Gay Marriage - The Vote

[goldstone]

Surely our nation has more pressing matters to resolve than this irrelevance.

100% to the point.

 

[spring hall convert]

Religion doesn't make it ok to be homo (or anything else)-phobic. In fact quite the opposite.

Presuming "the book in question" and its accuracy is the Bible - haven't read the whole thread, but this has already been done to death on other threads. Christians are not forced to believe in evolution, and I would hazard a guess tham most don't. As an adherent of that faith - and a qualified preacher - I recognise that the evolution story in the Bible is just that (for me) a story.

And personally I think there are much more important things for the Church to worry about than Gay Marriage, which personally i do not object to - poverty? people being clobbered by benefits reform? Third world issues? etc etc etc.

David, you seem a sensible chap, can you at least read the post I quoted because we were dealing with one of "the bible says it, it must be true." I am fully aware that faith comes in all shapes and sizes, which is what really frustrates me about the "marriage is between a man and a woman," types.

Amen to your second point. It's no use whingeing about the country becoming more secular, the Church needs to make a far bigger effort to engage with people on issues that they can have a compassionate voice on rather than coming across all Jurassic Park.

 

[silent-assasin]

Do what ever makes you happy.

Hmmmm sure you wouldn't say this to a peodophile?!

 

[clapham_gull]

If anyone is against on religious grounds I can respect that, but many many people like myself got married outside of Church.

Can I ask those who disagree on religious grounds a simple question...

Do you consider a heterosexual couple married in registry office "not really married..." ?

 

[skipper734]

I voted No. Not for any anti-gay reason I just wasn't sure how it could work. I asked a couple of questions earlier, didn't get an answer. Got insulted a few times by some of the yes mob, tarring everyone that said no with the same brush.
I am of the opinion that most of the yessers appear to have been conned by Dave. The only meaningful change has been to add the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract. Whilst specifically prohibiting this ceremony taking place in an Anglican Church, a prohibition that wasn't there before.
Marriage in this country is a function of the state, it allows the Church to take part. The Churchman officiating has a dual roll as a civic and church representative.
So there will still be an inequality between a Register Office or Licensed Public Place Wedding and a Church Wedding.

 

[The Large One]

I voted No. Not for any anti-gay reason I just wasn't sure how it could work. I asked a couple of questions earlier, didn't get an answer. Got insulted a few times by some of the yes mob, tarring everyone that said no with the same brush.
I am of the opinion that most of the yessers appear to have been conned by Dave. The only meaningful change has been to add the word Marriage instead of Civil Contract. Whilst specifically prohibiting this ceremony taking place in an Anglican Church, a prohibition that wasn't there before.
Marriage in this country is a function of the state, it allows the Church to take part. The Churchman officiating has a dual roll as a civic and church representative.
So there will still be an inequality between a Register Office or Licensed Public Place Wedding and a Church Wedding.

No, most of the 'yessers' believe in the concept of equality, and a fair whack of them would certainly not have taken their lead from - of al people - him.

 

[skipper734]

No, most of the 'yessers' believe in the concept of equality, and a fair whack of them would certainly not have taken their lead from - of al people - him.

Sorry I don't know how to identify anyone else in Government who is trying to get this bill through. So whether you like it or not, you are on Dave's side in this, and incidentally so am I.

 

[banjo]

Hmmmm sure you wouldn't say this to a peodophile?!

Correct.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

David, you seem a sensible chap, can you at least read the post I quoted because we were dealing with one of "the bible says it, it must be true." I am fully aware that faith comes in all shapes and sizes, which is what really frustrates me about the "marriage is between a man and a woman," types.

Amen to your second point. It's no use whingeing about the country becoming more secular, the Church needs to make a far bigger effort to engage with people on issues that they can have a compassionate voice on rather than coming across all Jurassic Park.

You seem a sensible chap, too.

I had read the original post you quoted, and was not trying to imply any unreasonableness on your part - quite the opposite, as I had the impression you were that reasonable chap responding to an unreasonable "Christian" poster. I felt fairly dismayed at the post to which you were replying, which I guess you did, too.

 

[drew]

Try this one.

If you believe in God, you will believe that he made man and woman. You will further believe that the reason for marriage is to create a holy union to be blessed with children.

Whilst I can understand the need for some pairs of blokes or women to show their devotion for one another in a civil partnership, surely what they do has nothing to do with the intentions of a Christian marriage?

If that is the religious stand point, then why do they allow the marriage of infertile couples or even the marriage of octogenerians who are incapable of physically having children. The religious arguments are a complete sham to hide their bigotry.

What the f*** are you banging on about. It is about the state (law) trying to impose something on the Church. If the state wish to let gays get married, then they should only be able to allow a civil wedding to be legislated for.

Call me Dave has no mandate to push this through, and he is out of order trying.

If they wish to change the name from Civil Partnership, then fine. But it must not have anything to do with the Church.

I haven't read the whole thread but I assume you now accept that no church is being forced to marry gay couples. However, you should also accept that there are some churches that are wiling to undertake same sex marriages.


As regards the general stance of the church, they are always ready to bang on about why god created man and woman and often quote from the bible when it suits them. If you take that as your 'gospel' then the bible teaches incest because if Adam and Eve were the first couple then their grandchildren would have been the offspring of siblings. If god did not want to encourage incest then why didn't he create more than one couple which presumably was within his alleged powers.

They also make many quotes from the old testament to support the anti gay stance. However where does that actually leave them when it comes to their hero jesus. The old testament bangs on about 'an eye for an eye' but jesus tells everyone to forgive and turn the other cheek. So many contradictions it must give the believers headaches.

 

[stripeyshark]

Last point on this. I thought the MP discussing incest marriage in parliament was absolutely hilarious.

 

[HovaGirl]

I don't care if a man and a man want to get married or a woman and a woman want to get married. They should, for will purposes has the same rights as a same sex couple who are married. ie: if one of them should die the partner should 'get everything'.

I did however think that was what a civil partnership was?

I don't think any religion should be forced to do it. Nor should they be banned. It’s up to that religion not the state.

Quite agree. It's up to each Faith to decide whether they want to marry gay couples. Otherwise, civil marriages in front of a registrar should fit the bill.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Apparently Norman Baker failed to vote YES in the parliamentary vote.

 

[Mental Lental]

Gay marriage - Yes.

Gay adoption - No.

 

[Nibble]

2 things.

If God created everything, he created gays.

And for those of you who say marriage is for a male and female to reproduce should those who do not intend to have children or who medically cannot have children be allowed to marry? By your logic it's a no.

 

[sydney]

i voted no simply because i am an antagonistic twatt.......i honestly don't care if gays get married or not...it really is a non issue and a distraction from more important issues.

after living in sydney for nearly 20 years i actully had a few gay mates both english and ozzy.......not the screaming,mincing type but the sensible understated type who just happened to be attracted to their own gender.

fill yer boots i reckon.........

 

[HovaGirl]

As long as it made them happy. Why would I want a child of mine living a lie just in order to keep me happy? Isn't that the antithesis of what a parent wants?

People have lived a lie for millennia, just to keep the peace. Think of all those people who couldn't get divorced, or marry whom they wanted, or marry at all. Think of all those people who couldn't do the career they wanted because they were the wrong gender or the wrong class. Think of history. History is the stories of millions of people living lives they didn't want. This generation, though, is a special generation, and thinks it should have whatever it wants, whenever it wants. But if this generation surfs the net to find out what's happening in the rest of the world, they will find billions of people living a lie, living lives they don't want.

 

[Twizzle]

Mankind makes up some really stupid shit. Marriage is stupid, gay marriage is even more so.
Why the obsession with marriage if people have decided to reject reproductive nature and the opposite sex in the first place?
If it's about tax breaks or other red tape- how about there being the same breaks for single/unmarried people?
All this crap to waste government time on, they waste enough taxpayer money as it is.

 

[BadFish]

Gay marriage - Yes.

Gay adoption - No.

Why not?

 

[Insel affe]

question

If this bill is passed and Gay marriage is allowed, which I believe it ultimately will Churches will not be able to refuse a gay marriage based on discrimination one would asume yes ?

My main thought is I can see Christian churches even if begrudgingly obeying the law, However I would assume you would have a cat in hells chance of getting married in a mosque. How is that fair on Christians who oppose and believe their christian values (does not matter if we beieve in god or not they do) and this proposal are wrong and have to let gay marriage go ahead in their church, while the mosque over the road will be laughing their heads off thinking western culture has ultimatly killed the church.

just a question like.