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

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, however, they presume to redefine something which is already self-defined, which is absurd. They might as well pass a law declaring that from henceforth, all cows are sheep and all ducks are swans. Marriage is not just a legal contract; it is something which physically occurs.

Why can't the definition change if society now views it differently?

Cows are sheep is obviously absurd and no one will view that to be the case, additionally there is no social stigma attached to being a cow thus they're unlikely to wish to be called sheep instead. However increasingly people do want to be able to define a union between two members of the same sex as a marriage. It is not the gender which they use to define it, it's the commitment between two people. The fact the marriage is so embedded in our culture means that anything that is seen as less than that doesn't seem as valid so there is also a motivation for homosexual couples to want to be married - just like their friends and parents maybe have been - rather than 'civil partnered'.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Very good news

+1

Originally Posted by Damien

Why can't the definition change if society now views it differently?

Cows are sheep is obviously absurd and no one will view that to be the case, additionally there is no social stigma attached to being a cow thus they're unlikely to wish to be called sheep instead. However increasingly people do want to be able to define a union between two members of the same sex as a marriage. It is not the gender which they use to define it, it's the commitment between two people. The fact the marriage is so embedded in our culture means that anything that is seen as less than that doesn't seem as valid so there is also a motivation for homosexual couples to want to be married - just like their friends and parents maybe have been - rather than 'civil partnered'.

The definition cannot change because you cannot change the substance of something by changing the way you describe it. To attempt to do so is Orwellian.

A cow is a cow, whatever name you attach to it. A sheep is not a cow, whatever name you attach to it. And a marriage can only be a marriage if it is one man and one woman, because they are two different sexes entering into a lifelong pairing which in the normal course of events results in a literal marriage of their bodies firstly through sexual intercourse and ultimately in the bearing of children. This is why consummation and adultery are integral parts of marriage as currently constituted.

In order to make marriage "equal" our legislators have acted as if the only important aspect of marriage is the narrow, legal aspect. In pursuing equality for its own sake they have in fact only entrenched inequality - churches and other religious institutions may refuse to conduct a homosexual wedding ceremony and refuse to acknowledge that a homosexual couple is married, even if under certain circumstances they are compelled to acknowledge certain rights that couple will have in law.

[denphone]

Gay couples could still face dire consequences on holiday despite the new UK marriage laws.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/06/gay-co...e-law-3382852/

A cow is a cow because it's biologically so. It's set in nature. It's not as if we came up with the cow a few thousand years ago and have now decided that we want to change what a cow is.

A marriage isn't the same thing, it wasn't given to us by nature and needed to be labelled. It was an institution that we invented. The idea of a man and a woman bearing children is part of nature and cannot be changed (well, yet) but the idea of the man and the woman entering a formal partnership and pledging fidelity isn't. We came up with it a few thousand years ago and have now decided we what to change what a marriage is.

Marriage is a human concept and as such why can't we redefine it?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chris

churches and other religious institutions may refuse to conduct a homosexual wedding ceremony and refuse to acknowledge that a homosexual couple is married, even if under certain circumstances they are compelled to acknowledge certain rights that couple will have in law.

Aside from the rights and wrongs of the vote I cannot see how the proposed bill will ever have an effective and water tight 'opt out' for religious groups who do not wish to conduct same sex marriages.

From what I've seen it's ripe for people refusing to conduct marriages on matters of faith being taken to court under equality laws.

Originally Posted by Damien

A cow is a cow because it's biologically so. It's set in nature. A marriage isn't the same thing, it wasn't given to us by nature and needed to be labelled. It was a institution that we invented. The idea of a man and a woman bearing children is part of nature and cannot be changed (well, yet) but the idea of the man and the woman entering a formal partnership and pledging fidelity isn't.

Marriage is a human concept and as such why can't we redefine it?

Marriage is a human concept that arises from biological truth and, for many, spiritual truth also. It recognises that a man and a woman can be physically joined, with the potential of bearing children.

Parliament can take a word and legislate to give it a particular legal meaning, but there are a number of serious issues with that approach.

Firstly, because Parliament cannot legislate to change the facts of life, it must necessarily reduce marriage to a mere legal formula. It thus debases the institution in an absurd attempt to deny nature.

Secondly, because as you say it is a human institution, rather than a British institution, it cannot redefine it as an institution. It can only redefine a legal mechanism termed "marriage" within the sphere of Parliament's legal influence. The link Denphone just posted is instructive; any gay couple openly declaring themselves as being on honeymoon in any of the places listed in that article is liable to end up in jail. Even in the many countries around the world where such penalties don't exist, gay couples "married" in England will not be able to visit a foreign country and expect the natives, or their legal authorities, to acknowledge that "marriage".

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

Aside from the rights and wrongs of the vote I cannot see how the proposed bill will ever have an effective and water tight 'opt out' for religious groups who do not wish to conduct same sex marriages.

From what I've seen it's ripe for people refusing to conduct marriages on matters of faith being taken to court under equality laws.

Yes. And in a discussion on Newsnight on Monday night, the contributor who spoke in favour of homosexual "marriage" tacitly admitted this by observing that no legal challenge against a religious organisation had ever succeeded in any other EU country where the practice has already passed into law. It is cold comfort that the European Court is throwing out such challenges from gay rights groups when the churches they drag through the courts have to pay to defend their rights, which their legislators have supposedly guaranteed them.

As I've said, this supposed move in favour of equality is going to result in further division and strife.

mad thing is marriage gay or hetro means nothing. It is the only contract that exists I believe where one party can breach the contract and get away with it. The only way marriage can really mean anything is if there is a consequence for its breach

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

The only way marriage can really mean anything is if there is a consequence for its breach

Prison. Fine. Death?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Prison. Fine. Death?

its breach of contract there should be recompense for example 99 times out of 100 the wife gets the kids and quite a large settlement often the man leaves home anyway normally the woman does better out of a divorce now if she committed adultery and was therefore to blame for the break and in fact breached her agreement that she no doubt said in front of witnesses why should she walk away better off? same thing applies if the male is to blame

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Marriage is a human concept that arises from biological truth and, for many, spiritual truth also. It recognises that a man and a woman can be physically joined, with the potential of bearing children.

Parliament can take a word and legislate to give it a particular legal meaning, but there are a number of serious issues with that approach.

Firstly, because Parliament cannot legislate to change the facts of life, it must necessarily reduce marriage to a mere legal formula. It thus debases the institution in an absurd attempt to deny nature.

You are, of course, assuming that Marriage is a natural state. It's not. There is no natural requirement to marry a person just because you happen to be the father or mother of their children. Nor is there a requirement that just because you are married, that you have kids.

As you say, Marriage is a human concept. Animals may stay with one partner for life, but they are not married in the human sense. Humans may stay with one partner for life, but they aren't necessarily married.

Parliament cannot legislate to change the facts of life. In this instance, I would argue they are not attempting to.

I also don't believe they are actually forcing Churches to marry gay people. On the contrary, the Church, it seems is saying that gay people cannot get married, regardless of whether they want a Church ceremony or not. Now, I have no problem with the Church saying who can or cannot get married in a Church. When they try and say they cannot get married anywhere, that is, IMO, discriminatory, prejudiced and wrong.

Originally Posted by Stuart

You are, of course, assuming that Marriage is a natural state. It's not. There is no natural requirement to marry a person just because you happen to be the father or mother of their children. Nor is there a requirement that just because you are married, that you have kids.

As you say, Marriage is a human concept. Animals may stay with one partner for life, but they are not married in the human sense. Humans may stay with one partner for life, but they aren't necessarily married.

Parliament cannot legislate to change the facts of life. In this instance, I would argue they are not attempting to.

I also don't believe they are actually forcing Churches to marry gay people. On the contrary, the Church, it seems is saying that gay people cannot get married, regardless of whether they want a Church ceremony or not. Now, I have no problem with the Church saying who can or cannot get married in a Church. When they try and say they cannot get married anywhere, that is, IMO, discriminatory, prejudiced and wrong.

I am assuming no such thing. I am pointing out that human culture has built an institution founded on biological fact and (in many cases) spiritual truth.

The observation that marriage allows for the perpetuation of the species and (for many people) reflects a Divine order in the universe is ancient. The ability to observe what happens in nature and then to formalise it and derive spiritual meaning from it is precisely what divides us from animals and makes marriage exactly *not* a natural state.

As for discrimination - in my view, holding that religious organisations should uniquely be barred from expressing a view on the conduct of society at large, even lobbying for that view, is the very definition of discrimination. I assume you have no issues with the vast numbers of secular lobby groups that are engaged in this precise activity, for their own self interest, day in, day out?

This is branded as a strike in favour of equality, but it is not. It is a move towards imposing uniformity, forcing everyone to accept a certain world view whether they agree with it or not.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Let me make one point. I have many friends who are gay, but its not up to me to tell them they cannot get married.

Its not up to me to say whether or not they should get married in a church or register office - its none of my business.

My wife and l got invited to a civil marriage last year, but couldn't go due to cost - they live in Cornwall and we live in Twickenham. We sent them our best wishes.

IF two people love each other than that is fine, what l was saying is that if gay couples kissed in public, what would they say regarding reactions from children or the public, children are unaware of what happens in life such as this.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is branded as a strike in favour of equality, but it is not. It is a move towards imposing uniformity, forcing everyone to accept a certain world view whether they agree with it or not.

Pretty much exactly how I see it.

You shouldn't have to feel persecuted just because you don't agree with it, yet now it feels that way. I suppose that's how it is when you're told how to think and told how to conform.

Originally Posted by peanut

You shouldn't have to feel persecuted just because you don't agree with it, yet now it feels that way. I suppose that's how it is when you're told how to think and told how to conform.

How are you being persecuted?

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

IF two people love each other than that is fine, what l was saying is that if gay couples kissed in public, what would they say regarding reactions from children or the public, children are unaware of what happens in life such as this.

What would you say if they were a hetrosexual couple kissing in public?