Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Obama becomes the first president in history
- Thread starter pastafarian
- Start date
Glenn-Murray
Banned
- Jun 24, 2011
- 1,808
This bit. If it's in law it is CLEARLY forcing others to accept their view. The way I see it, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in a Christian church that rejects gay marriage. It goes against the laws of their magic book. However, they should be allowed all of the same rights as a "normal" married couple.
They can't have the magic God bit, because that magic God apparently hates them and the priest does too. What they can have is all the stuff that actually matters, like the financial benefits etc.
The religious angle is besides the point. If you're gay and a Christian you need your head examined.
NMH
Banned
Dandyman
In London village.
I have no idea what the rules are in Convict Land but in England the 1949 Marriage Act states:
Marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the following marriages may be solemnized on the authority of [F1two certificates] of a superintendent registrar—
(a)a marriage in a registered building according to such form and ceremony as the persons to be married see fit to adopt;
(b)a marriage in the office of a superintendent registrar;
[F2(bb)a marriage on approved premises;]
(c)a marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers);
(d)a marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews;
[F3(dd)the marriage (other than a marriage in pursuance of paragraph (c) or (d) above) of a person who is house-bound or is a detained person at the place where he or she usually resides;]
(e)a marriage according to the rites of the Church of England [F4in any church or chapel in which banns of matrimony may be published
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Who wants to deny gays a marriage? (although technically it's not a right, because nobody has a right to a service that will have to be provided by the labor of another human being. If a person has a right to be married, the priest must be forced to marry that person even against their will, or else be denying them something they have a right to. Rights don't work like that).
But nobody wants to deny gays the right to be together, or share whatever benefits are available to spousal couples. The force that is really in question here is that of a gay couple forcing others recognise their union in a particular way. It's like positive discrimination, and that to me is no better than discrimination.
Presumptive Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney wants to. North Carolina, and the numerous states enacting laws limiting marriage want to deny gays marriage.
They want to limit marriage to just between a man and a woman, and not extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. The discrimination is against anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex. They are being denied having their relationship acknowledged in law due to its nature. It has nothing to do with "positive discrimination".
Last edited:
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
When you say "they" you cannot be including Ron Paul, who wants the individual states to decide on a community by community basis, his personal viewpoint being that the government should have no involvement in marriage (but he also understands that his constitutional obligation as president is not to legislate his moral values onto others but to preserve liberty).
I edited and clarified while you were replying.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
NMH
Banned
No no, I am not claiming they are a "different species" at all. What I am saying is that for two people of the same sex to combine in marriage is tantamount to a marriage of a man or woman, to a goat or horse. It's my regard that marriage wasn't supposed to be used for any of those unions.
I am not comparing humans to other species - I am comparing the situations with marriage involved.
IF as is stated by other posters, the marriage provides for these couples to enjoy financial benefits, then I have the issue with that too - because I don't see marriage as being for that purpose either, that's just socially acceded benefits for what has become a 'family unit', but does not relate to the union/bond as I see it.
NMH
Banned
Yes, I was aware of that too. Since the animal will be a partner of a sort, without objection let's imagine - then why try to explain to the animal what a marriage even is? They can't relate to it and it doesn't relate to them..... and that last part is why I compared the situations, because I do not see that marriage relates to homosexuals any more than it ought to for a union between a human and a donkey.
Yes I know that some will ridicule that point of view if they want marriage to be all inclusive, but then I find the idea of marriage between gays to be ridiculous.
My My, reading all of this people are getting their knickers in a twist!
Marriage = over 2,000 years of belief and religion in the 'definition' being couples that can procreate for the species.
No argument. No nothing. History and it's teaching tell us all, in any country, at any time, that 'Marriage' as a definition is between procreating partners without the help of scientific aid to be surrogates. FACT
Who is forcing their argument on whom here
? after 2,000 years+?
I aint no homophobe, I'll be right up straight..... I'll enjoy anything if its good!
However, the word 'Gay' has already been hijacked and now the meaning of 'Marriage'!
Be happy to lobby for same sex couples rights to be the same as hetro couples in law, fair do but, not under religious definition.
That, for me, is riding over the edge under the definition of hypocrisy!
Marriage = over 2,000 years of belief and religion in the 'definition' being couples that can procreate for the species.
No argument. No nothing. History and it's teaching tell us all, in any country, at any time, that 'Marriage' as a definition is between procreating partners without the help of scientific aid to be surrogates. FACT
Who is forcing their argument on whom here
? after 2,000 years+?I aint no homophobe, I'll be right up straight..... I'll enjoy anything if its good!
However, the word 'Gay' has already been hijacked and now the meaning of 'Marriage'!
Be happy to lobby for same sex couples rights to be the same as hetro couples in law, fair do but, not under religious definition.
That, for me, is riding over the edge under the definition of hypocrisy!
Last edited:
NMH
Banned
Why, what's that got to do with anything?
It has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
NMH
Banned
Ron Paul is good at pointing fingers, but his political-speak doesn't even relate to anything. What are the Government "forcing" on people, and what would HE do? None of that gibbering he exuded has actually said anything about either.
Just a personal curiosity really.
I'd guess you're quite old though as in general its the older generation who hold such intolerant views as you've expressed.
Of course the upside of that is that as they die out their views die with them, they are replaced by a younger generation who are in general more tolerant and over time the world becomes a better place as a result.
Its much the same as with racism, sexism etc...a key part of why attitudes towards these have changed over the last few decades is that the owners of the more 'traditional', intransigent attitudes have literally died out and the younger generation are more used to, and accepting of, the diverse world into which they are being born.
It's nothing personal at all, just human evolution at work.
Last edited:
Buffalo Seagull
Active member
My My, reading all of this people are getting their knickers in a twist!
Marriage = over 2,000 years of belief and religion in the 'definition' being couples that can procreate for the species.
No argument. No nothing. History and it's teaching tell us all, in any country, at any time, that 'Marriage' as a definition is between procreating partners without the help of scientific aid to be surrogates. FACT
Who is forcing their argument on whom here
I aint no homophobe, I'll be right up straight..... I'll enjoy anything if its good!
However, the word 'Gay' has already been hijacked and now the meaning of 'Marriage'!
Be happy to lobby for same sex couples rights to be the same as hetro couples in law, fair do but, not under religious definition.
That, for me, is riding over the edge under the definition of hypocrisy!
So you're saying that you don't think atheists or people who can't conceive children should be allowed to get married either?