[Closed] The church and homosexuality

Ok so my last post wasnt well made, I apologise.

To be honest, I'm on the fence with this one and I can’t make my mind up. I've listened to both sides and each has valid points.

I have absolutely no problem with gay partnership. Committing to each other in a loving, stable relationship and wanting to share that with friends and family is fantastic. It’s very similar/the same as marriage and I can see why anyone regardless of sexual preference would chose to live that lifestyle.

Where I am torn is the re-definition of the meaning of marriage. For me, the word marriage describes the unique relationship between a man and a woman. Men and women by very nature are different in all sorts of ways that make the pairing both trialling and rewarding, but the sum of that pairing is a blending of traits typically unique to each sex. Something I am proud to share with my wife.

I believe it’s just different to the pairing of same sex couples; it’s not necessarily better or worse, or by any means harder or easier, just unique. Calling all unions “marriage” strips it of that.

Why is partnership not enough? I don’t see it as any less, but I don’t agree that it’s the same. Is that the crux of the argument perhaps? That you want me to belive its the same. Do you belive that by forcing the church into same sex marriage that would somehow change the way people think of marriage to suit your definition what ever that may be? Do you really belive that will bring you more equality? How?

Haven't read this thread and starting from the end backwards...

Grimy, that is a well formulated post that reads very well, you address your position clearly and at heart I agree with you, but I think the bottom line is this... Regardless of whether it changes the institution of marriage or not, is it fair? Will gay marriages stop hetrosexuals getting married because they no longer see it in the same light? I suspect not and it wouldn't bother me (I'm married already).

Whatever our personal opinions we must live in a fair society and gays relationships should be given the same rights and stature. I struggle with their adopting children as it seems wrong, but that's a personal demon that I know is unfair... Christ knows they'll be much better parents than a lot of hetrosexual couples! I think I just worry that school will be a nightmare for the kids, it's a difficult enough battleground to grow up in as it is.

Do you belive that by forcing the church into same sex marriage

What the church does is up to its members. Nobody is forcing the church to do anything.

I hear this a lot from people opposed to same-sex marriage, that allowing same-sex marriage will somehow 'dilute' or 'alter' what is unique about marriage in their eyes.

Wrong - granting equal rights to others DOES NOT detract in any way from the rights of the hetrosexual to get married, nor does it make your union any less 'special' or 'unique' and to say otherwise is to infer a superior status for hetrosexual unions which is the very basis of discrimination.
No one is asking or demanding that churches are forced to marry same-sex couples either so that particular straw-man can be laid to rest as well.

If two people who love each other getting married somehow impacts your own marriage because they have the same genitals, it's your problem. It's nothing to with gods, or religion - I married Mr Toast in a civil ceremony where any mention of religion was strictly barred. The church should have no say in the institution of marriage outside of his halls, because it doesn't own marriage.

And the CoE really isn't in a position to comment on the sanctity of marriage, given that it was founded in a fit of pique by a fat horny king who wanted to divorce his wives, lop of their heads and otherwise be shot of them for new models because he got bored of them or because of their inability to give him a son...

Grimy, I know you don't mean to be, but your post is pretty offensive

In some ways it is like being at a picnic. Everyone has nice plates but when it comes to me and my partner I get a paper plate, while being told "Well it works just like a plate, holds stuff just the same. Why should you have a real plate, be happy with what you've got."

I really don't see any issues here apart from person A trying to tell person B how to live their lives.

[list]
[*]Civil weddings for those who are not religious.[/*]
[*]Religious weddings for those who are into god/s. The churches are a club and can decide members they let in.[/*]
[/list]

marriage is overrated, you can still get 'hooked' without the state sanctioning it.

costs a lot less n all

Why is partnership not enough? I don’t see it as any less, but I don’t agree that it’s the same. Is that the crux of the argument perhaps? That you want me to belive its the same. Do you belive that by forcing the church into same sex marriage that would somehow change the way people think of marriage to suit your definition what ever that may be? Do you really belive that will bring you more equality? How?

The fundamental point is for me, Why is it any of your business if people want to get married, and call it marriage, and there is a church that is happy with that?

Why is partnership not enough? I don’t see it as any less,

Grimy, consider this.

You and your fiancé turn up at the church or registry office or whatever for your big day. You're in a nice suit, your blushing bride is in a big white frock. You get there and they tell you, "sorry squire, you can't get married. No real reason other than that bloke over there doesn't like the look of you. Thinks you look a bit common, and marriage is only for people he approves of. Tell you what though, we can offer you a 'civil partnership.' No, don't worry, you get exactly the same rights as a marriage, you just can't call it that."

Would you go "that sounds great, sign me up!" or would you a bit pissed off, like?

Do you belive that by forcing the church into same sex marriage that would somehow change the way people think of marriage to suit your definition what ever that may be?

The argument works both ways and the issue is do you believe in discrimination?
More subtly we will impose our will on someone as we need to balance rights. As i dont share their view on god and I dont think people getting married actually affects their beliefs or their faith or their communion with god I would politely say WTF has it got to do with them or their faith who marries whom. Its not like it will make us all good christians by sticking with their view of marriage or make them any less christian if we ignore it bu tit will give other people equality.

I suspect the christians would be unhappy if i tried to impose my atheist not going to church rule. they can do as they please what they cannot do is expect us to follow their rules any more than we can expect them to follow our [atheist] ones.

Why is partnership not enough?

Why is partnership not enough?

Until the 60s, many US states segregated black people to the back of the bus. Why should they complain? They’re still on a bus, and they’re still going from point A to B. And they had their own water fountains, that were pretty much the same as the ones for whites, but they still got water, right?

They complained [b]because it was wrong[/b].

Grimey:
[b]There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe[/b]. This is because there is no such thing as a 'man' and a 'woman', [i]everyone is different[/i].
Likewise, every marriage is different: Some break, some fail, some live happily ever after.
Different people have different characteristics which potentially make the pairing between [i]anyone[/i] trialling and rewarding.

Regardless of the above, what's wrong with allowing anyone to marry regardless of sexuality and qualifying your own marriage as follows:
I'm married to my [i]wife[/i].
I have a [i]wife[/i].
This will convey the 'unique relationship between a man and a woman that stems from their inherent differences' as effectively as saying you are married. There is no dilution of meaning at all - and it's likely you already say this.

Then gay men can say:
I'm married to my [i]husband[/i].
I have a [i]husband[/i].

There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe. This is because there is no such thing as a 'man' and a 'woman', everyone is different.

Bang on.

There are more differences between people of the same sex than there are between people of different sexes. To say otherwise is to define someone by their gender, rather than as an individual.

After all these discussions I think the religious amongst us who keep on trying to argue the case against, should simply admit that they don't like the idea because they are bigots who have been led into that condition by their religion, pure and simple.

No, you have the same right to marry a woman as any other man.

Oh, this is an interesting point. Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

singletracked:

You are Norman Tebbit and I claim my £5.

Well, it may be something else, but its not discrimination is it?

Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

What we can all marry who we want?

What if we all had the same right to marry only someone of the same sex - would that be fair and not discrimination?

Is that an actual question 😯

Its the very definition of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality as only the straight ones can do as they please and marry who they choose.

Yes it is discrimination.

Heterosexuals can marry who they like, homosexuals cannot.

Heterosexuals can marry who they like,

No, they can't.

They can marry any person of the opposite sex (if the other consents, obviously)

It is also discrimination that heterosexuals can't enter into a civil partnership with who they like, but homosexuals can.

Oh, this is an interesting point. Can it be discrimination if gays and straights have exactly the same rights about who they can marry?

[img] [/img]

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry. Homesexuals cannot.

There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe

Except at the moment there is;

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

So when the laws are changed to accommodate same sex marriages then the act of consomethingion will no longer be part of the contract. Some opponents to same sex marriages believe that this devalues the marriage of heterosexual couples and that by removing a historically significant aspect of the marriage contract the new ‘thing’ is no longer a marriage but something different, marriage MK2?

To some people I know the whole consomethingion thing was a big deal, they were married as virgins and the act of consomethingion was sealing the deal, to be fair they are deeply religious people and I would imagine them to be in an ever decreasing minority. To me it didn’t even cross my mind because neither of us are religious and we weren’t in the no sex before marriage camp.

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Heterosexuals can marry any person who they would want to marry.

That's not at all true, and I have the restraining order to prove it!

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal contract of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

Not so:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consomethingion+of+marriage

No, you have the same right to marry a woman as any other man.

*and who reciprocated obviously

1 What do mean by that? How can you say who they would want to marry?

Assuming consent, anyway.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn't complicated stuff.

irelanst
under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

So what's the definition? My dictionary says "sexual intercourse".
There's no good reason for any of this anti-gay discrimination. It's vulgar, anachronistic bigotry, full stop.

Presumably, a straight man would only want to marry a woman? He is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a straight woman would only want to marry a man? She is allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay man would only want to marry a man? He is not allowed to in law.
Presumably, a gay woman would only want to marry a woman? She is not allowed to in law.

This isn't complicated stuff.

Except that you have made 4 presumptions without any basis

Why would a straight man [i]only [/i]want to marry a woman?

You're clutching at straws.

It's a bit pathetic, to be honest.

My understanding is that one of the main hurdles in legalising same sex marriages is that the current legal ‘contract’ of marriage is sealed by consomethingion and under the current definition a same sex couple cannot perform the acts necessary for consomethingion.

I don't remember reading that in the terms of my marriage contract?
In fact I don't recall ever reading a marriage contract at all.

Presumably this also excludes severely disabled people from getting married?
And some elderly folk. And well, any folk who just don't particularly want to consomethinge for whatever reason.

There is no unique relationship between a 'man' and a 'women' for marriage to describe. This is because there is no such thing as a 'man' and a 'woman', everyone is different.

Bang on.

There are more differences between people of the same sex than there are between people of different sexes. To say otherwise is to define someone by their gender, rather than as an individual.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women. Your argument holds no water.

 

I'm the eldest of five:

I was allowed to marry the person I love.
The older of my brothers was allowed to marry the person he loves.
The older of my sisters was allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my sisters was not allowed to marry the person she loves.
The younger of my brothers is single. He may or may be not allowed to marry the person he loves when he finds them. (We're not too sure about him.)

If you can't see the issue here, there's probably no hope for you.

You're clutching at straws.

It's a bit pathetic, to be honest.

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don't you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. [b]We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women.[/b] Your argument holds no water.

That makes no sense. Whilst its wrong to define someone by gender, it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight. To suggest male and female are the same, is to suggest that sexual preference does or should not exist. We tend to be gay or straight because we endear the things that are unique in men or women.

What nonsense.

Your argument holds no water.

But if a bearded sky wizard told me in my dreams?

I was allowed to marry the person I love

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

ok, so marriage and love cannot be separated?

Me? Yes, terribly so, why don't you just destroy the argument with a quick and incisive riposte

What nonsense.

Seems to make sense to me, if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

Why would a straight man only want to marry a woman?

I am going to go out on a limb here but is it for money 🙄

FFS that is beyond clutching at straws and into the realms of the ludicrous

if there is no difference between men and women, then one would equally likely to be attracted to a man as they would a womsn.

I suggest you look at them naked

HTH

Also, Grimy:

it's also the traits typical of a gender that you find attractive weather gay or straight

Do you find every woman attractive?