[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Ras17)
No, on the contrary since marriage is defined as "The formal union of a man and a woman" so the definition would have to change.

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage, that is simply one of them.
And what I meant was that the definition isn't being COMPLETELY changed, just having something added to it. It takes nothing away, just adds.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
It makes perfect sense if you understand how the church structure operates, as I have tried to explain.

It is not up to individual churches within denominations, it is up to the denomination itself. Because if a church within that denomination goes against the head church decisions of that denomination, it then will split from that particular church denomination for doing so and become a new group entirely (because it is no longer following the laws laid down for it).

This is why I have tried to explain the part regarding mainstream churches and sects, cults and so on and the fact that there is no regulation. If there was regulation, such churches that accept homosexuals would be formally labelled as sects or cults as I mentioned.

To the outsider and following logic, yes it will appear fine to be Christian and gay, but anyone within the mainstream knows otherwise - which is why the minorities are labelled sects or cults.

EDIT: As all of this is actually unrelated here, maybe the best thing to do would be have a topic in Religion: "Is it possible to be Gay and Christian?"

Just quickly all of what you just said is irrelevant the fact still stands that the sect or cult would still be "Christian" so the people involved would still be Christian as well.


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

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
It makes perfect sense if you understand how the church structure operates, as I have tried to explain.

It is not up to individual churches within denominations, it is up to the denomination itself. Because if a church within that denomination goes against the head church decisions of that denomination, it then will split from that particular church denomination for doing so and become a new group entirely (because it is no longer following the laws laid down for it).

This is why I have tried to explain the part regarding mainstream churches and sects, cults and so on and the fact that there is no regulation. If there was regulation, such churches that accept homosexuals would be formally labelled as sects or cults as I mentioned.

To the outsider and following logic, yes it will appear fine to be Christian and gay, but anyone within the mainstream knows otherwise - which is why the minorities are labelled sects or cults.

EDIT: As all of this is actually unrelated here, maybe the best thing to do would be have a topic in Religion: "Is it possible to be Gay and Christian?"

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Just quickly all of what you just said is irrelevant the fact still stands that the sect or cult would still be "Christian" so the people involved would still be Christian as well.

Hence why I explicitly said the part in bold and underlined a particular word for you.

No-one said Christianity as a religion was logical.

Hence also why I said such a discussion would be better in the religion section with it's own topic, if anyone was actually interested enough to debate it.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Hence why I explicitly said the part in bold and underlined a particular word for you.

No-one said Christianity as a religion was logical.

Hence also why I said such a discussion would be better in the religion section with it's own topic, if anyone was actually interested enough to debate it.

If logically one can be christian and gay then it doesn't matter what those part of the mainstream think because they are incorrect.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
If logically one can be christian and gay then it doesn't matter what those part of the mainstream think because they are incorrect.

Your view will obviously differ based on whether you are approaching it from a religious angle or just as a member of society.

However, as mentioned previously, I shall reserve further debate on this issue because it is off-topic here, it should have it's own topic - I don't intend to expound any further upon them here as it is not the place and it is not furthering the basis of the actual topic here in any way right now.

[Ras17]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage, that is simply one of them.
And what I meant was that the definition isn't being COMPLETELY changed, just having something added to it. It takes nothing away, just adds.

Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event, and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality, it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.

Essentially, the OP is suggesting that the definition of marriage is changed, which seems to imply that they accept the definition as "The formal union of a man and a woman" henceforth why it is that they wish to see it changed.

However, if you were to follow an alternative definition - such as one suggested by the anthropoligists you mentioned which do not specify the sex of the people, what would need to change?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Ras17)
Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event, and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality, it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.

Essentially, the OP is suggesting that the definition of marriage is changed, which seems to imply that they accept the definition as "The formal union of a man and a woman" henceforth why it is that they wish to see it changed.

However, if you were to follow an alternative definition - such as one suggested by the anthropoligists you mentioned which do not specify the sex of the people, what would need to change?

It's the law that needs to change, not the definition. Religion doesn't own own marriage, it existed before it and now there are many non-religious ceremonies.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Ras17)
Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event

Not particularly, just a cultural event.

and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality

Oddly enough, that was largely in name only until the last couple of centuries. For most of history people didn't really care about others' private lives unless it involved them or their family.

it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.

There's nothing remotely close to agreement on what marriage means for men, it's hugely different in different cultures. For women it virtually always seems to be something to do with guardianship of children, but that's it.

[fudgesundae]

(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.

No it isn't. From the same place as the picture in your sig:

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

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

Not the greatest place to try and get an anti-gay marriage sig from is it?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
No it isn't. From the same place as the picture in your sig:

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

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

Not the greatest place to try and get an anti-gay marriage sig from is it?

Where did that definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Where did the definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.

That's just silly. The idea is we want the law changing. The British legal system once effectively described a married woman as the property of her husband. By your logic, that should still be in place, because at the time of changing it, that was the law.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by johnaulich)
That's just silly. The idea is we want the law changing. The British legal system once effectively described a married woman as the property of her husband. By your logic, that should still be in place, because at the time of changing it, that was the law.

I think I have been misunderstood, I meant where did the definition that fudgesundae quoted come from.

As the definition they should be looking to is that of the legal system, not what it once described, but what it currently describes - for now, today.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Where did that definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.

Wiktionary. The same place that the sig of the member I quoted is from. I wasn't arguing about the legal definition of marriage, merely pointing out the hilarity of the fact that the site where his anti-gay marriage sig is from also defines marriage as a relationship between same sex partners.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Wiktionary. The same place that the sig of the member I quoted is from. I wasn't arguing about the legal definition of marriage, merely pointing out the hilarity of the fact that the site where his anti-gay marriage sig is from also defines marriage as a relationship between same sex partners.

I was unaware that is where the sig came from... as it shows the crown and ER II etc I thought it was simply a depiction of his support for the monarchy hence the correct definition would be that recognised by officialdom of said representation.

[Perseveranze]

You want to marry in a Church, even though gays will be denied "access to the Kingdom". Lol.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
You want to marry in a Church, even though gays will be denied "access to the Kingdom". Lol.

Is this a question, a statement, or an answer?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I think I have been misunderstood, I meant where did the definition that fudgesundae quoted come from.

As the definition they should be looking to is that of the legal system, not what it once described, but what it currently describes - for now, today.

But we know what that says... it's what we want change. It's kind of the whole point of gay the marriage campaign.

[Ice Constricter]

(Original post by Pride)
wait, when did the definition of 'gay' change?

What did it used to be, and what is it now...?

It didn't, the meaning has just been extended from happy to also meaning homosexual.

[johndoranglasgow]

Yeah I have to admit that I don't really understand why a gay couple would want to be married in a church. It's hardly a welcoming or supporting institution for them.

They should be more than welcome to get married anywhere else though, the definition of marriage is changing, because the church has no right to claim the rights to a ceremony that exits in almost every culture and country.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by johndoranglasgow)
Yeah I have to admit that I don't really understand why a gay couple would want to be married in a church. It's hardly a welcoming or supporting institution for them.

They should be more than welcome to get married anywhere else though, the definition of marriage is changing, because the church has no right to claim the rights to a ceremony that exits in almost every culture and country.

Far from being a religious person myself but you are asking a strange question. Just because most traditional churches reject homosexuality does not mean all of them do. There are many christian denominations (and non christian ones) that are very welcoming and supportive to gay people. So why would gay christians not want to marry in gay friendly churches?

Anyway I thought christianity condemned all mankind as sinners wether gay or not. The traditional view is it condemns homosexuality, but it does condemn so many other natural acts like greed, lust etc. So all christians are by definition sinners.