[Lady Maleficent]

Do you believe that the commonly peddled arguments against gay marriage justify not enacting it? Are they strong enough?

[Kiss]

Not really unless you´re talking about forcing churches to marry, in which case the arguments against that work well. But most people don´t want to force churches to marry, only allow the ones which want to.

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by Kiss)
Not really unless you´re talking about forcing churches to marry, in which case the arguments against that work well. But most people don´t want to force churches to marry, only allow the ones which want to.

I can understand the view behind that argument, though. If a new church opened tomorrow which believed a certain ethnicity was evil and refused to ordain a union between two members of the ethnicity - there would be uproar (rightfully so), the church would be labelled a cult and no doubt this policy would be made illegal.

I don't see why the Abrahamic faiths should be given special treatment in this respect.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Lady Maleficent)
I can understand the view behind that argument, though. If a new church opened tomorrow which believed a certain ethnicity was evil and refused to ordain a union between two members of the ethnicity - there would be uproar (rightfully so), the church would be labelled a cult and no doubt this policy would be made illegal.

I don't see why the Abrahamic faiths should be given special treatment in this respect.

Why would it? If they refused to ordain that union it would be their choice, to be 'part' of any church you have to conform to their relgion, thinking, whatever you want to call it - this is pretty obvious.

If you don't like it or don't accept that, then you don't have to go? Or the alternative is to find another church which is more accepting of your 'ethnicity' and all that goes with it.

Abrahamic faiths as you label then are not given 'special treatment'...

Churches are considered separate from the 'state' - and it is probably the best way to keep them.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Lady Maleficent)
I can understand the view behind that argument, though. If a new church opened tomorrow which believed a certain ethnicity was evil and refused to ordain a union between two members of the ethnicity - there would be uproar (rightfully so), the church would be labelled a cult and no doubt this policy would be made illegal.

I don't see why the Abrahamic faiths should be given special treatment in this respect.

Because everyone is afraid of offending anyone nowadays.

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Why would it? If they refused to ordain that union it would be their choice, to be 'part' of any church you have to conform to their relgion, thinking, whatever you want to call it - this is pretty obvious.

If you don't like it or don't accept that, then you don't have to go? Or the alternative is to find another church which is more accepting of your 'ethnicity' and all that goes with it.

Abrahamic faiths as you label then are not given 'special treatment'...

Churches are considered separate from the 'state' - and it is probably the best way to keep them.

Oh please, you know full well what the reaction would be from both the public and the establishment.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Lady Maleficent)
Oh please, you know full well what the reaction would be from both the public and the establishment.

If you are referring to, for example, a muslim wanting to get married in a Christian church or vice versa - why would that particular religion/church who is carrying out the ceremony be accepting of them if the couple being married/united (however you like to put it) are not willing to conform to the beliefs of that religion?

This is currently the way it is and I don't see if/how it would change.

So your statement is actually a little ridiculous unless I have misunderstood where you are coming from on this one, but maybe you can explain more clearly what you are specifically referring to as it is possible that it is just too vague to interpret.

[Snagprophet]

I don't see why there couldn't be gay priests doing gay marriages and then make the state recognise them as marriages. Ideally, I'd have the proper churches treat everyone equally but if they're going to throw a strop they can at least have special gay ceremonies set up.

I don't care about religious definitions of marriage, other than some kind of official recognition for your pair bond. It's really weird and creepy, like you have to have sex for it to be official. I mean, not that I wouldn't have sex but the sex should surely be part of celebration/couples pleasure not some official, perverted nonsense.

[justanotherposter]

I didn't know there was a proper argument against. The only argument I've heard is from Christians claimin it's against God, but the church has already adapted it's laws to fit the modern day (eg permitting sex before marriage,) I don't see why the church can't adapt to this as well.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
...the church has already adapted it's laws to fit the modern day (eg permitting sex before marriage,)

It has? Interesting news this!

(Original post by justanotherposter)
I don't see why the church can't adapt to this as well.

It could but maybe doesn't want to. So at the end of the day, will be up to the church to decide what the church wants to do

[High VOLTAGE]

If you want to give marriage to gays then we should also give it to people who commit incest. Because who are we to judge their "love", right?

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by ufo2012)
It has? Interesting news this!



It could but maybe doesn't want to. So at the end of the day, will be up to the church to decide what the church wants to do

It depends what church you ask really, some are still against sex before marriage however many except that it is unrealistic to expect only evil people to have sex before marriage. There's also debate over the passage in the new testament that supposedly outlaws sex before marriage as it uses the term 'fornification,' which many assume means the modern meaning of fornification, however the ancient meaning used in the bible may have meant something different, referring to adultery more than anything else.
Don't quote me on this though, I'm not religious I'm just recalling what I was taught in RE GCSE a couple of years ago.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
If you want to give marriage to gays then we should also give it to people who commit incest. Because who are we to judge their "love", right?

This is probably a controversial opinion but I honestly believe in a couple hundred years incest will be legal. Assuming precautions are taken to prevent pregnancy from incest couples there is no logical reason for it to be outlawed, obviously though we all would find the idea repulsive (myself included,) which is why it isn't legal, however a few hundred years ago the idea of homosexuality would have been found repulsive yet the majority of the western population now accepts it.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
This is probably a controversial opinion but I honestly believe in a couple hundred years incest will be legal. Assuming precautions are taken to prevent pregnancy from incest couples there is no logical reason for it to be outlawed, obviously though we all would find the idea repulsive (myself included,) which is why it isn't legal, however a few hundred years ago the idea of homosexuality would have been found repulsive yet the majority of the western population now accepts it.

Exactly just because we see it as "progress" doesn't mean it is good. And how on earth could you prevent pregnancy from incest couples unless you forcibly sterilised them.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Exactly just because we see it as "progress" doesn't mean it is good. And how on earth could you prevent pregnancy from incest couples unless you forcibly sterilised them.

Personally I'm all for gay marriage, you don't seem to be and that's fair enough, I think you're wrong but we could argue all day and neither of us would end up changing our mind, this is one of those topics that people won't change their minds on no matter what. This is a couple of hundred years away, by that time is expect contraception to be 100% effective, impose a prison sentence if a girl were to get pregnant to a relative, possibly extreme, but I can't really see couples wanting to risk prison for the sake of having a child (I'd assume if incest were to be allowed nothing would stop them from adopting for example so they would still be able to have a child.)

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
Personally I'm all for gay marriage, you don't seem to be and that's fair enough, I think you're wrong but we could argue all day and neither of us would end up changing our mind, this is one of those topics that people won't change their minds on no matter what. This is a couple of hundred years away, by that time is expect contraception to be 100% effective, impose a prison sentence if a girl were to get pregnant to a relative, possibly extreme, but I can't really see couples wanting to risk prison for the sake of having a child (I'd assume if incest were to be allowed nothing would stop them from adopting for example so they would still be able to have a child.)

But then that would bring into question the rights of the couples to bear children.
And no i doubt it is a hundred years away, being gay was legalised in the 60s and now look how far the gay movement has come.
And yeah i am against gay marriage.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
But then that would bring into question the rights of the couples to bear children.
And no i doubt it is a hundred years away, being gay was legalised in the 60s and now look how far the gay movement has come.
And yeah i am against gay marriage.

I don't think we need to worry about incest being made legal in our life times, the gay movement was backed by hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, very few people in today's world would want to practice incest, even if it were legal, so I doubt anyone is going to listen to the couple of hundred who would want it legalised.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
I don't think we need to worry about incest being made legal in our life times, the gay movement was backed by hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, very few people in today's world would want to practice incest, even if it were legal, so I doubt anyone is going to listen to the couple of hundred who would want it legalised.

Not all supporters of the gay movement are people who want to practice homosexuality and well the support did not come over night for the movement.
I just find the idea of two men having sex wrong.

[Ham22]

atheist rights to christian marriage now.

now


now

[Astronomical]

I don't see reason to need to differentiate between a heterosexual state marriage and a homosexual civil partnership; they ought to be the same, both in name and in legal terms, and this would solve the issue.

I don't think it's right to force the church to conduct gay marriages, but equally I don't like the fact that the church has any power whatsoever in this day and age. It's archaic, bigoted views are outdated and belong in bygone centuries.

In any case, I don't understand why people are so bothered about marriage anyway. It's the people in a relationship who make it special, not what it's called.