This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

High court refuses to acknowledge Canadian lesbian "marriage".

Mark_KK

10

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/5230708.stm

I love the way they try and play the human rights card.

Reply 1

tctc

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion..

Reply 2

Segat1

16

tctc

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion..

Yep, wanting only Homer is a bad thing.

He's such a dreamboat!!!!

sexy underwear

tctc

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion..

That is actually a good point, why do they need to be married, what is there need to be married?! because it's in fashion?

Reply 5

Chumbaniya

17

tctc

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion..

Homosexuality is against some, but by no means all religions. Also, marriage may take part within particular religions, but it's actually a legal contract and is not required to be in accordance with any religion. If some religions want to be stuck in the past and refuse to accept homosexuality, that's their call, but that's no reason to prevent a same sex couple from entering a similar legal arrangement to that which mixed sex couples can enter.

Reply 6

Sorani

16

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion

I think this ends up getting flawed, because how many straight couples today are bent on following christianity when they get married? How many women have made sure not to have any sex before they marry? How many couples swear that they will have children and raise them in the proper christian way?

Marriage isn't considered the true religious ritual it once was, so if straight couples aren't going to follow the christian rules before and after marriage then why can't a gay couple get married? Is it really *that* much worse?

Reply 7

L i b

19

tctc

marriage is a religious ritual orignally, and homersexuality is against religion..

I believe this has some truth to it. Marriage is an institution developed by the Christian faith in Britain - and their faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin and that two men or two woman cannot be married.

However it throws up bigger problems - if it was just the church denying this, then that would be fine - but the state is supporting it.

If marriage was a truly Christian institution, why does the government offer civil marriage ceremonies that make no reference to God? They have taken possession of those rights.

My position is therefore this - marriage is absolutely no business of the government's. It should not regulate, endorse or approve of marriage in any form. If two people want to call themselves married, then so be it - they can do it according to whatever faith or principles they privately hold and while others may deny it (eg, strict Christians would obviously not recognise same-sex marriage) that would be entirely irrelevant to the married parties. Any marital obligations can be dealt with in terms of the law of contract between the two (or indeed more than two, since we're being liberal) parties.

So once again it's The State 1, Personal Liberty 0.

Reply 8

Beekeeper

13

I agree with much of what LibertineNorth has said on the matter. This is no business of the Government, and her branches should be restricted in a way which makes the provision of individual liberties possible and desirable. 'Marriage' concerns nobody but those engaging in such a partnership. Religious organisations should reserve the right to decide who can get married in their buildings, but given the financial implications of marriage, homosexuals should be as entitled as anyone to get married under the law.

Tbh I think the whole controversy over whether it should be called 'marriage' or not is an absurd one, it has little purpose whatsoever; I don't really see whats wrong with calling them 'partnerships', and I think the evangelicals who keep moaning about it need to get a grip and sort their own lives out. Whether some other couple are 'married' or in a 'partnership' really is none of their business and they shouldn't be able to dictate to that couple what rights they can and can not have.

The whole thing smacks of ignorance and intolerance to me, totally pointless intolerance at that. The evangelicals have done everything they could over the past 6 years to crush gay rights, and they haven't really got anywhere- heck, they even resorted to putting it to majority votes. Gay rights are just one of those things that policians aren't going to be able to get rid of, however eager they are; and rightfully so.

Reply 9

yorkshirelass

14

Religion is also against divorce, adultery and the like, but it goes on. I would say these are far far worse arguments against people getting married than mere sexuality. I personally am not an advocate of marriage in the first place - regardless of sexual orientation - but since marriage can get you better pensions, etc, why should a couple be denied such privileges just because they're gay?

Reply 10

Né Stig

15

Beekeeper

I agree with much of what LibertineNorth has said on the matter. This is no business of the Government, and her branches should be restricted in a way which makes the provision of individual liberties possible and desirable. 'Marriage' concerns nobody but those engaging in such a partnership. Religious organisations should reserve the right to decide who can get married in their buildings, but given the financial implications of marriage, homosexuals should be as entitled as anyone to get married under the law.

Unfortunately one rule for one church means the same for all others. How can one church allow it, and another be against it? That wouldn't make sense.

Beekeeper

Tbh I think the whole controversy over whether it should be called 'marriage' or not is an absurd one, it has little purpose whatsoever; I don't really see whats wrong with calling them 'partnerships', and I think the evangelicals who keep moaning about it need to get a grip and sort their own lives out. Whether some other couple are 'married' or in a 'partnership' really is none of their business and they shouldn't be able to dictate to that couple what rights they can and can not have.

The whole thing smacks of ignorance and intolerance to me, totally pointless intolerance at that. The evangelicals have done everything they could over the past 6 years to crush gay rights, and they haven't really got anywhere- heck, they even resorted to putting it to majority votes. Gay rights are just one of those things that policians aren't going to be able to get rid of, however eager they are; and rightfully so.

Marriage is more than a partnership. Anyone with any traditional morals will tell you marriage is more successful than a 'partnership'. What is a partnership? - its a flimsy term for 'not serious enough to be 100% committed', which means breaking the traditional rules of what marriage is supposed to be about.

Marriage is not outdated at all, its unfortunate that a lot of people are getting married without knowing the true concept of what its about. You can't get married and start shagging about, lets be honest! Ignorant people have made light of what marriage is supposed to be about.

Reply 11

Beekeeper

13

walshie

...Anyone with any traditional morals will tell you...

As far as i'm concerned, you've just invalidated any argument you thought you had there. I for one couldn't give a toss about 'traditional morals' and i'm pretty damn sure i'm not the only one.

Unfortunately one rule for one church means the same for all others. How can one church allow it, and another be against it? That wouldn't make sense.

OK two points:
1. Why wouldn't that make sense? 'The Church' is hardly the most united thing in the world.
2. So what if Churches all chose not to allow it? You don't need to get married in a Church. Besides, I should point out how unlikely this is, we already have 'gay churches' for a start- See the Metropolitan Church in Manchester.

Reply 12

Né Stig

15

Beekeeper

As far as i'm concerned, you've just invalidated any argument you thought you had there. I for one couldn't give a toss about 'traditional morals' and i'm pretty damn sure i'm not the only one.

I'm a firm believer of traditional values. They work well when adhered to. However, in modern society, shagging as many people as you can is much more approved of and is regarded as the accepted candor.

Beekeeper

OK two points:
1. Why wouldn't that make sense? 'The Church' is hardly the most united thing in the world.
2. So what if Churches all chose not to allow it? You don't need to get married in a Church. Besides, I should point out how unlikely this is, we already have 'gay churches' for a start- See the Metropolitan Church in Manchester.

1) Every church shares the same traditional practices. You may have one more orthodox than the other, but one single church accepting a legislation based on gay marriages will have an enormous and rippling effect that will be felt by the whole church community. They all share common decency, which whether you like it or not, does not include gay marriages.
2) If all churches disallow gay marriages, then so be it; something which I support. But I have no objections to gay marriages by a registry office or by other means as long as marriage is looked upon seriously.

Reply 13

Beekeeper

13

walshie

I'm a firm believer of traditional values. They work well when adhered to. However, in modern society, shagging as many people as you can is much more approved of and is regarded as the accepted candor.

What has gay marriage got to do with 'shagging as many people as possible'? If anything, it would act as an incentive NOT to do that.

Besides, as I have said, your 'traditional morals' are probably seen as unpleasant by a lot of people, and I don't see how discussing these has any relevance to the discussion at all.

1) Every church shares the same traditional practices. You may have one more orthodox than the other, but one single church accepting a legislation based on gay marriages will have an enormous and rippling effect that will be felt by the whole church community. They all share common decency, which whether you like it or not, does not include gay marriages.

What, you mean the same 'enormous and rippling effect' they are already going through?

Again, you're bringing your own 'common decency' traditional morals into the discussion- it really is irrelevant. We could have a whole debate about your morals, but thats not what we're talking about. What we're discussing is ultimately the extent to which force should be used by the Government against the individual, and whether Governments seek to endorse of restrict individual rights. In this case it would seem the latter.

2) If all churches disallow gay marriages, then so be it; something which I support. But I have no objections to gay marriages by a registry office or by other means as long as marriage is looked upon seriously.

Indeed, this was my point. The Churches can do whatever the hell they like, as long as they don't have the upper hand on Government in a way which interferes with the rights of citizens.

Reply 14

contractador

1

its only a legal technicality. Get over it. The principle that they are still united remains. And the reality is we know that despite the precise legal wording we still know that they are married as do they. That's only how they are branded for legal purposes

My point being its a huge fuss over a minor technicality

Reply 15

Cirsium

19

Chumbayni

If some religions want to be stuck in the past and refuse to accept homosexuality
I don't see how it qualifies as being "stuck in the past" to adhere to what you believe your God has told you. This is one of those situations where I don't know if it's right, I don't know if it's wrong - I have my own views. But if you bear in mind that the Christian church as a whole believes that Paul and various others of the apostles condemned sexual immorality, in particular homosexuality, then do you honestly expect them to just start accepting it because that is what modern society does?!

Sorani

How many women have made sure not to have any sex before they marry?

Out of interest why just women?

Personally I believe that homosexual unions shouldn't be referred to as marriage, but that a committed gay couple should be allowed the same rights as those joined under civil law. I can totally see that they should be allowed the same rights in terms of inheritance, pensions etc - but why are they so insistent that it has to be "marriage"?

Reply 16

L i b

19

wesetters

We live in a supposedly secular state. What are they playing at?

I think the problem is that we don't. We've got two established state churches (the Church of Scotland and the Church of England) and our government consults religious groups regularly and gives them the sort of accomodation that most pressure groups could only dream of. The Bishops in the Lords and the Queen picking the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't bother me much since they don't really affect us on a day to day basis - however it's the mentioned political pandering that does.

walshie

Marriage is more than a partnership. Anyone with any traditional morals will tell you marriage is more successful than a 'partnership'. What is a partnership? - its a flimsy term for 'not serious enough to be 100% committed', which means breaking the traditional rules of what marriage is supposed to be about.

Do you think that most straight married people share those morals? Or at least to any greater degree than gay people would if they could get married?

contractador

its only a legal technicality. Get over it. The principle that they are still united remains. And the reality is we know that despite the precise legal wording we still know that they are married as do they. That's only how they are branded for legal purposes

My point being its a huge fuss over a minor technicality

Essentially yes, I do think it's a small problem particularly now we have civil partnerships - it's annoying and it shows the state as an effective theocracy in some ways, but if I decided I wanted to become married to someone of the same sex as I am, there's not any bloody government dictat that could ever stop me. If they didn't consider me married they could go **** themselves as far as I'd be concerned.

Reply 17

L i b

19

wesetters

We live in a supposedly secular state. What are they playing at?

I think the problem is that we don't. We've got two established state churches (the Church of Scotland and the Church of England) and our government consults religious groups regularly and gives them the sort of accomodation that most pressure groups could only dream of. The Bishops in the Lords and the Queen picking the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't bother me much since they don't really affect us on a day to day basis - however it's the mentioned political pandering that does.

walshie

Marriage is more than a partnership. Anyone with any traditional morals will tell you marriage is more successful than a 'partnership'. What is a partnership? - its a flimsy term for 'not serious enough to be 100% committed', which means breaking the traditional rules of what marriage is supposed to be about.

Do you think that most straight married people share those morals? Or at least to any greater degree than gay people would if they could get married?

contractador

its only a legal technicality. Get over it. The principle that they are still united remains. And the reality is we know that despite the precise legal wording we still know that they are married as do they. That's only how they are branded for legal purposes

My point being its a huge fuss over a minor technicality

Essentially yes, I do think it's a small problem particularly now we have civil partnerships - it's annoying and it shows the state as an effective theocracy in some ways, but if I decided I wanted to become married to someone of the same sex as I am, there's not any bloody government dictat that could ever stop me. If they didn't consider me married they could go **** themselves as far as I'd be concerned.

Reply 18

yawn

17

A judge ruled that their union could be recognised as a civil partnership, but not marriage.

Marriage was, by "longstanding definition and acceptance", a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.

President of the High Court Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, said the civil partnership would give the couple the same rights as they would enjoy in marriage.

Civil partnerships give the same legal rights as marriage on issues such as finances and next of kin.

We don't have civil 'marriages' in this country for those couples who are of the same sex. We have civil 'partnerships'. I think the misconception has arisen because those couples are so desirous that their unions are considered marriages as they feel this gives them total equality with man/woman unions. Since they cannot procreate as a couple naturally, there will always be this distinction.

As the wish to be considered 'married' can, by the very nature of the union be only a psychological condition rather than physical, all it needs is for the personal mindset of the couple to see themselves as 'married' since the 'civil partnership' has allowed for the legal bits and bobs.

Reply 19

curryADD

12

Sorani

I think this ends up getting flawed, because how many straight couples today are bent on following christianity when they get married? How many women have made sure not to have any sex before they marry? How many couples swear that they will have children and raise them in the proper christian way?

Marriage isn't considered the true religious ritual it once was, so if straight couples aren't going to follow the christian rules before and after marriage then why can't a gay couple get married? Is it really *that* much worse?

it also brings into question the right of the government to decide who should be married at all. if said government is secular, what right do they have to decide whether or not someone should be married? leave that up to the churches.

the government should call everything a civil union. if you want to be married go to your prospective rabbi, priest, pastor, whatever.

High court refuses to acknowledge Canadian lesbian "marriage".

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you