[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
It's certainly better for us heterosexuals, if you met a homo and you were unsure about them and they said they were 'married' you would automatically assume they were married to a woman.

Somehow thats supposed to be a reason that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry? Because people would make false assumptions?

People sometimes like to be nosey and ask questions. So if you were gay and said you were married, it would only get confusing - plus then if later in the conversation, the same person said something like "next time why not bring your wife along" - would that not then be embarrassing for the homosexual?

What is so confusing? You are gay...and married.... what is confusing about that? If they say to bring a wife (assuming its a male they are talking to) then the person can just correct them or let it be if they want.

If on the other hand the homosexual referred to their 'partner', you would maybe be more inclined to think 'ok this person is most likely a homo not a hetero'.

No when you refer to a 'partner' people generally think business partner. But whatever I guess you feel that is an appropriate title for a lover.

And anyway, what is wrong with pointing out to people that you are gay if that's what you are as if you have a partner not as if you are technically 'hiding' your sexuality anyway (unless you are hiding your partner away from the world)?

The segregation of the institution isn't about labeling gay or straight, it is about deeming homosexuals not deserving of the right to be married. If you want to distinguish between gay and straight then people are capable of saying "I'm gay." or "I'm straight." "I have a husband (or wife)" What is so hard about that?

[Historophilia]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
But the problem with your view is that marriage isn't necessarily a religious thing. Historically it hasn't always been religious.

Well it pretty much is, certainly marriage in the form that it takes in the west is based on a religious ceremony.

Marriage or any form of binding too people into a union has always been linked to religion in some way, either pagan, abrahamic etc.

Marriage as a purely civil ceremony is a very recent development.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Historophilia)
Well it pretty much is, certainly marriage in the form that it takes in the west is based on a religious ceremony.

Marriage or any form of binding too people into a union has always been linked to religion in some way, either pagan, abrahamic etc.

Marriage as a purely civil ceremony is a very recent development.

But marriage itself has not historically been a religious institution. While it may have had religious grounds there are plenty of examples when it wasn't religious. So it doesn't seem to be an inherently religious institution.


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

[Historophilia]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
But marriage itself has not historically been a religious institution. While it may have had religious grounds there are plenty of examples when it wasn't religious. So it doesn't seem to be an inherently religious institution.


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

Show me examples then. In recorded history marriage ceremonies have always been tied to religion of some kind, if not an organised one.

Certainly in the UK that is the case, since Britain became a christian country over a thousand years ago marriage has been tied to religion and a church. Before that pagan religions had their own marriage ceremonies.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by A level Az)
*Sigh*

I don't give a **** what you think marriage is, but the CHRISTIAN church doesn't have to marry gays if they don't want to, and that's that. And for the record, I'm not a christian.

If I replace 'gays' with 'black' then my post would no longer make any sense. Want to be more specific or are we just gonna carry on comparing gays and black people like it's exactly and catergorically the same thing?

Yes, be grateful that there are more people around who are ok with gays, be grateful that you already have 99.9999% of the rights as everyone else, be grateful that you have a substitute for marriage, put things into perspective you ungrateful tool.

It doesn't matter what I think marriage is, facts are facts. It's been around a lot longer than Christianity, you can't have it all to yourself.

And no, sorry. I'm grateful to every activist who has enabled change through their hard work and courage. I'm not grateful to you, or the population in general for being more 'okay with gays'. I'm not grateful I can't walk down the street with the person I love without fear of being beaten up or worse. As it stands, it is illegal for a religious ceremony to take place in England for civil partnerships, regardless of church views. We don't want to force institutions who don't want to do it, we just want to have the option of a religious ceremony with churches that are happy to oblige. Is that too much to ask?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Historophilia)
Show me examples then. In recorded history marriage ceremonies have always been tied to religion of some kind, if not an organised one.

The Roman Empire had civil marriages, for one.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Historophilia)
Show me examples then. In recorded history marriage ceremonies have always been tied to religion of some kind, if not an organised one.

Certainly in the UK that is the case, since Britain became a christian country over a thousand years ago marriage has been tied to religion and a church. Before that pagan religions had their own marriage ceremonies.

In addition to what anarchism said so did the ancient Greeks.


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

[Historophilia]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The Roman Empire had civil marriages, for one.

And the Roman Empire collapsed about 1500 years ago and withdrew from the British Isles even before that.

Certainly in Britain marriage has been a religious institution for the past 1000 years.

The concept of marriage as we view it today owes pretty much everything to religion, it has only been within the last century that people have tried to separate the two.

[Historophilia]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
In addition to what anarchism said so did the ancient Greeks.


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

And the ancient greeks were even longer ago than the Romans, and while you could argue that the Romans may have had some impact on British ideas about marriage the Greeks certainly did not.

In Britain as a concept and as an institution is based pretty much entirely on Christianity.

[lucaf]

(Original post by Historophilia)
And the Roman Empire collapsed about 1500 years ago and withdrew from the British Isles even before that.

Certainly in Britain marriage has been a religious institution for the past 1000 years.

The concept of marriage as we view it today owes pretty much everything to religion, it has only been within the last century that people have tried to separate the two.

But that is irrelevant, in modern Britain marriage is NOT exclusively a religious thing. If atheists can get married in secular ceremonies unrelated to any religion, why should religion have any say on those ceremonies? And why should churches that want to marry homosexuals (I believe Quakers are fine with it) not be allowed because of the beliefs of other faiths?

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

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Historophilia)
And the ancient greeks were even longer ago than the Romans, and while you could argue that the Romans may have had some impact on British ideas about marriage the Greeks certainly did not.

In Britain as a concept and as an institution is based pretty much entirely on Christianity.

Lol that's irrelevant. You asked or examples in history and they were provided. And marriage is not exclusive to Britain. Remember we were talking about marriage as a whole. So now you are changing the parameters just to fit your own ends. But even then that doesn't matter unless you think that nobody outside of religion should be allowed to marry and any marriage that was outside a religion should be nullified.


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

[Kiss]

(Original post by PeaceFreak)
The other day I had a rather nice old lady come to my door from my local CoE to tell me about the importance of keeping marriage between one man and one woman. I let her give me her reasons and i replied with this:

"The joy of declaring your true love for somebody by entering a binding contract with them for life should is something I will never experience. If the definition of gay can change why can't the definition of marriage? Come to my door and tell me how the church is launching a new initiative to help children in third world countries and I will hear every word. Come to my door and tell me how the church is fighting to protect 'traditional' marriage and all I will hear is nonsensical hate"

She looked at me and simply walked off.

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?

You sound like you´re trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. Not only would one question why a homosexual, especially an atheist homosexual, want to marry in a church, but actually wanting to force them to marry is wrong on so many levels. Fair enough to the churches that want to marry homosexuals but you have absolutely no right to try to force the ones that don´t.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by heyhey922)
You can get married out side of a church, the concept of marriage has been around longer than Christianity.

Is this the "go-to" comment of the summer? I must have seen this over 10 times within the last week or so.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Unless you care to prove otherwise?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Is this the "go-to" comment of the summer? I must have seen this over 10 times within the last week or so.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Unless you care to prove otherwise?

There have been same sex marriages in many cultures. Including ancient Rome and Greece

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage - more specifically : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-77


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

[PeaceFreak]

(Original post by Kiss)
You sound like you´re trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. Not only would one question why a homosexual, especially an atheist homosexual, want to marry in a church, but actually wanting to force them to marry is wrong on so many levels. Fair enough to the churches that want to marry homosexuals but you have absolutely no right to try to force the ones that don´t.

How about reading what I posted? I don't want a Christian marriage, state marriage will be fine ta

[heyhey922]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Is this the "go-to" comment of the summer? I must have seen this over 10 times within the last week or so.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Unless you care to prove otherwise?

Well at used to be between one man and often many women.

In Ancient Rome and China they had same sex marriages.

In America they used to ban interracial marriage, which the majority wanted then, but now people think the ban was pretty unfair.

[AverageExcellence]

Let gays marry. that is all

[tufc]

(Original post by Laurenx123x)
It's discrimination. If a person from an ethnic minority or disabled person for example, was denied being allowed a wedding in church, there'd be an uproar. So why is this blatant discrimination allowed in modern society. There are laws about equality, so why is this any different? Why is it deemed acceptable by the church to be so against the LGBT community?

Because marriage is explicitly defined by its heterosexuality. It's not defined in any way by any discrimination on grounds of race or disability status.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Unless you care to prove otherwise?

Books have always been enclosed paper manuscripts. But the state doesn't give out bits of paper stating which items are legally called 'books' and which aren't.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by tufc)
Because marriage is explicitly defined by its heterosexuality. It's not defined in any way by any discrimination on grounds of race or disability status.

In Venice there's a tradition of the Doge/Mayor 'marrying' the lagoon on behalf of the city. One of the reasons priests aren't allowed to marry in some denominations is because they are sometimes said to be 'married to the Church'. Marriage simply means union.