biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Oh, I totally appreciate why it's a touchy subject. I just have absolutely zero sympathy for it. That's fine but it doesn't negate the fact that there are thousands of people who would disagree with both of us. People who more than likely, in many other ways are perfectly pleasant people. I just think there is a risk in this debate that the views of those people are disregarded. What makes their belief any less valid, and yours or mine any more so? To me this is fundamentally and argument of belief. 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. It might be interesting. If wisdom clings to nothing is it still wisdom? Should everyone be allowed to act entirely as they wish? Should they have to act entirely as I wish? Should I be allowed to marry my sister? What is the point in it all? 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. Pre-dates Christianity yes, but not religion. And marriage, as enshrined in the laws of this country, remains a Christian construct, no matter how much value I might see in having multiple wives (metaphorically; for sake of argument). So the state is helping to legitimise the oppression of polygamists too. Like it or not we have an established church and until this ceases to be the case, we live in a Christian society, not a secular one. 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. I think, I could be wrong, that you have a right to be married in a church if you live in the local parish, without need to attend, as such. I don't believe a CofE vicar could refuse. Of course the position in the Catholic church might be different. I don't understand, btw, how not calling it marriage constitutes oppression. I fail to see also why anyone would wish to 'marry' at all, if not in a religious ceremony. There is no legal requirement to marry to live together and have children merely a cultural one which emanates from religious teaching. Also, perhaps someone will tell me if this is the case, but both civil and church marriages had to be consummated to be legal. Again, it is my understanding that this is derived from religious teaching as an act between a man and a woman. Though I suppose this could easily be changed, legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 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. Yes, but as I understand it, this is because the Church didn't want the use of religious symbolism outside of a church, to prevent a kind of faux religious ceremony; as a sort of protection. It's not a state imposed secularization of civil ceremonies. It remains the case, that the legal institution of marriage exists in the from it does in this country, so far as I can see, solely as a result of, and to serve the purposes of our Christian heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 It remains the case, that the legal institution of marriage exists in the from it does in this country, so far as I can see, solely as a result of, and to serve the purposes of our Christian heritage. And on that shaky basis you say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to take part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 I fail to see also why anyone would wish to 'marry' at all, if not in a religious ceremony. There is no legal requirement to marry to live together and have children merely a cultural one which emanates from religious teaching. I don't think you're trying very hard. I'm marrying in a civil ceremony soon, I'll tell you why - - having met someone I love and adore and want to spend the rest of my life with I want to affirm and celebrate that intention and that commitment in front of our families and friends and the state. We want to shout about it, enshrine it in law and have a hell of a good party to celebrate it. Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to do likewise? Who would suffer as a consequence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Personally, biotechpete, I don't really understand why anyone wants to get married at all, never mind what kind of ceremony it is. But the point is: denying homosexual people a right that the rest of the country enjoys is oppression; regardless of the presence of the Church of England this IS a secular society, in practice; I don't consider that the Bible has anything to teach us that moral philosophy doesn't with considerably more rigour, and don't consider it wisdom; and the fact that the Christian church has disregarded those aspects of the Bible that suits its purposes but persists in teaching that homosexuality is wrong is just...gross, really. And coming from the religion that supposedly advocates love for your fellow man, particularly galling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Why would gay people want to get married in a church anyway when the church is still against gay relationships? If not to put a few noses out of joint... Maybe they're Christians?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I used to argue that homosexual couples should be allowed some status that was legally equivalent to marriage, but that they could not be called "married" because two gay men cannot be a man and a woman. Now that we actually have that position in law, I've come to realise how silly it is. I no longer oppose homosexual marriage. Let them be husband and husband; it won't make any difference to anybody else. I used to think exactly the same, more to do with marriage being defined as a union of man and woman, just semantics and that's all it is, it's marriage in all but name. But meanings of words change and evolve over time with changing social attitudes, I think that is happening now and soon marriage will mean the same thing regardless of the genders of the two people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks so; he's also likened it to legalising slavery. I think he's talking nonsense. What do you think? I think he's exercising his right to freedom of speech and opinion based on his religious beliefs. What's the problem with that? Opinions are like bums. Everbody has one Edited March 10, 2012 by Harleyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Why would homosexuals wish to get married in a Church? They can get a civil partnership in a non religious building. The Church don't like homosexuals and do not condone their behaviour. Marriage is something offered by the Church for a man and a woman to enter into a union. The only people whom should want to get married in a Church are Christian couples. If you are non religious you should opt for a civil partnership, be you straight/gay. Marriage is something that takes place outside religion, in the city hall for example, it's a legal thing as much as it is a religious thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Maybe they're Christians?? Maybe they're. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp46KTjv-p4&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts