Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[PaliRichard]

Strange the way it all goes quiet once you start asking searching questions and pointing out logical inconsistencies.

 

It's annoying!

 

Especially when, ahem, certain posters claim people don't answer because they are being bullied.

 

I think that particular person could do with learning the difference between someone being bullied and someone disappearing because they know that they can't argue their case.

 

Why they don't just hold their hands up and say 'You know what, I think I was wrong there' I'll never know.

[lil-minx92]

Not really, Jimmy is not suggesting that it was compulsory, or even widely practised, but he is pointing out that according to the parameters of what some refer to as 'traditional' and/or 'Christian' marriage it was permitted and condoned.

 

Then it was changed, for the betterment of a civilised society.

 

(Apologies if I'm treading on your toes Jimmy or putting words in your mouth).

 

Permitted in that it wasnt expressly outlawed. Kinda like shoving a sparrow up the wifes bottom.

Condoned- I dont think so do you?

[mikem8634]

It's annoying!

 

Especially when, ahem, certain posters claim people don't answer because they are being bullied.

 

I think that particular person could do with learning the difference between someone being bullied and someone disappearing because they know that they can't argue their case.

 

Why they don't just hold their hands up and say 'You know what, I think I was wrong there' I'll never know.

 

Exactly. I was quite impressed when Harvey said he'd been made to think. I considered that quite brave of him.

[janie48]

I view Christians as Christians, not white christians and black Christians, so when I talk about Christians I mean the lot.

So you think bringing black Christians into it (they already were, as far as I was concerned), with the same views as white Christians who are against gay marriage, is diversifying?

 

And was this in response to this part of my post...

 

or this part...

 

...?

 

because I can't see the relevance!

Yes and i view Christians as equal too with regard to the colour of their skin,why would i not?

I was just making that point because of the reference earlier in the thread about discrimination against black people,and how not all of them feel discrimination against gay church marriage can be compared to that.

 

I thought if you and others were curious to understand the churches position of why some of their members thought gay marriage in church shouldn't be allowed who better to ask then them? Since they're arn't any of them posting on here,its unlikely anyone is going to hear their position if they actually care.

 

I'm not well informed enough to answer,because i'm not involved in the church to the extent that i hear those matters being discussed.So i had a look at that CofE website passed on my last post,and the reasons the two Archbishops gave was on there.

 

I suppose their views are a reflection of the views of Christians of other denominations too,those views described as "irrational and without logic"

As unpopular as the general opinion may be i'm one of those people who respects their right to hold those views,

[mikem8634]

Permitted in that it wasnt expressly outlawed. Kinda like shoving a sparrow up the wifes bottom.

Condoned- I dont think so do you?

 

No, it was actually exempted from prosecution. It was deemed that in law consent could not be withdrawn by a spouse and therefore rape could not exist. It was actually considered not to be a crime.

 

As stated here -

 

Rape in marriage was criminalised as recently as 1982 in Scotland and 1991 in England. Before these dates a woman had no legal protection for the crime of rape perpetrated against her by her husband.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php

 

Permitted in that it was expressly exempted from legal redress. Condoned in that the permission was not revoked until shamefully recently.

 

So, I'm afraid it's not quite the same as your colourful sparrow analogy.

[PaliRichard]

Yes and i view Christians as equal too with regard to the colour of their skin,why would i not?

I was just making that point because of the reference earlier in the thread about discrimination against black people,and how not all of them feel discrimination against gay church marriage can be compared to that.

 

I thought if you and others were curious to understand the churches position of why some of their members thought gay marriage in church shouldn't be allowed who better to ask then them? Since they're arn't any of them posting on here,its unlikely anyone is going to hear their position if they actually care.

 

I'm not well informed enough to answer,because i'm not involved in the church to the extent that i hear those matters being discussed.So i had a look at that CofE website passed on my last post,and the reasons the two Archbishops gave was on there.

 

I suppose their views are a reflection of the views of Christians of other denominations too,those views described as "irrational and without logic"

As unpopular as the general opinion may be i'm one of those people who respects their right to hold those views,

 

As am I, but respecting someone's right to hold a view doesn't mean that if you're debating with someone of that view you should avoid applying reason (and in turn expecting reason to be applied).

 

The difficulty is regarding many posters on the thread is that they hold the view (or are defending those that do) and then when are asked for reasons why simply avoiding the issue. Blatant avoidance then dressing it up as being bullied - it's not bullying, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

If someone said 'I don't accept gay marriage and don't want to discuss why' I would accept that this is their opinion (despite not agreeing with it), but when they say 'I don't accept gay marriage and I'm going to argue the point but not actually give any reasons as to why' this is a totally different kettle of fish - and this is exactly what has been going on in this thread.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Permitted in that it wasnt expressly outlawed. Kinda like shoving a sparrow up the wifes bottom.

I'll place a bet and say that sounds pretty illegal anyway, and especially so if one doesn't have his wife's consent to put small birds up her anus.

 

This is really reaching new lows.

[flamingjimmy]

Permitted in that it wasnt expressly outlawed. Kinda like shoving a sparrow up the wifes bottom.

Condoned- I dont think so do you?

 

Yes, I do think so. It was expressly condoned.

 

“for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given

herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”

 

- First Chief Justice Matthew Hale, 1736

 

It was expressly a part of a traditional Christian marriage that a wife was available for sex to her husband and could not revoke her consent, embedded in english common law, and even exported to the United States, and that did not change for almost 2000 years.

[mikem8634]

Yes, I do think so. It was expressly condoned.

 

“for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given

herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”

 

- First Chief Justice Matthew Hale, 1736

 

It was expressly a part of a traditional Christian marriage that a wife was available for sex to her husband and could not revoke her consent, embedded in english common law, and even exported to the United States, and that did not change for almost 2000 years.

 

I wonder if lil-minx has the grace to return and say - fair enough, I got that one wrong?

 

I'd be truly impressed.

[MrSmith]

 

What opinions bro? Give one already!

 

Here's one, and no one as answered the question yet.

 

Did you oppose the discrimination that you think existed last year and the year before that, and before that, because according to some on here all previous governments must be homophobic, because under all previous governments gay people couldn’t get married, so were in fact discriminated against.

 

I don't think there is any discrimination so I don't see the governments as homophobic.

 

 

But surely only a religious person could take offence at being called a sinner or evil because we none believers don’t believe in evil or sin. I tend to ignore the religious ranting of religious people but respect their right to say it.

 

 

My opinion is that both sides have made good points to support their stance, I also think both sides have built a mountain out of a mole hill. I can see why neither side will ever agree with the other side because both sides have very strong deeply seated opinions on the subject. I don’t think gay people are being discriminated against by calling their wedding a civil partnership but I wouldn’t be opposed to changing it to marriage.