[tufc]

(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?

And which one has a number 1 next to it?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by tufc)
And which one has a number 1 next to it?

It doesn't matter, the number 2 is an alternative definition for marriage. The fact that it is the second definition in the list doesn't invalidate it as a definition of the word. If you were going to pick a dictionary to make an anti gay marriage slogan you could have picked a better source.

[The Polymath]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Spot the issue.

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'm all for equal rights by the way.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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'm all for equal rights by the way.

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

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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


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

[anarchism101]

(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?

[The Polymath]

(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

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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

[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.

[alex5455]

(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

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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

[anarchism101]

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.

If it's changed so much how is there a 'traditional view'?

[Katie_p]

(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.

[littleone271]

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.