[adsyrah]

(Original post by LurkerintheDark)
I'm totally atheistic, and in actual fact it annoys me when people characterise all people opposed to gay marriage as religious - because there's a perfectly sensible secular argument against opening the floodgates to all sorts of different marital configurations.

Oh, I wasn't characterising you as being religious because of your opinions. It was your language that made me think you are.

Your opinions, however, are homophobic and bigoted.

1) Homosexuality isn't in any way comparable to incest
2) If a man marrying another man is in anyway a stepping stone to polygamy, then why isn't a man marrying a woman one? Your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

[heyhey922]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318
I for one am relieved that the Church of England is continuing to defend the traditional idea and sacred institution of marriage.

Wasn't the Church of England created to change the definition of marriage?

[LPK]

It's true, same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. Just look at the countries that allow polygamous marriages across the world. They love gays so much they imprison, torture and/or murder them. It's such a logical and obvious step!

As for the incestuous card, you can marry your first cousin already in many countries (including this one!). Ironically the ability to marry your cousin was legalised by Henry VIII (ya know, that Founder of the Church of England ), and the Royal Family has a history of endogamy, so I think heterosexual-only marriage has already pretty well covered incenstuous marriages.

Oh, and before the animal-human card is pulled, all I will say is good luck getting an animal to sign the marriage license.

[adsyrah]

(Original post by heyhey922)
Wasn't the Church of England created to change the definition of marriage?

It was.

There's an irony alarm going off in Wesminster Abbey at the moment...

[taylorg292]

I was confirmed into the church of england when I was 15 and I now only attend 3 times a year for Easter, Christmas and Remembrance Day; and I choose not to take communion at all. It's ridiculous that certain people should be treated like crap because some idiot misinterpreted a book written thousands of years ago.

[E.Cook]

I really can't see what business it is of the Church - they didn't originate the ceremony of marriage, they don't have the right to judge people and then quote scripture against judging and they most certainly do not have the right to influence legislation regarding something considered a human right.. Key word there...

[heyhey922]

(Original post by SaharaDesert)
About time they stood up for themselves.

After the 100s of years of gay people burning Christians just for being Christians.

Oh wait.

[Mad Vlad]

The CofE is really throwing its toys out the pram now. Seriously, what's the point in it threatening to "stop conducting marriages for the state"? Surely this position just alienates the already declining church yet further. It's an issue that doesn't affect them, yet they feel like marriage belongs to them. Well, no, it doesn't. Marriage is not a religious institution - the idea of a binding social contract pre-dates modern religion and in the more contemporary sense, marriages are formed in civil, non-religious ceremonies on a daily basis in the UK.

The definition of marriage isn't set in stone and this proposal really isn't groundbreaking; it's simply equalising the relationships between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

(Original post by LurkerintheDark)
I'm totally atheistic, and in actual fact it annoys me when people characterise all people opposed to gay marriage as religious - because there's a perfectly sensible secular argument against opening the floodgates to all sorts of different marital configurations.

The "slippery slope" argument is as daft as it is tired and old. There are no valid arguments against same sex marriage. I struggle to find legitimate reasons why polygamous marriages should not be allowed, to be honest, but there are valid arguments against marriages with blood relatives, animals and inanimate objects.

[Pangol]

(Original post by taylorg292)
It's ridiculous that certain people should be treated like crap because some idiot misinterpreted a book written thousands of years ago.

The trouble is, there are so many ways that books like the Bible can be interpreted. And there are several places where it is directly anti-gay. I don't see how you can say that it is down to misinterpretation, when an anti-gay reading of the Bible seems far more in keeping with what it actually says than a gay-friendly reading.

I don't agree with the church at all, and I think that religion is silly in general, but the idea that an anti-gay reading of the Bible is down to misinterpretation is not a view that I think is particularly easy to defend.

[adsyrah]

(Original post by Pangol)
The trouble is, there are so many ways that books like the Bible can be interpreted. And there are several places where it is directly anti-gay. I don't see how you can say that it is down to misinterpretation, when an anti-gay reading of the Bible seems far more in keeping with what it actually says than a gay-friendly reading.

I don't agree with the church at all, and I think that religion is silly in general, but the idea that an anti-gay reading of the Bible is down to misinterpretation is not a view that I think is particularly easy to defend.

Maybe, but when said passages in the bible are alongside ones saying it's fine to stone adulterers to death, eating prawns is an abomination and keeping slaves is ay-okay, you have to question why Christians are so fixated on gays.

[Smerdyakov]

It's a complete fear-mongering overreaction. They've not at all been able to outline what exactly is wrong about gay people getting married, they just say "it'll change the definition". What does that even mean? Are they saying it'll be less significant?

They're just scared of change.

[Mr Dangermouse]

What's wrong with polygamy anyway?

[Pangol]

(Original post by adsyrah)
Maybe, but when said passages in the bible are alongside ones saying it's fine to stone adulterers to death, eating prawns is an abomination and keeping slaves is ay-okay, you have to question why Christians are so fixated on gays.

Oh, I completely agree. I have no doubt that the anti-gay parts of the Bible are used to validate pre-existing prejudices, where as the inconvenient stuff about dietary requirements is usually skipped over. I'm just saying it's hard to defend an anti-gay reading of the Bible as a misinterpretation. It seems a pretty correct interpretation to me.

[turquoisesheep]

According to the bible divorce is a sin, yet divorced people can still re-marry in church. Adultery is also a huge sin, yet adulterers are not prevented from marrying in church either. For the record, I don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but for those that do - think about why you allow other 'sinners' to marry in church, but not gays.

[Smerdyakov]

(Original post by adsyrah)
Maybe, but when said passages in the bible are alongside ones saying it's fine to stone adulterers to death, eating prawns is an abomination and keeping slaves is ay-okay, you have to question why Christians are so fixated on gays.

Don't forget "thou shalt not sit on a chair if a woman has menstruated while using it". Totally relevant to modern life, that one.

[Pangol]

(Original post by LurkerintheDark)
If you want to be brainwashed by the radical gay agenda, be my guest.

[Radical = pro-equality. Brainwashed = different opinion to the poster.]

[AspiringGenius]

Marriage existed as early as 3000 years before Christ. So the church is a newer concept for us than marriage was the Jesus.

I think its really pathetic how Christians think they are entitled to some sort of monopoly over marriage. Even without the obvious homophobia, there is just deep rooted ignorance through the whole system.

[adsyrah]

(Original post by Marcuse)
Don't forget "thou shalt not sit on a chair if a woman has menstruated while using it". Totally relevant to modern life, that one.

It's a doctrine I stick to.

[Serano]

(Original post by LurkerintheDark)
I'm not particularly religious, but I know gay marriage to be a perversion - and gays raising kids is an even weightier abomination. Logically you cannot be in favour of this gay marriage rubbish and then deny polygamists or family members the right to come up with all sorts of different marital arrangements. Do you really want to see that? Because after all they're all consenting adults who love each other - how dare you interfere with their human rights? No - marriage is between one man and one woman, no exceptions.

Lots of other things are abominations aswell!! The bible says so!!11

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1138309/

I especially like the part on shellfish, what did shellfish to do deserve to be called abominable?!

[AndyHoughton]

Maybe if Christians followed their own "Golden Rule" - treat others as you wish to be treated - for once, we wouldn't have these sort of problems.