[Surfing_the_shine]

marriage is of intimacy , love and trust , so long as it monogamous ---as i dont agree with polygamy. then i dont think there is anything wrong with it.

i think marriage is a beautiful union for life, i really dislike divorce , it always affects more than just the two people--children, family, friends, but i guess if they are better apart then thats the way it has to be.

i am a religous person, Catholic, i have nothing against gay people or gay marriage, as God puts the desire there such as the love for another man or women, the desire to do good works etc. JUDGE AND BE JUDGED. obviously this should be done within reason such as no child abuse, rape etc these desires such not be advanced upon ever! and help should be sought!
just so people are aware not all religious people are against gay marriage, and non-religious people can be against it i guess its because its not conventional / social norm yet. if you'll remember homosexuality was considered a mental illness but give it time apeople will come around.
i think if two people are in love and committed then i think if they are ready they can marry and live the fairytale happy ever after afterall everyone deseves a break.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I don't know if we have reached a misunderstanding here, but I certainly am not understanding what you are saying.

The majority of mainstream religions (at least their formal line is that they) do not accept homosexuals. It is mostly "separatist" churches who do as it helps bolster their numbers, the Quakers being one.

Those church bodies you are speaking of, I have no desire to oppress their views - that is up to them to work it out amongst themselves, but in doing so you will be certain to see more churches/sects being formed as some break away due to differing views.

I know about the Council of Nicaea in AD325, but what relevance has that to this very issue we are discussing? Homosexuality is a totally different issue requiring the involvement of two people.

I don't really care what the majority of mainstream religions think but I just know that there are various churches/faith groups who are fighting to be allowed the option/right to carry out gay weddings. I don't think the state or the maistream churches should deny them that freedom. The state should never pick a side among these competing faiths.

They can have all the theological debates and breakaway into more sects for all they want I just don't think we or the state should interfere with their affairs. I brought in the Council of Nicaea, Arianism etc into the debate to remind you that the quarrels, divisions, debates, and different interpretations on controversial issues have always existed in christianity. The current issues with churches having different views on homosexuality is nothing new and your opinion that pro-gay churches should be ashamed of themselves is just a very biased and ill-informed view especially if you were of the christian faith.

[jmj]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
As you mention in your next bullet point, this isn't about religious marriage, it's about civil marriage. Why should the Church have an influence on something that is nothing to do with it?

Well I personally believe God owns marriage as I am a Christian- but I believe it wouldn't just stop at civil marriage.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I think the main push is for Churches to be allowed if they wished to (as wouldn't happen under the current legislation), not to force anyone. Churches such as the Quakers would like to perform gay marriages.
I wouldn't like for Churches to be forced to perform gay marriage.

I really don't think it would stop there- I believe there could well be legislation introduced in the future which would force religious organisations to either go against their religion or risk losing their jobs/religious freedoms.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No they don't.

Yes they do that's why they were introduced in 2004, because they have exactly the same rights, benefits and advantages as marriage. In what regard do they not have the same rights as marriage?

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I know very little about how it was done, but we also do not have the right to vote on other people's rights. Otherwise I could (for example, I am not threatening you or anything) get together you and me and 8 other people and all vote on if you should be killed. If we all voted the same way we would win and your right to live would be violated - see tyranny of the majority.

I don't believe this issue is about rights- civil partnerships exist to provide exactly the same benefits and rights as marriage. Voting on gay marriage is entirely different to voting on whether someone should be killed. As for how it was done, there was no mention of gay marriage being introduced at the general elections and people should have the freedom to be consulted about this legislation- not just about how it should come about but whether it should.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Yeah, in general, people have to comply with laws.

Indeed- so if the laws change, then people's freedoms could be severely restricted. So if the new legislation would be brought in, a teacher could have to teach that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage- even if that goes deeply against their religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Marriage has already been redefined several times, including the big one by the Church of England, why is this one suddenly too much?

Divorce was something that could be done in Bible times- in the Old Testament Moses permitted certificates of divorce and Jesus talks about getting divorced in the New Testament. The reason this change is so big is because it goes against the very way God created marriage to be. God created male and female to complement each other so man and woman can work together in serving God. God has made it very clear in both Old and New testaments that he is against homosexual practice and therefore many Christians believe that to introduce gay marriage would be against God's plans for marriage.
Also, if a polygamous relationship is healthy and all involved are happy and consenting to the relationship, why shouldn't they be able to marry? I think the main issue there would be when it came to rearing children, as we do not know if it would be a suitable environment for a child to be raised in, but we do know that about a gay household from psychological research. [/QUOTE]

Why can they not simply have a civil partnership? According to recent surveys, many homosexual people don't care about changing the definition of marriage and they are fine with civil partnerships. It isn't simply about changing a word- changing marriage would change it for everyone and would have far reaching implications for other language we use.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Thank you for presenting them civilly.

No problem- thank you to for responding to my points civilly

[jmj]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
So gay Christians should never be married then? I only ask because of the apparent conflict between being gay and being Christian, yet many seem to overcome this somehow.

I tried to be unclear but apologies if I wasn't- I was referring specifically to homosexual practice, not orientation. There are plenty of Christians who are gay and yet choose to be celibate because they wish to follow Christ.

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
If it's essentially the same then we might as well get rid of it, be we all know it's not.

Why is it not the same? That was their purpose when they were introduced- to be the same as marriage without having to change the definition of traditional marriage. So how is it different?

[jmj]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
This is why the church and the state are seperate and each have their own power. Religion should not have any influence over law making, politics, or education. For one reason: it's based upon faith. And faith is not only undemocratic, but unreliable in terms of providing evidence as to why we should believe such claims as "marriage is a God given gift". We don't know whether marriage is God given or Man made, and it seems awful to prevent all gay people who wish to marry in the UK from doing so under the assumption that God "gave" marriage to hetrosexual people only.

Also, because the state and the church remain (and will remain) seperate, the state cannot control whether a church can convene a marrriage. So if secular gay marriage is introduced, the state will not be able to force it upon religion.

I'm aware you had other reasons but I'm particularly interested in the religious objections on this matter.

Allow me to clarify- that top reason is more my belief- I'm a Christian, therefore I don't agree with gay marriage. That's my personal belief which is why I disagree with it, but that's more like my own personal reason rather than However, I certainly wouldn't want to force my faith onto others as a lot of people reject Jesus.

However, my fear- which was one of the other reasons- is that I don't believe these proposals will simply be for secular gay marriage. Already people are disappointed that these proposals don't include religious marriage as well.

Plus, I don't believe the state owns marriage either. I agree with you that the church (using your definition meaning a religious institution, not the Bible's meaning which is the gathering of God's people) doesn't own marriage- I believe marriage belongs to the people, which is why almost 600,000 people have signed c4m's petition because the government is seeking to change the definition of marriage without even asking anybody.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by jmj)
Well I personally believe God owns marriage as I am a Christian- but I believe it wouldn't just stop at civil marriage.

I really don't think it would stop there- I believe there could well be legislation introduced in the future which would force religious organisations to either go against their religion or risk losing their jobs/religious freedoms.

I do not think there will be as much support for the idea of forcing churches to perform gay marriages. I am for gay marriages and adoption etc. (although adoption is another thread entirely) but would not support this.
And to not introduce the current legislation on the off-chance that it might go further is not a very good reason I don't think.

Yes they do that's why they were introduced in 2004, because they have exactly the same rights, benefits and advantages as marriage. In what regard do they not have the same rights as marriage?

The one I know off the top of my head is that civil partners cannot inherit titles (for example the wife of a man knighted inherits the title 'dame', but his civil partner wouldn't). I believe someone else pointed out more in a different thread, but that's the one I know about.

I don't believe this issue is about rights- civil partnerships exist to provide exactly the same benefits and rights as marriage. Voting on gay marriage is entirely different to voting on whether someone should be killed. As for how it was done, there was no mention of gay marriage being introduced at the general elections and people should have the freedom to be consulted about this legislation- not just about how it should come about but whether it should.

It is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. And it is a matter of rights. We all have a right to start a family.
Prop 8 in the USA was ruled unconstitutional because it was discriminatory. Why should people get to vote on what other people can do if it doesn't harm anyone?

Indeed- so if the laws change, then people's freedoms could be severely restricted. So if the new legislation would be brought in, a teacher could have to teach that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage- even if that goes deeply against their religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

Teach the truth or get fired, sounds like what they have to do now.

Divorce was something that could be done in Bible times- in the Old Testament Moses permitted certificates of divorce and Jesus talks about getting divorced in the New Testament. The reason this change is so big is because it goes against the very way God created marriage to be. God created male and female to complement each other so man and woman can work together in serving God. God has made it very clear in both Old and New testaments that he is against homosexual practice and therefore many Christians believe that to introduce gay marriage would be against God's plans for marriage.

But God did not create civil marriage, civil marriage has nothing to do with God (assuming for your sake here that he exists). I'm not trying to say we should change the definition used by the Church - God's definition if you like - but that the law, the civil definition, should be able to be changed.

Why can they not simply have a civil partnership? According to recent surveys, many homosexual people don't care about changing the definition of marriage and they are fine with civil partnerships. It isn't simply about changing a word- changing marriage would change it for everyone and would have far reaching implications for other language we use.

Many homosexuals may not care but additionally many homosexuals do care.
Changing a homosexual union to a 'marriage' would not have implications for heterosexual marriage. There would be no difference. You can still get married etc. and it's exactly the same.

No problem- thank you to for responding to my points civilly

Not a problem, I like having civil discussions. There's no need to resort to name calling in these kinds of debates and yet it happens so much more often than you'd think.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by jmj)
I tried to be unclear but apologies if I wasn't- I was referring specifically to homosexual practice, not orientation. There are plenty of Christians who are gay and yet choose to be celibate because they wish to follow Christ.

Ahh right okay, cheers for clearing that up.

Why is it not the same? That was their purpose when they were introduced- to be the same as marriage without having to change the definition of traditional marriage. So how is it different?

I don't believe it holds the same weight as marriage. Unless people have a problem with gay people being married, can't we just change the definition?

[Wirral]

(Original post by YMLT)
There are also 8 references to UNICORNS in The Bible

I have found your unicorns. They are in the Authorised Version, a 400 year old translation of the Bible. The identity of the animal is uncertain. Classical Hebrew is a dead language and this inevitably leads to some little-used words being doubtful. 'Unicorn' has long been abandoned as a translation for that particular word. Most modern translations render it 'wild ox'. So no unicorns I'm afraid.

(Original post by YMLT)
What I find most interesting about the same-sex marriage argument is that most men who argue against are normally perfectly fine with 2 women having a relationship together, but when it comes to 2 men they're up in arms

You may well have encountered people who have so believed but they ain't Bible believers. See Romans 1:26-27:

'...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'

[YMLT]

(Original post by Wirral)
I have found your unicorns. They are in the Authorised Version, a 400 year old translation of the Bible. The identity of the animal is uncertain. Classical Hebrew is a dead language and this inevitably leads to some little-used words being doubtful. 'Unicorn' has long been abandoned as a translation for that particular word. Most modern translations render it 'wild ox'. So no unicorns I'm afraid.


You may well have encountered people who have so believed but they ain't Bible believers. See Romans 1:26-27:

'...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'

So, Unicorns are still mentioned in the bible. It just depends which version you read.

I never said they were Bible believers?

[Wirral]

(Original post by YMLT)
So, Unicorns are still mentioned in the bible. It just depends which version you read.

I'm afraid you can't salvage anything from the wreckage of your argument. You have merely highlighted a 400 year old human error. There are hundreds of 'versions' of the Bible, many of them with dubious renditions and some with deliberate manipulation to support some cherished doctrine. What matters is the Word of God as originally given, and that does not have unicorns in it.

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by YMLT)
So, Unicorns are still mentioned in the bible. It just depends which version you read.

I never said they were Bible believers?

Dragons are also mentioned in the Bible. :')

And Genisis 1 describes plants to have existed before the Sun. We now know this of course to be impossible, so I don't really think Genisis can be a reliable source of knowledge.

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Wirral)
I'm afraid you can't salvage anything from the wreckage of your argument. You have merely highlighted a 400 year old human error. There are hundreds of 'versions' of the Bible, many of them with dubious renditions and some with deliberate manipulation to support some cherished doctrine. What matters is the Word of God as originally given, and that does not have unicorns in it.

Would you agree that the list of ten commandments are of divine command?

[YMLT]

(Original post by Wirral)
I'm afraid you can't salvage anything from the wreckage of your argument. You have merely highlighted a 400 year old human error. There are hundreds of 'versions' of the Bible, many of them with dubious renditions and some with deliberate manipulation to support some cherished doctrine. What matters is the Word of God as originally given, and that does not have unicorns in it.

The 'word of god' is completely irrelevant when it comes to same-sex marriage.

[Wirral]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
Dragons are also mentioned in the Bible. :')

Similar answer to the unicorns, but with a complication. There are places in OT where the (400 year old) Authorised Version has translated an animal as 'dragon' where all modern versions put snake, cobra, lizard, etc. The complication is that 'dragon' is often used metaphorically, e.g. in Revelation chapter 12 where Satan is portrayed in heiroglyphic language as 'an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads'. Dragon is a correct translation there but as the passage is non-literal, with the heads, horns and crowns all having a meaning, there in no zoological difficulty.

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
And Genisis 1 describes plants to have existed before the Sun. We now know this of course to be impossible, so I don't really think Genisis can be a reliable source of knowledge.

Read Genesis 1 and you will discover the plants were not in darkness!

[Wirral]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
Would you agree that the list of ten commandments are of divine command?

Yes. Jesus expounded them in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul refers to them in some of his letters.

[Wirral]

(Original post by YMLT)
The 'word of god' is completely irrelevant when it comes to same-sex marriage.

You are in a forum called 'Religion'. The Bible is relevant to the discussion.

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Wirral)
Similar answer to the unicorns, but with a complication. There are places in OT where the (400 year old) Authorised Version has translated an animal as 'dragon' where all modern versions put snake, cobra, lizard, etc. The complication is that 'dragon' is often used metaphorically, e.g. in Revelation chapter 12 where Satan is portrayed in heiroglyphic language as 'an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads'. Dragon is a correct translation there but as the passage is non-literal, with the heads, horns and crowns all having a meaning, there in no zoological difficulty.

The problem with interpreting Biblical scripture is that we do not know what was written intended to be metaphorical or literal. And the only people that can know are the people that have written it. Some Christians pick and choose which bits they want to be metaphorical and which bits they want to be literal.

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Wirral)
Yes. Jesus expounded them in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul refers to them in some of his letters.

Well the morality of the ten commandments is very questionable.

"thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

This one I have a particular problem with. God will condemn us or ask us to repent for merely contemplating sin (as Jesus reiterated). I don't find that moral at all. Condemning people of thought crime is a totalitarian system.

[Wirral]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
The problem with interpreting Biblical scripture is that we do not know what was written intended to be metaphorical or literal. And the only people that can know are the people that have written it. Some Christians pick and choose which bits they want to be metaphorical and which bits they want to be literal.

My first thought is, how much study of the Bible have you done? There really isn't much problem determining whether a passage is to be taken literally or metaphorically. The odd verse or phrase perhaps, but not whole books. Genesis can only be literal history for many reasons, not least the genealogies which are quoted in the New Testament. If Adam wasn't a real person then the mentions of him in several places in NT, including the geneaology in Luke ch. 3, would invalidate those books. You only get a problem with Genesis when you try to force evolution into the first chapter; 'Torturing texts to confess the creeds of science', as somebody said (T.H. Huxley I think - the one occasion when I agree with 'Darwin's bulldog').

Revelation, on the other hand, with it's symbolic numbers, mysteriously horsemen, unearthly locusts etc, pretty well all of which can be traced to OT references, is manifestly symbolic. I won't deny there are some hotheads who have taken it literally but they have only succeeded in reducing the whole book to a science fiction epic.

[YMLT]

(Original post by Wirral)
You are in a forum called 'Religion'. The Bible is relevant to the discussion.

I didn't put the thread in this forum.