Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    So the argument against challenging the common conception of marriage is that it challenges the common conception of marriage?
    The argument against same sex marriage is that it redefines the universal conception of marriage.

    a) its a gross assumption that there will be harm to children
    Id prefer to see a child brought up in a stable family unit. Not relying on a civil union between any two people.

    b) Why are children the more important than other human beings
    They are not more important, but a childhood defines a future.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Its entirely the point. Why else is marriage universally desired?
    Either:

    a) You need children to have a family - in which case barren people have no reason to wed

    or

    b) There are other purposes, eg public statement of love, consider yourself a family without children, commitment, legal rights, etc etc.

    Which is it?

    (Original post by Vienna)
    It means that marriage is redefined and undermined as a legal instrument or agreement undistinguishable from a civil union. Many people on this forum are unable to draw the difference.
    I dont see that your conclusion about the effects are warranted or based on any sort of evidence.

    You make homosexual marriage legal - why does that have to mean marriage becomes meaningless? it doesnt.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The argument against same sex marriage is that it redefines the universal conception of marriage.
    Exactly - the argument against redfining marriage is that it redefines it.

    Universal? Not at all - as polls in Spain and many countries will tell you.

    (Original post by Vienna)
    Id prefer to see a child brought up in a stable family unit. Not relying on a civil union between any two people.
    As said - Nirvana - but you cant always achieve the Ideal. Having same sex marriage does not make it less likely that people will bring up children well.

    (Original post by Vienna)
    They are not more important, but a childhood defines a future.
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    cant say i support it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Do you mean you don't believe homosexuality exists, just as I "don't believe in god", because I can find no evidence for the existence of such an entity? I should have thought that homosexuality- the existence of people who engage in homosexual acts- pretty obviously exists. If you don't mean that, what do you mean? You have just decided to judge here. It isn't clear what you have judged or what your judgment is, but you have judged.Presumably it's mere collateral damage if the sinner suffers when you punish the sin.

    Let me re-phrase, being a christian and one that believes in traditional families I can't agree with homosexuality however, I accept Civil Unions and to the rarest extend Marriages for the mere fact that it is not known the cause of homosexuality if it's nature or nuture or whatever the big debate is called now.

    Where have I judged, I really don't believe in it, but I'm being open minded and saying that I would accept the reality of a country legalizing it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    No-one is saying that a gay couple is able to have children alone, so I don't quite understand how that is relevant...
    The relevance is this;
    beekeeper asked "Does God provide a definition of 'wife'"

    Yawn replied with the quote you refer to and highlighted the part from Genesis which says "All human generations proceed from this union".

    I know those who support 'marriage' between homosexuals are desperately defending that stance against Christianty, but as I have demonstrated, as far as Scripture is concerned, there can be no 'marriage' between people of the same gender - no matter how much our moral relativism desires that it does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexnell)
    I don't believe it's our decision to judge people, we ourselves are sinners, even though not severely, well in some cases yes. -
    That's a judgment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The institution of marriage, distinct by its signficance as a moral commitment to starting a family, cannot be replicated between anyone but a man and woman.
    Except that in some cultures the man and woman concerned are devices for arranging transfers and movement of property, making peace treaties between two families, uniting countries or serving religious purposes. I would agree that the most important feature of a marriage- as every religion acknowledges- is producing and/or raising children. I would make a distinction between religious marriage- which would reflect the beliefs of the religion- and a civil contract which would be intended to arrange division of property between people and the long-term welfare of the the children and which needn't consists of even two people only. Given general longevity I think that extended families of one sort or another are becoming more common and more variable and the law would need to reflect that. There is also the nfact that many of the world's problems are caused by our overenthusiasm for producing children.

    The other interesting thing is that this is happenoing in Spain, where there was a custom among anarchists of the "declared free union", where a couple announced that they were going to live together, but as anarchists they weren't going to have anything to do with the institutions of state or church and it was simply their desire to live together which would keep them together. Ironically, according to observers, these were usually more stable, happier and longer lasting than marriages.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The relevance is this;
    beekeeper asked "Does God provide a definition of 'wife'"

    Yawn replied with the quote you refer to and highlighted the part from Genesis which says "All human generations proceed from this union".

    I know those who support 'marriage' between homosexuals are desperately defending that stance against Christianty, but as I have demonstrated, as far as Scripture is concerned, there can be no 'marriage' between people of the same gender - no matter how much our moral relativism desires that it does.
    Yes, I saw that. But you can't get from paragraphs one and two to paragraph three without an irrational jump in reasoning. God does not provide ANY evidence whatsoever that gay marriages should not be allowed in that particular Genesis passage. Just because I talk to you about apples, does that mean I implicitly forbid oranges? Obviously not, and yet the conclusion you have drawn is reached by a similar chain of reasoning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Either:

    a) You need children to have a family - in which case barren people have no reason to wed

    or

    b) There are other purposes, eg public statement of love, consider yourself a family without children, commitment, legal rights, etc etc.

    Which is it?
    Neither.

    I dont see that your conclusion about the effects are warranted or based on any sort of evidence.

    You make homosexual marriage legal - why does that have to mean marriage becomes meaningless? it doesnt.
    Because marriage can no longer be distinguished on the basis of its commitment to family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Exactly - the argument against redfining marriage is that it redefines it.
    Are you suggesting opposition to same sex marriage is merely opposition to change?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Precisely. That quote does not even mention the position on same sex marriage, it would therefore be wrong to assume that god opposed it.

    Does god provide a definition of the word "wife"?
    Now, you're taking the piss. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I'm afraid what Howard said is right. The Bible, and the Christian faith, do not condone same sex marriages. If you are a Christian, you are opposed to same sex marriages by definition. Marriage is a sacrament that can only take place with a man and a woman. There is no such thing as a Christian gay marriage!

    I'm all for gay couples, and I'm not a Christian, but I can't understand Christian marriages. It's like saying "I'm going out to buy some kosher pork"!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Neither.
    So if the purpose of marriage ISNT a family - which you seemed to be saying - what is it?


    (Original post by Vienna)
    Because marriage can no longer be distinguished on the basis of its commitment to family.
    Im confused now. Why cant it be? Because they cant have kids? So as said, barren couples would be destroying the common conception of marriage as for the purpose of procreation?

    Nevertheless you still havent demonstrated that it will harm anyone to broaden the definition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Are you suggesting opposition to same sex marriage is merely opposition to change?
    Im not saying that, it seemed you were though. I was simply asking what the reason is... Im not trying to supply them... personally I dont see the problem... if gay people want to be miserable too - let em.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with gay people having a legal union and finally allowing them the same rights under law as hetero married couples have. But I don't see what the big deal about the word 'marriage' is, and thats basically what the debate is about. Christians say they can't get 'married' because thats a Christian term that denotes male/female, and gay people just want to call it marriage so people won't look down on them and not take it seriously like (in my opinion) they would if you said "we're getting civilly partnered".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Janwise)
    I agree with gay people having a legal union and finally allowing them the same rights under law as hetero married couples have. But I don't see what the big deal about the word 'marriage' is, and thats basically what the debate is about. Christians say they can't get 'married' because thats a Christian term that denotes male/female, and gay people just want to call it marriage so people won't look down on them and not take it seriously like (in my opinion) they would if you said "we're getting civilly partnered".
    marriage isnt a christian term - you can be married in a secular service, in a humanitarian service (in Scotland).... religion need have nothing to do with heterosexual marriage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    marriage isnt a christian term - you can be married in a secular service, in a humanitarian service (in Scotland).... religion need have nothing to do with heterosexual marriage.
    Oh ok, its all more messed up that I thought it was. The argument against gay marriage is just religion - based isn't it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Janwise)
    Oh ok, its all more messed up that I thought it was. The argument against gay marriage is just religion - based isn't it?

    No. Some, such as Vienna, think it will undermine the fabric of society, and devalue the "cornerstone" - marriage between a man and woman. Never mind the fact that you can get drive-thru divorces now...

    I personally dont see how two men getting the label "married" will harm kids or make the degenration of the family unit any worse.... there just isnt any apparent causal link.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I personally dont see how two men getting the label "married" will harm kids or make the degenration of the family unit any worse.... there just isnt any apparent causal link.
    Exactly. Theres no rule that says just because two people are married they're going to provide a great family environment - its ridiculous that people assume this.

    I saw something on TV the other day where someone claimed gay people are sexual predators and are out to get kids, which is just as stupid. These outdated views are just ingrained on peoples' minds from the people they grew up around or the environment they were brought up in (in my opinion).
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 3, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.