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

[Gary L]

I suppose it all depends on who invented marriage for us to decide as to whether it's a religious thing or not.
if it wasn't originally a religious based thing then did the church take sole rights to it?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

Who posted that then ?

Forgetful are we.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Russ

If someone dislikes (or as like some on CF, has a pathalogical hatred of) religion then I don't see why they would want to get married anyway.

Why wouldn't they want to? Despite what you and Marty choose to believe, a civil marriage is a marriage, therefore it's perfectly possible and reasonable for a non-religious person to be married without there being any need for any religious involvement.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

First off, my name is Daniel, not Damien.

Second, you are free to view marriage as you feel fit. What I object to is that you appear quite comfortable in essentially hijacking the definition of marriage because your religion happens to be the state religion. Marriage existed before, and exists outside the confines of your religion. To claim that you have the right to define it is rather arrogant imo.

Also because using that argument means other religions are also not having real weddings, quite sad really.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Why wouldn't they want to? Despite what you and Marty choose to believe, a civil marriage is a marriage, therefore it's perfectly possible and reasonable for a non-religious person to be married without there being any need for any religious involvement.

Slow down, I didn't say "We are right therefore everyone ought to agree" - leave that attitude for the militant atheists

It's a difference of opinion. You and I clearly see marriage from different perspectives. What works for you and what works for me is perfectly reasonable.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ

If someone dislikes (or as like some on CF, has a pathalogical hatred of) religion then I don't see why they would want to get married anyway.

Disregarding several pointless little digs: there are several legal privileges that come with being married. If you're in a stable long-term relationship it would irresponsible not to get married. Nowadays these privileges are available through civil partnerships, but it isn't too long ago that marriage was the only way to make sure that your partner is entitled to your pension should you pass away.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

Disregarding several pointless little digs: there are several legal privileges that come with being married. If you're in a stable long-term relationship it would irresponsible not to get married. Nowadays these privileges are available through civil partnerships, but it isn't too long ago that marriage was the only way to make sure that your partner is entitled to your pension should you pass away.

As long as you're not under the assumption that I was in favour if that inequality.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

I have the view that marriage should be a religious ceremony. If someone dislikes (or as like some on CF, has a pathalogical hatred of) religion then I don't see why they would want to get married anyway.

You say that you believe it should be a religious thing. and then suggest that someone who doesn't believe in God should want to share your belief?

Originally Posted by danielf

Sorry, it seems to me that you've very much hijacked the definition of marriage. You've even made a point of stating that any marriage that doesn't have a religious component shouldn't be called marriage. That goes a bit beyond 'being of the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman'. It's more like, I get to define what is and isn't marriage, because of my religious beliefs (which happens to be the state religion to boot). I find the arrogance of that position quite astounding.

And that is one of the reasons why you are not religious .We are as a society going through a long transitional period of removing religion from the state ,eventually we won't have an official church or religion but until that time i fear you will continue to be astounded at the arrogance of long held beliefs as will most non religious people .Even i find some elements of religion astoundingly arrogant,i also find the idea that the government think they have the right to allow other religions to perform same sex marriages arrogant .
I would imagine this exact discussion happened a few centuries ago when the move to introduce civil marriage was debated .

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Gary L

You say that you believe it should be a religious thing. and then suggest that someone who doesn't believe in God should want to share your belief?

Well yes, if you want to put words in my mouth and totally misread what I said.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Well yes, if you want to put words in my mouth and totally misread what I said.

Well can you explain it again in your own words then?
you can copy and paste if you have to

[Russ]

ok:

I have the view that marriage should be a religious ceremony. If someone dislikes (or as like some on CF, has a pathalogical hatred of) religion then I don't see why they would want to get married anyway.

I'm not a fan of Cardiff City. Therefore I'm not going to bother objecting if someone told me I wasn't allowed in their stadium.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

ok:

I have the view that marriage should be a religious ceremony. If someone dislikes (or as like some on CF, has a pathalogical hatred of) religion then I don't see why they would want to get married anyway. .

Thanks.
does it have to be a pathological hatred of religion. or can they just have a calm attitude of not agreeing with it?

hang on you added more to it.

I'm not a fan of Cardiff City. Therefore I'm not going to bother objecting if someone told me I wasn't allowed in their stadium.

What's football got to do with it?

that quote doesn't go with the first one Russ. it's contradictory. so I'm stumped.

Originally Posted by danielf

Disregarding several pointless little digs: there are several legal privileges that come with being married. If you're in a stable long-term relationship it would irresponsible not to get married. Nowadays these privileges are available through civil partnerships, but it isn't too long ago that marriage was the only way to make sure that your partner is entitled to your pension should you pass away.

I should point out that the legal benefits of being married where bought about by the religious aspect and to a degree social ideals ,again influenced by religion hence the long delay in allowing civil partnerships and marriage to have the same rights .

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Thanks.
does it have to be a pathological hatred of religion. or can they just have a calm attitude of not agreeing with it?

hang on you added more to it.



What's football got to do with it?

that quote doesn't go with the first one Russ. it's contradictory. so I'm stumped.

What Russ is saying is that because religion and marriage ,in this country ,had links with religion and until recently if you look at the big picture was reliant on religion (namely Christianity) why would an Atheist want the term marriage tagged onto their union when a perfectly good non religious alternative is available .
but hey what's in a name

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

What Russ is saying is that because religion and marriage ,in this country ,had links with religion and until recently if you look at the big picture was reliant on religion (namely Christianity) why would an Atheist want the term marriage tagged onto their union when a perfectly good non religious alternative is available .
but hey what's in a name

I thought he was making the point of entering a church more. that's why he did the football stadium thing.