[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
Its god's word and in Western nations laws are based upon the bible.

What evidence do you have that it's God's word?
The law is irrelevant. There are fiction books with the same laws in them.

[Rarar]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
Its god's word and in Western nations laws are based upon the bible.

Slightly incorrect, if we followed it entirely, women would have VERY little freedom. Is 'God's word' right about that? Clearly not, as Western laws give women rights...

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my MZ604

[lucaf]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
Its god's word and in Western nations laws are based upon the bible.

this guy has it right, that's why it is illegal in Britain to eat pork and shellfish, wear clothes made of mixed threads, talk to women on their period etc. oh wait, all of those things are legal. why should I give a **** what it says about homosexuality again?

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
Its god's word and in Western nations laws are based upon the bible.

And what makes you think that God's word is the right word? If he does exist, that is.

[jmj]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
Ahh right okay, cheers for clearing that up.

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?

'Holding the same weight' isn't really about rights though- that's more about a social attitude that might not necessarily change anyway if there was a change in the law.

[abc101]

My only problem with 'gay marriage' is that 'marriage' is the union of one man and one woman. That's the definition of marriage, you can't alter it. We can't just change what an institution is, marriage = one man + one woman. That's what the word means, you don't go changing the meaning of words.

I have no problems with recognising the unions of same-sex couples. They should be able to have their relationships respected with the accordant rights - but just don't call it marriage, because 'marriage' is defined as between a man and a woman.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by abc101)
My only problem with 'gay marriage' is that 'marriage' is the union of one man and one woman. That's the definition of marriage, you can't alter it. We can't just change what an institution is, marriage = one man + one woman. That's what the word means, you don't go changing the meaning of words.

I have no problems with recognising the unions of same-sex couples. They should be able to have their relationships respected with the accordant rights - but just don't call it marriage, because 'marriage' is defined as between a man and a woman.

Except of course, that I cannot sell my daughter into marriage for 2 calves and a sheep means that we've already re-defined marriage. That I could get divorced means the definition of marriage has been changed.
We can change the meaning of words, language is fluid, not static - for instance gay used to be a synonym for cheerful.

400-odd years ago, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman for life - that's changed, so why is this not possible to change?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
400-odd years ago, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman for life - that's changed, so why is this not possible to change?

Why, what has it changed to ?

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Why, what has it changed to ?

The "for life" bit has gone, thanks to Henry VIII.

[abc101]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
The "for life" bit has gone, thanks to Henry VIII.

Not really. Marriage vows contain the line "till death us do part". When you get married, it is supposed to be 'for life'. Yes, it is possible to get divorced, but the essence of marriage is lifelong exclusive commitment.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by abc101)
Not really. Marriage vows contain the line "till death us do part". When you get married, it is supposed to be 'for life'. Yes, it is possible to get divorced, but the essence of marriage is lifelong exclusive commitment.

Regardless of what is said, that it's possible to get divorced means it's no longer a lifelong commitment.

As for exclusive - plenty of cultures permit polygamy, so that isn't the case either.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by jmj)
'Holding the same weight' isn't really about rights though- that's more about a social attitude that might not necessarily change anyway if there was a change in the law.

What about the right to get married? Homosexuals don't lose that right just because they are homosexual. The government cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation therefore it is actually illegal to segregate homosexuals into a different civil institution. That's discrimination.

As for your other concerns what makes you think churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages against their beliefs? There is no proposal for that. And currently while you are trying to protect your church's religious freedom you are impeding on others' by no allowing them to practice their faith (perform same sex marriages).


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by jmj)
'Holding the same weight' isn't really about rights though- that's more about a social attitude that might not necessarily change anyway if there was a change in the law.

Yeah, but won't it be even less likely to change if you don't change the law?
Additionally, the fact that it might not make a difference shouldn't mean we don't do it. Making murder illegal doesn't mean that nobody ever murders, but it makes it more likely that people won't.

[jmj]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
What about the right to get married? Homosexuals don't lose that right just because they are homosexual. The government cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation therefore it is actually illegal to segregate homosexuals into a different civil institution. That's discrimination.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about homosexual orientation here- I'm doing purely about sexual practice. So as a Christian I'm not arguing against gay marriage because a person is homosexual, I'm arguing it because of their sexual practice- there is a fundamental difference between disagreeing with it because of sexual orientation and disagreeing with it because of sexual practice.

The question of having a right to marry was addressed in 2004 with the introduction of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships was an ideal solution of having a way for gay couples to express their love and commitment to each other in a way that has exactly the same rights, benefits and advantages as marriage without having to change the definition for everybody.

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
As for your other concerns what makes you think churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages against their beliefs? There is no proposal for that. And currently while you are trying to protect your church's religious freedom you are impeding on others' by no allowing them to practice their faith (perform same sex marriages).
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well we already know that there was disappointment from those campaigning for gay marriage that the proposals wouldn't affect churches (yet)- I really don't believe the proposals will stop at secular marriage or even stop at religious organisations able to if they wish. I can easily imagine in a few years time a gay couple wanting to get married in their local parish and the vicar being told he has to marry them against his beliefs or lose his job because gay marriage will have become a right.

Plus, this isn't just about Christian beliefs here- there are plenty of other religions- that's why 590,000 have signed c4m's petition with people from other faiths and people of no faith signing. Changing the definition of marriage changes it for everyone.

[jmj]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Yeah, but won't it be even less likely to change if you don't change the law?
Additionally, the fact that it might not make a difference shouldn't mean we don't do it. Making murder illegal doesn't mean that nobody ever murders, but it makes it more likely that people won't.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of examples of a change in the law not stopping how people think e.g. burning CDs, speeding, people not recycling- no matter how much these things can be drilled in, people are still going to do it.

Plus, I think another point is that civil partnerships aren't really seen as that negative- there are plenty of gay people who have spoken out saying that civil partnerships are fine and they don't actually want gay marriage.

Your second point- there's a whole world of difference between making gay marriage legal and making murder legal.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by jmj)
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about homosexual orientation here- I'm doing purely about sexual practice. So as a Christian I'm not arguing against gay marriage because a person is homosexual, I'm arguing it because of their sexual practice- there is a fundamental difference between disagreeing with it because of sexual orientation and disagreeing with it because of sexual practice.

Distinguishing between orientation and practice in this case is pretty irrelevant. A homosexual is someone who has a disposition for same-sex relations, if they choose to act on that disposition why should the government discriminate against them for it? You being a Christian doesn't matter because we are talking about civil marriage. You can disagree all you want but you disagreeing because of your religion doesn't matter because there can be plenty of people who agree because of their religion, so who's opinion is right and should be adopted?

The question of having a right to marry was addressed in 2004 with the introduction of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships was an ideal solution of having a way for gay couples to express their love and commitment to each other in a way that has exactly the same rights, benefits and advantages as marriage without having to change the definition for everybody.

The bill you are referring to was a result of outcry from both the left and the right and was considered a 'middle ground' so to speak. Civil partnerships at the time were a step in the right direction so the left was ok with it, and conservatives saw and made sure it was something entirely different from marriage. They also made sure that there could be no religious affiliation or ceremony with it. It was not deemed that homosexuals didn't have the right to marry but rather that civil partnerships were good enough at the time.

Well we already know that there was disappointment from those campaigning for gay marriage that the proposals wouldn't affect churches (yet)- I really don't believe the proposals will stop at secular marriage or even stop at religious organisations able to if they wish. I can easily imagine in a few years time a gay couple wanting to get married in their local parish and the vicar being told he has to marry them against his beliefs or lose his job because gay marriage will have become a right.

I asked what makes you believe this. You essentially just restated what I questioned...WHY do you believe the proposals won't stop at just allowing those organizations who wish to marry homosexuals? The disappointed from gay marriage advocates comes from the exclusion of religion. The ban that people can't have their ceremonies be blessed, because many homosexuals are religious, and there are plenty of churches who would be willing and want to bless their unions. Show me where the gay rights movement has pushed or even suggested that all churches be forced to marry homosexuals.

Plus, this isn't just about Christian beliefs here- there are plenty of other religions- that's why 590,000 have signed c4m's petition with people from other faiths and people of no faith signing. Changing the definition of marriage changes it for everyone.

You were talking specifically about your Christian beliefs so thats what I was addressing. And you are right there are plenty of other religions, and there are establishments in almost every religion that want to be able to marry homosexuals and don't condemn them. So...why again do you deny them their right to practice their religious beliefs, in the name of protecting yours?

[Fatfis]

bigotry?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[pladecalvo]

(Original post by Wirral)
The answer is in Genesis chapter 2. God created the man and the woman for each other and instituted marriage between the two. Read that chapter for the very first wedding ceremony.

Yet the highest divorce rates are amongst conservative Christians.

[Eratosthenes]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
I'm curious to know what possible arguments people have against gay marriage. I can't think of any reason as to why it shouldn't be allowed. Certain people wish to maintain "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman only, but the introduction of gay marriage wouldn't nullify "traditional marriage". In my opinion, everybody in society deserves as equal amount of oppurtunity as each other, and telling a gay couple that they cannot marry, is simply restricting them of the equality they deserve.

So please feel free to leave any arguments for or against the availability of Gay marriage.

I'm not religious. I'm not homophobic. But 'gay marriage' is oxymoronic, it's a religious construct, nurtured and endorsed by religious people since Mesopotamia. The widely accepted religions such as Christianity & Islam spit in the face of homosexuals, yet they wish to adopt a religious construct? It's completely irrational, like a Jew fighting for the right to become a Nazi.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Eratosthenes)
I'm not religious. I'm not homophobic. But 'gay marriage' is oxymoronic, it's a religious construct, nurtured and endorsed by religious people since Mesopotamia. The widely accepted religions such as Christianity & Islam spit in the face of homosexuals, yet they wish to adopt a religious construct? It's completely irrational, like a Jew fighting for the right to become a Nazi.

Except religion does not own marriage. Even if marriage was founded in religion (which it wasn't) in the modern world there is such a thing as civil marriage. So religion is irrelevant when talking about civil marriage (which is what everyone is talking about).