Same Sex Marriages.

[Sunflower49]

It's the changing of definitions will always cause problems, as it and for the gay couples in question as well as other people. (EG definition of marriage changes, grounds for divorce must change--adultery for example means relations with the OPPOSITE sex).

I would be more in favour of an alternative to marriage that holds the same respect and purpose and is viewed in the same way by those institutions it matters to. If civil partnerships are not enough, then something else.
Edited because I forgot to quote;

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Just because everyone is doing something does not make it right.
Just because everyone believes in something...doesn't make that right either.

So true.

My family are very 'anti gay' which has caused issues for me as I have quite a few gay friends , It's nice to view so much open-mindedness on here.

Originally Posted by Eric

ow about "marriage is a union between two idiots who haven't noticed the divorce statistics?" Or the Islamic version: "Marriage is a union between a man and a sub-human punching bag"?

This made me laugh.

[Restless]

Its something I don't really think about much. Since I don't believe in God I see marriage as just a lawful agreement between two living creatures. So I could care less.

Will man and beast gain the rights next?

[Margaret Pilkington]

I have stated that I am not against same sex couples being together......having a partnership.......I am not anti-gay(though I do hate the word 'gay' used to express a same sex relationship).
As Sugarmouse has said, it is the redefining of marriage that I am against.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Restless

Its something I don't really think about much. Since I don't believe in God I see marriage as just a lawful agreement between two living creatures. So I could care less.

Will man and beast gain the rights next?

That is a good question Rob....and it would be in the name of equality....what about polygamy as well.

[tommiasfc]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have stated that I am not against same sex couples being together......having a partnership.......I am not anti-gay(though I do hate the word 'gay' used to express a same sex relationship).
As Sugarmouse has said, it is the redefining of marriage that I am against.

Why???? Who's it going to hurt? Will it effect you? Its changing with the times, the fact you cant have a same sex marrage is just stupid. The world needs to grow up and people should have equal rights and people should stop moaning about things that don't really effect them.

[Sunflower49]

There is always another side to things-i.e how redefining of marriage is just a sign of the times, It's a valid point. But if It's not necessary, and will cause further issues for politics, religion, any institutions involved with marriage at all, then why not just have an alternative arrangement for same sex couples.

As I said before, redefining of marriage results in having to redefine many other meanings of words too-it's complicated and time-consuming and more problems emerge. If we keep 'marriage' to mean what it means, and have another option as an alternative, for same sex couples then why not do that.

[tommiasfc]

Originally Posted by sugarmouse0707

There is always another side to things-i.e how redefining of marriage is just a sign of the times, It's a valid point. But if It's not necessary, and will cause further issues for politics, religion, any institutions involved with marriage at all, then why not just have an alternative arrangement for same sex couples.

As I said before, redefining of marriage results in having to redefine many other meanings of words too-it's complicated and time-consuming and more problems emerge. If we keep 'marriage' to mean what it means, and have another option as an alternative, for same sex couples then why not do that.

Same sex marriage has happened before. Same sex couples have a civil partnership but why not marriage? I cant see the harm

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by tommiasfc

Same sex marriage has happened before. Same sex couples have a civil partnership but why not marriage? I cant see the harm

Neither can I, if this makes people feel better about their relationship why stand in their way, its hurting nobody else is it

[Eric]

Originally Posted by sugarmouse0707

There is always another side to things-i.e how redefining of marriage is just a sign of the times, It's a valid point. But if It's not necessary, and will cause further issues for politics, religion, any institutions involved with marriage at all, then why not just have an alternative arrangement for same sex couples.

As I said before, redefining of marriage results in having to redefine many other meanings of words too-it's complicated and time-consuming and more problems emerge. If we keep 'marriage' to mean what it means, and have another option as an alternative, for same sex couples then why not do that.

We ... as in individuals, governments, churches ... do not, and cannot redefine marriage. It redifines itself in order to become compatible with human society which, like certain viruses, continually mutates and evolves. Problem seems to be that certain attitudes don't change at the same rate; or, in some societies, extreme Islamic ones come to mind, don't change at all.

Maybe one could, if one is interested, try to come to some understanding of why the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman came to be. I would start off, and this is a personal, maybe idiot-syncratic notion, that it's all about sex, and the male fear of, or discomfort with female sexuality. This shows itself in female circumcision, sharia law, Pauline injunctions ... I think it was in one of his e-mails to the Corinthians, but I'm still not using google ... on the line of it is better to marry than to burn. Throw in the economic and political needs of a ruling class based on inheritance, and voila! We have the beginning of marriage as we know it.

"The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" by Lawrence Stone is, though a little dated, still a good background read for anyone interested in exploring the topic. If not, it makes a good solid coaster for a pint of beer.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by tommiasfc

Why???? Who's it going to hurt? Will it effect you? Its changing with the times, the fact you cant have a same sex marrage is just stupid. The world needs to grow up and people should have equal rights and people should stop moaning about things that don't really effect them.

Just think about the question you have asked......put a few thought processes together and work it out.

[tommiasfc]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Just think about the question you have asked......put a few thought processes together and work it out.

Why don't you answer questions? Are you related to cmon? Seems like it with the random meaningless stuff you spout

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by tommiasfc

Why???? Who's it going to hurt? Will it effect you?

If you read all of my posts to this thread, I think I have explained myself fully and quite clearly. If you don't get my point of view then you don't get it.
I can see the implications, but you obviously cannot.

I am not alone in my views, there are hundreds of thousands of people who feel the same.....but this situation is a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes.......everyone will go along with it because they think it is the opinion to have(or maybe they just don't think at all - they accept all that they are told)....because everyone else seems to think it is fine....no harm in it...in fact, if you state a different view about homosexual marriage, you are castigated and derided(sometimes openly, other times by implication)....like there can only be one opinion...one point of view.
My point of view is different to yours...but I can live with that. So.... it seems, that the debate is over.

[tommiasfc]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

You might have a sham marriage, a loveless marriage, a shotgum marriage.

But you might have loved a person for 20 years but there the same sex so in that case 'no marriage'

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

What I do not agree with, is the wording of the draft bill which will change the denomination 'Husband and Wife' to 'Parties in Marriage' .

A couple of changed words oh wow!!!!

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am not homophobic, but I can't see why marriage is necessary(especially seeing as it won't be in church).

Marriage goes way back before the church so not relevant.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

They are going to change the rules(and terminology relating to marriage) for the majority, and this is being done to suit a minority......so as not to offend the minority.......and if you ask same sex couples what they think of it, I think that many would say this new legislation is crazy.

YOU THINK!!! So you've not asked anyone you're just assuming.

[Sunflower49]

Originally Posted by Eric

We ... as in individuals, governments, churches ... do not, and cannot redefine marriage. It redifines itself in order to become compatible with human society which, like certain viruses, continually mutates and evolves. Problem seems to be that certain attitudes don't change at the same rate; or, in some societies, extreme Islamic ones come to mind, don't change at all.

Maybe one could, if one is interested, try to come to some understanding of why the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman came to be. I would start off, and this is a personal, maybe idiot-syncratic notion, that it's all about sex, and the male fear of, or discomfort with female sexuality. This shows itself in female circumcision, sharia law, Pauline injunctions ... I think it was in one of his e-mails to the Corinthians, but I'm still not using google ... on the line of it is better to marry than to burn. Throw in the economic and political needs of a ruling class based on inheritance, and voila! We have the beginning of marriage as we know it.

"The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" by Lawrence Stone is, though a little dated, still a good background read for anyone interested in exploring the topic. If not, it makes a good solid coaster for a pint of beer.

I agree with all that's said here Eric. I drank far too much at university (who am I kidding I still do!) to remember all I read regards marriage, but the basics I concluded-you're pretty much right.

I am interested, but not enough-if you get me. If I was actually going to get married sometime soon, or thinking about it-or going to pursue a career related to marriage, I would.

I am also one of those caustic annoying people who always notes that everything comes down to sex when all's said and done-that marriage does, is one of the more obvious ones. It does go back further than any noted church, marriage is as old as civilisation from what I understand.
I may have a quick flick through google.

Regards this discussion, I've said pretty much what I want to say. I think it would be a better option to have an alternative to marriage for gay couples than to have them as one and the same as straight couples, but again, I can be a bit nostalgic-times change, things change.

I am not married, nor interested in marriage at the moment so my bum isn't hurting so much from sitting on the fence regards it all. I want society to accept gay people as equal in their human rights to straight people-but I don't think 'Equal To' means 'The Same As', and I don't think it has to in this case.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think...when used in this context means it is my opinion.
And taking quotes out of context is a way of fudging the discussion...as I have said......so many times.......I do not care what goes on is same sex partnerships....I have no issue with homosexuality........and same sex partnerships were put on an equal legal footing with the inception of civil partnerships.

The terminology changes may not be important for you, but for me they are.......and although you see them as just words, it is the implications behind those words which are important.

As I have previously said, derision(which you have openly used in your last post) is the weapon used to stifle any discussion or debate...and as I have also said....the debate is over...finished.