Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

What's this "everyone" business? What's this "attacking Russ" business? Pardon me if I object to such a sweeping generalisation!

And, for my part, that viewpoint is one that I am questioning (note, not "attacking"). He states that he will only recognise certain types of marriage, well that's his right, but whilst he has the right to hold that viewpoint doesn't mean that the rest of us should either have to accept it or *not* question it or object to it simply because it's "religious".

Well, in which case he ought to be thanking "us" for making his "faith" even stronger...!!! :wavey:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OH of course I should have quantified my remarks by adding"with the exception of Graham who attacks everyone's comments and opinions without fear or favour".

I don't actually support Russ's views on this issue(I don't believe I'm doing this)I just support his right to his own beliefs just as I would yours.

I might be able to give you more respect for your's if you weren't so fecking strident about them but your aggressive attitude just p*sses me off. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So you justify one sweeping generalisation with another...!! Sheesh. :rolleyes:

And where have I *ever* said that I *don't* support that right? Oh, that's right, I haven't.

"Aggressive attitude"? Like calling someone "fecking strident"? Just asking...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Because it's not a question I feel I can answer with a straight yes or no.

No I didn't say that. I did not say I object to marriages from any church I don't agree with, I'm saying I don't accept civil ceremonies as marriage, or any other ceremony considered as marriage which does not include what I feel 'qualifies' as true marriage.

You might think so but I certainly don't. However if I discriminated against someone, was negative towards or judged them based on them having such a civil ceremony then you might have a point.

If I was saying it as confrontational as that then you may have a point.

No, my religion does not give me the right to say that, it's my right to have an opinion which gives me the right to say it. This is not about my religion, I've felt this way for long since before I found God.

Believe me Graham, I will name names. I don't fear you in any way and if I have something to say about directly, you can be sure I will say to you.

I've never said anyone has to accept it. I've said time and time again my view on this is not due to religion.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My wife and I were married in a registry office because we didn't feel that we should marry in a church because we had been 'living in sin' for 6 years (and neither of us is 'religious').
Because of this Russ says that we aren't properly married (or words to that effect). We agree. In the eyes of God, we aren't properly married. We see no insult in this. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Your domestic circumstances are of course nothing to do with me but if you would permit me to comment......obviously I'd prefer it if people were married in the eyes of God but if they (you?) have chosen not to, then that's between you and God and no-one else.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ditto.I also as an athiest thought it a tad hypocritical to get married in church,unlike many of my contempories many of whom professed a Christian belief but after the ceremony never,ever went back to church,except to christen their children.Christianity has to be more than getting married in church surely?

And Graham I'm sick of your arguing.I never started this argument with you.I merely pointed out that Russ had a right to his opinion and you then turned your attentions to me.I wasn't defending his beliefs just his right to hold them and requesting that you and the rest accept that.If you can't then I can only say you are a hypocrite yourself as you so often argue for us to see both sides equally and fairly.As you see I'm not attacking your right to your beliefs just the way you won't extend that right to others.You are so like erol and just won't accept that you can't change people's minds just by nagging them.Sometimes you CAN just walk away.If you can't stand what some of us have to say and can't respect our right to say them then maybe putting us on ignore may be your only answer. :rolleyes:

Me,I just gave up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings.

Incog. :PP:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm sorry, but the distinction between the two seems like a rather fine hair to split IMO.

And as to what a "true marriage" is, well, I've spoken before on my opinions of people who hold to a "one true way" mentality.

But you've just said "I don't accept civil ceremonies as marriage, or any other ceremony considered as marriage which does not include what I feel 'qualifies' as true marriage."[/QUOTE]

Now it may be prettied up a bit, but as far as I can see that simply boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong. Full stop".

Well thank you, I'm please to hear it. So I can not only hope, but now *expect* not to see any other vague generalisations from you about, for instance, "something that certain people don't like doing" in future posts?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No, you made a sweeping generalisation which I took exception too. Then, when I pulled you up on it, you seem to decide to resort to outrage and bluster instead of reason.

If you *had* done that, I wouldn't have objected. The fact that you chose to couch it in terms such as " everyone seems to personalise these errr..... discussions (sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ" was what I objected to, which, you might have realised had you actually bothered to read my response instead of "just giving up reading whatever you have to say because it's too boring to read through your overlong long postings."

Were I to have actually done so, then you would have been right to call me a hypocrite, however since that is something I assiduously attempt to avoid doing, I cannot accept the appelation. (Alliteration actually unintentional!)

Off hand I can't say I know who erol is and, frankly, I don't care who he or she is because I am *not* erol, I do not speak for him/ her, nor does he/she speak for me.

I write my own posts, based on my own opinions. I do not attempt to "change people's minds just by nagging at them" I attempt to do so by pointing out logical flaws in their arguments or assumptions.

If you can't accept that...

And if anyone doesn't like what I have to say about their postings, then *they* can walk away. But I'm not going to stop posting because of that.

I'm sure, then that you haven't bothered to read down this far, but that's not my problem.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

As luck would have it I stumbled across this story in an old magazine I was reading today. Here is the link to the coverage on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/18/gay.vulture.parents/

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

We would have liked a 'traditional' wedding but thought it would be a bit hypocritical.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Good story but 'one swallow does not a summer make'

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Bugger, I thought this thread was about Britney so I've ignored it, now I'm kicking myself.

Anyway, homosexual organisations in this country who are asking for equal rights for homosexual relationships as married releationships do not, I repeat do not, want marriage for homosexuals.
They acknowledge that marriage is something special and within the realm of hetrosexuals.
What homosexuals want is a legally acknowledged union which gives them the legal rights which married partners enjoy, such as next of kin, and inheritance rights.

While this sensible discussion was going on, some other hetrosexual people (mainly women for an understandable reason) wanted there to be automatic legal rights for hetrosexual couples who have been together for a certain period of time. This was to protect the woman, should she be dating a guy for 10 years, then have him kick her out. She would have no rights over his property etc (remember, law doesn't recognise common law wives)
This is the bit I found strange, in that hetrosexuals have the ability already to claim legal rights via registry office weddings.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Can't you see how a 'purist' would view newcomers, like civil ceremonies? It's not a 'one true way', rather the original, as it was intended, how it all started 'way'. Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not all Christians in this country adhere to all of the teachings of the bible. They already "water down", as you put it, certain aspects of the bible that suit their purposes, the issues that aren`t hard to face up to. But as soon as it becomes an issue that forces them to confront their prejudices they suddenly decide to follow the rules.