quisquose Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I'm just <REMOVED> off at having my time wasted on voting for an issue that has been declared null and void. I wish the system here would decide if it's government for the people by the people or governemnt according to the views of a judge. As I mentioned I have no hostility to gay marriage whatsoever. Live and let live My annoyance is just aimed at the silly daft system we have here that goes back and forth without end on this particular issue "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, except teh gays". I think I know more about US history than most of its citizens. I'm the bloke that left the American Experience Show at Epcot with tears streaming down his cheeks. I have the greatest admiration for the principles of Jefferson and the other founding fathers. On balance, I think I'd prefer to be ruled by the views of a judge upholding the principles of the founding fathers and defending the Constitution, rather than the changing views of a government and/or the people. For example, I'm pretty certain that if the people were allowed to vote on prohibiting Islam, it would be banished in an instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I don't agree with the latter part, but the bold part I agree with. Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships. I don't disapprove of same sex couples making a life comittment like marriage, they should be free to do that just as opposite sex couples can and have it recognised in law, but to call it marriage is wrong imo because the word marriage means between man and woman, as defined by it's religious background. Evidence that marriage was originally invented as a religious institution please. Could you also please explain why if your unsupported claim that "Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships" means that homosexual couples can't get marriage it wouldn't also forbid non-religious heterosexual marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Evidence that marriage was originally invented as a religious institution please. Could you also please explain why if your unsupported claim that "Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships" means that homosexual couples can't get marriage it wouldn't also forbid non-religious heterosexual marriages. I didn't say one particular religion invented it. Marriage is part of many religions and cultures, each with its own customs. Even if it didn't, you miss the point. "Marriage" has historically been between man and woman. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, perhaps of any cultures or religions or peoples around the world that have historically always conducted same sex "marriages"? Even right here right now in the UK, two people of the same sex cannot get married. That is because marriage is for man and woman. Same sex couples may get a civil partnership and enjoy the same legal privilages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I didn't say one particular religion invented it. Marriage is part of many religions and cultures, each with its own customs. Even if it didn't, you miss the point. "Marriage" has historically been between man and woman. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, perhaps of any cultures or religions or peoples around the world that have historically always conducted same sex "marriages"? Even right here right now in the UK, two people of the same sex cannot get married. That is because marriage is for man and woman. Same sex couples may get a civil partnership and enjoy the same legal privilages. Why are you challenging me to back up claims I never made instead of backing up your own claims? Could it be that you can't back up your own claims and are trying to change the subject from them? Where is your evidence that "Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships"? If these claimed homophobic religious origins forbid gay marriage then why don't they also forbid heterosexual secular marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Why are you challenging me to back up claims I never made instead of backing up your own claims? Could it be that you can't back up your own claims and are trying to change the subject from them? Where is your evidence that "Marriage does have it's roots in religion, religions which disapprove of same sex relationships"? I don't have the evidence, I'm willing to accept it may be wrong if there is evidence to suggest otherwise. If these claimed homophobic religious origins forbid gay marriage then why don't they also forbid heterosexual secular marriage? I never claimed they were homophobic. I can't think of any main religion that does perform same sex marriages though as a religious ceremony. Can you? How could they forbid secular marriage, it's outside their fold just as marriage in another religion is outside their fold? That would be like Rugby League trying to challange the rules of Rugby Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I don't have the evidence, I'm willing to accept it may be wrong if there is evidence to suggest otherwise. I never claimed they were homophobic. You said "religions which disapprove of same sex relationships" which sounds pretty homophobic to me. I can't think of any main religion that does perform same sex marriages though as a religious ceremony. Can you? You don't consider the Episcopal Church to be of any significance then? How could they forbid secular marriage, it's outside their fold just as marriage in another religion is outside their fold? That would be like Rugby League trying to challange the rules of Rugby Union. Thanks for proving my point and undermining your whole argument. If marriages' claimed (but utterly unproven) religious origins don't forbid civil marriage then marriages' claimed (but utterly unproven) opposite sex only origins clearly shouldn't exclude same sex marriage either. You have just acknowledged that marriage has developed significantly from what you imagine to be it's religious hetero only origins. Why is it ok for marriage to completely shed the religious bit of those imagined origins but not the hetero only bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 You said "religions which disapprove of same sex relationships" which sounds pretty homophobic to me. I don't see what you're getting at. Who are you saying sounds homophobic? The religions that disapprove of homosexuality, or me for saying religions disapprove of homosexuality? Disagree with me then, show me that homosexuality is universally accepted by the worlds religions. I'm only saying it how it is. Take it up with them, I didn't write the Bible or Quran and I don't interpret it for them. You don't consider the Episcopal Church to be of any significance then? I've never heard of them, but if you're point is they carry out same sex marriages in their church, they're out of step with other world religions, even most of the rest of Christianity. Thanks for proving my point and undermining your whole argument. If marriages' claimed (but utterly unproven) religious origins don't forbid civil marriage then marriages' claimed (but utterly unproven) opposite sex only origins clearly shouldn't exclude same sex marriage either. OK so you're contention is marriage does not have religious roots, fine you believe that if you want, I won't expend energy trying to convince you otherwise. You have just acknowledged that marriage has developed significantly from what you imagine to be it's religious hetero only origins. Why is it ok for marriage to completely shed the religious bit of those imagined origins but not the hetero only bit? The nature and ritual of marriage may have changed, even be secular, but it doesn't change the history of marriage, whatever that might be, imo "marriage" refers to union of man and woman. Same sex couples may say they are getting married, what they mean is they're getting a civil partnership (in the UK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 OK so you're contention is marriage does not have religious roots Plekhanov is not making any contention. All he's done is ask you to provide evidence for your contention - and you still have not done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Plekhanov is not making any contention. All he's done is ask you to provide evidence for your contention - and you still have not done so. Keep up with the thread, see post #438 I don't have the evidence, I'm willing to accept it may be wrong if there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Keep up with the thread, see post #438 That's a cop out and its not good enough. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim not the person who doesn't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.