biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Marriage is something offered by the state. The fact that it can take place in a church is beside the point. It's entirely possible for a wedding to be non-religious. The religious element of this argument misses the point entirely. It's not, and it really doesn't. It in fact IS almost entirely the point. Not to understand that is not to understand the nature of the resistance of the church to the use of the word "marriage" for homosexual unions. On the face of it, it is possible to have a wedding ceremony which is not religious, yes, but in actuality it remains a religious construct. The essence of marriage is a religious one, it's a religious idea. If you like to think of it in these terms; it's a way for religions to control societal norms. There is no obligation to marry for any reason other than to comply with those ostensibly Christian religious values. It's those values which outlaw things like polygamy, really for no other reason that it is against Christian 'law'. Even a registry office wedding is sanctioned by a state with an established Christian church. For the state to sanction gay "marriage", in this country, is equivalent to sanction by that church. It seems to me that a church has every right to control the use of an idea and a word it basically invented. Despite the fact that I support the idea of gay marriage, I wholeheartedly appreciate the philosophical turmoil with which this presents a church and in particular the Church of England, who even though they are rooted in English tradition represent the whole of the Anglican communion worldwide, many of whom, rightly or wrongly oppose the idea of homosexuality- full stop. I don't understand why people can't appreciate that this issue might be a touchy subject, for a religion which, in many sections, quite clearly does not approve of 'active' homosexual relationships and whose ancient teachings guard against this particular form of union. Whilst I have my opinion, I would not seek to impose it on others. There is a balance to be struck here but there are sensitivities on both sides which need to be respected equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Maybe they don't. Maybe they want to get married in a registry office ... or a stately home ... or a football stadium. My wife and I were married on a lakeside beach. Why should any church authority be allowed to decide whether we, or anyone else, is allowed to do that? The Church doesn't own the beaches. I think technically as the queen owns all beaches in the UK and is also the head of the church, so then yes they do own the beaches. Like it or not, this state implements more or less Christian teaching in the realm of marriage and the state effectively decide whether you are allowed to do so based on the legal structure provided by Christian teaching - you can't marry your sister. Why would you want to get married if you are so opposed to the church or it's values which are transferred into the institution through the workings of our state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) I wonder what strange twist of logic Cardinal O'Brien used to liken gay marraige to slavery? For seemingly such an indefensible position, I've got to at least give the guy credit for how well he tried, now matter how ridiculous. I think, if I recall correctly, he was comparing the nature of slavery being of a forced relationship which at one time was state sanctioned and how it would be for the state to force churches, opposed to marrying gay people, into doing so. Edited March 10, 2012 by biotechpete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 They've got civil partnerships. Gay marriage makes a mockery of the word marriage. Then they expect to be able to 'marry' in a place of worship (which to believers means in the eyes of God) which is akin to defacating on the Bible as it clearly states such practices (same sex fornication) is an abomination. Still, expect a queue of enquiries to the Court of Human Rights if they don't get their way. Let's trash it all. you should stop listening to the words of celebate men who wear dresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 If I were gay I would steer clear of the church and would never wish to marry and join the mainstream which is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 There's no logical reason to oppose gay marriage. Its just discrimination, and a little bit nasty, TBH. Nobody can dictate who someone else wants to officially commit to.. If the Church doesn't want gay marriage in their buildings though, that's up to them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It's not, and it really doesn't. It in fact IS almost entirely the point. Not to understand that is not to understand the nature of the resistance of the church to the use of the word "marriage" for homosexual unions. On the face of it, it is possible to have a wedding ceremony which is not religious, yes, but in actuality it remains a religious construct. The essence of marriage is a religious one, it's a religious idea. If you like to think of it in these terms; it's a way for religions to control societal norms. There is no obligation to marry for any reason other than to comply with those ostensibly Christian religious values. It's those values which outlaw things like polygamy, really for no other reason that it is against Christian 'law'. Even a registry office wedding is sanctioned by a state with an established Christian church. For the state to sanction gay "marriage", in this country, is equivalent to sanction by that church. It seems to me that a church has every right to control the use of an idea and a word it basically invented. Despite the fact that I support the idea of gay marriage, I wholeheartedly appreciate the philosophical turmoil with which this presents a church and in particular the Church of England, who even though they are rooted in English tradition represent the whole of the Anglican communion worldwide, many of whom, rightly or wrongly oppose the idea of homosexuality- full stop. I don't understand why people can't appreciate that this issue might be a touchy subject, for a religion which, in many sections, quite clearly does not approve of 'active' homosexual relationships and whose ancient teachings guard against this particular form of union. Whilst I have my opinion, I would not seek to impose it on others. There is a balance to be struck here but there are sensitivities on both sides which need to be respected equally. Oh, I totally appreciate why it's a touchy subject. I just have absolutely zero sympathy for it. I don't need to go into the very long list of other 'ancient teachings' that modern Christianity has decided in its wisdom it can do without, do I? The fact that they cling onto this one is dubious to say the least. Marriage pre-dates Christianity. The church may have had a long involvement with it in this country, but the church had a long history of being heavily involved in people's lives that is now, thankfully, over. To all intents and purposes, we live in a secular society in this country and the existence of a state religion should not alter the fact that the state is helping to legitimise the oppression of LGBT people by denying them the right to marry. As I understand it, churches are already free to pick and choose who they marry within them. If they refuse to let LGBT people marry in a church, that's entirely their prerogative. I rather doubt that many of them want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It's not, and it really doesn't. It in fact IS almost entirely the point. Not to understand that is not to understand the nature of the resistance of the church to the use of the word "marriage" for homosexual unions. On the face of it, it is possible to have a wedding ceremony which is not religious, yes, but in actuality it remains a religious construct. The essence of marriage is a religious one, it's a religious idea. If you like to think of it in these terms; it's a way for religions to control societal norms. There is no obligation to marry for any reason other than to comply with those ostensibly Christian religious values. It's those values which outlaw things like polygamy, really for no other reason that it is against Christian 'law'. Even a registry office wedding is sanctioned by a state with an established Christian church. For the state to sanction gay "marriage", in this country, is equivalent to sanction by that church. It seems to me that a church has every right to control the use of an idea and a word it basically invented. Despite the fact that I support the idea of gay marriage, I wholeheartedly appreciate the philosophical turmoil with which this presents a church and in particular the Church of England, who even though they are rooted in English tradition represent the whole of the Anglican communion worldwide, many of whom, rightly or wrongly oppose the idea of homosexuality- full stop. I don't understand why people can't appreciate that this issue might be a touchy subject, for a religion which, in many sections, quite clearly does not approve of 'active' homosexual relationships and whose ancient teachings guard against this particular form of union. Whilst I have my opinion, I would not seek to impose it on others. There is a balance to be struck here but there are sensitivities on both sides which need to be respected equally. I find it interesting that you believe this, because the registrar that married my wife and I insisted that there wasn't any references to any religion in my wedding, no hymns or references to a religion in our music, not any religious symbols on display. She even went to the point of insisting that she read the reading that the maid of honour was going to do before she started the ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Keep it civil please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Keep it civil please Like a civil partnership? (sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts