Church of England warning on gay marriage

Original post by minimarshmallow

Here's a solution then, as it seems to be the gay people who are bothered that they cannot have their union called a marriage and the straight people who are saying it doesn't make any difference; we just flip them round. Calling the gay union marriage and the straight union civil partnership seems to please everyone, doesn't it?
If you wouldn't be happy with this, why should gay people be happy with it?

Again, my point is to not switch established definitions to suit the exceptions.

I don't really care who is included in those definitions...my point is that the established definitions should not change. Whether it's to include homosexuality, bestiality, incest, i don't give a hoot. I just don't want society to start giving into to people and changing established and accepted definitions.

My rationale for this is that it becomes a rolling stone. There will "always" be exceptions to any definition. Does that mean we must constantly keep changing how we define things? Why even define anything then...because sooner or later down the road, some random is going to come and say he/she feels discriminated again. Absolute gibberish.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 185

Original post by millie-rose

I see your point, but zebras have always existed. Gay marriage has not. This is something new, this is something no generation of children will have ever learnt about unlike 'zebras'. That's why I think we have to be extremely cautious about how we go about implementing gay marriage into our society. I'm not against it, but this is going to change our constitution for future generations, it's not just something you can quickly expect every age in society to adapt too easily.

Gay people have always existed. Can we start by acknowledging that to children and go from there?

Small children do not need to understand the mechanics of marriage, same-sex or otherwise. They just need to understand that it's a kind of relationship between two people who love each other. The range of possible gender combinations is implied by acknowledging that gay people exist and have relationships too.

Reply 186

Original post by .eXe

Again, my point is to not switch established definitions to suit the exceptions.

I don't really care who is included in those definitions...my point is that the established definitions should not change. Whether it's to include homosexuality, bestiality, incest, i don't give a hoot. I just don't want society to start giving into to people and changing established and accepted definitions.

Considering how frequently the definition of marriage has changed over the last two thousand years, I think this argument is a non-starter.

Reply 187

millie-rose

14

Original post by mmmpie

Gay people have always existed. Can we start by acknowledging that to children and go from there?

Small children do not need to understand the mechanics of marriage, same-sex or otherwise. They just need to understand that it's a kind of relationship between two people who love each other. The range of possible gender combinations is implied by acknowledging that gay people exist and have relationships too.

i did not say that gay people have not always existed. I said gay marriage hasn't and that's what children do not know.

Yes I hope that kids do understand that it can be any gender that love each other; but that's much easier said then done.

Reply 188

Original post by mmmpie

Considering how frequently the definition of marriage has changed over the last two thousand years, I think this argument is a non-starter.

You're somewhat right about that, and I'll also add that the definition of marriage has varied widely in terms of geography and culture.

However, I am of course speaking of local definitions of marriage...so if in Canada for example, if marriage has been defined as xy, I see no reason to change it to also include z just because z feels discriminated against all of a sudden.

Reply 189

Original post by millie-rose

i did not say that gay people have not always existed. I said gay marriage hasn't and that's what children do not know.

Yes I hope that kids do understand that it can be any gender that love each other; but that's much easier said then done.

Yes but children do not know that any form of marriage exists until you tell them. So you define marriage to them in terms of "two people who love each other". I don't see what's problematic here.

It's very easily done. You simply tell them as much. Adults have lifetimes of accumulated prejudice and misinformation to get in the way, children do not have that encumbrance. Children's understanding is hampered only by the lack of understanding of the adults around them.

Reply 190

Lord-Voldemort

5

Original post by .eXe

Again, my point is to not switch established definitions to suit the exceptions.

I don't really care who is included in those definitions...my point is that the established definitions should not change. Whether it's to include homosexuality, bestiality, incest, i don't give a hoot. I just don't want society to start giving into to people and changing established and accepted definitions.

'Established definitions' should never evolve, then? The 'established definition' of a voter excluded women and included only wealthy men - should that have changed to suit progressing social attitudes? For many, the 'established definition' of marriage excluded interracial marriage - should that have changed?

Reply 191

Antzlck

18

The whole issue of gay marriage shouldn't be a religious issue (it's bizarre to impose a standard on people that is foreign to them), but because we have an established church in England, linked to the state, it is.
It's time to de-establish the CoE, I believe this would serve the best interests of the church and the state.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 192

Original post by .eXe

You're somewhat right about that, and I'll also add that the definition of marriage has varied widely in terms of geography and culture.

However, I am of course speaking of local definitions of marriage...so if in Canada for example, if marriage has been defined as xy, I see no reason to change it to also include z just because z feels discriminated against all of a sudden.

So marriage varies across time and space, but you're opposed to any change or variation.

Marriage is considered to be a fundamental right and yet it attaches only to a specific subgroup of people. I believe that was the argument made under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for legalising same-sex marriage in Canada.

Here, essentially the same argument holds.

Reply 193

Kylewalker346234

Original post by Ineluctable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318

What does everyone think about this?

I for one am relieved that the Church of England is continuing to defend the traditional idea and sacred institution of marriage.

That is all.

Reply 194

Original post by mmmpie

So marriage varies across time and space, but you're opposed to any change or variation.

Marriage is considered to be a fundamental right and yet it attaches only to a specific subgroup of people. I believe that was the argument made under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for legalising same-sex marriage in Canada.

Here, essentially the same argument holds.

But homosexuals do have the right to marry...just not call it that specific word. Why is that such a big deal is what I don't understand.

Also, your argument about marriage being a fundamental right is a moot point here. It's not like homosexuals are forbidden to be with each other and live as a family. Their rights have not been infringed upon in any way whatsoever!

Also, at what point did I say that changing the definition of marriage is a good thing? In fact I am arguing against that.

I do believe that the church shouldn't be involving itself in this matter. However, specifically from a societal perspective, marriage has been defined a certain way and I see absolutely no reason to change that.

If homosexuals really really really cannot settle for anything except for the word "marriage" then it's pretty clear where the fault lies.

Again, I am not against homo marriages or partnerships or whatever, but I do not like seeing words changing meaning just to incorporate every random who feels discriminated again. Because guess what...there will be exceptions to every damn rule. Do you plan on changing all established definitions then to incorporate everyone who feels even the slightest bit left out?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 195

Psyk

16

Original post by .eXe

Again, I am not against homo marriages or partnerships or whatever, but I do not like seeing words changing meaning just to incorporate every random who feels discriminated again. Because guess what...there will be exceptions to every damn rule. Do you plan on changing all established definitions then to incorporate everyone who feels even the slightest bit left out?

So what do you think of my suggestion to use a neutral term instead of the law calling them marriages or civil partnerships? Then you're not redefining marriage, the state wouldn't be imposing any definition of the word.

Reply 196

Original post by Psyk

So what do you think of my suggestion to use a neutral term instead of the law calling them marriages or civil partnerships? Then you're not redefining marriage, the state wouldn't be imposing any definition of the word.

Okay.

1) If such a neutral term were introduced, what would its definition be?

2) In light of said neutral term, what would the definition of marriage be, and how would it differ from the term?

Reply 197

Psyk

16

Original post by .eXe

Okay.

1) If such a neutral term were introduced, what would its definition be?

The same as how marriage is defined in legal terms now, except that it would also include same sex couples.

Original post by .eXe

2) In light of said neutral term, what would the definition of marriage be, and how would it differ from the term?

That's up to individual people and non-state organisations to decide. The state would not define it in law at all. Some people might consider it to mean the same thing as a "domestic union", other people might consider it to exclude same sex couples. Some people may have completely different opinions on what it means.

The government doesn't have an official definition of every word and we manage just fine, even when people disagree on exactly what those words mean. We don't need the state to dictate language to us.

Reply 198

Original post by Psyk

The same as how marriage is defined in legal terms now, except that it would also include same sex couples.

That's up to individual people and non-state organisations to decide. The state would not define it in law at all. Some people might consider it to mean the same thing as a "domestic union", other people might consider it to exclude same sex couples. Some people may have completely different opinions on what it means.

The government doesn't have an official definition of every word and we manage just fine, even when people disagree on exactly what those words mean. We don't need the state to dictate language to us.

Thanks. This would certainly be an acceptable proposal to me. Especially the bolded part, I wouldn't mind that at all.

Reply 199