Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

At what age would you consider a child old enough to understand the situation?

The reason I ask is that we assume that children can understand the situation in a heterosexual relationship with no problems, and that isn`t something innate. If a child can understand one type of relationship I don`t see that they couldn`t understand the other type. Another bonus is that if these things are explained to them when they are young enough then hopefully then they won`t be misled by that propaganda put out by large sections of society.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Er no, I've been against that long before I became a Christian. If gays wish to have relationships then all well and good. But for me (and many others) marriage has been about children.

Yep fine, as long as both sides are opposite sexes.

Cool! So, lying to the child!

Tell me, why would you need to 'cover' anything up?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

WTF? The propaganda?! Would that be the same propaganda that the majority of the human race has subscribed to for at least 2000 years? I call that established practice with long precedent.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

aged 12-13

i would say 16 as a safeguard

yes but you dont expect a 5 year old to understand what a homosexual relationship is about, you have to think about the timeing, it would be individually balanced depending on the mentality of the person at the age they were told, not everyone can fully understand the opposite to something, especially if those around them meaning other children have a mother and father and you have to acknowledge there question and they feel 'abnormal'............

if you do mistime the education then you will ultimately confuse the child, the 'propoganda' as you put it would no come in to it, because the child would/should have sufficient protection from the parents to ensure other pupils dont question the child about not having a mother or father, but having said that things tend to 'get out'............

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So do you agree that an upbringing by a homosexual couple is, shall we say, 'unconventional' enough to warrant the need to 'cover' it up to a child?

I say conventional upbringings sound much better!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

did i specifically target you ?

the religious fraternitys do tend to tell you that homosexuality is a sin.

i never suggested every person who 'turned' to religion or is religious will follow what they say, although in my experiance the latter is true.


well this is not an ideal world, if your looking for one i suggest you start looking long and hard.

freedom of expression IS allowed if you are gay you are well within your 'human right' to get married.


if the child starts to question why he does not have a father, you need to lie temporarily so that even if the child did and a huge may understand (dependant on the mentality) it would not drag on in to the school, where others would gain the knowledge and make life hell for the child.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Tell that to the ancient Greeks :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No. No you did not. But you referred to a section of society with which I'm connected.

No. They tend to tell you that homosexual sex is a sin.

Hey, just like you I was giving my opinion.

In your opinion.

Surely it would be better to avoid as many situations as possible where one would feel it neccessary to lie to your child? You won't know this yet but when you become a parent, the thought of deliberately deceiving your own child is not a prospect you relish.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Leading zoologist, human behaviour expert and author Desmond Morris has given cautioned support to same sex parents, saying he believes a lesbian or gay family unit is unlikely to be "damaging" to a child.

Speaking to the Guardian today, Morris adds that, although a child needs male role models if he has lesbian parents, or vice versa with gay male parents, modern society will provide these in other areas of life.

"The disadvantage, especially if it is a male baby, is that it will have no male figure in the family environment. But the baby should encounter males in other social contexts - teachers, or uncles, or friends of the parents," he says.

He argues, that in an evolutionary sense, "double parenting" is the ideal choice for caring for the child.

"In one sense that child is going to be better off because it is going to have double-mothering, which is something any child would obviously benefit from enormously," he comments.

In the case of lesbian parents, brought to the foreground of public opinion yesterday with arguments over whether they should have rights to IVF treatment, Morris says he believes two women could successfully rear a child, because they would have double the impact of feminine nurturing traits.

"We don't know enough about the effect of two lesbians bringing up a child. It's too new. But in theory, the child should receive more care, because women are more programmed for nurturing than men," he says.

"When you use the terms "masculinity" and "femininity", because we are in a culture that stresses sexual equality, there is a tendency to feel that you are making a distinction that is not politically correct.

"The point is that males and females are different but equal. Males are better at some things and females are better at others. And these differences aren't a matter of political opinion, but genetics."

The issue of gay parents has become topical once again, with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) chief Suzi Leather yesterday calling for a clause restricting single women and lesbians from receiving IVF because of the absence of a father to be dropped.

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5698

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I can't quite compete with Desmond Morris but I cannot see how anyone can say a child won't be disadvantaged in life without a strong male AND female parental role model.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am talking about the priests etc........



yes that is what i am against, as i have no problem with homosexuals.



yes and so was i, i pointed something which is factually correct.


NO its about doing the right thing, you are telling me you are denying someone the right to mariiage because they are homosexual, that to me is totally out of order.

and i still see no valid reason as to why this sould be.


did i ever say it was easy to lie to your own child ? you can give me talk about when i have my old children etc, but you are avoiding the issue and thats the threat that any information as to who the father or mother is at a young age, could infact be detremental to a childs welfare, when trying to make freinds and interact with pupils.

and i think your comment about 'avoiding situiations' was an excuse to bolster you argument about same sex parents not being able to have children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I fail to see any specific trait that the child can only exclusively learn from either the male or single parent. As the article said, there are plenty of other sources that can be used as acceptable role models. I, in all honesty, cannot put a finger upon a specific skill or trait that I acquired during my upbringing that I can attribute as being from one parent or the other as a direct result of their gender.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Does anyone remember in the news about monkey mothers raising another's baby if its mother died?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well bluddy mention the word 'priests' next time!!!!!!!!! :D

Amen bruvvah, although again, that's not what you said first!!!!!

Just because you believe strongly in something does not make it 'factually correct'.

Yes I'm saying that because of what I view marriage to be for.


What you on about??? I'm saying would it not be easier to be in a situation where you don't 'need' to cover up what you are to a child???

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

very much true as a child grows up there asperations can grow from sources such as teachers, or another people 'around' them

it is about the atmosphere you are in, that can mould certain aspects of your actions

there are diffarent bonds between a mother and father, but i believe this will not impact the child long term.

whoever brought you up if they did a good enough job in nurturing you, you should be absolutely fine.

you see kids with a father and mother who have problems, so it works both ways.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OK, go ahead, have it your way, let's have an entire generation of children brought up by homosexual parents (who, I believe will try to do a good job) BUT once the whole thing goes belly up and society crumbles who are you going to blame then? The Bible bashers who stood by and let it happen??

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It won't be a whole society though will it. It will be a limited number of people and if they are that committed to finding partners to create these children then I would imagine that this commitment will carry on through the parenting.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well that's ok then.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Time and again, people in this thread have stated that there is no way (or at least all but the slimmest chance) that a child raised by a homosexual couple will turn out as "good" (for want of a better phrase) than those raised by a heterosexual couple. Now you've gone as far as to say that if this were common enough (and if the figures that 10% of people are gay that means that only about 10% of households would have homosexual parents, roughly speaking) that society would crumble.

What I fail to see are any specific examples about what is going to go wrong. Why is society going to crumble? All these dire predictions and warnings are vague to say the least. That does strike me as a rather fine example of paranoia in action.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No one has provided any reason why we SHOULD allow homosexual "marriages."

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So I can't give my opinion?

As my daughter grows up, she will be taught that a mother and a father create babies together. Infertility is rare enough for me to not find it neccessary to explain that until she's old enough to know for herself.

What I won't be telling her is that those little boys and girls with 2 mammies or daddies needed special treatment from doctors in order for them to be born.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Of course.

I hope you have plenty of straws in stock as you are certainly clutching at them badly here. Equating the issues of homosexuality to the issues of explaining infertility? That's some pretty bizarre reasoning.

And so, once again, you have failed to demonstrate any detrimental effect that this is going to have on those children raised on homosexual parents, nor the effect it would have on society as a whole. You seem very concerned about what you will and won`t explain to your children. Who are you protecting? You strongly give the impression is that the only people you are concerned about are those "poor" parents who are placed in the "awkward" position of having to face the realities of life.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

We don`t need to, laws, by and large, exist to ostensibly to protect the citizens, so the onus is on you to demonstrate the harm it would cause and why it would need to be legislated against.

Again, you fail to demonstrate any detrimental effect these arrangements would have.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

you sure can, but i think narrowmindedness come in to it as well.

what happened to 'letting the child know' how did that change ?

or so your doing the classic 'ignore it because you dont think its natural and 'right' yes i see the fairness in that :rolleyes:

i see nothing wrong with them, if it makes two people happy then why not, really you cannot justify your argument as to why it shouldnt be allowed, so to counter you come out with a comment like this.

i have explained what the involvment would be, and any potential hurdles that you may come across.

everyone has the right live how they want.

stop being childish russ now your just being that.

the argument i put forward is valid i support the notion of homosexual parents, but your twisting the very words i said, i never once mentioned that an 'entire' society would turn to homosexuality, this simply wont happen.

this is borderline on extremeism, russ i guess you believe religion (christianity) is the savior, i have news for you, your wrong, society is already decreasing as a whole, one thing you have to live with is differing views, and diffarent lifestyles, and what is not harmful to anyone is acceptable.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm not talking about the issues of homosexuality, I'm talking about homosexual couples who have children.

My experience tells me the ideal scenario is for a child to have an active mother and father figure in their lives. Not 2 of either.

Too right, I want what I think is the best for her.

My daughter.

No, I'm concerned for my daughter in case others feel it neccessary to tell her that such things are "normal". I'm not saying that thing which aren't normal are neccessarily 'bad', but I want her to know what is favourable.

NOTE: my definition of 'normal' - an event or circumstance which is shared by the majority.

And Kronas, don't you dare tell me my religious beliefs are wrong. I don't expect everyone to see the world the way I do but being confrontational enough to tell someone their religion is wrong is just the way to get people's back up. Have I EVER told you that your views on religion are wrong? Have I EVER said that to ANYONE?

I'm going to back out of this thread for a while before I do something I'll end up regretting.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I would compile a list of all the things you are going to have to avoid talking to her about, but I`m afraid I don`t have several years on my hands. The majority of people don`t drive Ferraris, better not talk to her about those. The majority of people don`t ride horses, so if she talks about getting a pony I suggest you sweep it under the carpet rather quickly. The problem I have is that you can define what you mean by the definition of "normal", but I suspect in practical terms it's going to have a much narrower definition than that.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You see, we want what we think is best for our children. I'll be telling her what I think is right. When she's old enough she can turn around to me and tell me she disagrees, but until then, she'll get from her mother and I what we judge to be right.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

dr w i would have to agree with you (gosh i seem to be making a habit of this today) i do not see why society would necessarily crumble...society is changing, it will always change...in the victorian era it was not good for a women to have independence and money of her own, now we live in a society where women are encouraged to have their own minds...this change seemed awful way back when, but now society has adapted....

yes there is the issue of homosexuals not being able to have children in the "normal" way...and some of you *claim* that these sort of children will be bought up scared and such like......but a child who has a mother and father who don't love each other, who sees hatred and violence between their parents will be just as scared, if not more so, than a child who grows up in a loving family in which their parents just happen to be the same gender

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Now you are equating normal with right, so somehow homsexual parents are wrong, as you've already said they are not normal. It brings us full circle quite nicely. Now explain what is wrong about it?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yeah, that's grown up of you, put words in my mouth.

I don't think gays should be able to get married. If they wish to live together or have relationships then that's up to them but marriage for gays is something I disagree with as I've always believed marriage should be about children. People may say in the animal world there's homosexual activity but you don't see them making babies and in any case, the majority of animals together are male/female. I want to make it clear I have nothing against gay people.

I will never teach any child of mine that gays are nasty, frightening, evil, etc or anything like that. My views are that parents should be male and female. From what I've seen, a strong family unit in that way works best. This is why I will always promote male/female parents.

I've added a few extra points there simply because if you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm going to make sure I've got all bases covered.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I said majority not everybody.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

If marriage should be about children, does that mean you don`t believe that a couple should get married when one of them is sterile? Fertility treatments can do wonders these days but not for every couple. Would you expect them to divorce, or not have married in the first place? Would it perhaps be acceptable if they didn`t find out this fact until after they got married? At least then they would have entered it with the intention of having children. There are many couples who do not want to ever have children? Would you prevent these people marrying as well?

If you are going to base, at least to a rather large degree, the importance of marriage on a criteria as fundamental as having children then you are also ruling out a large number of heterosexual couples as well. I posed all those questions above, but I`m sure they can all be taken as rhetorical as I`m fairly certain you would not object to couples in the scenarios I've described getting married. Therefore, there must be something more specific about your objections.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OK, you got me, fertility treatment beats me, maybe I'm wrong.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So far anyone has yet to show any need and reason for homosexual marriages. We're not preventing homosexuals from having relationships, we just want to preserve the traditional institution of marriage, WHICH WAS CREATED BY HETEROSEXUALS.

And by protecting marriage, we protect the traditional family unit--a cornerstone of society-- and also the children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Show me the *need* for heterosexual marriage. A couple of rings and a bit of pomp and ceremony confer no additional degree of commitment upon a relationship, if it did, divorce rates wouldn`t be as high as they are.

Once again we have the dire warnings. Once again they are totally vague with no specific claims to back them up.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I would respond, but IMO you are diffusing you own argument. :(

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Show me the need for marriage?



Oh .... .... you're in need for help. I don't know what you have, but I'm sure it is hard to pronounce.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Why do heterosexuals need marriage??

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Would you like me to explain why 1 + 2 = 3 too?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think it's more to do with society needing marriage. It is a stable influence on males and increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring (originally)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

and with divorces so readily available and these supposed 'open marriages' it seems to be loosing that point.

In response to Jerek why must children be the result of marriage, I don't see it in the contract. I'm sure there have been instances of people aged 80+ getting married, there are no rules against that. Marriage is still binding after the children have left.

Also back to the point of why homosexuals can't raise children just as well anyway?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

What people do in their lives is their business and I'm surprised at the US which is founded on the idea that the government(and everyone else) should BUTT out of everyone's lives.

It's not for me personally but I'm not about to go sticking my oar in and tell people how to live their lives.Like with religion I'm indifferent and would rather leave people alone than interfere.

Who are we to tell people how to conduct their sex lives?I also can't recall that Christ EVER told anyone that homosexuality was wrong.It wasn't his style.


:blah: Incog wanders off totally bored out of her skull.:blah: :blah:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The big problem with any debate on such an emotive subject as this is that as always the various elements of the subject get confused.

For me the starting point is the need to debunk some myths. The first is this somewhat ridiculous notion that gay marriage in some way threatens heterosexual marriage which therefore needs †œDefendingà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Ã⠀šÃ‚Â� in some way as if homosexuality were a disease threatening all heterosexual couples. For those having such issues about gay relationships please donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t fret nobody is advocating it become compulsory. (Or is perhaps the problem some may feel so unsure about their own sexuality that they fear they may succumb?)

From a civil rights issue the argument is clear, and that is no section of the community should be discriminated against because of some arbitrary notion of †œnormalityà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Ã⠀šÃ‚Â�. One doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have to look too far back to see the injustices of mixed race marriages being not just illegal but actually a capital crime in many states.

All that gay couples want is to be allowed the same ability to publicly confirm their commitment to each other and for the state to acknowledge that such a commitment should carry the same benefits, privileges and rights as similar heterosexual commitments do.

The main reason gay couples are seeking the legal status of †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� is that much legislation links that specific status to being the gateway to specific benefits, rights and privileges. The issue is therefore, is there any justification in denying any of these specific benefits, privileges or rights purely on the grounds of sexuality?

When considering that question, I pose some further simple questions to all those wishing to deny such benefits, privileges or rights to their fellow citizens.

How can you justify such blatant discrimination?

Which specific benefits, privileges or rights do you feel should be excluded and why?

And finally, why do you see allowing others to lead their life the way they want to be such a threat?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well said Sociable.

There is one thing about religion that does p*ss me off.It's the way so many of religious persuasion(not just Christian) think that they have a right to force everyone else to live according to their narrow blinkered viewpoint.

I'll defend any religious minorities right to worship as they like.I also hope that they would extend the same to others who do not share their beliefs including homosexuals.

I hate the way how lifelong relationships can be cut asunder at sickbeds and deathbeds because the relationship isn't recognised by the government.It's cruel to separate two people who love each other at the time when they need to be together the most just because you don't believe in homosexuality.To force the remaining partner to have to move home because a partner has died and the next of kin refuse to recognise the relationship.

Incog. :(

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

As I said before, I do not buy into this entire priviledge thing for married couples. In an ideal world, here is what I'd like:

- marriage is reserved for the church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever religious institution you're from

- non-religious people can do the whole promise thing in private, or if they feel the need for a public demonstration they can set up a ceremony with anyone, be that a friend, a parent, or a stranger

- there will be no priviledges surrounding marriage

- in cases of where there has to be a priviledge, every person can designate one other person as a beneficiary under the law. If you're married, you can make it your spouse. If you're in a union, you can make it your partner. If you're single, you can make it a friend. The beneficiary would receive benefits along with you.




Unfortunately, there is not a lot of chance that my libertarian beliefs will become law, so for now, it is either left or right, and if the government has to be involved, I'd pick what is better for society.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But in this day and age of step parents and step step parents there are already childredren with mum dad and step dad or mum and mum and step children and their parents.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rolleyes:

Just because you shout doesn't make it true.

I can't legally sign any medical consent for my partner, or him for me, I am his next of kin, yet I am not allowed this "right"

Another "right" I don't have is being able to leave him my savings or possessions tax free, this is because we aren't "married"

Both of these are rights that I would be given if we were allowed to marry. Personally I wouldn't want to marry, it isn't our style, but I do plan on spending the rest of my life with him and would like the same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to these issues. I feel that this is going to come (at least to the UK) soon, and I for one will be glad of that.

As for your way of thinking in the states, I can't take a country (and its views) seriously that can't cope with a flash of a womans breast on their TV yet find violence a routine part of their viewing acceptable. You want to get Richard and Judy over there, she's always getting her boobs out. :D

Getting back on topic, and to sum up, I WOULD like to have the same rights as a married couple but without it being called or linked to that word. Maybe an official declaration (similar to adoption) that states that I have the right to make decisions about my partners life (should they become too ill to make them their selves), for me this is the main problem at the moment.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Great plan, so instead of me passing my house to my wife tax free I can elect to pass it to my son.

That will save me £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ in tax. Go ahead with this one. Its the only tax break left in marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So you have no problem with the Mormon's being advocates of bigamy, despite that potentially not falling within your narrow definition of a family.

Similarly, if there were a religion that incorporated the concept of gay marriage that would suddenly make it alright for you?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Fox News report on a state that may legalise gay marriage
Bush deeply troubled
More oposition

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Right, I'm back. I needed time away from the wind-up artist because I'm rattled enough tonight as it is.

I'm not saying gays should not be together. I'm not against gays having their own 'commitment ceremonies' or whatever they're called (pardon my ignorance on these matters, new names are seemingly brought out every day). What I object to is a marriage between 2 same-sex people in a church. Jesus rightly never said anything nasty about gays and to the best of my knowledge neither have I. It's just the way I see marriage, yeah, maybe there is a religious aspect to it. Don't tell me I need to keep religion out of it because that is my right to do so and as you all know, I have never told anyone they MUST believe or they MUST to things the Christian way. I have never preached on here, neither have I tried to convert anyone.

In my opinion marriage is something given to us from God. If you want to disbelieve or diagree with that then fine, that's your right, just don't say "you're wrong".

I'm not going to campaign the ensure marriage for gays is outlawed, I'm not that type. I'm just upholding my views. I feel more comfortable with the traditional family unit of a mother and a father.

PS Apologies if my attitude earlier offended anyone.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Effectively we agree.

The key thing being, however, that existing legislation already does favour those having undergone some form of civil ceremony. All that gays are asking is that those differences be removed.

The options are to re-visit every other piece of legislation and correct any imbalance or simply accept gay "marriage" as being recognised, only in as much as it relates to those statutes. The latter option therefore makes far more sense if only from a practical standpoint.

End of the day this will end up in the Supreme Court and those states seeking to block the central concept of equality under the law will lose and all these "Protection" laws will eventually be overruled. Least ways that is my prediction.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well the site was grinding along - you didn't miss much. You sounded like you needed to clear your head.

This is interesting and something we picked up earlier. I agree a homosexual marriage is not something that a christian church should market (if thats the word), our resident BB does too.

Now we agree on the civil ceremony too, whatever you want to call it. Jerrik doesn't.

What is next then is for the civil ceremony to have the same result in law as the civil marriage. The affect it has on property ownership, inheretance, DNRs, divorce, etc.

A family unit as mother father and child, optimal yes, but these days it is often father or mother and child, I would also add that grandparents and extended family are a critical part. As a couple with limited parental support child rearing is hard, I cannot imagine how single parents manage. Anyway to get to the point of this sentance, a loving couple bringing up a child is probably better than a single parent regardless of sex (though will need some explaining, the Times article had a 6 year old who understood the situation and her biological father and her lesbian mum were both an integral part of her life.).

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I don;t know if anyone if aguing that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in a church. I think I said earlier, that there should be a mechanism for allowing people to marry under law, and a seperate mechanism for people to marry in the church (whereby the church ceremony incorporates the civil aspect). I think it is up to the church to decide whom they marry, even though I may disagree with them. But everyone should have the equality of the civil marriage.

I guess this really comes down to how you define marriage, we use the same word to mean so many different things. In this case it seems like marriage for you is a union under God. But the word applied in a different context can mean different things.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think you will end up with a 27th amendment similar to the 15th but for same sex relationships.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Two of my cousins are 7 and 8, they understand who I live with and why, there is no issue, I cant see the need to misinform anyone of what the situation is. :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just curious...

Are they aware of the "varying degrees of opinion" on the subject?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

And you think that society is fine and dandy as it is then? Did you not see that program on BBC1 last night about Cardiff?

I wonder how many of them have been brought up by gay couples, I'd guess none, I can't see how they could do a worse job!


Anyway I thought that religion was being kept out of this thread :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, and they seem fine with that, in fact one of older cousins can't understand why people have a problem with it. But they have been brought up in an open and honest family, that teaches respect for all, which as far as I'm aware is in the majority "thank goodness". :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Was it? I would argue that it was initially created for heterosexuals, but by them? Without wanting to cause offence the Church has always been riddled with Homosexuality, more so in those such as the Catholic church where marriage of priest is not allowed.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Riddled with homosexuality? Do you have any proof of that? Or is it just that it stands out more in religious circles?

There is no more homosexuality in religion that there is in any other section of society, it's people notice it more due to the love of pointing out 'hypocrisy' in the church.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Fair point. Probably just the 5% of the population statistic that seems to be around since Kinseys 10% was disputed as from a skewed sample.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Marriage hardly started with the Catholic church. Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Abraham had a wife too.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You guys are kidding, eh? 38 states thus far have passed the Defense of the Marriage Act. A Constitutional Amendment requires 34 states. I do believe eventually we will see a Constitutional Amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Interesting point, I must ask my C of E vicar about that...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Waddy, I clicked on that link and Amazon must have recognised me. Now 'the page I made' section on Amazon is chock full of recommendations for gay literature :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hello all, I want to dip my toe into this topic and I've had a glance across some of the previous posts, but please forgive me if I re-cover ground already addressed earlier ... I'm coming in quite late and there's too much to read in detail!

Some of the themes I've picked up on cover issues of legal privilege, natural behaviour, the meaning (and 'ownership'?) of the word 'marriage' by any particular society or group, whether religious or not. It's all very interesting but it's clearly also very emotionally charged. That's quite natural, marriage is a huge thing and I've never been nervous and emotionally het up in quite the same way as on my own wedding morning ... but that's a different story. :)

Western society in general seems to hear the word 'marriage' and ascribe to it a set of vaguely Christian moral assumptions. (In a way I'm all for it because I believe Christian morals, when applied in a way consistent with the Bible, reflect the way of life for which we were all created). Because society adopts these assumptions, it gets upset when some group or individual behaves in a way incosistent with the 'norm'. Homosexual marriage falls outside this 'norm' so is frowned upon.

However, what tends not to be considered is that 'marriage' in our modern society is loaded not just with Christian moral assumptions but with a whole lot of civil and legal privileges and obligations. Thus it becomes very difficult for the two 'sides' of the argument so reach any kind of agreement. On the one hand, those who subscribe to the 'Christian' view, whether explicitly or by vague assumption, see the joining of a man and a woman for comfort, mutual support and the raising of children - the Biblical reasons for marriage - while those who advocate same-sex union see themselves as currently disbarred from civil priviliges in a wholly unjustified manner.

I do not think there is any necessary conflict here though. The Bible makes no command about tax breaks or inheritance rights for married couples. These things are part of civil society and should rightly be accessible to any couple prepared to enter into a legally binding partnership. You could call that marriage if you like. On the other hand, for a Christian intent on obeying God's take on the whole subject, what is important is not the provision made by civil authorities for people who have entered into such a legal partnership, but the whole business of becoming 'one flesh' etc etc - a very spiritual thing. It is not at all uncommon among smaller, more evangelical denominations, whose meeting places are not registered for marriages, for a couple to go to a register office on a Friday afternoon, or first thing Saturday morning, with the minimum legal number of witnesses, to complete the legal formalities of marriage, but not to consider themselves married until they are 'married before God' at Church later.

If that were the end of the argument, the way forward would be obvious - to make a clearer distinction between the signing of a legal partnership (open to anyone) and the sealing of a commitment laden with religious implications (open to adherents of that religion).

Where conflict is inevitable is when homosexual people who consider themselves part of the Christian community demand to be married not just in a civil sense but according to the rites of the Church. Despite the clamour of liberal theologians to re-interpret the Bible's teaching on this point, Christianity as a whole continues to hold what the Bible says very clearly indeed:

1. Christian marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and acts as a visible symbol of God's eternal plan for a spiritual 'marriage' between Christ (represented by the man) and his Church (represented by the woman).
2. Homosexual activity of any form departs from God's intention in creating male and female and is therefore wrong.

Naturally I can only speak with any real insight about the Western, Christian-influenced world, however I believe you would find similar tensions among the other major world faiths. However essentially what I am saying is I think it ought to be possible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal privileges as the rest of us, provided they also accept the same obligations. Meanwhile the various religions should be free to deny a religious marriage ceremony to anyone who does not fully accept that religion's tenets.

ok, there goes my lunch hour... back later :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ towny, who does he think he is, coming on here and spouting off common sense as usual..... :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well said Towny.

Like me you see the clear distinction between the religious and civil definitions of marriage which are at the heart of the debate. Once that distinction is made there is actually very little between the two extremes of opinion.

That said the churches themselves are beginning to take on board the need to rethink some of the entrenched attitudes towards gays both in their teachings and also in their own internal structures following the appointment of an openly gay Bishop in the US recently.

In time I suspect that the spirit of a loving, tolerant and understanding God will guide the churches to a resolution even of the vexed question of the recognition of gay marriage, but I suspect that may be some way off just yet. (Just look at the time it took many of them to consider let alone endorse the ordination of women.)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The issues within the church are far more complicated than those outside ... for example, regarding ordination of women, high-church Anglicans and extremely evangelical Anglicans alike opposed the move, but for entirely different reasons. High-churchmen see the priest as a representative of Christ at the front of the congregation, so naturally the priest must be male as Christ is. Fundamentalists oppose women as priests because of teachings by St Paul that women should not be permitted to take authority over a man. I'm not going off topic by saying which (if either!) of these positions I have sympathy with, I simply use it as an illustration of how things are rarely as simple as you think!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Actually it's the logical fallacy known as "The Slippery Slope": If we allow *this* then all of *that* will follow.

Of course there's no proof, only opinion...!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No, I think what you (possibly entirely unconsciously) object to is a marriage between 2 same-sex people in *YOUR* church and then have extrapolated that (incorrectly) into *any* church.

From what I understand, you don't object to others not holding the same beliefs as you, nor if they don't hold *any* beliefs, so if Church X (which is not your church) decides that it *will* allow gay marriages, surely you won't object to that, will you?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Graham, you are welcome to disagree with anything I say or think on here, but you will stop putting words in my mouth and passing comment/judgement on things I have not said.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Russ, I suggest you read the message again.

The first paragraph starts with "I think", ie it is stating *my* opinion, not just "you are saying" which *would* be "putting words into your mouth".

The second is based on things you have said repeatedly, in forums and PMs.

So please let me ask you directly: Do you object to homosexual marriages in *ANY* churches, no matter what their faith or beliefs or creed?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

If that church hold marriage in the same regard as I, then yes.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Maybe so, but you've failed to answer the question, merely attempted to narrow its scope. The Christian church has prohibitions against homosexual marriages, so do some other religions. But what about a situation where the religion has absolutely no objections to homosexual marriage? If a couple were to get married under the auspices of that church would you fail to recognise them as being married? I`m sure you'd be the first to kick up a stink if someone from a church other than your own refused to recognise your marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My opinion isn't based on the individual church. I'm not against gay marriages "because it's against what the church says". I'm against it because of how I view marriage. That's been my view for close to 12 years.

As I've said, I don't care about the religion. It's about how marriage is viewed.

Here, look at it like this: it's not just gays, it's also divorcees too. Both contravene what I consider the 'qualification' for marriage. Also people who are to be in an 'arranged marriage' (can't wait for someone to accuse me of being a 'racist' for saying that.....).

I'd kick up a stink? Well you REALLY know me then don't you... :rolleyes:

No actually, I wouldn't care. As long as God recognised my marriage, I couldn't care what others thought.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ok, so you say it has nothing to do with your religion, that's how you've always viewed marriage. It's not to do with the specific religion, it's merely to do with how the marriage is viewed, and let's just remind ourselves, it's your personal viewpoint.

I suggested to you an example of a hypothetical church that incorporated the acceptance of gay marriage as part of the religion. However, you've already said that in your personal viewpoint this would be wrong, therefore, you are also saying that at least one aspect this religion is wrong.

At some point earlier in this thread you lambasted Kronas for commenting that your religion is wrong, but by following the logical chain of your argument, it would appear that you would actually have no qualms doing the same to another religion if it involved a matter you disagreed with strongly enough. Let he who is without sin..............

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Can you actually name a (mainstream would be nice) religion that allows such things?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not a current one, comparative theology isn`t my field, but the religions of the ancient Greeks certainly didn`t have any problems with homosexuality, I don`t know whether they went as far as marriage. But it has also been argued in this thread that marriage is all about 1 man, 1 woman and the kids, and the Mormons are a current religion that certainly don`t take that viewpoint.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Wow I'm glad I provide excercise for these people who love to jumpt to conclusions!

No no, read it again. I said it was nothing to do with the religion. I'm being pushed to answer a question based on whether 'a religion' would accept a gay marriage. I am telling you that I don't care which religion it is, whether or not i would acceopt it is based on whether it falls in to what I'd call the qualification for marriage.

It's all 'therefore this' and 'hypothetical that'. Why don't you just tell me what it is you want me to say? And it surprises you that I consider the aspects of some other religions to be incorrect???

I don't have a problem in anyone thinking I'm wrong, but go back and read the thread (something that certain people don't like doing when discussing such matters with me) and you'll see that Kronas was very direct, confrontational and offensive. His words were "You're wrong". I would never EVER be as insultingly direct to someone with different beliefs to myself, at the very least I'd give reasons why I disagreed with them.

Come on, you should know by now that my detractors don't need to something like that!!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hmmmm, it's just that in a discussion like this about religion I think that it's not really valid to construct a hypothetical religion to prove a point. You might as well ask if Russ would agree with you if there was a religion that allowed zoophilia(?sp). Ancient Greeks don't really count either since, well, they (and their religion) don't exist (and were not even sure what their religion allowed anyway)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Much like your dire warnings for the fall of society should gay marriages be premitted. Hypothetical is ok when you want to use it, but should someone else use it you see it like an escape hatch. You, nor anyone else in this thread, has provided any specific description of the sort of woe we would face? At the end of the day, I cannot see you providing any concrete justification for your viewpoint, merely constant rhetoric.

Is that so?

Apparently he can never dare to tell you that your beliefs are wrong? That would cover the situation even were he presenting you with his reasons why you were wrong.

I don`t know, have you ever told someone that there views are wrong? You've now said you'd be perfectly willing to do so provided you could sugar-coat your responses first.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I respectfully disagree. :)

I think a hypothetical example is useful as it allows you to probe the underlying meaning of someones argument without providing a specific example. The absence of such a religion allows someone to sidestep an issue, the hypothetical situation provides a situation where they can describe how they would respond if actually faced with that situation.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just giving my opinion of what I feel would happen. Were you doing that?

Erm, thanks for helping me prove my point there! I was responding to his confrontational attitude where he said "I've got news for you - you're wrong". Now if you can show me ANY situation where I've been as direct and disrespectful as that, I'll give an unreserved apology. But if you can't, will you come back and post that you are trying to read something in to my opinions which isn't there for some unknown reason? If I felt, for example, Buddism was wrong and a practitioner of that faith was on here, do you really think I'm the type of person who says to him/her "Sorry to tell you this, but you're wrong"? No, if it came down to that I would point out where I felt they were incorrect and tell them I respect their right to hold that belief but would disagree on certain points. It's a big no-no to come straight out and say "you're wrong" like Kronas did. I'm not objecting to him thinking I'm wrong, it's the WAY he said it.

So I can't give my own opinion without, as you call it, "sugar coating" it?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I can see what you are getting at but I still think it's an unfair way of arguing a topic like this because of the way you can just keep asking: "ah but what if.....?". Anyhoo.....I'll let you get back to the fray

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:Peaceman:

In fairness to Russ all he is saying is that "in his eyes" the marriage would not be a real one and he has every right to hold that view and needs not (further) explain why.

The reality is that the state makes similar distinctions in reverse as the validity of marriages depends on which religion holds the ceremony requiring most to also go through a civil procedure as well as the "church" one for the marriage to be validated for official purposes.

In essence there will always be a need to cover two separate concepts. The first being the civil †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ�, which I am certain Russ would not disagree would always be legal in the eyes of the law.

The separate issue of being married in the eyes of God is something each individual is perfectly right to make their own personal judgement on as it is about THEIR beliefs not those of the couple getting married.

The only time this would create a problem would be if the person concerned was acting in some official capacity and refused to accept the civil marriage because of some personal belief that the marriage was not valid in the eyes of God.

Hope that helps resolve this dispute by giving a different perspective on the differences between civil and religious marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I have explained why!! But you have summed it up well with the difference between a civil and religious marriage. To me, a gay marriage is on pretty similar ground to a civil marriage. I don't really recognise either.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

LOL I know you have Russ.

I was just trying to point out that hounding you for more detailed reasons and/or forcing you to answer specific hypothetical situations was unwarranted given that you had no need to explain your beliefs at all.

Perhaps I should go back and add the word "further" to that sentance. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah ok! So many people attacking me today kinda makes me a little paranoid :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well Russ you have a lot more patience than I would in your position. :angel:

I keep wondering why everyone seems to personalise these errr.....discussions(sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ.He is not personally responsible for what the various Christian faiths believe about a variety of issues.He can only comment from his own viewpoint. :shrug:

However so many of you think you can argue Russ out of his deeply held views and opinions just by attacking his beliefs.Not gonna happen,folks as all you are going to do that way, is put his back up and make him more committed. :nono:

How about we just leave it there?Please?

Incog. :wavey:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Towny is able to accept a distinction between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. It's one thing to say that you can't accept a religious marriage for a gay couple because it is prohibited by your religion. To say that you wouldn`t even accept a civil gay marriage strikes me, and I`m sorry to say this but not a single one of your posts in this thread convinces me of the contrary, of simple bigotry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Cheers Coggy but there is a small element on this site who just want me to be exposed as a hipocritical bigoted 'Christian' who has it in for gays.

Not going to happen people.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well sorry but that's your problem then. I wouldn't accept ANY civil marriage, as I've already stated.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm sorry, but that's just dodging the question.

It seems you're saying that you will not object to marriages in any churches whose beliefs (or whatever) agree with yours, but (from subsequent messages) you won't recognise *any* marriages (and not just homosexual marriages) as "proper" from *any* Church that you don't agree with (or, indeed, civil ceremonies).

Now whilst you're entirely free to hold your own beliefs and opinions, don't you think this is just a *little* narrow minded or possibly even arrogant?

You object to others saying "You're wrong!" yet what you are doing, no matter how politely you care to phrase it, is saying that "we're the only ones who are entitled to call it marriage because we're the only ones doing it right!"

You say subsequenly: "As long as God recognised my marriage, I couldn't care what others thought" but do you think your religion really gives you the right to tell everyone else that, because they haven't got married in a way that agrees with what *your* particular interpretation of what God will recognise, they're actually *not* married at all??

Oh, BTW, re: "go back and read the thread (something that certain people don't like doing when discussing such matters with me)" Russ, how many times are you going to sling this sort of vague accusation around? If you want to complain about a particular person, please have the good manners, not to mention the courage, to name names.

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.