[darksideday]

This is an issue that has been recently discussed as parliament is going to vote whether gay marriage should happen. Personally I do not feel that it should happen because I believe that one thing will lead to another such as court rulings making church's (or mosque's) take out gay marriage. Also I believe that marriage belongs to religion and not the state, it was marriage as a ceremony that was created by religion so how does it believe to the state at all?

Official party's positions:
- Conservative: Yes (although could be a big rebellion by backbenchers)
- Labour: Yes
- Lib dems: Yes
- UKIP: No
- Greens: Yes

Edit: I didn't see the thread on this before, so sorry if that annoys you but this one has a poll

[iSoftie]

Neg me if you're worthless.

OMG.

[A level Az]

Neg me if you hate gay marriage and never want to see it implemented

Wow, so many homophobes

[Einheri]

(Original post by darksideday)
Also I believe that marriage belongs to religion and not the state, it was marriage as a ceremony that was created by religion so how does it believe to the state at all?

Marriage existed long before anything that could be termed organized religion (rather than folk belief), certainly longer than the relatively short time that Christianity has existed.

Edit: Thanks for the reps! I hereby dub myself: "Einheri, (Heterosexual) King of the Gay People".

[Destroyer25]

(Original post by iSoftie)
No I do not simply because of personal values and I hope people respect that because there will always be different views of different things

People around here seem to lack respect for views which are even slightly contrary to their own. Negative rep is handed out incredibly liberally around here. It just boggles my mind. I've never seen so many people with negative rep on any forum.

[darksideday]

(Original post by Einheri)
Marriage existed long before anything that could be termed organized religion (rather than folk belief), certainly longer than the relatively short time that Christianity existed.

The point i'm trying to make is the government are saying that marriage belongs to them and not religion, if anyone "owned" it first than surely it's religion?

[zoeaw]

Is it not possible to believe in a god and be gay?

[mmmpie]

Should happen. Marriage is supposed to be about two people in love, what's their gender got to do with it?

[ohirome]

Again? Really? This conversation is getting milked to death.

[Morganb804]

YES!!! Marriage is owned by the culture of a Society, not institutionalised religion. For hundreds of years religion was reflective of the culture within our society, but (for better or worse) that is no longer the case, therefore, a new definition of marriage is necessary.

[Alanoud]

The government shouldn't force churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc to offer homosexual marriages.

A civil partnership can be done in a registry office.

[Pep_]

Surely there is already a thread about this...

I'd describe myself as part of the LGBTQ community, but not really in favour of gay marriage largely due to the presence of civil partnerships. There really isn't a phenomenal difference, if you would simply mirror marital traditions but don't force religious groups to accommodate you if there is a legit alternative.

If I end up falling in love with someone of the same sex, why would I want it recognised by god? Particularly the primary religions, "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." comes to mind.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Alanoud)
A civil partnership can be done in a registry office, why would a homosexual couple want to get married in the house of God?

Because they believe in god, possibly?

Presumably you don't object to civil marriages being permitted for same-sex couples, from what you said?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Pep_)
Surely there is already a thread about this...

I'd describe myself as part of the LGBTQ community, but not really in favour of gay marriage largely due to the presence of civil partnerships. There really isn't a phenomenal difference, if you would simply mirror marital traditions but don't force religious groups to accommodate you if there is a legit alternative.

Nobody is proposing to force religious groups to do anything.

[master roflcopter]

(Original post by zoeaw)
Is it not possible to believe in a god and be gay?

Yes, but not to believe in a religion that tells you that you're an abomination for being so- you can't lump 'religion' into one big thing, some religions are much more tolerant/understanding of things like homosexuality than others.

And OP, I don't see the need for Gay 'marriage', as opposed to the civil partnerships we already have in this country, which I am all for. Civil partnerships already give gay couples the same rights as married ones, just with a different name, as far as I'm aware. The way I see it, it's less about rights and more about wanting to re-define the word 'marriage' itself, which is perfectly fine the way it is, in my opinion.

[Pep_]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Nobody is proposing to force religious groups to do anything.

Some pro-gay activists are, much like they demanded catholic adoption/fostering centres etc be forced to equally consider gay couples as potential placement providers or adoptive families.

I was talking in respect to the overall topic, not the few posts prior to my own

[For The Love Of Giraffe]

I don't see why it's a massive deal - if two people are in love, they should be given the opportunities as any straight couple in love. The whole idea that being a gay couple is something totally different is just something that confuses me. I don't really see any difference, other than the fact that a gay couple cannot naturally have a child together and tbh, not all married people want children anyway.

Yes, while a Civil Partnership may be generally the same, it's not equal until it has the name 'marriage' and all of the same opportunities are allowed for it. Why should religion stop people from having what is simply fair? A lot of people in some of the previous threads about this have said things like 'Why should gay people being allowed to marry in a Church be more important than us keeping our beliefs' and really, that's just saying that beliefs that homosexuality is wrong is more fair than equality, if we boil it down to that. Even though religions say that homosexuality is wrong, it's just not. It's not something that people can help and if God really didn't like it, he wouldn't have made people like that. Gay couples are not flaunting it around - they just want to be able to get married in a Church like any other straight couple - what is so wrong with that?

I'm sorry if I sound too harsh - I just cannot understand the big deal. There is nothing wrong with being gay and yeah, it may say that in some holy books but there are many other things that are in holy books which is now considered out-dated and ignored, so why in the twenty-first century are people still not allowing gay people to do the same as straight people? For God's sake, they just want to enjoy having a Church wedding (or rather, have the option to)!

EDIT: I don't want to sound like I'm moaning about negs, because really, they don't mean anything to me, but I find it interesting how people just simply neg on here and then don't bother explaining why. If you disagree with me, please quote me and explain because I would love to know what I've said which is offensive because I just cannot understand the opposite end of this argument, so it would be great if someone who wants to neg me will explain their side to me. I'm open to hear other views because otherwise this just isn't a debate and you're basically saying 'Oh, I don't like what you're saying but I cba to explain it or try to stand up for my view'.

[noisy06]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Nobody is proposing to force religious groups to do anything.

For now

[gagaslilmonsteruk]

Yes. If we do not, it just shows how backwards our society still can be!

[mmmpie]

(Original post by noisy06)
For now

Should we disband parliament then, they might pass a law requiring religious groups to do anything...