In Defense of the Marriage

[danielf]

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/

Interesting story. Caring homosexual parents save the species... Let's hope the chicks they raised don't derail vulture society

[Xaccers]

Since when did religion have sole authority over marriage?
There are plenty of cultures where marriage is just a unity between two people and not religious

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Since when did christians have sole authority over marriage?
There are plenty of cultures where marriage is just a unity between two people and not religious

In the context of the UK, Christians will have the majority control over marriage as the politicians will be too scared to lose their vote, despite this supposedly being a secular country.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony.

No, *one* form of marriage is a religious ceremony.

Can't you see how a 'purist' would view newcomers, like civil ceremonies? It's not a 'one true way',

I was commenting on Russ' point of view.

rather the original, as it was intended, how it all started 'way'.

Really? Care to back that claim up with any cites? Is it true for *every* culture in *every* country in the world?

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

Why is there always this attitude that allowing gays a legally binding union is somehow "watering down" marriage? How is it going to make "straight" marriages weaker?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

In the context of the UK, Christians will have the majority control over marriage as the politicians will be too scared to lose their vote, despite this supposedly being a secular country.

Sorry, I went back and changed "christians" to "religion"

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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?

I do hope you are being cynical... Why should marriage be restricted to religion? Because that's the way it started? An alternative way of saying that would be to use the word archaic...

Some people find it important to make a vow to each other, as a formal sign to their partner/ surroundings. Where you do that is up to the people in question. If you're religious, it's your church, if you're not it's city hall (or wherever). Neither one of them is better than the other, and to imply that one of them is better is insulting to the other IMO.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sorry, I went back and changed "christians" to "religion"

I think my argument still is true, as in this country it is certainly the Christian vote that is foremost on the minds of a very large number of our politicians.

If, as you argue, religion doesn`t have the sole authority over marriage, then that only leaves prejudice as a reason to deny a section of the population the same rights that another section of the population enjoys. At the end of the day the issue essentially boils down to something as trivial as gender. As a society we do not tolerate this sort of discrimination on something as trivial as skin colour (although I do wonder these days).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I think my argument still is true, as in this country it is certainly the Christian vote that is foremost on the minds of a very large number of our politicians.

If, as you argue, religion doesn`t have the sole authority over marriage, then that only leaves prejudice as a reason to deny a section of the population the same rights that another section of the population enjoys. At the end of the day the issue essentially boils down to something as trivial as gender. As a society we do not tolerate this sort of discrimination on something as trivial as skin colour (although I do wonder these days).

Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony.

To you, yes, but in the grand scheme of things I would disagree and say that marriage is something that is cultural. Just about every single culture that has existed or exists today has a form of marriage ceremony. Take the UK for example, the majority marriage type is Christian, because for the last 1000+ years, we have been a christian country. Before that though, before the Romans brought christianity to Britain, people were still married. I don't know enough about it to say whether it was a strictly religious affair or not (the pagan beliefs are quite complicated).

I've found a cultural anthropology book on my shelf which has a large section on marriage, which it defines to be a union between a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to control sexual activity and provide a channel for things like inheritance in law. Two points quickly, it says a man and a woman, it does not say one, so a man or woman can have multiple marriiages. The second point, it says that gender is not the same as sex, i.e. if two-women are married, one of them is decalred to be male in gender., It has a section on same-sex marriages, which although not overly common, are reasonably frequent in Africa.

These aren't the points I wish to be debating, since I've said all about that further (waayyyyy) back in the thread. I'm just trying to get across that there are many different reasons and explanations of marriage, that I think it completely impossible and unfair to restrict it to one specific type. Need to think of new words, like chirraige
Danielf has made the very good point, that to imply that one particular type is more important than another is quite insulting.


Thought this thread was dead still, at least it wasn't a waste me getting my book down off of the shelf now

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?

Your question has me confused. I`m arguing that those rights *should* be extended to homosexual couples.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Surely it can only be prejudice to not extend the legal rights of partnership to homosexual partners?

Yes, it is if there are no strong and valid reasons for not extending the rights.

[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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Before that though, before the Romans brought christianity to Britain, people were still married. I don't know enough about it to say whether it was a strictly religious affair or not (the pagan beliefs are quite complicated)

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Danielf has made the very good point, that to imply that one particular type is more important than another is quite insulting.

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Your question has me confused. I`m arguing that those rights *should* be extended to homosexual couples.

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 was wonderful to hear the presenter flounder