In Defense of the Marriage

[Russ]

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.

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

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.).

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

What I object to is a marriage between 2 same-sex people in a church.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ D

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 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.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Sociable

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.

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

Originally Posted by Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by kronas

aged 12-13

i would say 16 as a safeguard

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.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by dellwear

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.

Just curious...

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

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Russ D

and society crumbles who are you going to blame then?

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

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Just curious...

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

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".

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.
<snip>

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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.

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.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

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.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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.

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

[Jerrek]

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

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