "for that reason". As loony as these people are, I haven't heard any of them argue that we violate sex toys by using them because, as inaminate objects, they can't give their consent.
I can almost picture what it would be like if it could give consent. I would imagine quite a few people would be turned off if they switched on their vibrator and suddenly heard it going "I give my consent. Please stick me in you.".
Although I would assume to get around this problem you'd also need to give vibrators the option to not give consent. Perhaps with a message along the lines of "No consent. THIS IS RAPE!" or whatever. It would likely make people feel self-conscious that they got rejected by a sex toy, but ah well.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, apart from on Dragon's Den. Consenting sex toys will be a big hit.
Well, there aren't quite as many people insisting that same-sex marriage persecutes religion as there were last time this came up. An encouraging sign, possibly...
The old ones are the best, eh?
Original post by Jester94
Made by an American, so just subsitute Britain/British where appropriate, obvs
Made by an American, so just subsitute Britain/British where appropriate, obvs
The old ones are the best, eh?
As a homosexual myself, I DON'T WANT ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT, I just want to be treated equally.
However, marriage is seen in both religious views and legal views of the government as a courtship of sorts between people.
This is where I draw the line though. Marriage is mainly under religion and many religions would sooner see me killed because I was born this way and have no say in my own sexuality.
So, in this I suppose I sit on the fence because whilst it doesn't bother me because a civil partnership is basically the same as marriage, it is just seen that way in the eyes of religion, I would say I am fine with it. All the legal binding mumbo jumbo goes with a civil partnership as a marriage does.
So, I don't really care, if it goes ahead, then that's fine but if it doesn't, I'm just as happy with a civil partnership.
However, marriage is seen in both religious views and legal views of the government as a courtship of sorts between people.
This is where I draw the line though. Marriage is mainly under religion and many religions would sooner see me killed because I was born this way and have no say in my own sexuality.
So, in this I suppose I sit on the fence because whilst it doesn't bother me because a civil partnership is basically the same as marriage, it is just seen that way in the eyes of religion, I would say I am fine with it. All the legal binding mumbo jumbo goes with a civil partnership as a marriage does.
So, I don't really care, if it goes ahead, then that's fine but if it doesn't, I'm just as happy with a civil partnership.
Original post by mmmpie
The old ones are the best, eh?
Definitely. I'm thinking of bringing back that pie chart one next...
Original post by Jester94
Made by an American, so just subsitute Britain/British where appropriate, obvs
Made by an American, so just subsitute Britain/British where appropriate, obvs
Oh I love this!
Original post by Martyn*
He's doing this for votes. It is as plain as the scar on Helen Mirren's cheek.
I wasn't aware politicians had any other agenda apart from benefitting themselves and their old school chums.
Original post by Jester94
Definitely. I'm thinking of bringing back that pie chart one next...
We need photos of people holding witty placards!!!
Original post by mmmpie
We need photos of people holding witty placards!!!
Yes sir!
I think we should just start a thread with the best signs like this to be honest...
Original post by Jester94
Yes sir!
I think we should just start a thread with the best signs like this to be honest...
I think we should just start a thread with the best signs like this to be honest...
Although my favourite one is this (partly because they guy is cute)
Original post by mmmpie
Although my favourite one is this (partly because they guy is cute)
Although my favourite one is this (partly because they guy is cute)
That one always makes me giggle, just because it's so true
I'm not kidding about the thread btw
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Dolls' House compared to Bell Jar?
- A-Level English Literature essay
- English Literature - NEA coursework
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- I like my female teacher and I'm a female
- What is dating like in university?
- Why is it that every time I hear that someone is pregnant I automatically think about
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Romeo&Juliet: Quote analysis ??
- AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 1 - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Why did Stella leave Belle Reve in A Streetcar Names Desire?
- A level English Lit
- Admiral quotes not appearing?
- The Same Picture of Ainsley Harriott Every Day
- Help with history A level interpretation/ extract questions
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1021
Last reply 24 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 25 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 30 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 31 minutes ago
Occupational therapy wolverhampton universityLast reply 35 minutes ago
Does LSE accept students who reapply?Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
