Gay Marriage

[Mughi]

My current bugbear.

The Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right of anyone to practice their religion. What it does not do is give anyone the right for them to insist that *I* practice their religion.

There is absolutely nothing in same sex marriage that affects mf relationships yet there are many people demanding that mm/ff be prevented for no other reason than "My religion says its wrong, so you cant do it either". If it was harmful in any way I could see their point, but it isnt.

If they want to state that you cannot be a Christian and be in a same sex marriage, I really dont care, its up to them to make up the rules for their religion as they see fit. Its when the boundarys of those rules are stretched to encompass me that it becomes a problem.

Really, how does same sex marriage interfere in any way shape or form with life for anyone. It doesnt. Yet because the bible says :

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

the religious right in the US are trying to change their constitution. They are happy to ignore the instruction telling them to kill gay men, but desperately hold on to the bit telling them its wrong.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states :

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I see no reason why this doesnt apply to same sex.

 

[Ice]

Allowing gay marriages changes the whole definition of the word "marriage", in my opinion. Marriage should be a heterosexual thing.

 

[JACKEL]

well they can get married if they want to but whats next? woman marriage's a horse?

 

[Mughi]

Please, explain exactly what you mean by that Ice, and Jackel, thats a ridiculous thing to say. Two men who are in a long term relationship, or two women in a long term relationship - how in any way is that comparable to long term relationship with an animal.

 

[Martz]

I went to a "Lesbian wedding" in Manchester a few months ago, a friend of our family for years.

She has been outcast by most of her family, her Brothers, Dad and grandparents refused to go, saying she was still in her "phase" and would change her mind and realise her mistakes.

Manchester has a Partner Register, which recognises a formal relationship between 2 people of whatever sex. It obviously doesn't grant them any legal status of being married, but at least it allows a place for it to happen - and both of the brides on the day had a wonderful time which obviously meant a lot to them.


I don't disagree with lesbian or gay marriage anymore than I diagree with a hetrosexual marriage. I think the whole concept is pointless for me personaly, I've seen too many lives wrecked by the stress and pressure of marriage itself in my immediate family and friends. But thats just me, I don't want to get married whatsoever. I don't disagree with two people of the same sex getting married either since I've got no reason to think otherwise. I also don't want to stop everyone in the country getting married and say to then "WHYYYYYY?!"

The benefits of legally recognising gay marriage should be similar to those of marriage already to include:

• The same tax and income benefits of conventional marriage
• The same rights to partners living together, and "common-law" rights to grant an equal distrubtion of property and possessions in the same way a cohabbiter or hetrosexual partner who both contribute to a house do.

I don't think that the issue of adoption of children by a same sex couple should get mixed with the rights of same sex marriage, or one of it's benefits. I'm also not saying it should happen, but at least we should be making progress in small steps instead of looking to radically change the system as a whole.

And don't forget, Britain is a generally racist and homophobic nation - according to Little Britain

 

[Ice]

Please, explain exactly what you mean by that Ice

When I hear 'Marriage', then i think of a man and a woman. Gay marriage kind of destroys this way of thinking, and I think it shouldn't.

Furthermore, I was close to posting something similiar as Jackel did. Why am I not allowed to marry my gun, alcohol or football? It's hard to explain what I think, but to make it short I just think that if it's not a heterosexual marriage, then it is no marriage at all.

 

[JACKEL]

well i was religeous raised and i know the world evolves and stuf and the religion should go with the flow a bit but it's stated that people from the same sex shouldnt get married, like ice said it's a hetero thing.
so to respect the choice god and jesus made i say no to that, i dont have a problem with them having a relationship thats up for themselve's.
Or that there is a different thing of marriage like a contract or sth, but marriage is a hetero thing like i said.
and thats my opinion, a wedding is sth religeous
i dont have a thing against gay people, hey im dutch lol,

 

[Nephilim]

marriage IMO is a) the religious-ish bond of 2 people, and when it comes to religion its up to everyone himself how to interprete it and apply any rules. So far for the religious part of it. And b) , its a bond which grants 2 people special treatment/rights/rules (whatever) in the state (like big M said, taxes etc.). The state shouldnt forbid gay people to enter that social status of marriage along with all its consequences on the law-basis, just because the "people's religion" (Christianity in Europe) says its a bad thing. Thats not for the state to f'kin matter - they're not telling us to not use condoms just because the vatican says you shouldnt use em, now do they ?
The only problem I can see that religious people have about it, is that they think gay people shouldnt be allowed to be able to have the same religious bond (see a)) because it interferes with their religious beliefs. (see Mughi's bible quote)
Im all for seperation of state and religion, btw.

 

[Mughi]

So, the arguements against same sex marriage outside of a church are :

1) If two people can get married, two inanimate objects should be able to.
2) God says so.

So ... in response to 1.
if both parties can proclaim commitment why not. I have never seen a horse or a gun state catagorically that they will honour and respect their partner. Hell, I have never seen a horse or gun with a human partner, only owners. So, can we please stop using this ridiculous arguement - it really makes no sense whatsoever.

And number 2.
I already said - if christians or jews or muslims want to insist that religious wedding ceremonies dont take place in their church/synagogue/mosque thats their business, much though I think its pathetic of them to dictate this sort of thing to people , if they want to set the rules of their little rituals, thats their thing to do.

What I am pissed at is the christians, jews or muslims insisting that non-christians, non-jews, non-muslims practice their view of their religion.

In no way does two people stating in front of witnesses that they are making a commitment to be together affect the religious practice of anyone other than those two people.

I was married in a registry office. No religion involved anywhere. I am still married. God/Jehovah/Allah had nothing to do with it in any way shape or form. And why should they.

 

[Ice]

I am not against it because I am religious ( hell, I am not ) and I fully understand your arguments. I just think that it is wrong and that is my very own opinion, not backed up with big arguments. I just don't like it that's all.

it really makes no sense whatsoever

It makes no sense for you, because you think different. If you look at it like this:

"Marriage is a contract between a male and a female"
then if you marry someone of the same sex you can just marry anything else aswell, because it all breakes the rules of the definition.

 

[Carnage`]

Why is marriage so important anyway? IMO marriage is a word wich only describes a relationship u have with someone. Why not just get registered as living together and do the mariage bit u find so important the party the vows or something else i might forget.

On the other hand if it is against a religion (i'm so non religous it's unbelievable) why should you be granted the right to do it in their house of god? The rules that have been set in their holy book go there.

I have trouble seeing what the problem is but that might be cuz the dutch are a lot more tollerant in this sort of thing.

So i got 2 questions:

1 what is so important of having a married status seeing as marriage (by dictionary lookup) is a relationship between man and woman.

2 why do religious people try n force their believes on people outside their house of god. 2 people: man woman ,man man ,woman woman wanna be together for life and have it witnessed outside your religious community. What problem do u have with it and why.

 

[Mughi]

Just breifly, as I am on my way out ...

"Civil Marriage" is the same as a marriage when its out of the church - in a registry office for example. This is distinct from a "Religious Marriage" when the ceremony takes place in a place of worship.

I dont care if people have religious marriages, what I care about is civil marriages being forbidden because it is not in line with what a religion belives.

I have a civil marriage, yet I am considered to be married, why cant other people.

Hell, Americans are looking to change their constitution to prevent civil marraiges as well!

 

[JACKEL]

tbh i dont give a shit what the yanks do, their a bunch of weird people imo.


mughi said:
I think its pathetic of them to dictate this sort of thing to people , if they want to set the rules of their little rituals, thats their thing to do.

i dont think it is pathetic, it's how the christians think and believe has nuttin to do with pathetic but i respect ur opinion that u think it's pathetic.
well and i wouldnt say marriage is a little ritual if u see that religeon cause's war and everything.
it's just their belief and if gay people wanna do sth of their own it's fine by me.
i just dont get it why gay people have to call it marriage, marriage is sth for religeos people.
and there's no where in any bible that gay people are allowed to get married.
so the solution to me is call it sth else and start ur own little cult.
i mean they dont give a shit about the belief so why should they wanna call it marriage anyway.

 

[Lex_Mortis]

"Freedom of Religion" is also "Freedom from Religion".
I remember some case in the USA where a father went to court because he was atheist and raised his daughter the same way.
In school however every morning the kids + teachers said some God thingie, the father didnt agree with that. (some pledge?)
If I remember correctly he won that case.

He won because in a way, its forcing your own religion (or parts of it) on someone else. Same goes for this stuff..
You dont agree with gay marriages, fine.
You dont want to be in a gay marriage yourself, fine.
But let other people do whatever they want to do!

Im beginning to think that the so called "land of freedom" is the country where there is no freedom at all.

 

[Useless]

Why is it so hard to see that, when two people love each other, they should be allowed to make that bond official, legally and / or religiously?

@ Ice: if you 'just don't like it', then that's surely OK - you're entitled to your opinion. But would you protest against it? I don't like Rangers but I don't object to their existence.

@ Martz:

she was still in her "phase"

@Mughi:

I was married in a registry office. No religion involved anywhere. I am still married. God/Jehovah/Allah had nothing to do with it in any way shape or form. And why should they.

- pld :cool: and also

if they want to set the rules of their little rituals, thats their thing to do

- I didn't realise it was up to religious people to set the rules of their own religion. Then it ceases to be a religion and becomes a society. In other words, if I become leader of the Christians throughout the world, I can make up whatever rules I want based on my own prejudices.

Another thing: Britain's laws aren't made based on religion - we are not governed by Christians. Muslims or any other religious body. Therefore our laws should not be biased in favour of these religions' beliefs in any way, or biased against them. If making it a law that same-sex marriages are just as legal as opposite-sex marriages offends the Christians in Britain...so what? I mean a law against same-sex marriages offends me, as a non-Christian, but that isn't making them overturn it so far.

 

[Mughi]

i just dont get it why gay people have to call it marriage, marriage is sth for religeos people.

Jackel, do you consider me and Ian to not be married?

We are, yet we are not religious people.

and there's no where in any bible that gay people are allowed to get married.
so the solution to me is call it sth else and start ur own little cult.
i mean they dont give a shit about the belief so why should they wanna call it marriage anyway.

There is nowhere in the bible that states gay people arent allowed to get married, but there is somewhere that says they should be killed, so I dont think you can use the bible to argue the case for this.

Marriage isnt exclusively a christian thing, so why is there such a big deal about this?

So, once again, why should christian rules apply to non-christians when they affect nobody else.

If a muslim was to insist that every single woman in NL had to wear a headscarf to protect men from the "evil rays" that come from her hair and turn men into lusting monsters and every man had to grow a beard, I would consider that wrong. Its insisting that a religion is forced onto those that do not practice it.

So, if its not called a civil marriage, you would be OK with it? So, calling it a "civil partnership" would be fine?

Do you know that there are many couples that live together who, on the death of one of the partners are left with nothing. No house, no belongings, no insurance, no nothing, not even a say in how their partner is buried etc. If they were mixed gender, after a while (two years here I think) they at least have some sort of rights as a "common law wife/husband" in the case of same sex couples, no matter how long they have been together the remaining partner has no rights. I know that "common law" isnt *quite* as good as people think, but I cant remember exactly, and I have no idea how it works elsewhere, but thats how it is here. Give people these sorts of rights, acknowledge that they are making a public commitment to each other - what more is there to marriage really? Call it a civil partnership and where is the problem other than making people follow someone elses religion.

 

[Largo]

Gay/homosexual marriage as in married in church is just a no-go, and a complete affront to god imo. Want to be homo, fine, but leave the church, and preferably everyone else, out of it. Priests doing it anyway should be sacked immediately. Im not some churchgoing moaningtogodeverysundaymorning regular, but there are limits. Got get a "civil wedding" (or what you call it in english) at the mayors office.
While im at it, homos shouldnt be allowed to have kids, by adoption, artificial insemination or otherwise.
lex: "But let other people do whatever they want to do!" No! Just because they want gay marriage in church doesnt mean i, nor the church, should change to accomodate them.

 

[Mughi]

I didn't realise it was up to religious people to set the rules of their own religion. Then it ceases to be a religion and becomes a society. In other words, if I become leader of the Christians throughout the world, I can make up whatever rules I want based on my own prejudices.

Useless, thats exactly the case.
Take as an example, the pope. Head of the catholic church. In the 50s the catholic church had no real stance on contraception. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla suggested the current view and it was adopted then. And that was even before he became pope.

His personal view now affects the lives of millions of people around the world. Those who have been told (and beleive) that condoms cause HIV, the morning after pill is not prescribed by my doctor because the pope said its wrong. The catholic church has enough influence that they have schools built for them by the state.

Another thing: Britain's laws aren't made based on religion - we are not governed by Christians. Muslims or any other religious body. Therefore our laws should not be biased in favour of these religions' beliefs in any way, or biased against them. If making it a law that same-sex marriages are just as legal as opposite-sex marriages offends the Christians in Britain...so what? I mean a law against same-sex marriages offends me, as a non-Christian, but that isn't making them overturn it so far.

While I agree with you entirely here Useless, unfortunately, our laws do require religious backing - the House of Lords has 26 seats filled with CoE Bishops - during the suggested House of Lords reforms, it is to be changed

Under the proposals, the number of spiritual leaders would increase from 26 to 31, including five from mainstream non-Christian faiths. The Church of England would forfeit 10 of its 26 seats for bishops to make way for Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Church in Wales, Church of Ireland and Church of Scotland leaders.

Its not a huge amount of the 695 seats, but its there.

 

[Lex_Mortis]

largo:
<CharoNoMe> Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

 

[Mughi]

Gay/homosexual marriage as in married in church is just a no-go, and a complete affront to god imo. Want to be homo, fine, but leave the church, and preferably everyone else, out of it. Priests doing it anyway should be sacked immediately. Im not some churchgoing moaningtogodeverysundaymorning regular, but there are limits. Got get a "civil wedding" (or what you call it in english) at the mayors office.
While im at it, homos shouldnt be allowed to have kids, by adoption, artificial insemination or otherwise.
lex: "But let other people do whatever they want to do!" No! Just because they want gay marriage in church doesnt mean i, nor the church, should change to accomodate them.

Largo - the whole point of this thread is not insisting that a church has to take gay marriages.

Its me complaining bitterly that the churches insist that I and everyone else practice their religion.

Its them insisting that even civil partnerships should not be allowed in registry offices even when it has nothing to do with a church.

Preists having homosexual relationships are rarely sacked, just like those who abuse children are protected from prosecution by the church