[D Man]

Come to think of it, I dont really see how anyone without a strong religious disposition to counter their sense of empathy could dissagree with same ex marraige.

Marraige is a symbol of mutual love and commitment after all. How can a person ruled by compassion deny a couple in love that?

[Spindrift]

The various forms of christianity are the dominant religion (even if most citizens are not practising christians, the ideals bleed into a culture) and our countries are probably a democracy, so it follows that the church will have an indirect, but significant influence on law making in this fashion.


Religion has a bit of a monopoly on 'marriage' and rightly so, but theres no reason not to have legally regognised Civil Unions so long as you steer clear of the M word. You'll still get opposition, but not as much of the knee-jerk reaction you see so much of. Make civil unions not a 'sacred binding of two people before God' but a legally recognised partnership. It's really important to have this for a myriad of social/legal reasons that have nothing to do with religion (property rights, social security/benifits, tax, inheritance, tenancy rights, life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, etc, etc. all that boring stuff that people take for granted and forget about).

[Tiste Simeon]

Yeah I admit that the one thing I was happy about was the fact that it was called "Civil Partnership" rather than marriage. For some reason, it didn't seem as bad. Though I can't think why.

[Morgoth]

yet marriage is not a christian invention... The church having monopoly on marriage as a concept does not make sense. They did after all not invent but rather addopt it. Certainly, the Church should not be forced to conduct seremonies for same sex marriages but the state should be able to marry people as surely and legaly binding as the church.

Marriage is strongly rooted in our culture as the ultimate act of love. I find it incredibly unfair and, yes, kinda evil to deny a substansial part of the population this -in lack of a better word- joy.

[Tiste Simeon]

Morgoth said:

yet marriage is not a christian invention... The church having monopoly on marriage as a concept does not make sense. They did after all not invent but rather addopt it. Certainly, the Church should not be forced to conduct seremonies for same sex marriages but the state should be able to marry people as surely and legaly binding as the church.

Erm...

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 24 said:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

It's been a Christian concept since creation. Or at least creation, as we believe it to be...

[Morgoth]

Tiste Simeon;144856 said:

Erm...

It's been a Christian concept since creation. Or at least creation, as we believe it to be...

yet it was a pagan tradition long before the emergence of christianity.. The Greeks did it, the egyptians did it, the syrians did it.. Quoting the bible surely makes little difference here

[Darkwatch]

If we use the judeo-christian roots as a basis for marriage then it excludes a good 2000 (history wise, not to mention pre-history) years prior to Abraham's first travels and founding of the hebrew nation and the jewish faith. Marriage had existed in all other cultures and civilisation before, and cultures untouched by judeo-christian beliefs until very late already had their marriage institutions.

[Tiste Simeon]

Morgoth said:

yet it was a pagan tradition long before the emergence of christianity.. The Greeks did it, the egyptians did it, the syrians did it.. Quoting the bible surely makes little difference here

OK perhaps I should have said Jewish concept then.

[Darkwatch]

Tiste Simeon;144875 said:

OK perhaps I should have said Jewish concept then.

Still not early enough. (See above post)

[Tiste Simeon]

Just read your first post after posting my previous one.

OK, let's see... I believe God invented marriage. Therefore his people have been practising marriage since creation. That spread whenever humans did (the bible tells an account of the Tower of Babel which split people up...) I hope that makes more sense.

[Darkwatch]

If marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, and it was created by god, and spread as is when they were split. Then what about polygamy (which is done for inheritance issues, originally anyway)?

[rlfcl]

listen, i suppose that i agree that churches shouldn't be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. But this quibbling over "well we caaaaan't call it a marriage" seems rather bigoted to me. When african-americans were made citizens, should they have been given a different title? should women teachers be called "educational advisors", or some such nonsense?


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tiste Simeon]

Darkwatch said:

If marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, and it was created by god, and spread as is when they were split. Then what about polygamy (which is done for inheritance issues, originally anyway)?

'Fraid I don't have an answer there. Though the people who did have more than one wife were never highly blessed because of it - Solomon fell as a result, and David had his greatest sin because of that...

Ask God.

[jscottnelson]

I believe that two adult people who love each other should be allowed to have whatever relationship they want, and call it whatever they want.

Over here in the States, the religious right has used this tired excuse of a "issue" to herd their follower sheep to the polls for years. Every election more states, cities, etc. have "anti-gay marriage" items on the ballot -- and they've found it works to get their followers to the polls for the purpose of judging other people, making rules for them (that the "properly" heterosexual couples aren't affected by), and give their confused little minds an idea of superiority that they are in the "right".

At least in this last election it did them very little good. Certainly didn't backfire on them, but elections should be about something more than judging someone's right to love someone.

[Falco]

Tsk tsk people, for letting Tiste drag you into the God-and-marriage debate. This has nothing to do with God for starters- no one is asking the church to marry gay couples. I don't care if our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality- although in many cases it has admirable qualities, in this case that morality is just plain wrong. Thus we as society have a duty to rise above that do the right thing and not exclude people simply based on the gender of the person they love.

Furthermore, the church (any church) has no copyright on the concept of marriage, the word marriage or even marrying people. It is important that the union of gay couples is called a marriage- symbolism is a powerful tool in our culture...Stone Monkey had a good rant on this a while back, and wrote it better and more forcefully than I could, on the old board. In any effect, the thrust of my point is that it demeans the love and relationship between gay couples in the eyes of the rest of the world if we do not call it marriage as we would between heterosexual couples.

[Demon X]

Tiste Simeon;144782 said:

I don't agree with it, but I don't want to get involved. As people have stated what people do to themselves is their own business. But I think that to go so far as taking it marriage, I believe is too far. In the end, what is the difference to them?
It is the same as people who have been living and sleeping together for ages - what is the point of getting married? To me marriage is a sacred binding of two people before God. It is why I am saving myself til after marriage, as I believe that marriage is something special.

And why can't two gay people be binded before God?

Tiste Simeon;144782 said:

That's just tarring all Christians with the same mad brush.
Though it seems to be that, as with pretty much any issue, the press only reports those things. Other people don't get a mention, so people will believe that all Christians are like that evangelist who got caught with a male prostitute.
It happens to everyone, and it is a shame.

I specifically picked a certain type of Christian, if you read that again! And No, that Evangelist was the leader of the biggest ministry in th US, he has 80million followers in his ministry. He is/was a major major anti-gay preacher. It just goes to show - an empty vessel makes the most noise!

[Menandore]

Tiste Simeon;144782 said:

I don't agree with it, but I don't want to get involved.

Shouldn't have posted then If you have nothing to say, say nothing. If you make a post then people like me feel the urge to drag you in....mwahahahaha

Quote

As people have stated what people do to themselves is their own business. But I think that to go so far as taking it marriage, I believe is too far. In the end, what is the difference to them?
It is the same as people who have been living and sleeping together for ages - what is the point of getting married? To me marriage is a sacred binding of two people before God. It is why I am saving myself til after marriage, as I believe that marriage is something special.

It makes a huge difference. If you have a married couple and one dies then the other gets to keep the house. If the same couple are unmarried then even if the house is willed to the surviving spouse they still have to pay inheritance tax. Usually this means they have to sell the home they have spend most of their adult lives in. That's a pretty traumatic thing to put someone through especially when they have just lost the love of their life. Being married also makes them next of kin which is important if one is in poor health and important decisions have to be made by the next of kin. An unmarried partner has few rights.

Quote

I don't think the church should get involved in the state, because inevitably some idiot claiming to be a Christian will make a stupid statement in politics, and suddenly the whole faith will be under scrutiny. But I don't agree with it being a "marriage." It just doesn't sit right with me. That's as best as I can explain it, to be honest. I have some gay friends etc. so I haven't got a problem with them...

But marriage is a state issue. My parents got married in a civil ceremony in a registrar's after 'living in sin' for a couple of years and having their first daughter. Hardly christian behaviour but nobody argues against them being a married couple. Just because a marriage doesn't fit into your precise definition doesn't mean that it is not a marriage.

Quote

To be honest our society is founded (loosely) on Christian morals anyway. They are just slipping away from it.

I don't think that's always a bad thing.

Quote

I do believe in equality etc. in that people should be allowed to practice whatever beliefs they want to. However the Christian faith (and others) do have some good ethical values that a lot of people follow even without being Christians.

To me that just means that those ethical values are not only christian values. It seems that this whole thing is about ownership. Good ethical values like not stealing, murdering, raping, etc. are just that - good ethical values. They are not by definition, 'christian values', it just so happens that they overlap christian values and in some cases are the same. It is the same with marriage. The christian faith does not have ownership of the term or the concept. It just so happens that it is practiced by the faith. You have a very rigid definition of marriage but it is not the only definition. When I get married (which I believe I will some day) it will have nothing to do with god. But I doubt there is anyone who would tell me I can't marry a man because I refuse to do it in a church.

[Obdigore]

GA, I want to have your babies.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Goddess Aurora again.

Much like what GA says. Most Gays are looking for the same CIVIL rights, in the eyes of the government, with thier life partners, that hetrosexual couples receive now. Most of them would rather not be anywhere near an anti-gay chuch, much less be married in/by one.

In my country, there is supposed to be a Seperation of Church And State. Which has degraded over time. Many of our 'founding fathers' were not christian. So how do 'christians' get in power? By whipping up a frenzy of mistrust/dislike against certain 'scapegoat'(read: smaller) elements of our society. There ARE parrallels to WWII here, if anyone cares to look.

Sidebar:
TISTE (or anyone else religious):
Why should I have to live by YOUR rules as long as what I do does not overtly effect you in any way? You do not 'believe' in gay marriage, so there should be a law against it happening? I do not 'believe' in your god (or any 'higher power') so should I move to create a law against YOU acknowledging his/her/its/their existance?

[Menandore]

Obdigore;145130 said:

GA, I want to have your babies.

:eek3: :Erm: Something about that statement isn't quite right Although, I am terribly flattered

[Astra]

Goddess Aurora;145121 said:

It makes a huge difference. If you have a married couple and one dies then the other gets to keep the house. If the same couple are unmarried then even if the house is willed to the surviving spouse they still have to pay inheritance tax. Usually this means they have to sell the home they have spend most of their adult lives in. That's a pretty traumatic thing to put someone through especially when they have just lost the love of their life. Being married also makes them next of kin which is important if one is in poor health and important decisions have to be made by the next of kin. An unmarried partner has few rights.

I completely agree with you despite the fact that I cannot stand gays and feel revulsion towards them.