Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[El Pibe]

silverfox - "Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female"

well, if you go back to the ancient greeks, fathers of our culture, overseers of the golden age of mankind (if you believe those Victorians) women were for procreation, love (including the physical variety) with a man was considered the purer form.

[silverfox]

True, El Pibe and True Loz.

There has never been one universal concept that love is the exclusive preserve of a man and a woman. However, you cannot deny that marriage has generally been understood to be between a man and a woman.

As the government is about to discover during its consultation phase, the proposal to introduce gay marriage by the end of this parliament will be a divisive issue, especially as it has not appeared in any manifesto and nobody has been given the chance to vote on this issue.

[Huguenot]

I cannot see what your problem is with gay marriage SF.

What does it matter to you whether two people who you don't know get married? Since you don't know who they are, why does it matter what gender they are?

It only matters to you because you're prejudiced.

Second dotage eh?

[*Bob*]

To paraphrase a popular quote, I wouldn't want to belong to a club that won't have a significant proportion of my friends as members.

And even if - or I should probably say when - it does, I'd opt for a hetero CP instead, were the option to be available.

[silverfox]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

"...What does it matter to you whether two people who

> you don't know get married? Since you don't know

> who they are, why does it matter what gender they

> are?..."

It doesn't. I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together. Just don't call it 'marriage'

[DJKillaQueen]

It only matters to you because you're prejudiced.

Absolutely right H and it's precisely because of people like SF that the government is right force change (do you have any idea how insulting it is to a gay person to be told their relationship is not as valid as that of a heterosexual couple SF?..any idea at all?).

Just to challenge you SF on a few points....

This isn't a straightforward question and my answer is not necessarily.

Yes it is..as it is at the core of prejudice...a prejudice I believe you hold and should be challenged on.

When this happens it will be possible for a gay couple, even if they are atheists and have no religious conviction, to demand to be married in a church as is their right.

Why would this be the case? Are heterosexual atheists marrying in churches? Why would any atheist want to marry in a church? Or are you suggesting atheist gay people are different to atheist heterosexuals? Again another nonsensical argument from you.

This could happen in the same way that small bed and breakfast businesses have been targeted for suspect reasons.

They've hardly been targetted. All business are required to operate under the law and the law outlaws descimination on the grounds of sexuality (along with other things). Businesses that break the law deserve to be prosecuted. Again you seem to be arguing that descrimination is ok so I'll ask you an even more straightforward question....

Do you believe that descrimination against homosexuals is ok?

The reasons for disallowing gay marriage here are based on the traditions and beliefs of that church that the gay couple would be aware of, even if they disagree with those aspects. They are still welcome to worship in that church but they are excluded from some of that church's rites. Is this discrimination? There's nothing stopping the couple going elsewhere if they don't adhere to the rites and practises of that church.

Please do tell me what church institution a gay couple can go to, to be married. The fact is that the rites and practices of many religions are blatently descriminatory.

And imo, any person that calls themself a Christian and descriminates against homosexuals or anyone is not a Christian anyway.

this is just an attempt to insult and make a mockery of our faith

And the resistance to change is a an attempt to insult gay people of faith.

I could go on SF. It is blatently clear you do not want gay people in the church.....and that level of prejudice is exactly why the government is right to interfere, and why thankfully the church has no power over state anymore.

[silverfox]

DJKQ - Do you believe that descrimination against homosexuals is ok?

NO

[DJKillaQueen]

I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together.

So patronising.....

Just don't call it 'marriage'

As has been pointed out, marriage is not the invention of the church. Here's another question then.

Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church.

That shouldn't be a problem if terms are all you are bothered about, rather than descrimination, should it?

[DJKillaQueen]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> DJKQ - Do you believe that descrimination against

> homosexuals is ok?

>

> NO

So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right?

[silverfox]

Are you referring to Christain gays here?

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes Christian gay people being allowed to have an equivalent church ceromony (equal in all ways to marriage) but called something different to marriage.

[DJKillaQueen]

Being a little slow to respond there SF ;)

I suspect the crux of all this really, is that you don't think gay people should have their relationships blessed before God and that the reason for that is that you believe God dissaproves of homosexuality. You probably also think homosexuality is a choice.....a line that has always baffled me given that no heterosexual ever 'chooses' to be so. In which case you support descrimination against homosexuals.

If however I'm wrong on the above then I can't see why you would object to the church performing 'union' ceremonies for gay couples as an alternate to 'marriage' ceremonies.

Which is it SF?

[silverfox]

DJKQ -

So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right?

Absolutely, it's illegal.

DJKQ - Here's another question then.

Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church...Christian gay people being allowed to have an equivalent church ceromony (equal in all ways to marriage) but called something different to marriage.

Problem here DJKQ is it would just be playing with words - it wouldn't be a marriage ceremony so nobody would be happy. It's either full marital rites or not. Half-way compromises, including say a blessing, could still be seen to be discriminatory against gays.

I'm trying to steer clear of doctrinal issues which could potentially go off on a very involved tangent. However, don't forget, some churches do not allow divorcees to marry nor 'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples. Is this a discrimination issue?

[DJKillaQueen]

You are steering clear of doctrinal issues because you know those doctrinal issues are unnacceptable. But those doctrinal issues are at the real core of the opposition those have to gay marriages. You don't think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones do you? I don't think anyone would mind what a ceremony is called as long as it was held in the same esteem as marriage and that's what you can't bring yourself to agree with.

I'll ask you another straight question.... Do you think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones?

I did also ask if you thought it acceptable for a gay couple to be blessed before God in a church. Do you think that would be ok? Your answer to that will indicate what kind of Christian you really are.

Answer this too...do you accept that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore as natural as anything that exists by accident of nature? It may not be the norm but it is naturally occuring and always has done (and if God created the Universe, God created homosexuals too).

The argument regarding the destruction of anything is just a red herring when really at the root of it all is a misguided belief that homosexuality is a sin and lifestyle choice and that a gay relationship is not as valid as a heterosexual one (because that is the church position). You haven't denied that so I can only assume that's what you believe.

You are now also arguing from a standpoint of hypocrasy too. You admit that laws against descrimination in business/ schools etc should be upheld but then think that religion should be somehow exempt from that. Can you not see how offensive that is, how hypocritical?

I didn't really pay much attention to this issue before, but now I am firmly in the ground of making sure the government enforce this change on the Church, society will be better off without institutionalised prejudice wherever it occurs.

[El Pibe]

[some churches ban] "'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples"

Not to sideline the debate.

Genuine point of curiosity if there are any examples of this?

Other than that, as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey. In other news Pope catholic apparently.

[silverfox]

Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will only apply to Civil marriages.

Interesting times ahead.

[DJKillaQueen]

Would you care to answer the questions in my previous post SF? I have far more interest in your questionable views than those of Teresa May.

as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey

LOL yes the luncay of those trying to rationalise their own prejudice never ceases to amaze me......Just because a group of people all believe the same thing (primarily SF's defence of the Church to not be interferred with) doesn't make their beliefs ok. We can point to many an example of that.

[silverfox]

It would appear you have already made up your mind as to my questionable views DJKQ.

Nothing I say will stop you from supporting the government to 'enforce' the proposal on churches

[silverfox]

DJKQ

"...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..."

Presumably this applies to gays as well?

[Huguenot]

I'm not aware that any particular church 'owns' marriage, nor that all churches have the same perception of marriage.

So it's pretty hard to accept the gay marriage is being enforced upon churches.

[Huguenot]

As a point of interest, I understand that discrimination laws only apply to paid for good or services, not those donated freely.

For example, one can offer services of friendship without being accused of discrimination against non-friends.

If the church were to give up charitable tax status (ie subsidised by the taxpayer) they would probably be free to deny services to whomever they choose.

Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult?

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already

> contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will

> only apply to Civil marriages.

>

> Interesting times ahead.

What Cooper actually said: "Religious marriages are a matter for each church and denomination, not for the government. But equally, the government should go further than they currently plan. Churches who want to celebrate gay marriage [should have] the chance to do so."

So, she is saying that if churches want to marry same-sex couples, they should be allowed to. Seems reasonable? Strangely, the proposed bill says religious same-sex marriages are specifically prohibited. So she has a point.

[DJKillaQueen]

It would appear you have already made up your mind as to my questionable views DJKQ. Nothing I say will stop you from supporting the government to 'enforce' the proposal on churches

That's because you refuse to say what you really think (hard to tell a gay person to their face you think they are not equal isn't it?) and clearly being in favour of descrimatory views towards gays, then of course I won't agree with you, and nor would any right thinking person. Indeed those who descriminate need to be forced to not do so....that includes the Church and that is why we have laws to facilitate that.

"...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..."

Presumably this applies to gays as well?

What on earth do you allude to here? The belief that gay people should not face descrimination? Are you now trying to suggest fighting descrimination should not be considered an ok pursuit by gays? Keep digging that hole......

I know you think you are being clever in avoiding my questions but you are only showing yourself for what you are. I thought Christians were proud of their beliefs, why are you so afraid to air them? Because deep down you know they are going to receive the disdain they deserve and in the end, as with all hypocrites, you are a coward too. No wonder the Church is dying in this country.

Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult?

lol...good point H. I just think they are afraid homosexuals will turn them all gay tbh and then take over the world ;)

[*Bob*]

Over thirty years old

[silverfox]

DJKQ

"...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..."

SF "Presumably this applies to gays as well?"

DJKQ "What on earth do you allude to here?"

SF - your views