In Defense of the Marriage

[Salu]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

Because they believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong. Therefore cannot allow themselves to accept shared rights. They also might think that a same sex relationship might be damaging to the upbringing children?

Also marriage in this country is based on a Christian tradition which forbids homosexual actions.

1 Corinthians 6
8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

But this thread's main point is to defend marriage and not to debate (again) homosexuality in itself..

[downquark1]

Because they believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong. Therefore cannot allow themselves to accept shared rights. They also might think that a same sex relationship might be damaging to the upbringing children?

I think the main problem would stem from interaction with other children who have hetrosexual parents. is there any research into this?

Any child raised differently will probably turn out different, I don't think it fair to refer to them as 'damaged'

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Or a civil ceremony devoid of religious reference, creating a legally binding contract, which is where the gay marriage would fit in.

In the UK, civil marriages in a registry office have to be devoid of religious connotations. I was a witness for a friend at his registry office wedding, he'd written a lovely poem for his bride, but because he used words like soul and spirit he wasn't allowed to use it without first removing the word. IMO words like those can be used in a metaphysical though non-religious context (as he was intending) so I thought it a little unfair. Apparantly, this was due to the CofE, it's part of the conditions on which the Church allow civil marriages to occur. Puts me off a little bit.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

I think it would be sensible to try and keep religion out of this thread (yet look what I wrote 3 paras up!)

It's quite hard to keep religion out of it, since so many of the issues stem from marriage as a religious institution. Perhaps we would be better to refer to it as the church rather than religion.

I would argue that marriage existed long before the Cathloic, CofE churches existed, almost all cultures have some form of marriage. In todays world in the UK and the US where many cultures co-exist there needs to be some way of recognising all of the marriages. I agree with danielf, there needs to be a situation where there is a civil marriage, whereby anybody can apply for this. I would suggest that there not even need to be a ceremony if people wish, they could apply for a license in a special court or something along those lines. Then on top of this, there are religious marriages in which, for state recognised religions (in order that people just don't make up their own religion) the civil marriage is automatically granted. It is then up to the church to decide whom they will or wont marry.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think the main problem would stem from interaction with other children who have hetrosexual parents. is there any research into this?

Any child raised differently will probably turn out different, I don't think it fair to refer to them as 'damaged'

At the moment I would imagine that you could not get a statistially significant sample of children raise by same sex partners.

I would think that raising children in a stable relationship is more important than the sexual orientation of the relationship. I would imagine most 'difficult', ' damaged' or whatever word we want to use children come from single parents.

A thought, in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so I would interpret that to mean that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religious beliefs. If that is the case, and assuming that these states have not simply ignored this fundamental tenet, it would imply that these laws exist purely as a result of bigotry.

[Bex]

i am not against homosexual relationships, one of my closest friends is gay.....however i think marriage is and should be defined as joining together of a man and a women......... i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special.......

i know some people will disagree but i am not entirely sure that to show that you love someone you have to have a piece of paper anyway

Originally Posted by dr wadd

in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state

Pardon my cynical laughter, especially given the present administration!

so I would interpret that to mean that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religious beliefs. If that is the case, and assuming that these states have not simply ignored this fundamental tenet, it would imply that these laws exist purely as a result of bigotry.

IMO that is entirely the case. There are many groups (and not just in America) who simply will not tolerate or accept homosexuality and are distressed that the rest of society is becoming more and more tolerant (or, at least, unconcerned) about it.

These groups realise that they've been unable to keep homosexuality illegal, so all they can do now is to make life as difficult as possible for gays.

Originally Posted by bexy

i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special

But what is the critical factor that makes the union of a man and woman "special"? Leaving aside religion there is only one difference, a heterosexual couple have the potential to produce children, the homosexual couple do not. Other than that I cannot see any factor that would warrant the description "special", and if this is the case, then by extension does that not detract from a heterosexual marriage where one of the individuals is sterile?

[SMHarman]

I've just realised another potentially important benefit of marriage. I'm married to an American. One of the reasons we had to marry to stay together was so either of our Governments would allow us to stay together on their soil (UK or US) and work etc.

This would again be something potentially denied to a gay couple.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But what is the critical factor that makes the union of a man and woman "special"? Leaving aside religion there is only one difference, a heterosexual couple have the potential to produce children, the homosexual couple do not. Other than that I cannot see any factor that would warrant the description "special", and if this is the case, then by extension does that not detract from a heterosexual marriage where one of the individuals is sterile?

Taking this a step further in a lesbian relationship where a child was created by artifical insemination is that any different to a straight relationship where a child was created through AI. Both would have similar parental issues.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by bexy

i am not against homosexual relationships, one of my closest friends is gay.....however i think marriage is and should be defined as joining together of a man and a women......... i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special.......

i know some people will disagree but i am not entirely sure that to show that you love someone you have to have a piece of paper anyway

It is something special, so why should same sex couples be denied the right of something special?

I agree with you that if you love someone, having a bit of paper to prove it doesn't really matter. I think mainly what we are arguing is that same sex and unmarried couples do not have the same rights under law as married couples even though the only essential difference is that bit of paper.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by bexy

i am not against homosexual relationships, one of my closest friends is gay.....however i think marriage is and should be defined as joining together of a man and a women......... i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special.......

i know some people will disagree but i am not entirely sure that to show that you love someone you have to have a piece of paper anyway

In that case the economic benefits for married people should be taken away. Why should a same sex couple that has been together for say 30 years not have the same pension rights as mixed sex married people?

It's all fine saying that you don't need the paper to show your love, but there is more to it than the piece of paper.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But what is the critical factor that makes the union of a man and woman "special"? Leaving aside religion there is only one difference, a heterosexual couple have the potential to produce children, the homosexual couple do not. Other than that I cannot see any factor that would warrant the description "special", and if this is the case, then by extension does that not detract from a heterosexual marriage where one of the individuals is sterile?

yes i see your point and i should have chosen my words better, it is hard to describe exactly what you mean on this forum at times......... also surely within a marriage the use of birth control would detract from the speciality also.....because that is obviously stopping a child from being concieved

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by danielf

<snip>Why should a same sex couple that has been together for say 30 years not have the same pension rights as mixed sex married people?
<snip>

Exactly. If that couple is married - not cohabiting.

But why should a heterosexual couple who could have got married (just a quick no fuss legal formality at a registary office) get those benefits when they can already get them by getting married?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by bexy

yes i see your point and i should have chosen my words better, it is hard to describe exactly what you mean on this forum at times......... also surely within a marriage the use of birth control would detract from the speciality also.....because that is obviously stopping a child from being concieved

Monty Python moment

[Bex]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Monty Python moment

exaplin