Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If the definition of gay can change why can't the definition of marriage?

Announcements Posted on
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    And which one has a number 1 next to it?
    Definitions are quantified as to which is valid or rather more valid. Both are equally valid definitions. Being listed first means nothing :facepalm:


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    I firmly believe that the church should not be forced to allow gay weddings. Why should they? They're a religious organisation with their own views. Why would anyone want to have a wedding in the name of a religion which is fundamentally against what they do, anyway?
    I understand that but in that case why do we have an established church?
    • 70 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    But there are churches and religious organizations who aren't against homosexuality and want to be able to marry homosexuals. And nobody is really talking about forcing churches to do anything but allowing those who want to marry homosexuals. People are actually denying those religious organizations' right to practice.

    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I suppose the problem is that those churches are acting in the name of a bigger authority against it? I suppose 'allowing' the churches rather than 'forcing' them is fine though.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I understand that but in that case why do we have an established church?
    I don't know. I really don't know
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    I suppose the problem is that those churches are acting in the name of a bigger authority against it? I suppose 'allowing' the churches rather than 'forcing' them is fine though.
    I'm not sure there is a 'bigger authority' there are many differing views and no singular one seems to have any more a definitive way as to what Christianity or any other religion is exactly.






    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The definition of marriage has changed many times. Far more groups are able to marry than before. However, homosexual marriage is a step too far. Few people want gay marriage and many are worried about the impact gay marriage has on society.

    I agree that we should preserve the traditional view of marriage.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    The definition of marriage has changed many times. Far more groups are able to marry than before. However, homosexual marriage is a step too far. Few people want gay marriage and many are worried about the impact gay marriage has on society.

    I agree that we should preserve the traditional view of marriage.
    nope you are just an illogical homophobe
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    The definition of marriage has changed many times. Far more groups are able to marry than before. However, homosexual marriage is a step too far. Few people want gay marriage and many are worried about the impact gay marriage has on society.

    I agree that we should preserve the traditional view of marriage.
    You already admitted it has been changed many times. What makes this change any different? And every time it has been changed people get worried about the impact on society. But shock society is still going strong. There is no reason to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry would hurt society in any way.

    There are plenty of people who want homosexuals to be able to marry. In fact many polls show a majority of people do.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    However, homosexual marriage is a step too far. Few people want gay marriage and many are worried about the impact gay marriage has on society.
    Yeah, that massive impact of having a piece of paper that says 'marriage' instead of one that says 'civil partnership'.....

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    The definition of marriage has changed many times.
    I agree that we should preserve the traditional view of marriage.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	36jnv8.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	22.0 KB 
ID:	165653

    If it's changed so much how is there a 'traditional view'?
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    This is exactly my opinion on the matter: marriage is religious. I should be allowed to have a civil partnership with my future partner, be they male or female. I should be allowed to take part in a religious ceremony of marriage (or its equivalent) if the religion I follow permits such a partnership. I also think marriage should have absolutely no standing in law - thus "married" couples in the future would also need a civil partnership as well.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Personally I don't think there should be any actual rule against it. It should be down to the individual parishes to decide who they think are suitable to be married in their churches according to how they see the definition of marriage.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 29, 2012
New on TSR

Get ready for SQA results day

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.