Would it be 'wrong' to choose to be gay?

[AcademicPistol]

I think it's the gay incest that's the problem Rufus.

[fred quimby]

And what is so wrong with incest?

[kaosmark2]

And what is so wrong with incest?

[feral chile]

Gay marriage compared to incest by Tory MP

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/28/exclusive-defence-secretary-philip-hammond-links-incest-with-same-sex-marriage/

Edited January 28, 2013 by feral chile

[Guest]

Why are people so bothered about same sex people getting married? What does marriage even mean? You can get divorced so easily and the amount of people who do just makes the whole thing a big joke to me - same sex or not

[feral chile]

There was also some research in the states that showed the divorce rate of people identifying themselves as Christian and getting married in church but not attending church was around 60%, similar to other marriages, but that falls to 38% for regular church goers.

Which is an interesting finding when comparing the role of religon in marriage.

One of many links http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/02/the-christian-divorce-rate/

[feral chile]

Fair enough, came to the conclusion of maybe, maybe not... still interesting stuff though...

[feral chile]

Yes I totally agree although any good Christian network should never turn their back on anyone, but I accept it can happen in some circles. Some very radical christians will totally shun people who get divorced which I found unpalatable The vast majority don't though.

I think Christianity and marriage are a good fit. I personally do not like the civil marriage ceremony personally for many reasons. To me its not a good fit to what marriage (in my eyes) is.

And this then leads me onto gay marriage. To me its not a good fit either for similar reasons. To me marriage is spiritual thing to an extent as much as a commitment. I understand others don't see it this way, that's fair enough.

Personally... I have come to the conclusion that I don't really give a rats arse what civil ceremonies call a gay commitment. Marriage, civil ceremony, whatever... As long as religious organisation are given freedom to not perform them then fine.

[feral chile]

There is so little written about homosexuality in the bible... Lots of chirstains don't view homosexuality as a sin.

Edited February 3, 2013 by feral chile

[Guest]

I will speak up for marriage...

To me it was a commitment made before god which was imprtant.

[feral chile]

Which point ?

[Guest]

Which point ?

[Guest]

I think I was hinting at this in my posts. Marriage and religion goes hand in hand to me and I wasn't surprised to find some data suggesting religious marriage "might" be more successful than none religious marriage.

[Guest]

You reckon ? Believing you are a sinner doesn't really make you happy...

[abdoujaparov]

Christians generally do... As no one can ever be as worthy as god... Every human is flawed to some degree.

[Guest]

It's not just Catholics but yeah, they take it to a crazy level... I can't believe a child is born a sinner.

[eFestivals]

I will speak up for marriage...

But you've not spoken up for same sex marriage, because you oppose it (as you've stated often enough).

And yet everything you say when 'speaking up for marriage' applies no differently to two people of the same sex who get married.

There are sensible justifications for marriage. There are no sensible justifications against same sex marriage outside of bigotry.

To me it was a commitment made before god which was imprtant. It was a public commitment and the people who came to our wedding also took an oath to support us in our commitment. It joins us legally and it

Is it a magic wand to make sure we stay together for the rest of our lives of course not. But it does put hurdles in the way of seperation for sure which can create time for mediation, it also drew in other people into our relationship who made commitments to support us. And it also has implications on the possibility of a future union with someone else. For example our vicar will not marry either of us a second time and other vicars would not.

It was right for us but it doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

[eFestivals]

I don't oppose it... Not as its currently drafted by government.

you might not oppose the law happening, but you are very definitely against the idea of gay marriage (unless your views have changed in the last couple of weeks since you last posted that you were opposed).

But why does the law need drafting so that the CofE and Catholic churches are banned from carrying out gay marriages? It's not needed, because they decide for themselves. It's the law enshrining religious discrimination, and not letting religions discriminate freely by themselves as the bigoted idiots should do.

Edited February 4, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I believe marriage is between a man and women. Simple as that really and it shouldn't be a problem me having that opinion.

how is the gender of any relevance to two people loving each other and making a life-long commitment to each other?

I also don't agree with people taking multiple wives etc. But less people would have a problem with me holding that opinion.

and yet this definition is accepted everywhere as being "marriage", even by those who think that marriage should be about just a man and woman.

Those people "oppose marriage to multiple people" they don't try to claim it as not being marriage!!!

But I don't have a problem with the state doing whatever it wants as long as religion is left to make their own choices.

I personally would be happy for that ban to be lifted and it left to them to decide on their own what to do about it. I was just a lame attempt at keeping backbench Tories onboard.

so why the need to qualify it as "Not as its currently drafted by government"? A simple law that allows gay marriage and lets religions make up their own minds is all that's needed. There's no need to explicitly exclude some religions.

[eFestivals]

Stop asking dumb questions. You know full well that various faith groups view it differently. So they can have a civil marriage if they wish.

those faith groups say that gay couples CAN NOT have a civil marriage.

And yes, I know they view it differently, but that doesn't answer what I asked, which was "how is the gender of any relevance to two people loving each other and making a life-long commitment to each other?"

[eFestivals]

Everywhere ? A lot of people would say its not marriage... Its wrong, and its a sin in some peoples view. I love the way you try to speak for everyone

People say it's wrong and a sin, yes.

But what they do not say is that "it's not marriage". They say it is a marriage that is wrong against the rules of marriage.

Even in UK law it's that. It's "a bigamist marriage", not "a not-marriage".

[eFestivals]

But saying that it was never made an election issue and has just been enforced by the government anyway. So basically, they don't get a say, they don't have power.

they get a say, it's just that few people care what they say.

It didn't need to be an election issue. Everything makes abundantly clear that a clear majority of the country are in favour of it, and there's nothing any church might say that will change that. The opposing churches views count for almost nothing, and those opposing views will die away as the current lot of oldies do.

There's some ideas whose time has come, and this is one of them. There's nothing to discuss, aside from religions showing how out of date they are and that they're marginalising their own membership.

Towards your second point what are you asking... Are you asking for my opinion or that of various religious view points ?

Yours or theirs, it doesn't matter much. The only argument either can present is that marriage has only ever been between a man and woman, a 'fact' that is not a fact because its historically incorrect.

But even if it's only ever been that, it says nothing of what the future decides. Otherwise we might as well submit to every idea of the past, such as slavery being the right thing to do - because at one time it was, and just as with marriage, it should still be by the same logic.

[strummer77]

Really don't see how anybody can be actively 'opposed' to gay marriage like those old Tories protesting. It doesn't effect your life in any way, but they want to stop two other people from being completely happy because being gay doesn't fit with their outdated ideological view of being.

[eFestivals]

Its illegal to marry a second person in the UK... So if you attempt to be married to two people then by definition it is not legal. And a marriage is not a marriage without legal backing. Simple as that really.

Not everyone would call it a marriage. That is for sure. But comrade Neil speaks for us all, so don't know where to go with this.

and yet the legal definition of bigamy shows that as incorrect.

A bigamist marriage cannot legally *stand* as a marriage, but it is still recognised as marriage - otherwise there can be no such thing as bigamy. Bigamy is the act of getting married to a second person, and therefore it does stand as being a marriage in every sense but its right to remain as a marriage.

[eFestivals]

Anyway I have taken the place of worm recently having pointless discussion with someone who reads half a thread and ignores 90% of what has been said. Hence 90% of your recent questions.

So either ask something worthwhile or I get on with my day

it's cos 90% of what you say is very much worth ignoring, else neither of us would ever stop.

Such as last week, when you said that narrowing the wage gap was a commie idea by Neil that no one backs ... except since I've discovered that the commie Barack Obama does, as does the commie who runs the world economic forum and has the commies like Dave Moron, Obama, and the heads of global companies come to his little commie shindig in Davos.