Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[Alien52]

Some vicars still do refuse to marry non-religious people, it was a common practice once upon a time, until marriages became financially lucrative.

It was also common practice to refuse to marry heterosexuals on religious grounds too, for example if you were a divorcee, or did not attend church.

Why should it be different for anyone else, especially so for those that do not share our faith and clearly have no respect for our culture, rights and rituals.

 

I'd like to see a none muslim homosexual try and get a Nikah.

I don't see why I should have to change my definition of a word to suit those trying to impose their ways upon me.

 

If word definitions become personal conversation is going to be very difficult.Your horse may be my cat.

[Digsy]

If word definitions become personal conversation is going to be very difficult.Your horse may be my cat.

 

There are many words that have several definitions.

I am not in favour of redefining the word Marriage, adding definitions is another matter altogether, many words have been given additional meanings without the need to redefine them altogether.

The word itself evolves and changes meaning in regards to it's context.

 

By redefining the word it makes the bibles use of the word contradictory, which I don't find acceptable.

[foxforcefive]

Would it make any difference to you if 3 or more people live together, and would it make any more difference if they happened to be in a tripartite legal marriage?

 

None whatsoever.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 09:54 ----------

 

It should but it has little to do with marriage, plenty of unmarried people have managed it and plenty of married people have failed.

 

If marriage is to be redefined, it may as well be the union of two or more people in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

 

My point being (which didn't come across very well) is that marriage is as relevant as the two people involved want it to be.

[RootsBooster]

Some vicars still do refuse to marry non-religious people, it was a common practice once upon a time, until marriages became financially lucrative.

It was also common practice to refuse to marry heterosexuals on religious grounds too, for example if you were a divorcee, or did not attend church.

Why should it be different for anyone else, especially so for those that do not share our faith and clearly have no respect for our culture, rights and rituals.

You appear to misunderstand the situation, nobody is trying to make churches marry homosexuals, quite the opposite actually.

I'd like to see a none muslim homosexual try and get a Nikah.

I don't see why I should have to change my definition of a word to suit those trying to impose their ways upon me.

What "ways" are being imposed upon you and how?

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 10:10 ----------

 

There are many words that have several definitions.

I am not in favour of redefining the word Marriage, adding definitions is another matter altogether, many words have been given additional meanings without the need to redefine them altogether.

The word itself evolves and changes meaning in regards to it's context.

It's not about redefining a word, it's about legislation. If same sex marriage is made legal then the definition of marriage would change automatically as a side effect.

By redefining the word it makes the bibles use of the word contradictory, which I don't find acceptable.

You may want to take a seat for this, there are a great many contradictions in the bible, it's use of the word "marriage" should be the least of your worries.

[maxmaximus]

My point being (which didn't come across very well) is that marriage is as relevant as the two people involved want it to be.

 

There are three groups in this debate,

1. Not bothered either way because it such an unimportant issue.

2. Want marriage to stay as it is, the union of one man and one woman, but other than it being historical or religious can’t say why.

3. Want marriage redefined but can’t explain why it’s such an important issue to them.

[RootsBooster]

There are three groups in this debate,

1. Not bothered either way because it such an unimportant issue.

2. Want marriage to stay as it is, the union of one man and one woman, but other than it being historical or religious can’t say why.

3. Want marriage redefined but can’t explain why it’s such an important issue to them.

 

or

4. Just want equality

[foxforcefive]

There are three groups in this debate,

1. Not bothered either way because it such an unimportant issue.

2. Want marriage to stay as it is, the union of one man and one woman, but other than it being historical or religious can’t say why.

3. Want marriage redefined but can’t explain why it’s such an important issue to them.

 

It personally doesn't bother me, I wouldn't be able to get married in a church either because a) I'm not religious, and b) I'm soon to be a divorcee.

 

I think only regular churchgoing religious folk should marry in a church anyhow, I find most church marriages all a little hypocrytical. I'm not too up on bible skills to make an argument for or against gay marriage but if I were gay I'd be inclined to think 'sod the church, if they don't want me, they can't have me.

[quisquose]

There are many words that have several definitions.

I am not in favour of redefining the word Marriage, adding definitions is another matter altogether, many words have been given additional meanings without the need to redefine them altogether.

The word itself evolves and changes meaning in regards to it's context.

 

By redefining the word it makes the bibles use of the word contradictory, which I don't find acceptable.

 

You do know that the word marriage was in existence before the Bible, or the first five books of the Tanakh, were written don't you?

 

You do know that the word marriage can simply mean any close or intimate association or union don't you?

 

So whose trying to redefine words exactly? If you want the word marriage to specifically refer to a very recent religion's union of a man and a woman with reference to their rules, then it is you that wants to redefine the word.

 

Who gets to decide which religions get to claim the word anyway? The very idea of state approved religions who get to use the word sends a totalitarian shudder down my spine. Otherwise, why not the newly created religion of same-sexness (peace be upon them)? What a wonderful game of semantics we could create.

 

If you want a word to mean married in your particular chosen manner, then it is up to you to create one. Darriage perhaps

 

dar·riage [dar-ij]

noun

 

the social institution under which specifically a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, and Digsy's approved religious ceremonies

[Cyclone]

There are three groups in this debate,

1. Not bothered either way because it such an unimportant issue.

2. Want marriage to stay as it is, the union of one man and one woman, but other than it being historical or religious can’t say why.

3. Want marriage redefined but can’t explain why it’s such an important issue to them.

 

You've missed out a large group.

 

4. Want marriage to be 'redefined' to be not discriminatory. Find it easy to explain why with reference to equality.

[lil-minx92]

 

And, for what it's worth - feeling uncomfortable at physical affection expressed by same sex couples is homophobia WITH BELLS ON. Unless you feel the same way about heterosexual couples, in which case I'd suggest you never leave the house again.

 

I enjoy watching physical interaction on specialised internet websites between males and females and also between females and other females. However, i feel very uncomfortable watching male / male interaction. What does this make me??