[MERGED] Poll: Same Sex civil marriages, yes or no.

[spreadsheet]

I voted no

there's bound to be legal potholes surrounding who is the 'wife' and who is the 'husband'


if they get this law passed they'll move onto some new 'want' - further distorting reason

Originally Posted by Damien

Marriage has changed before though? We've allowed divorce for one thing. There were times when inter-racial marriage was banned and we changed that. Some countries allow forced marriages or child marriages. Some of these things were also the culturally accepted thing until they weren't.



This isn't persecution. I agree if they go to the ECHR to force churches to conduct these marriages then they're out of line but a hypothetical scenario, even if it does come to pass, isn't a good enough reason to stop this change.

You're right, our own society, and others, have allowed abuses of "marriage" in the past. And eventually, they are stopped. I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless you're perhaps agreeing that it's an abuse of the term to define a legal contract between two people of the same sex as "marriage".

It's interesting that you mention divorce, incidentally - there are some wise Christian commentators, writing in Christian publications, pointing out that the Church has let far too much immoral behaviour slip by without comment to expect anyone to listen to it now.

[danielf]

I don't think Damien is thinking of them as 'abuses' of the 'pure' state of marriage as (presumably) intended by God. I suspect he rather views it as an indication that the definition of marriage is rather more fluid. It has changed in the past, and it is changing now to better reflect what the people in Post Christian Britain think it should be.

[spreadsheet]

Originally Posted by Peter_

I see no reason why same sex marraiges cannot happen, they should be allowed a church service as well but inbred bigitry will disallow that happening in many churches as the knuckle scrapers have to much say about things that do not truly affect them.

I can predict what will happen


you'll get the likes of Elton John and that bloke he kicks about with
parading down the aisle resplendent in 'wedding dress'


with the crude sexual innuendo that it emphasises


will it be a productive marriage?


No - as we are talking of the wrong sort of biological goings on

Originally Posted by Chris

You're right, our own society, and others, have allowed abuses of "marriage" in the past. And eventually, they are stopped. I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless you're perhaps agreeing that it's an abuse of the term to define a legal contract between two people of the same sex as "marriage".

Well in the cases where we were blocking inter-racial marriage that was viewed as normal, until it wasn't. Society changed its view on what constituted marriage. We've changed it before and this is just another change. I don't think opening it up to gay couples is an abuse either, it's just giving them the freedom to get what they call a marriage recognised by their Government as a marriage.

No one owns the right to the term and if our society decides we're expanding that term then so it shall be. As I mentioned we've done it before so it is not without precedent.

It's interesting that you mention divorce, incidentally - there are some wise Christian commentators, writing in Christian publications, pointing out that the Church has let far too much immoral behaviour slip by without comment to expect anyone to listen to it now.

Such as? Do you mean divorce? Because I don't think that is especially immoral. It is however an example of where we've changed it before.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by spreadsheet

you'll get the likes of Elton John and that bloke he kicks about with
parading down the aisle resplendent in 'wedding dress'

Equating homosexuality with cross-dressing, how quaint.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by Russ

Equating homosexuality with cross-dressing, how quaint.

Good post....

[peanut]

I voted no. I don't think I'm homophobic but I do have my own opinion on marriage. I don't believe this is the way to go. I don't see how I can voice my opinion without any backlash either.

[Doug P]

Your opinion is very valid even more so as it is made without stereotypical phrases or any veiled or unveiled insults.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by peanut

I voted no. I don't think I'm homophobic but I do have my own opinion on marriage. I don't believe this is the way to go. I don't see how I can voice my opinion without any backlash either.

You shouldn't expect any backlash - if you're not in favour of something then you're not in favour of it. I'm with you on this as I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I won't hide the fact my views stem from my faith however just because I'm not in favour of something does not mean I will try to stand in its way. In saying that though what I am strongly in favour of (in whatever legal sense) is committed, loving, monogamous relationships.

[Doug P]

Agreed that committed', loving, monogamous relationships are a wonderful thing but they need working at!

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't think Damien is thinking of them as 'abuses' of the 'pure' state of marriage as (presumably) intended by God. I suspect he rather views it as an indication that the definition of marriage is rather more fluid. It has changed in the past, and it is changing now to better reflect what the people in Post Christian Britain think it should be.

In which case he's committing a category error, and failing to consider that the concept of marriage doesn't belong to English Law.

The English word "marriage" has the basic meaning of a physical joining. On top of that you can construct all kinds of social rituals, restrictions and legal entitlements but its most basic fundamental meaning is that joining together - a joining which the new law will accept cannot occur between two men or two women, via its acceptance that there can be no annulment through failure to consummate and no adultery.

My argument is that marriage is what it is: a physical and metaphysical union of one man and one woman, and this definition transcends any one culture or society's ability to control it. None of the cultural or legal restrictions Damien listed, on who is "allowed" to marry, whether by race or age or anything else, operate on the level of this fundamental defintion of what marriage is.

A society might forbid inter-racial marriage, but a permanent joining of a black man and a white woman would still, physically and metaphysically, be a marriage. Conversely, a society might abuse the concept by applying it to a child, or even an adult, who is unwilling or unable to agree to it. The resulting union might result in sex, but without the operation of free will it cannot be construed as a permanent physical and metaphysical joining, therefore is not marriage, even though a society may insist that it is.

As I said earlier, you can pass a law that compels everyone to call the sun "moon", but that doesn't change what the sun is, it simply changes the name you call it by. Likewise you can pass a law that grants two men legal partnership rights and then titles that partnership "marriage", but that doesn't change what marriage actually is and it doesn't make a marriage between the two men.

For the writers of the most ancient portions of the Bible, it was self-evident whatever feelings different people may have had for one another, only a man and a woman could choose to express those feelings as the intention to become permanently joined. They observed that, "for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife", the reason being that the man and the woman were created differently, but in such a way as to facilitate the joining. Even without layering spiritual meaning on it, it's valid simply as an observation of biological fact.

As I said earlier, what is operating here is the new religion of Equality, which is actually not equality but Conformity. The law may claim to offer religious dissenters the right not to offer their marriage ceremonies to those who do not agree with what Christians are already beginning to call "true marriage". However our elders, in their wisdom, have made us subservient to the ECHR which has a recent track-record of attacking our laws according to their own, somewhat fluid, interpretation of human rights. There are some disciples of Equaliy that will not wish to allow that protection of religious belief to stand, and they will be looking for the weakest point at which to launch their complaints of discrimination. All of this could have been avoided by amending the civil partnership laws to permit gay couples to access all the legal privileges of a married couple without the rather pointless and confrontational aspect of insisting that that partnership was therefore a "marriage".

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

In which case he's committing a category error, and failing to consider that the concept of marriage doesn't belong to English Law.

The English word "marriage" has the basic meaning of a physical joining. On top of that you can construct all kinds of social rituals, restrictions and legal entitlements but its most basic fundamental meaning is that joining together - a joining which the new law will accept cannot occur between two men or two women, via its acceptance that there can be no annulment through failure to consummate and no adultery.

My argument is that marriage is what it is: a physical and metaphysical union of one man and one woman, and this definition transcends any one culture or society's ability to control it. None of the cultural or legal restrictions Damien listed, on who is "allowed" to marry, whether by race or age or anything else, operate on the level of this fundamental defintion of what marriage is.

Erm no. It's all a matter of opinion and interpretation. I could equally say that you're making a category error. You're simply saying that the definition of marriage is such that it can only be between man and woman. I, and many other simply disagree with your definition, and I find your arguments for your definition weak, unconvincing and circular.

You say that the concept of marriage doesn't belong to English Law. I say that the concept of civil marriage very much belongs to the state, and no-one else can claim it, certainly not some church. The church can claim its own marriage. The rest of us will organise the civil marriage as we see fit, and from next year, that will include a union between couples of the same sex. Churches are free to join in, or not as they see fit.

[Doug P]

And some churches will join in....

[Kymmy]

One thing not realised by some is that even a religious marriage is not legally binding until the civil marriage register is signed. This has been the case now for well over a century.

Also I see the pathetic comments about which one will be the husband/wife and which will wear the dress. That just goes to show how ignorant some people truly are in this supposedly enlightened age that we live*in.

I've also said before in answer to those that ask why not stick with civil partnerships, simple answer is that they are recognised in few other counties (less than a dozen). So if a civil partner became ill whilst on holiday in another country the other partner would have no rights in the treatment choices, no rights to repatriate the loved one and no rights in any legal arguments. At very least same sex marriage is recognized in a lot more places around the world.

Why should some religious people be able to tell me that I can not have a civil wedding someone who I might love? It' been nothing to do with them for a long time.