Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    But normal people DO recognise it as such, and homophobes never will. So I think whether the law does is moderately significant but in practical terms makes little difference.
    Maybe, but who am I to dismiss those people campaigning for their unions to be recognised legally as marriage, and not just a civil partnership? They're the ones it matters to, they're the ones who care. To dismiss it as something that 'doesn't matter' seems rather patronising to me, and detracts from what is a serious issue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dogtanian)
    Then Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on God. Then why is it allowed a monopoly on marriage? Anti-gay marriage sentiment voiced publicly has, in my experience, been about marriage being a Christian institution, something that therefore should not be open to gay couples.

    That doesn't seem right to me when it isn't strictly the case. The notion that marriage predates Christianity DOES matter, because (bearing in mind we're officially a Christian country and all that), marriage somehow belonging to the religion is the first and formost excuse banded about by the anti-camp.
    But it doesn't does it? Or have they changed the law in the UK such that only Christians can get married?

    This thread is going way off track - I thought it was about civil partnership/gay marriage - not which religion invented/owns marriage.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dogtanian)
    Maybe, but who am I to dismiss those people campaigning for their unions to be recognised legally as marriage, and not just a civil partnership? They're the ones it matters to, they're the ones who care. To dismiss it as something that 'doesn't matter' seems rather patronising to me, and detracts from what is a serious issue.
    Oh I don't dismiss it at all. I'd happily join in with active protest in favour of the word marriage beng used. I think there are more important gay rights issues to be fighting for eg. the right to give blood.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Oh I don't dismiss it at all. I'd happily join in with active protest in favour of the word marriage beng used. I think there are more important gay rights issues to be fighting for eg. the right to give blood.
    That's a right worth fighting for? Jesus - the gay rights lobby must really be running out of things to do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think that this whole debate is ludicrous. But I did find this quote from Susan Wilkinson, who is part of a a lesbian couple who fought in the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in the UK, quite touching:


    "I do not wish my relationship with Celia to be recognised in this way because we are legally married and it is simply not acceptable to be asked to pretend that this marriage is a civil partnership. While marriage remains open to heterosexual couples only, offering the "consolation prize" of a civil partnership to lesbians and gay men is offensive and demeaning. Marriage is our society's fundamental social institution for recognising the couple relationship and access to this institution is an equal rights issue. To deny some people access to marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation is fundamentally unjust, just as it would be to do so on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and nationality, religion, or political beliefs."
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No, it's not bloody good enough. Why should gay couples be fobbed off with an iota less than straight ones? Unless the Government wants to come right out (sorry) and say they don't deserve the same rights as other taxpaying, card-carrying citizens.

    *stops thumping tub*

    I can see why the "gay community" (if such a thing even exists) were happy to accept this compromise. Let's be fair, it's a big improvement on the previous situation. But I think doing so has weakened their bargaining position for the full equality to which they are entitled.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yellowtruck)
    Marriage pre-dates Christianity. The writings of the Greek philosopher Plato mention marriage there by showing the idea is not a Christian one originally.
    Lol
    Plato existed around 400 BC, whereas Moses reported long before that. Now I'm not saying that marriage was derived from Christianity [nor does the Bible claim that; just that, however marriage came about, God endorses it and claims it as His own "legal documentation" for couples] however it is very likely that marriage was the creation of a religious tribe/"state". In fact, there were various pagan tribes which practised polygamy. The coming together of men and women was obviously derived from some form of ancient tribe, which would have been deeply religious [as most were those days]. That tribe may have been the Israelites. No one is sure.

    In response to the thread, I agree with the libertarians on this one. The state should take a step back from marriage and allow the individuals to be accountable for their own actions. If two loving Christians [or even one Christian and an atheist] want to get married in a Church before God then allow it. If two men want to be joint for life in some ceremony which is significant for them then there should be nothing stopping them. It's a free country. There's nothing saying that their ceremony must be religious or indeed that it must take place in a Church. The most traditional Christians are free to carry out their beliefs in rituals which are significant to them in a Church before a God. Homosexuals should be able to carry out what they want and what is significant to them.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's a right worth fighting for? Jesus - the gay rights lobby must really be running out of things to do.
    Which is a hell of a good thing! Rights shouldn't have to be fought for.
    Offline

    13
    The coming together of men and women was obviously derived from some form of ancient tribe, which would have been deeply religious [as most were those days]. That tribe may have been the Israelites. No one is sure. TML.
    I'm confident that 'the Israelites' didn't invent the coming together of men and women. Humans have been around for a few million years for a start. As for religion - I suspect that early humans probably did adopt religious world views when they were able to understand their world symbolically, though their religions were probably quite unlike modern monotheistic belief systems; cf. animism.

    We just don't know how long humans have been monogamy 'orientated', though some think human male testes size suggests we have probably for some time. In any event, whether or not early 'sexual bonding rituals' (which characterises most, though not all, forms of marriage) were set in religious contexts doesn't dictate the contexts we want modern-day marriage to be in. We are not prisoners of the past.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    The present situation is unsatisfactory. Want a marriage - have one, and **** the state and their dodgy interpretations.
    Absolutely. I don't understand how this one 'sacred ritual', one of many sacred religious rituals, has unlike all the rest, forced its way into the law of the land to become a 'sacred institution'. The whole concept of marriage is totally weird to me, and even weirder that it should be part of the legal system.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Absolutely. I don't understand how this one 'sacred ritual', one of many sacred religious rituals, has unlike all the rest, forced its way into the law of the land to become a 'sacred institution'. The whole concept of marriage is totally weird to me, and even weirder that it should be part of the legal system.
    Only because of the tax breaks did it make it into the legal system.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm confident that 'the Israelites' didn't invent the coming together of men and women. Humans have been around for a few million years for a start. As for religion - I suspect that early humans probably did adopt religious world views when they were able to understand their world symbolically, though their religions were probably quite unlike modern monotheistic belief systems; cf. animism.
    There is absolutely no evidence that monogamy existed before the Israelites or other traditional Pagan religions which existed. Laws were granted to civilisations traditionally through religion. Case-in-point, just look at Deuteronomy which consists of laws for the Israelites. Polygamy was just as common as monogamy by the time of the Israelites. Just look at the book of Daniel where various Ba'al religions had people practising polygamy openly and through the law.

    Prior to this era I'd strongly suspect that any idea of marriage within the law did not exist.
    We just don't know how long humans have been monogamy 'orientated', though some think human male testes size suggests we have probably for some time.
    Eh? They've obviously had sex for a long time. However no formal marriage has ever been documented before around 2000BC. To speculate that it did exist beyond that era seems a tad bizarre to me as a historian.
    In any event, whether or not early 'sexual bonding rituals' (which characterises most, though not all, forms of marriage) were set in religious contexts doesn't dictate the contexts we want modern-day marriage to be in. We are not prisoners of the past.
    Of course we shouldn't let tradition triumph over rationality. However Christians should still be free to practise their traditions before God in a Church just so long as homosexuals are allowed to carry out their equally significant rituals [perhaps not in a some Churches according to the priest, for it is a building for Christians before God].
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    Only because of the tax breaks did it make it into the legal system.
    Yea, well that's what I mean. Someone throws a party, stamps on a glass or jumps over a broomstick, then gets the tax law changed for them. I don't see the reasoning behind it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I suck. apologies to all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yellowtruck)
    I suck. apologies to all.
    Don't be so hard on yourself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Don't be so hard on yourself.
    :eek:

    When did you turn nice?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    Don't be so hard on yourself.
    Someone has broken into Howard's account!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Someone has broken into Howard's account!
    There must be a Howard doppelganger on here.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by TML)
    There is absolutely no evidence that monogamy existed before the Israelites or other traditional Pagan religions which existed. Laws were granted to civilisations traditionally through religion. Case-in-point, just look at Deuteronomy which consists of laws for the Israelites. Polygamy was just as common as monogamy by the time of the Israelites. Just look at the book of Daniel where various Ba'al religions had people practising polygamy openly and through the law....Prior to this era I'd strongly suspect that any idea of marriage within the law did not exist....Eh? They've obviously had sex for a long time. However no formal marriage has ever been documented before around 2000BC. To speculate that it did exist beyond that era seems a tad bizarre to me as a historian....Of course we shouldn't let tradition triumph over rationality. However Christians should still be free to practise their traditions before God in a Church just so long as homosexuals are allowed to carry out their equally significant rituals [perhaps not in a some Churches according to the priest, for it is a building for Christians before God].
    Uh? And how far back do you think 'traditional Pagan religions' go? Indeed, how do you define a 'traditional pagan religion'? It's cute that you're using the Bible as your history source, but from a non-religious perspective humans have been around a lot longer than a few thousand years and in areas of the world far outside of the scope of Biblical geography. The Aboriginal Australians are beleived to have been on their own c. 40,000 years, for example. As for your last points - I don't really follow. Marriage can be defined by modern society in whatever way we see fit, and if we see fit to include same-sex relationships then that's all there is to it, Bible or no Bible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Uh? And how far back do you think 'traditional Pagan religions' go? Indeed, how do you define a 'traditional pagan religion'?
    We define traditional pagan religions as religions which were common during the era 3000BC -100AD [or there abouts].
    It's cute that you're using the Bible as your history source, but from a non-religious perspective humans have been around a lot longer than a few thousand years and in areas of the world far outside of the scope of Biblical geography
    Don't patronise, Oswy. :rolleyes: I don't think I even referred to the Bible in my post except to demonstrate how the Christians used this piece of writing as foundations for their law [so I'm not even using it as evidence or discussing its reliability, but merely telling you what it is and how it has been used]. So whether you find it "cute" it totally irrelevant. In fact, evidence for Pagan religions exists not only in the Bible, but in various sources. Various names such as Justin Martyr, John Hinnells [etc.] spring to mind.

    Ancient civilisations were religious and had their state laws derived from religion. There is no evidence that polygamy was a legal concept before 5000BC. The evidence suggests that polygamy was, like many state laws, a product of some religion. I reserve judgement on whether it was the Israelites who claim ownership of the law.

    Even today, polygamist traditions are derived from religion.
    The Aboriginal Australians are beleived to have been on their own c. 40,000 years, for example.
    I see little relevance...
    As for your last points - I don't really follow. Marriage can be defined by modern society in whatever way we see fit, and if we see fit to include same-sex relationships then that's all there is to it, Bible or no Bible.
    Evolutionary-wise, animals can be polygamist or monogamist in nature, I'm led to believe. I have no dispute with that. In fact, I find it perfectly rational to believe that humans have always been monogamist in nature. To the Christian, he would cite that "God made us that way". However that wasn't your original contention and by falling back on this already presumed premise then I feel you are now clutching at straws. My point still stands that marriage between two people was most probably derived from a tribal culture which followed religious laws, Pagan, Jewish or otherwise. Marriage, although not needing to be [for it does not hold a thoroughly religious nature], was derived from religion. It's quite hard to separate culture and religion when it comes to the creation of ancient laws.
 
 
 
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.