[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Hmm at the risk of sounding cliched, its hard to use arguments from the OT (which all of these are) as they all have links to the culture and society of the times. Christians take guidance from Jesus, who defined marriage to be between a man and a woman

And that matters why? Many Christians still follow the OT. Arguments against homosexuality in general are a perfect example of that.

[DarkWhite]

(Original post by zaliack)
Umm... Gay people have civil partnerships, and from what I can tell, the majority of them are content with that. Why would they even want to get "married" in a place which condemns them to an entirety in hell.

The majority aren't content though, that's the problem, at least from my experience. I don't know a single LGBTQQ person at uni who is content with civil partnerships when others are entitled to marriage.

There are some differences though, which whilst may first appear subtle, can mean a whole lot to those in civil partnerships, including the use of titles, honourary titles from partners receiving honours, grounds for legal separation, and so on.

There's also the clear segregation it maintains - you can't tell people you're married, and by saying you're in a civil partnership you're effectively declaring that you aren't married when there's really no need to have to point out that you're gay.

But let's be honest, why not have equal marriage? We're not trying to tell the church who they can and can't marry - that's still up to them; the state licences marriage and in a secular state we should really be leaving religious groups to marry as they wish whilst the state recognises marriage between any loving partners.

There's also the transgender issues, and the fact that many many other countries now recognise "gay marriage", and we shouldn't be trailing behind; we should be leading the way forwards.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
And that matters why? Many Christians still follow the OT. Arguments against homosexuality in general are a perfect example of that.

I would disagree that many Christians follow the OT. It is Jewish Scripture, and is put in the Bible for completeness. I would not argue against homosexuality from an OT point of view. Certainly, I wouldn't argue against it at all. But Christians follow Christ.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Cephalus)
I would disagree that many Christians follow the OT. It is Jewish Scripture, and is put in the Bible for completeness. I would not argue against homosexuality from an OT point of view. Certainly, I wouldn't argue against it at all. But Christians follow Christ.

You just ignored the point.

Many Christians still disagree with homosexuality as an idea and as a practice, that is something almost wholly developed from the OT, just because you do not follow that idea does not mean others do not.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
You just ignored the point.

Many Christians still disagree with homosexuality as an idea and as a practice, that is something almost wholly developed from the OT, just because you do not follow that idea does not mean others do not.

No thats just not true. It is very hard to follow the OT. Because we would then get into the habit of picking and choosing what to listen to in the Bible. You do not understand, Jesus completely did away with the OT. Its not just me, but nearly all Christians.

And tbh I didnt get your other point.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Cephalus)
No thats just not true. It is very hard to follow the OT. Because we would then get into the habit of picking and choosing what to listen to in the Bible. You do not understand, Jesus completely did away with the OT. Its not just me, but nearly all Christians.

What the hell are you talking about, are you literally ignoring what i am saying on purpose?

1. Many Christians are still against homosexuality as an idea.
2. That idea mainly, almost wholly, comes from the OT.
3. Thus many Christians follow a point from the OT.

[zaliack]

(Original post by DarkWhite)
x

I completely agree with you. My post probably wasn't clear enough, but I do believe that there should be no differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. The point I was trying to make (and judging by everyone's replies, I failed to) was that the church has every right not to carry out homosexual marriages, but they should accept that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal.

[Historophilia]

I'm never sure where to stand on this issue to be honest.

I'm not gay and I'm not religious and I can see valid points in both sides of the argument.

However, at base my view is that marriage is essentially a religious act. It has it's basis in religion and for many Christians is a sacrament.

Therefore, I find it strange that anyone not religious is using an essentially religious ceremony to formalise their partnership.

My view, which would probably annoy everyone is to remove totally the power of the state to conduct "marriages". The state (ie. the registry office) can only perform Civil Partnerships and only religious institutions can perform marriages. And it is up to the individual religion to decide if they will perform marriages for same sex couples. Both have the same legal status but the state dos not get involved with defining what Marriage is. Which since it is a religious concept it shouldn't be.

Or we could do it like the French do which is that everyone has to be married by the state to be legally recognised and ceremonies done by a religion have no legal weight. So doing the opposite of what I suggested which is to allow only the state to define marriage and totally separate the concept of marriage from religion.

However I don't buy that way of looking at things so I suggest mine. Which might well get everyone riled up and therefore (by my books anyway) be the right way to do things.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
What the hell are you talking about, are you literally ignoring what i am saying on purpose?

1. Many Christians are still against homosexuality as an idea.
2. That idea mainly, almost wholly, comes from the OT.
3. Thus many Christians follow a point from the OT.

Most Christians would argue against homosexuality as follows:
-Sexual activity is limited to marriage
-Marriage is between a man and women
-Homosexuality therefore is not allowed

And actually, alot of Christians would cite Paul in Romans as the reason against homosexuality. Not the OT

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Cephalus)
And actually, alot of Christians would cite Paul in Romans as the reason against homosexuality. Not the OT

Ahh yes, the words that can be viewed in many many different views and doesnt directly state anything and is chosen by many as to mean what they want it to mean? The same writings that support the oppression of women and support slavery which are effectively not followed?

Very good.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Ahh yes, the words that can be viewed in many many different views and doesnt directly state anything and is chosen by many as to mean what they want it to mean? The same writings that support the oppression of women and support slavery which are effectively not followed?

Very good.

Again you have to look at the deeper meaning. And I mean from the original Greek

I would suggest looking at
http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/fo16.htm

And please dont think I am trying to incite hatred. I just want to show you why the church has objections

[Devel]

This thread again....

[Caribbeantwist]

I as a Christian see all people as equals, whatever their sexuality. But as a christian I believe homosexuality goes against the bible. But I believe all people are entitled to their own lives, and why should I dictate that their life is wrong? It goes against my beliefs but I would never say it is wrong


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

[DarkWhite]

(Original post by zaliack)
I completely agree with you. My post probably wasn't clear enough, but I do believe that there should be no differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. The point I was trying to make (and judging by everyone's replies, I failed to) was that the church has every right not to carry out homosexual marriages, but they should accept that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal.

Seems I can't +rep you at the moment, but that does clear things up

Mind you, I respect the right of a religion to maintain its particular views. Whilst I don't agree with what the Bible says about men and women, I do feel it's their right to hold that belief; doesn't excuse them from the law or the way they treat others of course.

[AntisthenesDogger]

The definition of Marriage hasn't always been of religion.

Indeed, surprisingly marriage was around before religion! Shocker.

It's just the wedlock of two people; You can keep religious marriage, but also you can have another form of marriage with the same boons and which is as reputable. No problem really. I just don't see why homosexuals would want to marry in a church.

[kaypc]

(Original post by PeaceFreak)

I don't want a Christian marriage but I do want a marriage, what right does a church I don't follow have to try and deny me that?

wait, i don't get it, i thought the alternative for people who want to marry but not in a religious ceremony was to just get your marriage certified by the registry office and have celebration. Isn't marriage supposed to be a religious ceremony ie exclusive to theists.

[lucaf]

the definition of marriage DOES change, thats what I find weirdest about people opposing gay marriage. it used to be more of a property contract than an expression of love, it has been legal with multiple wives (and in some cases multiple husbands), it used to be the only acceptable environment to have sex and raise kids, it has been arranged by families. the only constant in all of that is that it is between a man and a woman, and for some reason people say that can never change even though marriage being an expression of love and commitment (which is the biggest reason behind modern marriage) has never been a defining part of marriage!

[lucaf]

(Original post by kaypc)
wait, i don't get it, i thought the alternative for people who want to marry but not in a religious ceremony was to just get your marriage certified by the registry office and have celebration. Isn't marriage supposed to be a religious ceremony ie exclusive to theists.

yes, except gays cannot do that. civil marriages are available to atheist heterosexuals, but homosexuals only get civil partnerships

[heyhey922]

(Original post by zaliack)
Umm... Gay people have civil partnerships, and from what I can tell, the majority of them are content with that. Why would they even want to get "married" in a place which condemns them to an entirety in hell.

You can get married out side of a church, the concept of marriage has been around longer than Christianity.

[ufo2012]

if lol is actually the correct word

Another 'gay' thread?!?

Since many of these issues are already being debated (and very well debated in most cases) within existing threads, why does every single question concerning gays seem to require a brand new thread?

Getting very complicated to try and follow.