[hannah60000]

@tufc you put forward great arguments that I respect, I'm glad at least some people realise what this movement is implying. Plus seeing the Historical importance of what marrige is, whether you subscibe to Christian view or not

I think the minority of homosexuals want marriage in a church inspite of what people claim.

The state can never force the church to marry them as they have no business as Locke stated, the scared and secular should be separarted. However because of Britian's Historical orgin were the State and Church were of the same mind, this were the issue lies in actuality this is less about rights and more about proving a point, than being deined the right to marry in churches.

The sad thing is most of the people supporting this movement are ignorant to what they are actually fighting for and what is it's purpose in the world today where so much is going on that such a debate should not even be a poiority. I mean whether or not homosexuals marry in a church is not going to fix are moralless society, high unemployment and all the other woes that we currently face...

[hannah60000]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
A christian society is so good? The religion that butchered thousands of people in the name of its God, and hand picked the books in the bible so that they could keep control? Marriage predates Christianity by a long way.

Well you could say this about any religion or group of people. Christianity is not the problem, but the people who use it to excuse evil things, just like during slavery slave masters used their colur oif their skin to justify the way thgey treated the Black slaves...does that make the whole race evil or just thoes individuals...

If people who based Chrisitianity and they Bible actually read it and not listented others and what the media choose to quote, and so called accounts.tTey would see the true message, is not one of hate, violence and opression whether they chose to believe in it or not.

[tufc]

(Original post by AdamChurcher)
Yet what difference would it make if civil partnerships were given exactly the same legal rights as marriage?
Are you trying to protect marriage itself as a whole exclusively for straight couples or are you simply trying to protect the word 'Marriage'?

I'm trying to protect the identity associate with marriage, and ensure its history continues to command the respect that preserves the nuclear family as the prime familial model for life in the UK. Gay people are entitled to legally recognised commitment, so as long as the mainstream media can't call civil partnerships 'marriage' (out of a desire for accuracy, not government intervention), then I would support a system whereby civil partnerships have exactly the same legal consequence as marriage, but remain separate, and exclusively for gay people. I don't see the issue with an 'equal but separate' approach in this instance.

[tufc]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
A christian society is so good? The religion that butchered thousands of people in the name of its God, and hand picked the books in the bible so that they could keep control? Marriage predates Christianity by a long way.

The word 'marriage' certainly doesn't pre-date Christianity in the UK. There might have been lifelong unions for many thousands of years before Christianity came to the UK, but our modern cultural perception of marriage is a Christian one.

[Sean9001]

(Original post by tufc)
It won't change in my lifetime.

Unless you're on your death bed, you're grossly delusional!

[tufc]

(Original post by Ham22)
What is a non religious marriage between a hetero couple called?

A civil marriage.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by hannah60000)
Well you could say this about any religion or group of people. Christianity is not the problem, but the people who use it to excuse evil things, just like during slavery slave masters used their colur oif their skin to justify the way thgey treated the Black slaves...does that make the whole race evil or just thoes individuals...

If people who based Chrisitianity and they Bible actually read it and not listented others and what the media choose to quote, and so called accounts.tTey would see the true message, is not one of hate, violence and opression whether they chose to believe in it or not.

have you ever read the old testemant?

(Original post by tufc)
The word 'marriage' certainly doesn't pre-date Christianity in the UK. There might have been lifelong unions for many thousands of years before Christianity came to the UK, but our modern cultural perception of marriage is a Christian one.

the word doesnt, but the definition of "marriage" in your sig certainly does.

[tufc]

(Original post by Bella_trixxx)
Pity the evidence doesn't agree with you.

"In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...e-sex-marriage

"Policy Exchange said that the number of divorces had decreased in Holland, Belgium, Canada and South Africa since gay marriage was introduced."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226426963152

I don't think you can measure the cultural impact of it in the space of time that follows it so immediately. At least 30 years - a generation - is required before such stats become relevant.

[tufc]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
have you ever read the old testemant?



the word doesnt, but the definition of "marriage" in your sig certainly does.

And that's what I'm opposed to: redefining 'marriage'.

[tufc]

(Original post by Sean9001)
Unless you're on your death bed, you're grossly delusional!

Why are you so certain it will? Conservatism is on the rise again in the UK; neoconservative family values are coming back (thank God).

[FinalMH]

To allow them to marry in church would undermine religion.

[Scienceisgood]

(Original post by FinalMH)
To allow them to marry in church would undermine religion.

Religion is an outdated belief system that should be left in the past.
It has no place in society today.

[ElfManiac]

(Original post by tufc)
Well, this is Britain, and the word 'marriage' dates from 1300, when it was created to mean a civil union between a man and a woman.

In 1300, people thought the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and that it was acceptable to hang people and then cut them up into quarters. Just because something happened in 1300 does not make it right or acceptable in 2012. In the same way we have moved on from self-centered fantasies of planetary importance, from hanging, slavery and feudalism, we can move on from marriage being restricted to heterosexual couples.

If two people love each other and want to get married, they should be able to do so.

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by tufc)
And that's what I'm opposed to: redefining 'marriage'.

You're aware dictionary definitions simply reflect the reality of today’s language use? Hence why people were getting married way before the Christian myth was dreamed up. That definition in your signature is obsolete and has been long ago replaced by a more concise, indisputable definition: 'The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.' Words ameliorate depending on the society; the fact that you think selecting a definition to suit your bigotry makes for a compelling basis in an argument is embarrassing; stop being a baby and let lexicographers do their job.

Also, why don't you think 'civil marriage' is a contradiction, yet gay marriage is?

[FinalMH]

(Original post by Scienceisgood)
Religion is an outdated belief system that should be left in the past.
It has no place in society today.

No. Everyone has a right to choose their religion, I would never dictate to people in what they believe. However if same-sex couples want to get married then fine just not in church.

Churches are of religions value and should never be undermined. If the bible is against it then allowing it to happen in church is....

Also why is it always about church what about other religions buildings... (My point still stands for any religionist place though.)

[Scienceisgood]

(Original post by FinalMH)
No. Everyone has a right to choose their religion, I would never dictate to people in what they believe. However if same-sex couples want to get married then fine just not in church.

Churches are of religions value and should never be undermined. If the bible is against it then allowing it to happen in church is....

Also why is it always about church what about other religions buildings... (My point still stands for any religionist place though.)

Why is the church so against it though?
So, you are saying that because of the way I was born, I am not entitled to the same rights as 99% of the population simply because of the difference of who I like in bed with me?
Got to go in minutes, so, if you answer, chances are I can't reply for some hours. =l

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
And im defining it as between two people.... Problem? Marriage has changed through the years, this addition is nothing...

Yes but lets be honest you can't overrule God

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I'm sure we've had this debate before...
Is this really going to start again?

No, I'm interested to see what SecretDuck has to say on the issue. As I said in our previous debate, as far as I'm aware, the rights that same sex couples get under civil partnership are the same as the rights opposite sex couples get under marriage. SecretDuck stated that this is not the case, so I would like to find out from her exactly what discrepancies she thinks there are. Perhaps I will find out I've been wrong all this time.

[tufc]

(Original post by ElfManiac)
In 1300, people thought the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and that it was acceptable to hang people and then cut them up into quarters. Just because something happened in 1300 does not make it right or acceptable in 2012. In the same way we have moved on from self-centered fantasies of planetary importance, from hanging, slavery and feudalism, we can move on from marriage being restricted to heterosexual couples.

I quite agree. But that wasn't my point. My point was not that it was right to restrict marriage to heterosexual people in the first place, it was that right or wrong, that is the way that marriage has developed its history: as a heterosexual institution. Marriage is a force for good, as it promotes stable family life, and the reason it can promote that is that its history commands a great deal of respect. Creating 'gay marriage' won't change history, it will just undermine marriage's link to its history, and all the good that has come from it.

If two people love each other and want to get married, they should be able to do so.

I don't know what stops people from understanding this: 'Marriage' is a word used to describe a civil union between a man and a woman. Extend it to gay people, and it's not marriage. It's like saying that chairs should be covered by the word 'table'.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yes but lets be honest you can't overrule God

Laws in this country are not based on what god apparently said.