[Kiss]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
How is entrenching basic equality for a minority comparable to the extermination of millions of Jews?

Your ignoring the analogy on a face value.

The majority are not always correct - they may think they are from a collective majority opinion, but it doesn't justify themselves to ignore the minority.

In a similar manner as to how people can get swept up in something purely because its what the majority are saying and doing as like what happened in Nazi Germany, simply saying 'Don't the majority want same sex marriage' (post number 99 by heyhey922) is a poor argument as it just means people have jumped on the bandwagon.

And in a similar manner to that, people now appeal to 'the majority' as an argument for same-sex marriage (though I'm pretty sure it's probably quite even for and against).

I'm for same sex marriage, provided of course that churches will not be forced to marry (which has been guarenteed won't happen), but I'm not going along with it simply because everyone else is; I've taken my own intiative to assess why I think it's a good idea, unlike so many people who simply want it to look hip, trendy and on the 'moral high ground'.

[adsyrah]

(Original post by Kiss)
I'm for same sex marriage, provided of course that churches will not be forced to marry (which has been guarenteed won't happen), but I'm not going along with it simply because everyone else is; I've taken my own intiative to assess why I think it's a good idea, unlike so many people who simply want it to look hip, trendy and on the 'moral high ground'.

What makes you think other people haven't come to the same conclusion in a similar way?

You've no evidence that the majority of people are jumping on a bandwagon in order to look 'hip'. Maybe, just maybe, the general public err on the side of equality over inequality in this instance.

[rainbow.panda]

If they're so concerned about the sanctity of marriage why don't they go the whole hog and ban divorce?

I don't understand why this is even a problem, gay people are human beings therefore they should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us.

[Kiss]

(Original post by adsyrah)
What makes you think other people haven't come to the same conclusion in a similar way?

You've no evidence that the majority of people are jumping on a bandwagon in order to look 'hip'. Maybe, just maybe, the general public err on the side of equality over inequality in this instance.

Maybe, but you have no evidence for that either. People who go along with things simply because everyone else is without hearing the pros and cons are sheep.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Kiss)
People who go along with things simply because everyone else is without hearing the pros and cons are sheep.

I think you'll find they are people.

[Electronica]

Let people do whatever makes them happy.

More to the point though, why would anyone want to be married? If you need your relationship quantified on a sheet of paper then your relationship is worth nothing more than a sheet of paper. It's a pointless and outdated ceremony which encourages possessiveness, control, and mistrust. A strong relationship is not built by jumping through pre-determined hoops.

I think the government shouldn't offer marriages at all. If you're going to privatise anything, I think it's worth a shot.

[madders94]

(Original post by Kiss)
I'm for same sex marriage, provided of course that churches will not be forced to marry (which has been guarenteed won't happen), but I'm not going along with it simply because everyone else is; I've taken my own intiative to assess why I think it's a good idea, unlike so many people who simply want it to look hip, trendy and on the 'moral high ground'.

Why do you assume everyone else has done it to look hip and trendy? People could have all number of reasons for supporting it - personally, I don't see why I should be allowed to marry my boyfriend but one of my close friends shouldn't be allowed to marry his, so I support gay marriage

[Ineluctable]

(Original post by .eXe)
I am a Christian and even I feel that this is wrong. The church should have no business saying anything on gay marriage.

The only thing churches should be allowed to do is to refuse to marry homosexuals.

Before I get flamed, just hear me out. Churches are not under any obligation to cater to everyone, just like schools don't cater to everyone and certain jobs don't allow just anyone to obtain them. Churches have full right to deny someone if they feel that the individual is in violation of the church's beliefs. So from that point of view, I would side with a church if they deny a homosexual to marry inside a church because a church has full authority to restrict who can do what in the building.

However, churches shouldn't be dictating other people's lives and giving warnings about things it doesn't agree with and all that jazz. Also, churches shouldn't be involving themselves in political decision-making.

Sorry, you are not a Christian. I recommend you go back and read Genesis

[Ineluctable]

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
No it hasn't. I pity you for how indoctrinated you are.

Yes it has. Please study history.

[Ineluctable]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
Ah yes, that radical, subversive gay movement, whereby people everywhere will dare to free themselves of arbitrary discrimination. Dear all, let us rise against the conspiratorial bender agenda.

It's nothing to do with that. I feel that homosexuals (among others) are trying to undermine a sacred tradition. The church has an absolute right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not the kind of marriage that God wanted.

[thetobbit]

Ok, inform me if I've missed something important but here goes:

I have nothing against gay people and feel they should be able to what they want in their own homes and society, as long as it does not harm others.

Is a civil partnership not enough? Surely the only difference is that a traditional marriage is conducted in a church? Plenty of straight atheist couples marry in civil ceremonies, not just gay people. And so, is this campaign for gay marriage not simply trying to get gay marriage put on the same religious level as straight marriage, which is never going to happen?

Any person, be it a Christian zealot or a radical gay rights campaigner, who trys to impose their beliefs (and no I don't think being gay is a choice) on me or society should be dismissed.

I'm an atheist btw and believe we should get rid of churches and have a unified idea of marriage (as an ideal)

[thetobbit]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
It's nothing to do with that. I feel that homosexuals (among others) are trying to undermine a sacred tradition. The church has an absolute right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not the kind of marriage that God wanted.

Please read the bible

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
It's nothing to do with that. I feel that homosexuals (among others) are trying to undermine a sacred tradition. The church has an absolute right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not the kind of marriage that God wanted.

God doesn't exist.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by thetobbit)
Ok, inform me if I've missed something important but here goes:

I have nothing against gay people and feel they should be able to what they want in their own homes and society, as long as it does not harm others.

Is a civil partnership not enough? Surely the only difference is that a traditional marriage is conducted in a church? Plenty of straight atheist couples marry in civil ceremonies, not just gay people. And so, is this campaign for gay marriage not simply trying to get gay marriage put on the same religious level as straight marriage, which is never going to happen?

Any person, be it a Christian zealot or a radical gay rights campaigner, who trys to impose their beliefs (and no I don't think being gay is a choice) on me or society should be dismissed.

I'm an atheist btw and believe we should get rid of churches and have a unified idea of marriage (as an ideal)

Civil marriages between straight couples are still marriages though. As far as I'm aware all this campaign seeks to do is change the wording of the current civil partnership.

[agoetcherian]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
It depends on how you define secular I suppose. Although 'officially', the state religion is protestantism, in reality this means very little and we are among the most secular nations in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not religious whatsoever, but we are not a secular country. Our head of state is also the head of our religion. Religion is mixed in to our education (even down to how my extremely multi-ethnic state comprehensive served fish and chips on a Friday). Shops have legally limited hours on a Sunday. Our country is still a religious country, and our laws are closely intertwined with that.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
Sorry, you are not a Christian. I recommend you go back and read Genesis

How about you go figure Out what "Christian" actually means.

Also, just to help clear up your ignorance, Christianity originated after the new testament. There were no Christians around genesis. You're confusing us with jews.


Posted via TSR iPhone App

[Negaduck]

The Church of England has been a joke for quite some time now, I guess they just wanted to make sure we hadn't forgotten about them.

[Prestoria]

I don't see what the issue is. As far as I'm aware, churches are not forced to marry same-sex couples.

There's mention of the claim that if gay couples were to marry, this would undermine the sanctity of marriage. I'm sorry, but I disagree. Divorce rate is through the roof, there have been marriages that have lasted for a very short period of time (ie. Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage), and there have been people who have an affair/multiple affairs when married (ie. Tiger Woods). Honestly, how will allowing same-sex marriage undermine marriage?

[mmmpie]

I've actually the the Church's consultation response in full. There are a lot of errors of reasoning, fact and law in it - especially where it discusses the ECHR. They'd have been better off making a simple statement of opinion. As it is they've made themselves look bigoted and ignorant, rather than just anachronistic and irrelevant.

(Original post by Ineluctable)
It's nothing to do with that. I feel that homosexuals (among others) are trying to undermine a sacred tradition. The church has an absolute right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not the kind of marriage that God wanted.

Persecution complex much? Homosexuals want to get married because they want to marry each other, not because they want to upset you or undermine your 'sacred tradition'.

The church has the right to refuse to marry gay couples - in fact the church will not be allowed to marry gay couples. However, I do not live in a church but rather in a 21st century liberal democracy, so I expect equal treatment before the (secular) law.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
I feel that homosexuals (among others) are trying to undermine a sacred tradition.

Errr no.

1 - Marriage is not christian thing. It existed beforehand, and exists for non-christians too.
2 - People who support gay marriage are not trying to undermine religion. They are supporting to right for gay people to marry.

(Original post by Ineluctable)
The church has an absolute right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not the kind of marriage that God wanted.

But we aren't trying to force the church to marry gay people. We just want civil marriage (aka nothing to do with the church) to be available for them.