[tufc]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
Why can't they be equal? Some heterosexual couples want civil partnerships, some homosexual couples want marriage?

What is the big deal? Why can't we redefine marriage to include both homosexual and heterosexual couples?

Change is the most constant thing in the world, and this redefinition isn't hurting anyone, except perhaps elitist heterosexual couples who think they should some how be separate from homosexual couples.

Every time marriage has been meddled with, divorce rates have gone up. When people get married, they are making a vow to the institution of marriage as well as God; a vow to the history and sanctity of it. That's what keeps marriages together, through thick and thin: a respect for an ancient institution that underpins society. Redefining marriage so fundamentally would lead to that respect being cheapened. You wouldn't have the same institution any more, with all that history - you'd have a new institution, starting again from the year dot, because, as I say, the word 'marriage' quite literally means the civil union between a man and a woman. I know when my grandparents had tough times in their marriage, they stuck together through them because of their respect for the institution. Redefine marriage, and you lose that respect.

[kog]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, some do. But only to prove a point, not because they want to immortalise their relationship in the house of God.

All gay marriage is wrong; marriage is explicitly one man and one woman. 'Gay marriage' cannot actually ever even exist, as it's a contradiction in terms.

with regards to your signature, let's do the full quote, shall we?

mar·riage

noun /ˈmarij/ 
marriages, plural

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
- a happy marriage
- the children from his first marriage

A combination or mixture of two or more elements
- a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

(in pinochle and other card games) A combination of a king and queen of the same suit


Anyway, enjoy your blind look at the world, was it John Lennon who said `living is easy with eyes closed`?

[tufc]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Marriage is no longer an exclusively religious act, is it? Im an atheist but I could get married at a registry office.

No, but all its history and respect is gained from its religious past.

Besides, if God is perfect, how can he have created the potential for homosexuality incorrectly? Therefore as it has to be planned and endorsed by God, if God is all loving he would want his creations to be happy. Therefore disproving the existence of a God. and/or proving the idiocy of succesive churches.

I don't want to make this a theological argument, as I'm an agnostic. I'm not Christian; however, I do believe in the merits of a fundamentally Christian society. The majority of British people who get married in churches aren't practising Christians, they're basically agnostics or atheists, who want to get married in a church because they feel that it's a key part of their culture. Neither of my parents were particularly religious, but as my dad put it, when you stand at the altar, and make those vows, you're not making vows just to any Christian god, you're making vows to the whole morality of the human species.

[bambamty]

If got Hates homosexuals so much, why did he go out of his way to create them? Because according to the bible, god creates us all right? Therefore homosexuals have every right to get married.


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

[tufc]

(Original post by kog)
with regards to your signature, let's do the full quote, shall we?

mar·riage

noun /ˈmarij/ 
marriages, plural

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
- a happy marriage
- the children from his first marriage

A combination or mixture of two or more elements
- a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

(in pinochle and other card games) A combination of a king and queen of the same suit


Anyway, enjoy your blind look at the world, was it John Lennon who said `living is easy with eyes closed`?

Ah, thanks for 'blind' and 'John Lennon': you just gave me nearly a full row in my game of Liberal Hyperbole Bingo!

And the first definition - the number 1, and thus the most popular - is my definition.

[tufc]

(Original post by bambamty)
If got Hates homosexuals so much, why did he go out of his way to create them? Because according to the bible, god creates us all right? Therefore homosexuals have every right to get married.


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

If you're making a religious argument out of it: No, because if you're going by the Bible's statement that God made us all, you have to accept the Bible's caveat that only straight people can get married. It's a nonsense argument anyway, as most of the British people who get married in churches these days are about as Christian as Bin Laden. They do it because they understand that modern Christianity is inclusive, and spreads a message of morality throughout British culture.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by tufc)
Every time marriage has been meddled with, divorce rates have gone up. When people get married, they are making a vow to the institution of marriage as well as God; a vow to the history and sanctity of it. That's what keeps marriages together, through thick and thin: a respect for an ancient institution that underpins society. Redefining marriage so fundamentally would lead to that respect being cheapened. You wouldn't have the same institution any more, with all that history - you'd have a new institution, starting again from the year dot, because, as I say, the word 'marriage' quite literally means the civil union between a man and a woman. I know when my grandparents had tough times in their marriage, they stuck together through them because of their respect for the institution. Redefine marriage, and you lose that respect.

You have no evidence that divorce rates will go up due to allowing more people to get married. Please provide me with some before you run your mouth off about it.

And marriage is cheapened every time a celebrity gets married and divorced days later, Every time someone gets married in a drunken stupour in Vegas. Those kinds of acts aren't respectful of marriage, not allowing two people of the same sex who love each other and are totally committed to one another is just stupid and elitist.

Also people can get married outwith the church, but you still call it marriage and it isn't 'under God'.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tufc)
The answer is to give civil partnerships the same legal consequence as marriage, not to essentially tear apart an age-old institution that underpins society.

The old age institution was created during bigoted times...
Given that even the ****test couples can even be married including the possibility of those that may not live each other (getting married for whatever reason), I'd rather remove civil partnership and just alter marriage...

Altered from
Marriage=union of man and woma
To
Marriage=union of two people

Hardly tearing apart the definition...

[tufc]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
The old age institution was created during bigoted times...

I understand that; however, that doesn't mean that marriage isn't a force for good in the modern world!

Given that even the ****test couples can even be married including the possibility of those that may not live each other (getting married for whatever reason), I'd rather remove civil partnership and just alter marriage...

The decline in societal respect for the institution of marriage is something that should be halted, not encouraged. Creating 'gay marriage' will only lead to more 'Jeremy Kyle marriages'.

Altered from
Marriage=union of man and woma
To
Marriage=union of two people

Hardly tearing apart the definition...

It is, however, tearing apart the institution. Marriage is heterosexual - that's what it always has been, and redefining it so fundamentally will effectively create a 'new marriage', entirely separate from the hundreds of years of history that secure marriage such respect in the modern world.

[superpig22]

Everyone is complaining about Christians not allowing it but what about other religions...
Was talking to a Muslim about it and they really don't get why no one is complaining about them not allowing gay marriage in a mosque


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

[tufc]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
You have no evidence that divorce rates will go up due to allowing more people to get married. Please provide me with some before you run your mouth off about it.

Every time a big change has been made to marriage, divorce rates have rocketed. Examples include the 1836 Civil Marriage Act, and the divorce laws introduced in the 1960s.

And marriage is cheapened every time a celebrity gets married and divorced days later, Every time someone gets married in a drunken stupour in Vegas. Those kinds of acts aren't respectful of marriage, not allowing two people of the same sex who love each other and are totally committed to one another is just stupid and elitist.

I agree: marriage is already being cheapened. But separating it from its centuries of history will only worsen that trend. It's not elitist to recognise that an institution is defined by its history, and I don't see why gay people need to register their love for each other in an institution that has always been explicitly heterosexual in nature. Like I said in my first reply to this topic, it's not because they have respect for marriage - in fact, it's the absolute opposite: they want to go and do one over against an institution that has precluded them for a long time. It's just triumphalist imperialism.

Also people can get married outwith the church, but you still call it marriage and it isn't 'under God'.

No, but they are still doing it out of respect for the institution.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tufc)
It is, however, tearing apart the institution. Marriage is heterosexual - that's what it always has been, and redefining it so fundamentally will effectively create a 'new marriage', entirely separate from the hundreds of years of history that secure marriage such respect in the modern world.

considering the kinds of people who get married nowadays, gay marriage won't do anything... It's an evolving institution... Dd you think divorce was around at the time of its origin? No, thanks to a certain monarch...

It's hyperbolic bullcrap to think gay marriage will be the apacolypse regarding the integrity of marriage... It's never backed up with evidence... The statement is merely joined along side exaggeration from those that are not in favour of it, making petty justifications...

Again, it's origins are far in the past, in a time that is quite bigoted and unfair. You have not replied to this point of mine from before. Why continue a flawed tradition?

Some churches have even embraced accepting gay people, believing it won't deconstruct the term marriage but rather support it

[tufc]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
considering the kinds of people who get married nowadays, gay marriage won't do anything... It's an evolving institution... Dd you think divorce was around at the time of its origin? No, thanks to a certain monarch...

It's certainly a changing institution, though 'evolving' implies positive progress.
The lack of respect for marriage is becoming more and more widespread. I believe 'gay marriage' will add to that.

It's hyperbolic bullcrap to think gay marriage will be the apacolypse regarding the integrity of marriage... It's never backed up with evidence... The statement is merely joined along side exaggeration from those that are not in favour of it, making petty justifications...

You're the one using the hyperbole - I never mentioned any 'apocalypse'. Every time marriage is meddled with, divorce rates go up, and respect for marriages decreases. It's something that only works when you leave it alone, and protect the history that secures it respect.

Again, it's origins are far in the past, in a time that is quite bigoted and unfair. You have not replied to this point of mine from before. Why continue a flawed tradition?

The tradition might be historically flawed, but its overall impact on society is still positive. Introducing 'gay marriage' will lose society that positive impact.

Some churches have even embraced accepting gay people, believing it won't deconstruct the term marriage but rather support it

They're in a tiny minority.

[t0ffee]

Only to prove a point or to 'get one over' on repressive society

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by tufc)
It's certainly a changing institution, though 'evolving' implies positive progress.
The lack of respect for marriage is becoming more and more widespread. I believe 'gay marriage' will add to that.



You're the one using the hyperbole - I never mentioned any 'apocalypse'. Every time marriage is meddled with, divorce rates go up, and respect for marriages decreases. It's something that only works when you leave it alone, and protect the history that secures it respect.



The tradition might be historically flawed, but its overall impact on society is still positive. Introducing 'gay marriage' will lose society that positive impact.



They're in a tiny minority.

Considering the majority of the country support gay marriage I don't see any reason to believe that legalising gay marriage would result in the public losing respect for marriage.

[lukas1051]

There are a lot of progressive Christians out there who understand that the Bible does reflect the cultural views held by society at the time of writing; I think there are undoubtedly gay Christians who would like to get married in a church under the eyes of God. And there are certainly churches that will marry them, why should they be told that they cannot because others disagree? Let us not forget, the only thing that dictates what is considered a sanctimonious marriage is a book written 2000 years ago, if we're going to base things around that, what about the parts that condone slavery and oppress women? Society changes, the Bible is not the perfect word of God, it was written by man.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tufc)
It's certainly a changing institution, though 'evolving' implies positive progress.
The lack of respect for marriage is becoming more and more widespread. I believe 'gay marriage' will add to that.

It is changing, given divorce has now been included, and is evolving...divorce giving those an escape from a spouse that is not what was expected e.g turning abusive after marriage. With gay marriage, it provides equality. It is evolving

Why should the Old version of marriage be respected? It originated from a flawed time...

You're the one using the hyperbole - I never mentioned any 'apocalypse'. Every time marriage is meddled with, divorce rates go up, and respect for marriages decreases. It's something that only works when you leave it alone, and protect the history that secures it respect.

Oh please, I only mentioned that to go along with the exaggeration youve made...'gay marriage will tear apart an old institution'? Leading to more Jeremy Kyle cases?

The result of fluctuating divorce rates as a result of meddling with marriage (if true), exposes how messed up marriages are... Not meddling will simply not make people aware of how messed up it is... To go back to the original variation of marriage, will give no positive impact to society and will not only cause disrespect ( which for some reason you value), but will also contradict the moral values of this society... Might as well turn Britain into a place where women can't leave the house without a mans permission while your at it...

Why a should it be treated with respect? It is an old world creation from a flawed time... If we want to preserve the past, why not remove rights from women while you're at it... Youve provided no explanation that the old world view of marriage should be respected, nor have you provided evidence that the alteration of marriage devalues/disrespects it... The way I see it, if marriage went back to how it originally was, I'd lose all respect for it... And I'm sure most of Britain/the civilised world will agree with me....

The tradition might be historically flawed, but its overall impact on society is still positive. Introducing 'gay marriage' will lose society that positive impact.

You provide no evidence that suggests it will lose positive impact....
Due to campaigns over equality and fairness for others, the accepting of gay marriage will progress, furthering this positive impact.

I have provided justification for my argument, you haven't

They're in a tiny minority.

The tiny minority of theists with church authority that actually have a brain... Hopefully time will make this a majority soon...


You're entire argument stands on the basis that old world marriage should be kept because it is old (providing no explanation why despite the fact that it is from a flawed time), and gay marriage will disrespect it (without providing evidence). Both of which are neither strong points

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
It is changing, given divorce has now been included, and is evolving...divorce giving those an escape from a spouse that is not what was expected e.g turning abusive after marriage. With gay marriage, it provides equality. It is evolving

Why should the Old version of marriage be respected? It originated from a flawed time...



Oh please, I only mentioned that to go along with the exaggeration youve made...'gay marriage will tear apart an old institution'? Leading to more Jeremy Kyle cases?

The result of fluctuating divorce rates as a result of meddling with marriage (if true), exposes how messed up marriages are... Not meddling will simply not make people aware of how messed up it is... To go back to the original variation of marriage, will give no positive impact to society and will not only cause disrespect ( which for some reason you value), but will also contradict the moral values of this society... Might as well turn Britain into a place where women can't leave the house without a mans permission while your at it...

Why a should it be treated with respect? It is an old world creation from a flawed time... If we want to preserve the past, why not remove rights from women while you're at it... Youve provided no explanation that the old world view of marriage should be respected, nor have you provided evidence that the alteration of marriage devalues/disrespects it... The way I see it, if marriage went back to how it originally was, I'd lose all respect for it... And I'm sure most of Britain/the civilised world will agree with me....


You provide no evidence that suggests it will lose positive impact....
Due to campaigns over equality and fairness for others, the accepting of gay marriage will progress, furthering this positive impact.

I have provided justification for my argument, you haven't


The tiny minority of theists with church authority that actually have a brain... Hopefully time will make this a majority soon...


You're entire argument stands on the basis that old world marriage should be kept because it is old (providing no explanation why despite the fact that it is from a flawed time), and gay marriage will disrespect it (without providing evidence). Both of which are neither strong points

I am so sorry I neg repped rather than pos! Will pos you tomorrow! I totally agree with you, so much so that I don't feel the need to reply anymore!

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
I am so sorry I neg repped rather than pos! Will pos you tomorrow! I totally agree with you, so much so that I don't feel the need to reply anymore!

Its okay, thanks

[siwelmail]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, some do. But only to prove a point, not because they want to immortalise their relationship in the house of God.

All gay marriage is wrong; marriage is explicitly one man and one woman. 'Gay marriage' cannot actually ever even exist, as it's a contradiction in terms.

this.