Gay marriage

[Ketchup]

I don't really understand the point of marriage to be honest. If a couple need a piece of paper to show their commitment then i don't feel it is a proper relationship.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't really understand the point of marriage to be honest. If a couple need a piece of paper to show their commitment then i don't feel it is a proper relationship.

Were you not proud to get your tufty club certificate?

[proggy]

I don't really understand the point of marriage to be honest. If a couple need a piece of paper to show their commitment then i don't feel it is a proper relationship.

I could do without the whole religious part, but I think there still needs to be some legal document.

[EternalOptimist]

I don't really understand the point of marriage to be honest. If a couple need a piece of paper to show their commitment then i don't feel it is a proper relationship.

It's all about property rights

you need to be able to prove that the bird is your property, right ?

[NotAllThere]

It's all about property rights

you need to be able to prove that the bird is your property, right ?

Close. She needs to be able to prove that everything you have is hers.

I can't because if what they say is true its equally true that all illness is due to sin.

There are some who believe that if you are ill, it's because of your sin. Majority theological opinion is that we live in a world that is broken as a result of sin, which means people get ill.

It wouldn't seem quite as ok if inter-racial couples were allowed civil partnerships with all the rights of marriages but without the name.

Nail on the head here.

Except that homosexuality is a choice and race isn't . Oh.. sorry. Forgot. If you're gay, you're born that way and sexual orientation never ever ever ever ever changes.

Seriously - the more I think about it, the more I believe that marriage - together with the responsibilities and benefits - should, in a secular society, be available to all competent pairs of adults. Including Tebbit divorcing his wife to marry his son to avoid inheritance tax.

[Gibbon]

The Bible has more against women priests than against homosexuality, yet the General Synod voted a long time back to allow women priests.

There is a good reason for that. Practicing homosexuals would not want to join the early christian church with it's emphasis on chastity so were not considered. Joining the early church was an arduous affair with catchumens waiting up to and beyond twenty years to receive baptism when you had to be clean of sin. Lust was seen as a sin as it corrupts relationships and can cause deep emotional unhappiness. This was common in Greek thought around this time and earlier. Even Socrates was glad of his later impotence as it freed him 'from the tyrant below'.As St Paul said, 'it would be better if you were like me' i.e. celibate, but if you can't then be married for procreation. Hence why many took to being monks and nuns. Many ancient non christian Romans admired the will power of these early Christians for their abstinence amongst other things.

Physical homosexual behavior is in the same category as using contraception, it is sex for pleasure, therefore lust and sinful.

The problems came when Christianity became mandatory in the early 5th Cen. The bigots who quote from Leviticus etc have no idea about the roots of the issue and have twisted it to their own prejudices.

Even the RC recognises that two men/women can have a deep love between them, but, a big but, they should not indulge in lust.

[Old Greg]

As far as I am concerned they can do whatever they like in their privacy as long as they do not harm others. However, they should not force my conscience to agree with something it does not. If they choose to live together, I am not in their way. If they think it is right what they do, it is their conscience not mine. However, I ask them not to force my conscience. My conscience says it is wrong and that is my private realm. Do not interfere with the freedom of my conscience.

The second issue is the privileges that they gain by legal marriages. These are financial privileges that straight married couples get from the state. The state invests by these privileges to the straight married couples, because it expects future taxpayers. This is necessary for a country to sustain itself. Yes, some couples will choose not to have or cannot have children, and the state does not ask the "investment back", this is a risk of investments. Most of the time they will "profit" however.

Gays will not produce future taxpayers. Bad investment in my mind. Yes, soon or later they will get what they want. The majority always gives in by its nature. As Martin Niemöller said, and I paraphrase: First they came for the gipsies, I stood by. Then they came for the Jews, I still stood by. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak up. Then they came for me, and there was none left to speak up...

The majority or masses are like a frog. Put a frog into a pan with full of cold water and turn on the heat. As it gets warmer and warmer the frog gets increasingly uncomfortable and it finally dies. However, throw a frog into hot water, it will immediately jump out ...

What is next - a man or female marrying an animal? Why not, if it is a better companion then anyone else, why not? If it is satisfying to him or her, why not? Who has the right to take away your pursuit of happiness? Pursuit of happiness is all about what is pleasurable and satisfying for me, right?

First they came for the communists? I didn't realise you are being oppressed by gay people getting the freedom to marry who they love.

[Old Hack]

Even the RC recognises that two men can have a deep love between them, but, a big but, they should not indulge in lust.

That explains the Captain and the Corporal then....

[MaryPoppins]

There is a good reason for that. Practicing homosexuals would not want to join the early christian church with it's emphasis on chastity so were not considered. Joining the early church was an arduous affair with catchumens waiting up to and beyond twenty years to receive baptism when you had to be clean of sin. Lust was seen as a sin as it corrupts relationships and can cause deep emotional unhappiness. This was common in Greek thought around this time and earlier. Even Socrates was glad of his later impotence as it freed him 'from the tyrant below'.As St Paul said, 'it would be better if you were like me' i.e. celibate, but if you can't then be married for procreation. Hence why many took to being monks and nuns. Many ancient non christian Romans admired the will power of these early Christians for their abstinence amongst other things.

Physical homosexual behavior is in the same category as using contraception, it is sex for pleasure, therefore lust and sinful.

The problems came when Christianity became mandatory in the early 5th Cen. The bigots who quote from Leviticus etc have no idea about the roots of the issue and have twisted it to their own prejudices.

Even the RC recognises that two men/women can have a deep love between them, but, a big but, they should not indulge in lust.

A thought provoking post.

Lust is nice though really, innit.

[northernladuk]

I find it more offensive that I can live with my partner all my life, bring kids up (in the way of the church if you want to throw that in) and do everything expected of a male and female yet I am excluded from many things that require a spouse that two people who cannot (in the normal sense) have a family and are not really accepted in the eyes of the church can get by now getting married.

I would be much happier if they fixed other issues such as this first that affect many more people than focussing on gay marriage which kinda now means that I am the discriminated party when it comes to love, family and life.