Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[DJKillaQueen]

Exactly MM. Marriage for many is a measure of commitment to someone. Gender is irrelevant.

Ignorance is dangerous but where the state endorses that ignorance, even more so. The state has a duty to protect ALL it's members from unwarranted prejudice and ignorance.

Edited to add....true El Pipe and we don't have to back that far to see evidence a plenty of that. I still can remmeber the 80's headline 'AIDS is God's plague on gays' a quote from the Manchester Police Commissioner at the time. It's the culture I grew up in...one which as a teen, told me everyday that it wasn't ok to be gay......

[Chippy Minton]

To my knowledge, quite rightly, they have the full protection of the law already. This is what makes the proposed change questionable. It doesn't make gay couples any more or less equal under the law.

Just because the law states people are equal, it doesn't mean they are in practice. There's countless examples of discrimination in our society based on so many different things - race, religion, gender, disability, sexuality etc.

If you don't object to gay marriage because you think gay people are already equal under the law, you don't appreciate the discrimination many gay people have and continue to face in our society.

Whilst obviously not solving the problem, gay marriage will be another step to help end discrimination and will help to advance our society.

[Huguenot]

Interesting little play on this from a historical perspective.

It's apparent that the church doesn't have ownership of marriage, it predates christianity and involves an agreement on shared resources. From a Roman perspective it seems to be about citizenship (electoral opportunity) and the right to a roof over your head.

I can also imagine growly 'Lord of the Flies' monkey thugs conceding access to water in order to meet social objectives.

However I can't imagine either monkeys or partnership-prone Romans being particularly bothered about gender.

That's not to say this isn't THE END OF THE WORLD. I'm sure El Pibe could constructively argue that sexual experimentation had no impact on the demise of the Roman Empire, but it always seems to involve gays when it comes to most armageddon predictions.

[El Pibe]

On the contrary, it's pretty much the first port of call for any historian.

I mean look a that Alexander the Great character.

Boffed blokes and his empire crumbled. Cast iron (no pun intended, ok just a bit) causality noone can argue with.

Then there was, errrrmmmmmmmm, errrr........Michael Portillo, partook of some man love once or twice (well he went to public school so I suppose it should go without saying) and lost his seat.

There, QED.

Not right up there in the eschatology meter I'll grant you, but they'll do.

[sphillips]

I agree with DJK. The prohibition on marrying people of the same sex in church is blatant discrimination.

The Church of England even refuses to allow its clergy to bless Civil Partnerships in church, which is a hurtful act of exclusion for those who would seek it. It?s fine apparently for chaplains in the armed forces to bless nuclear submarines and all who sail in them, tanks, weapons etc but not two people who desire a blessing on their Civil Partnership.

I?m a gay person, a committed Christian and attend church every Sunday. Not all church-goers accept the official teachings of the Church of England on these social issues by any means, just in the same way as we campaigned from within the Church for the ordination of women; will continue to call for the end to the absurd and wicked discrimination against gay clergy; will actively promote the desirability and necessity for women bishops and for an end to discrimination within the church however it manifests itself. Discrimination in any form, racial, ethnic or on the grounds of sexual orientation is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

The established church should be challenged openly on its backward and wholly unacceptable stance and, thankfully, there are many committed Christians who are up for giving their intolerant barriers a kick. It doesn?t make some parishes terribly popular with the established Church, but that?s their problem, not ours.

Silverfox: you?re perfectly entitled to your views and I profoundly disagree with them. The wording of your OP suggest that you find it acceptable, probably even funny, to write .... ?Which camp (no pun intended)? Thankfully nowadays, most people are rather more enlightened, considerate and accepting.

[HAL9000]

sphillips Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Discrimination in any form, racial, ethnic or on the grounds of

> sexual orientation is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Where is the support for such a view within the canonical sayings attributed to Jesus? On the contrary, discrimination is explicit - a few examples: Matthew 7:6 (pearls before swine), Mark 7:25-30 & Matthew 15:21-28 (Jesus calls non-Jewish woman a dog), Matthew 5:18 (Jesus upholds every jot and tittle of homophobic and racist Mosaic Law).

[DJKillaQueen]

Well the Bible was written by men, and not Jesus to be fair, so it could be argued that the 'teachings' are not necessary verbatim as written by those who wrote the bible. Menstruating women are 'unclean' according to the same writings and I can't think that came anywhere but from the warped beliefs of the religious leaders who wrote down 'their' interpretations of stories passed orally for centuries.

WOnder what SF makes of it all? ;)

[El Pibe]

Science Fiction?

[El Pibe]

Aaaah, San Francisco!

The place or the bloke?

[RosieH]

Hmm, but pearls before swine doesn't denote foreigners - rather it's about not wasting your time on people who don't value the gospel.

And in the dog-woman incident, well that's not the nicest thing to say for sure, but he cures her daughter anyway.

See also: Jesus hangs out with hookers and The Good Samaritan.

[HAL9000]

If one must engage in apologia, may I suggest:

And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.

--Secret Gospel of Mark

 

[sphillips]

God has never been concerned about homosexuality. It is only man?s prejudices that have invented this imaginary sin, not God.

HAL9000 claims that ?Jesus upholds every jot and tittle of homophobic...law?. Where please? If anyone can point in any of the Gospel accounts to Jesus condemning gay people, please be my guest. No need to rush and dust down your bibles. None of the Gospel writers record Jesus as making any statement against homosexual people. The Church of England is just obsessed with a subject Jesus never taught about, than about the matters he did.

It was very late into the Christian era before homosexuality was wrongly equated with sin and before the leaders of the church ?decided? homosexual people were moral affronts to God. I guess possibly around the same time that it was ?decided? that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute (no reference or evidence whatever in the bible that she was); it just didn?t suit the sexist views of the church leaders at the time that Jesus was so close and devoted to a woman; wouldn?t suit their sexist views at all!

Doing a Dot Cotton and quoting, very selectively, bits from the Bible, sometimes inaccurately and frequently out of context, to justify bigotry and intolerance is a custom that?s been going on for centuries.

[DJKillaQueen]

Doing a Dot Cotton

That has to be my favourite reposte of all time :))

[El Pibe]

this rather suggests that marriage is largely the purview of the state rather than religious bodies.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59050000/gif/_59050593_marriage_gr_2_464.gif

Silverfox will note that 'other' is, to put it mildly, a marginal issue.

[silverfox]

Those figures would appear to back up my argument El Pibe.

If they were to include figures for Gay unions under Civil Ceremonies you would find there is so little take up to be statisically insignificant.

Why then change the centuries old meaning of marriage for a vocal, marginal, minority, many of whom may have no interest in the matter anyway?

[*Bob*]

Yeah - and why did we change the centuries old meaning of suffrage for a vocal, marginal group, many of whom have no interest in the matter anyway?

[silverfox]

Good point Bob, just because something has been done in a certain way for many years doesn't mean it shouldn't change, evolve, for the better in more enlightened times.

However, I do think there is a difference here. The transition fron Feudal society to parliamentary democracy is well documented.

I mentioned earlier unintended consequences and how despite proposals to exclude Churches etc from being compelled to hold these ceremonies this will inevitably happen. Also, how long will it be before the words husband and wife are banned lest they be discriminatory? Will certain cultures be allowed to keep dowries? Can you have polygamous gay marriages among Mormons and other sects?

[El Pibe]

How on earth does that back up your argument, unless you're claiming that those married at registry offices aren't really marriages?

[silverfox]

Do you have any figures El Pibe to give us an idea how many couples have entered into Civil Partnerships in the UK since the law was changed in 2004?

[*Bob*]

The transition from a pagan society to Christian one - and back again - is also well documented.

Don't worry - it's just a phase we're going through.

[silverfox]

I don't know a lot about Pagan weddings, or handfastings as I believe they are called, but I think they involve a man and a woman

[*Bob*]

Paganism is not a religion. It's just what people did before organised religion arrived - which (by and large) encompassed just about everything.

[El Pibe]

Think again, I went to my mum's same sex pagan wedding.

Of course the state wouldn't recognise but they tied the civil knot four years ago.

THey'd like to be able to call themselves married officially even though they obviously consider themselves so, it's somewhat galling for the state to say 'oh no, marriage is a seperate thing' and they're looking heartily forward to its change of heart on the matter.

Here's an article for 2010 which showed same sex partnership in good health rising to 6400 odd that year, whilst marriage decreased to 231000 odd. About 3% of the numbers then, which sounds about right to me.

eta link http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/21/marriage-gay-rights-civil-partnerships

[*Bob*]

Speaking of figures, do we have any figures to give us an idea of the number of unoccupied pews at your average church service in England?

I would have thought that determining law based on popularity was a dangerous position for a Christian to be advocating. Those buildings are awfully big. Just think of what we could do with them instead!

[El Pibe]

http://www.mass-club.com/images/gallery/at6566.jpg