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

Why do religous people have an issue with Gay marriage? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Civil partnerships aren't sufficient, because they imply that homosexual relationships are less valid than heterosexual relationships.
    Well, no they don't though? All that's different between them is the damn title of ''marriage".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    okay well Usually when entering a marriage the intentions are to procreate. If they can't then they can't by the "equipment " is there, might be just be some kind of malfunctioning with it.

    A vagina hole is literally( created to give birth and to be) the perfect place to accommodate a penis, if you really think up someone's butt is the NATURAL place for one to go then??? In the words of many many TSR Users "how is that in any way evolutionarily advantageous" it's not + also HIV is prevalent/high risk among gay men aka when penis is repeatedly put in someone's anus.

    People can chose what they do with their **** and where they put it and not only gay men have anal but the main thing I want to know is what does marriage mean to you? Cause if it's being together in Union etc then civil partnership would suffice would it not? but I wouldn't know why homosexual couples want to call in marriage so I would like opinions on what marriage means to them and why civil partnership isn't enough?
    My previous posts say I don't really see why gay marriage is necessary and whatever but stop talking drivel, dude. These days, people don't marry to have kids, they marry because they love the other person. That just doesn't even apply to modern-day marriages.

    Secondly, what has this sex mallarky really got to do with it? I mean, for one, you ignore the fact that it isn't only men who are gay and everyone seems to do this all the time - women can also love, bang and marry other women. Gay marriage would apply to them also.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Because their religion condemns it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Well, no they don't though? All that's different between them is the damn title of ''marriage".
    If their relationships are equally valid, then why do we need a separate term for homosexual 'marriages'? It implies that their love is different and less valid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    If you're not gonna stick by the laws of traditional marriage and the spirituality and oneness etc it's about why call it "marriage"

    Why can't it just be civil partnership. You can be together and harmony and have a right to do so; and live like that it's still a union but don't call it marriage when you can't even naturally procreate. Just imo.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I love how people use the excuse 'gay marriage is unnatural' - how many times do you see two sparrows in the wild gathering all their sparrow friends and having a little sparrow marriage? MARRIAGE ITSELF is unnatural!

    Gotta thank Dan Hardcastle (DanNerdCubed) for that analogy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Well, no they don't though? All that's different between them is the damn title of ''marriage".
    The rights that come with civil partnerships are different to heterosexual marriages; if two people are in a civil partnership and one ends up in hospital, the partner will no have family rights to go and see them outside visiting hours, they will be treated as an ordinary person visiting a patient. Similarly, if that person dies, their partner has no right to inherit any of their possessions or wealth; whereas a heterosexual married couple would.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    To quote Douglas Adams, there are three reasons: ignorance, stupidity and nothing else.

    Insisting on a random religion marrying a same sex couple would be like insisting that say Catholics use real blood for mass. But insisting that they accept that other people can marry them is like insisting that other people's beliefs shouldn't lead to the Inquisition burning them at the stake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Mainly because of religion. But societies are turning more and more, either towards accepting it or just not caring as much about it.
    Some religions may never fully accept homosexuality, but attitudes towards homosexuality in general are much better than fifty years ago. Hopefully it won't even be an issue in another fifty years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    gays should never marry and ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    If their relationships are equally valid, then why do we need a separate term for homosexual 'marriages'? It implies that their love is different and less valid.
    They are equally valid. It's a word, 'pal'. It just minuses the relgious aspect. It implies nothing more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewis_hawkins)
    gays should never marry and ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE
    Using this utter rubbish line loses you all credibility. Try again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonnaBeMyYear)
    The rights that come with civil partnerships are different to heterosexual marriages; if two people are in a civil partnership and one ends up in hospital, the partner will no have family rights to go and see them outside visiting hours, they will be treated as an ordinary person visiting a patient. Similarly, if that person dies, their partner has no right to inherit any of their possessions or wealth; whereas a heterosexual married couple would.
    Can you prove this because I'm so sure that's not true? But of course, not 100%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the individual, I was raised Christian and I couldn't care less.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    They are equally valid. It's a word, 'pal'. It just minuses the relgious aspect. It implies nothing more.
    Marriage is not an innately religious thing though. Only 1 in 3 wedding ceremonies in England and Wales have religious aspects. Did you know that?

    Can you at least agree that for these non-religious ceremonies, there should be no distinction between civil partnerships and marriage?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My grandparents are ultra religious (unlike me), and i have asked myself this question many times.

    I have come to the conclusion that they do not like change and are to a certain extent afraid of it. I am their religion (Catholicism) dates back thousands of years and is founded on tradition. Therefore, anything that modernises their belief system is considered a threat and thus they disagree.

    That's my thoughts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    using this utter rubbish line loses you all credibility. Try again.
    excuse me i'm right you're wrong *******
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Marriage is not an innately religious thing though. Only 1 in 3 wedding ceremonies in England and Wales have religious aspects. Did you know that?

    Can you at least agree that for these non-religious ceremonies, there should be no distinction between civil partnerships and marriage?
    Pal, Marriage has been coined by religion. Yes, non-religious ceremonies exist, and what? So what? They shouldn't. But they still comply with the basic principle of one man and one woman which is also religiously coined.

    I'm gay myself, I hardly think we shouldn't have rights I just think civil partnerships are enough.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewis_hawkins)
    excuse me i'm right you're wrong *******
    Mmm, no. You use fiction to prove a point; failed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Yes, non-religious ceremonies exist, and what? So what? They shouldn't.
    ?????????? People shouldn't be able to get married unless they're religious?

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    But they still comply with the basic principle of one man and one woman.
    ?????????? No they don't. Gay marriage is legal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    ?????????? People shouldn't be able to get married unless they're religious?


    ?????????? No they don't. Gay marriage is legal.
    Oh my word, you are impossible lmfao.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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