In Defense of the Marriage

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I understand where you are all 'coming from'. But...
Allowing gay marriages will not water down hetrosexual marriages, it will water down 'religious' marriages since religions usually see homosexuality as a sin.
I think marriage in most, if not all cultures was originally ( and probably still)entwined with religion. So what if there are a few cultures that marry outside religion, we are talking about our culture and it's roots. Anyway, why shouldn't marriage be restricted to religion? Whats wrong with that?
In this case Russ is a purist.

I can't see how it can water down religious marriages though, because surely the people who are not allowed to/choose not to marry in a religious ceremony will not whether they have an alternative or not. It's not going to cause huge hoards of people rushing out of the churches to get married elsewhere.

I can see what you're saying about most marriages being intertwined with religion, but this is because society is intertwined with religion, but over time the nature of the religion changes. I.e the shift from paganism to christianity in the past. So if society is shifting, or sections of it are, towards diversity of religion then surely the rest of the culture, including marriage should be allowed forward also. Or should we just have stuck with paganism, or whatever its precursor was (in the UK, insert applicable local arguments here otherwise )

The problem I would have about restricting marriage to religion only is that it is an unfair judgement on people who do not accept any one religion. Also, where do you stop, do you allow all religions to have marriage, or just specific ones? (not aimed at you Ramrod, just general question )

[Julian]

OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

Surely the answer would be to get round the legal mumbo jumbo as far as pension rights etc. are concerned and have a "marriage" ceremony that homosexual couples could enjoy.

And then leave the existing infrastructure in place for heterosexual couples.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I have been to pagan weddings, they are just as religious as christian weddings. (at least the ones I went to were)

As I said, I don't know enough about it to comment. I almost begs the question though, what is religion, is it a set of beliefs? Then if any couple are marrying according to their beliefs, aren't they also undergoing a religious ceremony.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I am not saying that one is more important than another, just that 'religious' marriage should be left to the church

Sory, you've been just using the word marriage so I've become a little confused. I didn't know that you meant religious marriages. I agree with you, if a specific religion decides not to marry a specific group of people, that is that religions right. Religious marriage can quite happily be left to religions. But marriage in general should be open to anybody. I.e, I think any couple should be able to get the civil union, then they should be able to have a private ceremony of their choosing (if they wish) and that will be their actual marriage. This is how I see my potential future marriage.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Julian

OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

Surely the answer would be to get round the legal mumbo jumbo as far as pension rights etc. are concerned and have a "marriage" ceremony that homosexual couples could enjoy.

And then leave the existing infrastructure in place for heterosexual couples.

They just want to be able to register their partnership.
No cerimony, no marriage type thing, just a legal acknowledgment of their partnership

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I am not saying that one is more important than another, just that 'religious' marriage should be left to the church.

Yes, but that's a bit of a non-statement isn't it? I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that a church which believes in a book that says homosexuality is bad should allow homosexuals in their religious marriage (yet).

Also, your 'watering down' statement does give the impression that you do find religious marriage more meaningful than other types.

[Russ]

I wonder if I'd be permitted to make similar insulting comments about non-believers as has been made about Christians in this thread? Not that I'd want to, but it would be interesting to see how many people reported me.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Julian

OK, if "unmarried" homosexual couples were granted ALL the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, would they still want to go through the current marriage ceremony? If so what for?

My guess would be to have made their vows to each other in public. To make it 'official' much like heterosexual couples do. (My girlfriend has managed to make me agree to getting married this year. We have been together for about 8 years now, and legal issues/tax breaks are not an issue. She just wants to hear me say it in front of the official

[Julian]

Originally Posted by danielf

My guess would be to have made their vows to each other in public. To make it 'official' much like heterosexual couples do. (My girlfriend has managed to make me agree to getting married this year. We have been together for about 8 years now, and legal issues/tax breaks are not an issue. She just wants to hear me say it in front of the official

No probs with that Daniel.... just let them have their own ceremony.

Different religions do it in their own way , why shouldn't different sexual groups?

All equally recognisable in the eyes of the law etc.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I wonder if I'd be permitted to make similar insulting comments about non-believers as has been made about Christians in this thread? Not that I'd want to, but it would be interesting to see how many people reported me.

?? I've tried not to, if I have sorry

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Gotcha

Ramrod, homosexuals (in this country at least) are not asking for gay marriages much to the annoyance of the Today programme on radio 4
They got on a gay rights activist and a Tory MP hoping to have a slanging match and were rather cheesed off when both totally agreed that gays should have the same legal rights as married couples but gays shouldn't have marriage.

It then would seem that I am in complete agreement, over this issue, with the gay rights movement in the UK

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They just want to be able to register their partnership.
No cerimony, no marriage type thing, just a legal acknowledgment of their partnership

Sounds fine to me

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

The problem I would have about restricting marriage to religion only is that it is an unfair judgement on people who do not accept any one religion. Also, where do you stop, do you allow all religions to have marriage, or just specific ones? (not aimed at you Ramrod, just general question )

People who haven't got a religion could have some sort of civil ceremony (as my wife and I did) because, for them (and us), marrying in a church would be hypocritical.
AFAIK all religions do have marriage (dont they? ).

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that a church which believes in a book that says homosexuality is bad should allow homosexuals in their religious marriage (yet).

Thats all right then

Also, your 'watering down' statement does give the impression that you do find religious marriage more meaningful than other types.

Not at all. I just think that a 'religious' marriage should be kept as it is and always has been.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

People who haven't got a religion could have some sort of civil ceremony (as my wife and I did) because, for them (and us), marrying in a church would be hypocritical.
.

I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that there should be many forms of marriage ceremony. Religious ceremonies can and should be only open to adherants of that religion, I agree with you totally on that, it is hypocritical otherwise. Anybody else should be allowed the freedom of the civil ceremony, it is then up to them if they have a private marriage ceremony second to that.

What I don't like and am arguing against, is the argument that the word marriage should only be applicable to religious marriage. I take my beliefs very seriously but they are not religious beliefs. However, I feel very strongly, that I want to be married (I'm heterosexual). I want to have the civil marriage, to be married in the eyes of the law, then to have a private ceremony to be married in my heart. I find it insulting that some people are arguing that they would not recognise that marriage and by implication that my feelings for my partner re less special. Yet if I were to break my own beliefs, and go and marry in a church (which I will not do) then I would be recognised as being married.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Not at all. I just think that a 'religious' marriage should be kept as it is and always has been.

No one is disagreeing with you It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut:

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that there should be many forms of marriage ceremony. Religious ceremonies can and should be only open to adherants of that religion, I agree with you totally on that, it is hypocritical otherwise. Anybody else should be allowed the freedom of the civil ceremony, it is then up to them if they have a private marriage ceremony second to that.

What I don't like and am arguing against, is the argument that the word marriage should only be applicable to religious marriage. I take my beliefs very seriously but they are not religious beliefs. However, I feel very strongly, that I want to be married (I'm heterosexual). I want to have the civil marriage, to be married in the eyes of the law, then to have a private ceremony to be married in my heart. I find it insulting that some people are arguing that they would not recognise that marriage and by implication that my feelings for my partner re less special. Yet if I were to break my own beliefs, and go and marry in a church (which I will not do) then I would be recognised as being married.

Agreed. It's a tricky one and all down to what things are called. I'll have to have a think...

No one is disagreeing with you It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut:

Sorry

[Sociable]

*Cough* Errr.... I refer the gentlemen to the answer I gave earlier.

Originally Posted by Sociable

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.