In Defense of the Marriage

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I keep wondering why everyone seems to personalise these errr.....discussions(sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ.

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

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.

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".

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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...!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Russ]

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

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

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).

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.

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 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.

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!"

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

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??

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Ramrod]

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

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.

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

Incog.

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

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.

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

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".

If you want to complain about a particular person, please have the good manners, not to mention the courage, to name names.

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?

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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.

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.

I wasn't defending his beliefs just his right to hold them and requesting that you and the rest accept that.

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."

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.

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!)

You are so like erol and just won't accept that you can't change people's minds just by nagging them.

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...

Sometimes you CAN just walk away.

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.

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

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

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/

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

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/

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

[Xaccers]

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Why should it be watered down to cater for governments and homosexuals?

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.