planetf1.com

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Balibari wrote: Are we agreed that some form of official union is desirable in a society like ours? I can't produce evidence to support my view but I think it's a good thing. That given, it seems to me a purely legal ceremony should be the default, with those belonging to whatever religion having a subsequent religous ceremony in order to ratify the union in the eyes of their god, fellow believers etc. The key to this would seem to be to eliminate the stranglehold that Christian dogma has on the concept of marriage, at least here in the UK. Every wedding I've been to (except my own) had some religious element or another, regardless of the beliefs of the betrothed. But the word marriage will always be the important term here. To let the religious 'keep it' seems unfair, they don't own it. The fairest solution seems to me to clearly define marriage as a legal union between two (or more...?) people, and let religious groups come up with their own terms for the subsequent, specialist ceremonies.

I think the state should be responsible solely for legal union (whether we call it 'marriage' , 'unions' , 'Peopleglue' or whatever) and that is the only thing that counts.

Religions are then free to 'bless' relationships, with or without the legal union, but it is just window decoration. The religious organisations can call this what they want too, if they can call it 'marriage' or whatever, it's equally meaningless in the law. If their faith is important to them, then it will carry more weight with them, but it will have no legal implications at all.

Perfect. This is essentially what Buddhists do, and they seem a generally chipper lot. Buddhism sees marriage as a secular matter and followers simply adhere to the laws relating to marriage in whichever country they live. So a Buddhist wedding in the UK would be no different to a civil ceremony with no religious content whatsoever. Afterwards it's common to have a separate ceremony at a temple, a sort of blessing, conducted by monks, but it's entirely voluntary and has no legal aspects. In other words there are two distinct ceremonies, one purely legal (and deemed more important), the other purely religious.

Kolby wrote: Asked with difficult questions? The only reason why I didn't reply to your questions either it was about God or Taliban or anything else because I see no further need for me to extend a debate because we can't agree with each other and it's a waste of both of our times. No matter how I provide evidence, you would ultimately reject it and remain ignorant about it and that is fine but please don't attack me personally publicly. If you or anyone else doesn't believe in God or anything I say which clarify something important that is fine, you are not the first person to do not believe in God nor was Richard Dawkins the first nor was Karl Marx because people have disbelieved in God or become an atheist or whatever since the beginning of time what makes you o so special becoming an atheist in the 21st century?

I think you have a very different idea of what the word 'evidence' means. If you post in a public forum about a sensitive topic, you should expect backlash. Any decent discussion needs two parties, and if one party abruptly stops being a part it is fair to call them a deserter. It also looks like you are under the impression that atheists 'worship' or 'idolize' skeptics such as Dawkins, Hitchens or whoever else. This is simply not true. I find Dawkins' works inspiring and I like him because I am also a biologist, that does not mean he or I are special.

As a sidenote, no one believed in God since the beginning of time. The oldest Gods surfaced 13.4 billions after the 'beginning of time' and 2.4 million years after the first humanoid creatures evolved. It is safe to say there were exponentially more atheists than theists in human history.

Not all, except for the Qur'an but we do believe it was sent down to mankind but man themselves corrupted it so the Qur'an is the only book that contains the true word of Allah(god) up to this date. I agree that there are people who interpret the relevant passages in different ways to homophobic ones, but they wouldn't be the first nor would they be the last to misinterpret what the Qur'an is saying because we have a translation that is accepted by the Majority of Islamic school of thought and any single minor misinterpretation can be noticed. Btw I will answer the above questions you had at another time.

Are you saying the Qu'ran has not been corrupted by man? Why didn't God make the Qu'ran unambiguous? Why should one rely on some school of thought if the Qu'ran is supposedly perfect? Who decides that something is a misinterpretation?

Balibari wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Balibari wrote: Are we agreed that some form of official union is desirable in a society like ours? I can't produce evidence to support my view but I think it's a good thing. That given, it seems to me a purely legal ceremony should be the default, with those belonging to whatever religion having a subsequent religous ceremony in order to ratify the union in the eyes of their god, fellow believers etc. The key to this would seem to be to eliminate the stranglehold that Christian dogma has on the concept of marriage, at least here in the UK. Every wedding I've been to (except my own) had some religious element or another, regardless of the beliefs of the betrothed. But the word marriage will always be the important term here. To let the religious 'keep it' seems unfair, they don't own it. The fairest solution seems to me to clearly define marriage as a legal union between two (or more...?) people, and let religious groups come up with their own terms for the subsequent, specialist ceremonies.

I think the state should be responsible solely for legal union (whether we call it 'marriage' , 'unions' , 'Peopleglue' or whatever) and that is the only thing that counts.

Religions are then free to 'bless' relationships, with or without the legal union, but it is just window decoration. The religious organisations can call this what they want too, if they can call it 'marriage' or whatever, it's equally meaningless in the law. If their faith is important to them, then it will carry more weight with them, but it will have no legal implications at all.

Perfect. This is essentially what Buddhists do, and they seem a generally chipper lot. Buddhism sees marriage as a secular matter and followers simply adhere to the laws relating to marriage in whichever country they live. So a Buddhist wedding in the UK would be no different to a civil ceremony with no religious content whatsoever. Afterwards it's common to have a separate ceremony at a temple, a sort of blessing, conducted by monks, but it's entirely voluntary and has no legal aspects. In other words there are two distinct ceremonies, one purely legal (and deemed more important), the other purely religious.

It's what a lot of religions without the religious leader having been given the legal right to perform a marriage in the eyes of the law do. I've been to a number of pagan handfastings and the couples involved have had their handfasting and then a separate civil ceremony to make it legal. (which is good as it means 2 parties!)

So I guess if other people do this it would just be a case of christians, or whoever else, to get used to the idea as well.

Balibari wrote:

minchy wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Balibari wrote: But the point many homosexuals make is that they want the same, not their own version of. A new union/word/concept would not satisfy that demand. I understand what you're saying and it wouldn't matter to me, but it does to many of those in question. So the issue remains, is it justifiable to deny the majority (most people in the UK are in favour of gay marriage) something that does nobody any harm, simply to avoid offending the sensibilities of a minority?

For what it's worth, I don't see any moral obligation to approve of gay marriage, I'm just interest in the logic and reasoning behind both sides of the debate.

I'm talking about abolishing marriage for everyone and creating a new thing for everyone.

I can see marriage being abolished by the state, but not religion. So that would bring us back to marriage actually being a solely religious thing and everyone else would need a civil partnership (I really don't see the point of getting a new name or starting anything new for something that already exists) as that is basically what registry office or non-religious registrar marriages are anyway.

I can also foresee a large number of issues ensuring this line of thinking.

Are we agreed that some form of official union is desirable in a society like ours? I can't produce evidence to support my view but I think it's a good thing. That given, it seems to me a purely legal ceremony should be the default, with those belonging to whatever religion having a subsequent religous ceremony in order to ratify the union in the eyes of their god, fellow believers etc. The key to this would seem to be to eliminate the stranglehold that Christian dogma has on the concept of marriage, at least here in the UK. Every wedding I've been to (except my own) had some religious element or another, regardless of the beliefs of the betrothed. But the word marriage will always be the important term here. To let the religious 'keep it' seems unfair, they don't own it. The fairest solution seems to me to clearly define marriage as a legal union between two (or more...?) people, and let religious groups come up with their own terms for the subsequent, specialist ceremonies.

If I understand things correctly, that is the situation now. Marriage is a civil institution (which gives various rights and privileges to the couple), not a religious one.

The UK grants licences to various places and individuals, allowing them to carry out marriage services. Among those it gives licences to, are churches, and ministers.

And this is where the conflict is likely to arise. Any changes in the law will mean that religious bodies will have to carry any marriage which is legal in this country. They will not be allowed to object on religious grounds. Technically, churches carry out two services at the same time - the civil (legal) one, and a religious one. They don't have to - they could carry out a civil ceremony, and then follow on with a religious one - it's just that they have traditionally chosen to do it that way. The religious element in all church weddings, has no legal bearing whatsoever.

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: but marriage should be a man and a woman

Why?

Just my personal opinion on the matter.

Does a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married have at impact on your life at all though? Because if not then it really shouldn't bother you if they get married or not. It is their personal life, they should be allowed to live it as they wish.

Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

Tyrrellforever wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: but marriage should be a man and a woman

Why?

Just my personal opinion on the matter.

Does a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married have at impact on your life at all though? Because if not then it really shouldn't bother you if they get married or not. It is their personal life, they should be allowed to live it as they wish.

Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote:
Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

I'm with Laura here. Not so much that your opinion is horsecrap, but there must be a reason for your opinion.

Kolby has given his (or her, sorry I don't know which) reason for his opinion which he believes is based on his religion, although he hasn't said why his religious opinions should affect others of different or no religions. In order for your opinion to hold any ground, you should be able put forward your reasons behind it as Laura has put forward her reasons why she thinks it is a bad opinion to have, i.e. you are singling out a group of people when their decision will not affect you. I won't say it's a wrong opinion or horsecrap if you can give us your reason behind it. I can respect Kolby's opinion even if I don't agree with it, but not so much yours if no reason is given

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

I'm sure you don't mean it, but were you aware that your response might come across to some people as quite rude and aggressive?
The OP never asked people to justify their opinions, so demanding one, particularly when you yourself say people should be allowed to live their lives as they wish, seems rather inappropriate.

Toby. wrote:I don't want a huge debate about the morality of it all, so leave any aggressive criticisms at the door. The request is simple: Would you vote for or against same-sex marriage if you were given the opportunity?

People's opinions are often simply based on how they feel, rather than some deep intellectual thought process, so justifying or explaining then isn't always necessarily possible - it's just how they feel.
Bearing in mind we are to a large extent the product of our environment, people can't just simply choose how they feel about things, and although you can modify your behaviour or learn to think about things in a different way, changing your underlying feelings is going to be a lot more difficult.

Not trying to justify his opinion for him - just saying.


Out of interest, one of my wife's friends got married last year (she only told people she was lesbian a few months before - everyone knew already anyway), there was no fuss or drama, they went to the registry office, signed all the paperwork, and as far as they're concerned they're now married - doesn't matter what the correct legal term is, they think they're married.

Argentum wrote:

Balibari wrote:

minchy wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Balibari wrote: But the point many homosexuals make is that they want the same, not their own version of. A new union/word/concept would not satisfy that demand. I understand what you're saying and it wouldn't matter to me, but it does to many of those in question. So the issue remains, is it justifiable to deny the majority (most people in the UK are in favour of gay marriage) something that does nobody any harm, simply to avoid offending the sensibilities of a minority?

For what it's worth, I don't see any moral obligation to approve of gay marriage, I'm just interest in the logic and reasoning behind both sides of the debate.

I'm talking about abolishing marriage for everyone and creating a new thing for everyone.

I can see marriage being abolished by the state, but not religion. So that would bring us back to marriage actually being a solely religious thing and everyone else would need a civil partnership (I really don't see the point of getting a new name or starting anything new for something that already exists) as that is basically what registry office or non-religious registrar marriages are anyway.

I can also foresee a large number of issues ensuring this line of thinking.

Are we agreed that some form of official union is desirable in a society like ours? I can't produce evidence to support my view but I think it's a good thing. That given, it seems to me a purely legal ceremony should be the default, with those belonging to whatever religion having a subsequent religous ceremony in order to ratify the union in the eyes of their god, fellow believers etc. The key to this would seem to be to eliminate the stranglehold that Christian dogma has on the concept of marriage, at least here in the UK. Every wedding I've been to (except my own) had some religious element or another, regardless of the beliefs of the betrothed. But the word marriage will always be the important term here. To let the religious 'keep it' seems unfair, they don't own it. The fairest solution seems to me to clearly define marriage as a legal union between two (or more...?) people, and let religious groups come up with their own terms for the subsequent, specialist ceremonies.

If I understand things correctly, that is the situation now. Marriage is a civil institution (which gives various rights and privileges to the couple), not a religious one.

The UK grants licences to various places and individuals, allowing them to carry out marriage services. Among those it gives licences to, are churches, and ministers.

And this is where the conflict is likely to arise. Any changes in the law will mean that religious bodies will have to carry any marriage which is legal in this country. They will not be allowed to object on religious grounds. Technically, churches carry out two services at the same time - the civil (legal) one, and a religious one. They don't have to - they could carry out a civil ceremony, and then follow on with a religious one - it's just that they have traditionally chosen to do it that way. The religious element in all church weddings, has no legal bearing whatsoever.

Yes but I think there's a gap between the technical and practical definition of weddings. The problem (in my eyes) is that the church has effectively hijacked the whole concept, perhaps a hangover from days when almost everyone would have had a religious ceremony. Here in the UK, when you think of marriage I think most of us picture a church, a vicar, talk of god blessing the union etc. etc. In my ideal world that process would not be the practical definition of marriage, but an additional and specifically Christian blessing.

The problems you mention are similar to those in areas such as adoption and education. Many Christian organisations choose to exclude certain groups they don't approve from the adoption process, and of course are famous for doing the same in 'their' schools (even though they're state funded). These are patently illegal practices, regardless of the scandalous morality they display. But in many cases they're allowed to get away with it. Apparently it's more important to avoid offending bigots than ensuring equality. I assume that when gay marriage is enshrined in law there will be some sort of get out clause, either official or unofficial, for the godly.

Jimbox01 wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

I'm sure you don't mean it, but were you aware that your response might come across to some people as quite rude and aggressive?
The OP never asked people to justify their opinions, so demanding one, particularly when you yourself say people should be allowed to live their lives as they wish, seems rather inappropriate.

Toby. wrote:I don't want a huge debate about the morality of it all, so leave any aggressive criticisms at the door. The request is simple: Would you vote for or against same-sex marriage if you were given the opportunity?

People's opinions are often simply based on how they feel, rather than some deep intellectual thought process, so justifying or explaining then isn't always necessarily possible - it's just how they feel.
Bearing in mind we are to a large extent the product of our environment, people can't just simply choose how they feel about things, and although you can modify your behaviour or learn to think about things in a different way, changing your underlying feelings is going to be a lot more difficult.

Not trying to justify his opinion for him - just saying.


Out of interest, one of my wife's friends got married last year (she only told people she was lesbian a few months before - everyone knew already anyway), there was no fuss or drama, they went to the registry office, signed all the paperwork, and as far as they're concerned they're now married - doesn't matter what the correct legal term is, they think they're married.

I can have respect for a homophobe who states his belief on this subject and then simply say's: I think this because I am uncomfortable with homosexuality. People generally can't choose how they feel about something like this and should have the right to feel however they do, regardless of how abhorrent you or I think that opinion is. Most homophobes just don't like the idea of homosexuality, they don't all spread hate or oppress people. But they can choose whether they're honest about it, and they can choose whether they act upon any negative opinions. One of my closest friends is homophobic (tricking him into sharing a hotel bed with another friend he didn't know was gay produced some of the funniest results I've ever seen), he's thoroughly decent in all other ways but was unfortunate to grow up in a homophobic environment and seems not to have the ability to get past it. You'd never know it.

But I have far less respect for people who try and use religious dogma and false scare stories etc. to try and justify an innate homophobia.

If Tyrrell just said: 'look, I'm simply a bit homophobic', I'd respect him considerably. It would be bloody brave apart from anything else.

Kolby wrote:

A Muslim, with a tendency to desert threads when asked difficult questions.

Asked with difficult questions? The only reason why I didn't reply to your questions either it was about God or Taliban or anything else because I see no further need for me to extend a debate because we can't agree with each other and it's a waste of both of our times. No matter how I provide evidence, you would ultimately reject it and remain ignorant about it and that is fine but please don't attack me personally publicly. If you or anyone else doesn't believe in God or anything I say which clarify something important that is fine, you are not the first person to do not believe in God nor was Richard Dawkins the first nor was Karl Marx because people have disbelieved in God or become an atheist or whatever since the beginning of time what makes you o so special becoming an atheist in the 21st century?

That's presumptuous of you, you assume that I would reject an answer and so use that as an excuse to not answer. It's fine to say that you don't know or that you don't want to answer, but please don't blame the question or questioner for being curious. The meaning of 'ignorant' is to lack knowledge, so how would I remain ignorant if I gain knowledge? How am I to lose my ignorance (which is actually implicit, seeing as I'm asking questions,) if others refuse to help me become aware of something? The fact that I am ignorant of things is why I ask questions. Stating something to the effect of: "You're don't know the answer, so I won't tell you" isn't helpful, and is a logically flawed response. I can't see how this is anything other than an ad hominem response.
And it wasn't an attack, simply stating an observation. Examples:

Banana Man wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

...How would you feel about a marriage which wasn't based on religion.

minchy wrote:

Kolby wrote:Against! A marriage should occur between a man and a woman simply because that is human nature and how we are created by the one God.

...But what about those who do not share your beliefs, should they be forced to adhere to something because a religion they do not believe in/are not a member of says so?

And also all of Balibari's

Lastly, I never claimed that I was the first atheist, nor that I was special to be so. I don't understand why you write that, or your point.

Balibari wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

I'm sure you don't mean it, but were you aware that your response might come across to some people as quite rude and aggressive?
The OP never asked people to justify their opinions, so demanding one, particularly when you yourself say people should be allowed to live their lives as they wish, seems rather inappropriate.

Toby. wrote:I don't want a huge debate about the morality of it all, so leave any aggressive criticisms at the door. The request is simple: Would you vote for or against same-sex marriage if you were given the opportunity?

People's opinions are often simply based on how they feel, rather than some deep intellectual thought process, so justifying or explaining then isn't always necessarily possible - it's just how they feel.
Bearing in mind we are to a large extent the product of our environment, people can't just simply choose how they feel about things, and although you can modify your behaviour or learn to think about things in a different way, changing your underlying feelings is going to be a lot more difficult.

Not trying to justify his opinion for him - just saying.


Out of interest, one of my wife's friends got married last year (she only told people she was lesbian a few months before - everyone knew already anyway), there was no fuss or drama, they went to the registry office, signed all the paperwork, and as far as they're concerned they're now married - doesn't matter what the correct legal term is, they think they're married.

I can have respect for a homophobe who states his belief on this subject and then simply say's: I think this because I am uncomfortable with homosexuality. People generally can't choose how they feel about something like this and should have the right to feel however they do, regardless of how abhorrent you or I think that opinion is. Most homophobes just don't like the idea of homosexuality, they don't all spread hate or oppress people. But they can choose whether they're honest about it, and they can choose whether they act upon any negative opinions. One of my closest friends is homophobic (tricking him into sharing a hotel bed with another friend he didn't know was gay produced some of the funniest results I've ever seen), he's thoroughly decent in all other ways but was unfortunate to grow up in a homophobic environment and seems not to have the ability to get past it. You'd never know it.

But I have far less respect for people who try and use religious dogma and false scare stories etc. to try and justify an innate homophobia.

If Tyrrell just said: 'look, I'm simply a bit homophobic', I'd respect him considerably. It would be bloody brave apart from anything else.

Being "brave" by admitting that you hold a repugnant viewpoint isn't something to be respected for in my view...

I agree with P4E on that one. Disliking someone for loving a man or a women just because they are of the same sex as the person they love is ridiculous in this day and age. Most homophobes are such because it scares them, they are scared that 'normality' has been challenged. There nothing to be scared about a gay person, they eat, pee and poop just like the rest of us.

Laura23 wrote:I agree with P4E on that one. Disliking someone for loving a man or a women just because they are of the same sex as the person they love is ridiculous in this day and age. Most homophobes are such because it scares them, they are scared that 'normality' has been challenged. There nothing to be scared about a gay person, they eat, pee and poop just like the rest of us.

Possibly not the only reason. I remember reading an article in New Scientist many years ago, I'm not sure if this is the same study (found after a very quick search) but the implication is interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8772014/
"Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

bbobeckyj wrote:

Laura23 wrote:I agree with P4E on that one. Disliking someone for loving a man or a women just because they are of the same sex as the person they love is ridiculous in this day and age. Most homophobes are such because it scares them, they are scared that 'normality' has been challenged. There nothing to be scared about a gay person, they eat, pee and poop just like the rest of us.

Possibly not the only reason. I remember reading an article in New Scientist many years ago, I'm not sure if this is the same study (found after a very quick search) but the implication is interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8772014/
"Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

I would have mentioned it but I didn't want to go too hard on the offensive. It's a tricky subject.

It all boils down to hate. There is no reason to hate on Gay people or what they do in their spare time.

Its strange to ask a question if you only deem one answer acceptable. Personally I don't really care, but I do think that a person could have the opinion that marriage should be a ceremony for uniting men and women without being homophobic.

To me, it is a question of equality. Today, if someone said an interracial couple couldn't get married, or a Jew to a Buddhist, because it's not traditional, there would be outrage. In today's society, we tell our children that everyone is equal, no matter their background or genetics, to then say to two people that they can't get married because they are different seems counterintuitive. You might as well turn away a couple because the bride has green eyes.

mikeyg123 wrote:Its strange to ask a question if you only deem one answer acceptable. Personally I don't really care, but I do think that a person could have the opinion that marriage should be a ceremony for uniting men and women without being homophobic.

Then that would go back to the point of reproduction, there's no other reason I can think of that would make it solely about a man and a woman. In some religions, such as Catholicism, that is a very big part of what marriage is about.

But to anyone not religious thinking this, I would put the question forward that if it is about reproduction, what then do you think of a couple who marry, are physically capable of having children, but choose not to? Should their marriage be annulled by the state as they are going against the purpose of marriage, or is it really about live and companionship in the modern day and age? If it is about companionship and love, then why object to a same sex couple from getting married if they love each other and want that companionship? If it is more about a religious tradition, then no one outside of a religion who perform marriage should be allowed to marry anyway, they should have a civil partnership to distinguish their union from a religious one.

There is not just 1 correct answer, but whichever way you think, there should be some reasoning behind your decision. As I said already, Kolby believes that it is a religious thing which is why he is against it which is fair enough(although still hasn't said what he thinks should be done about non-religious people wanting to marry) but at the same time he shouldn't have any issues with gay people outside of his religion, which he has never said he does, just that he believes it against God.

mikeyg123 wrote:Its strange to ask a question if you only deem one answer acceptable. Personally I don't really care, but I do think that a person could have the opinion that marriage should be a ceremony for uniting men and women without being homophobic.

Perhaps. But if you accept that gay people should be allowed a "legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them", then what do you call it if not 'marriage'?
If you don't allow it, then that would be illegal discrimination in most countries.
If you do allow it, and the contract is the same between two gay people as with two hetero people, but the 'marriage' is given a different name, then that's still discrimination, and is then only semantics.

minchy wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Its strange to ask a question if you only deem one answer acceptable. Personally I don't really care, but I do think that a person could have the opinion that marriage should be a ceremony for uniting men and women without being homophobic.

Then that would go back to the point of reproduction, there's no other reason I can think of that would make it solely about a man and a woman. In some religions, such as Catholicism, that is a very big part of what marriage is about.

But to anyone not religious thinking this, I would put the question forward that if it is about reproduction, what then do you think of a couple who marry, are physically capable of having children, but choose not to? Should their marriage be annulled by the state as they are going against the purpose of marriage, or is it really about live and companionship in the modern day and age? If it is about companionship and love, then why object to a same sex couple from getting married if they love each other and want that companionship? If it is more about a religious tradition, then no one outside of a religion who perform marriage should be allowed to marry anyway, they should have a civil partnership to distinguish their union from a religious one.

There is not just 1 correct answer, but whichever way you think, there should be some reasoning behind your decision. As I said already, Kolby believes that it is a religious thing which is why he is against it which is fair enough(although still hasn't said what he thinks should be done about non-religious people wanting to marry) but at the same time he shouldn't have any issues with gay people outside of his religion, which he has never said he does, just that he believes it against God.

Further than that. What about people who are infertile? Should they not allowed to be married, or should a marriage be annulled, if after 'x' amount of time the couple fail to reproduce?
And what about marriages amongst children? As Balibari mentioned.

mikeyg123 wrote:Its strange to ask a question if you only deem one answer acceptable. Personally I don't really care, but I do think that a person could have the opinion that marriage should be a ceremony for uniting men and women without being homophobic.

Could I think that black people shouldn't marry white people without being at least a bit racist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

I don't want to give anything away, but I would watch the whole video before making a judgement,

It basically shows how the same-sex marriage debate is similar to the mix-raced marriage debate before it. The same type of arguments are being brought forward. To be against mix-raced marriage in society today is considered being backward, and prejudicious, so should being against same-sex marriage

I'm very pro same-sex marriage, and in my view its a travesty that its taken this long for the same-sex marriage acceptance.

Enlightening video didn't see it like that before...

"...no one should force it on us... Our rights would be taken away..."
This quote, taken from that YouTube clip, is a seemingly common argument I hear when religion is involved. No one is forcing the protesters into gay marriage, and no one is removing any rights. This twisted logic is why it's so difficult discussing such issues, half of it's senseless, and the other is backwards, there's no reasoning to be done with someone who thinks like that.

I'm Christian. I'm proud of it. I think if 2 people love each other what can possibly go wrong? Even if officially Vatican don't recognise gay, lesbian or other marriages I think that any kind of marriage would be recognised by founders of my religion regardless of stance of current people who claim to be a leaders.

vikz22 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

I don't want to give anything away, but I would watch the whole video before making a judgement,

It basically shows how the same-sex marriage debate is similar to the mix-raced marriage debate before it. The same type of arguments are being brought forward. To be against mix-raced marriage in society today is considered being backward, and prejudicious, so should being against same-sex marriage

I'm very pro same-sex marriage, and in my view its a travesty that its taken this long for the same-sex marriage acceptance.

When that video started I did think 'what a tit!' but at the same time, he could have closed out his point a little better.

The thing I don't get about same sex marriage (or any marriage if I think about it) is, can't you just make a legal contract to promise each other all the things that you'd have to in a government sanctioned marriage and arrange all the finances and joint ownerships in legal documents and then it is just as legally binding as a marriage? You can still have the ceremony and all of the presents and the honeymoon and the vows but if it doesn't work out you can simply agree to end the contract by mutual agreement (something which is not possible at the moment with a marriage - the only legal contract that can't be dissolved by mutual agreement of both parties alone).

I think different sex marriage is a complete con and the only thing it actually offers is a joint tax code. I'm against all marriage, now, having written this.

That's getting into another debate about what marriage means in modern times and different countries. To a lot of people it more about publicly declaring their love for each other in front if their friends (and God if they are religious), for others it's about tradition because 'its what you do', for others it's a way of showing commitment to their partner. There's lots of different reasons.

As for mutually ending the contract, in the UK you can get a divorce cheap and quick if it's mutual and you you're not going to argue about dividing things up. Marriage is a legal contract in the UK if it is performed by a registrar (or person legal given the right to marry people) all you need to pay is the fees to legally end it!

minchy wrote:As for mutually ending the contract, in the UK you can get a divorce cheap and quick if it's mutual and you you're not going to argue about dividing things up.

Not unconditionally. You would still have to satisfy one of the five criteria (I think, if the law hasn't changed too much). There would either have to be some blame or a period of separation even if both parties consented to the divorce.

i.e. the parties involved couldn't decide they wanted to legally separate (divorce) and go about it the next day. There's also the matter of having to be married for a year before a divorce can be granted.

Please correct me if this law has changed.

flyboy10 wrote:

minchy wrote:As for mutually ending the contract, in the UK you can get a divorce cheap and quick if it's mutual and you you're not going to argue about dividing things up.

Not unconditionally. You would still have to satisfy one of the five criteria (I think, if the law hasn't changed too much). There would either have to be some blame or a period of separation even if both parties consented to the divorce.

i.e. the parties involved couldn't decide they wanted to legally separate (divorce) and go about it the next day. There's also the matter of having to be married for a year before a divorce can be granted.

Please correct me if this law has changed.

you're probably right, especially about the separation part, the people that I know who've had a quicky had already been separated!

But to be fair if you're looking at the legal aspect, when you get married you are entering into a legal lifetime contract so it shouldn't be easy to get out of. I think one of the problems with modern marriage (when not arranged or forced upon someone) is that it is too easy to do and too easy to get out of so it has lost it's relevance. If it was harder to get of, maybe people would think about doing it a lot more before going ahead. But we digress from the topic in question, so I'm going to leave it there.

flyboy10 wrote:The thing I don't get about same sex marriage (or any marriage if I think about it) is, can't you just make a legal contract to promise each other all the things that you'd have to in a government sanctioned marriage and arrange all the finances and joint ownerships in legal documents and then it is just as legally binding as a marriage? You can still have the ceremony and all of the presents and the honeymoon and the vows but if it doesn't work out you can simply agree to end the contract by mutual agreement (something which is not possible at the moment with a marriage - the only legal contract that can't be dissolved by mutual agreement of both parties alone).

I think different sex marriage is a complete con and the only thing it actually offers is a joint tax code. I'm against all marriage, now, having written this.

minchy wrote:That's getting into another debate about what marriage means in modern times and different countries. To a lot of people it more about publicly declaring their love for each other in front if their friends (and God if they are religious), for others it's about tradition because 'its what you do', for others it's a way of showing commitment to their partner. There's lots of different reasons.

As for mutually ending the contract, in the UK you can get a divorce cheap and quick if it's mutual and you you're not going to argue about dividing things up. Marriage is a legal contract in the UK if it is performed by a registrar (or person legal given the right to marry people) all you need to pay is the fees to legally end it!

I proposed a few years ago purely because I knew it was important to my (now) wife. To me marriage was a big, expensive waist of energy. A purely technical agreement that's of no relevance when compared to the very real commitment and respect I had and have for my wife. Just because it has no inherent value to me, doesn't mean others don't place huge value on it. I know that's obvious but realising it is central to the conversation.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Balibari wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

Tyrrellforever wrote: Hold on a minute here.

First the thread was started and people asked for their opinions.
I gave my honest opinion
and now I have to justify it? why? its my opinion, not yours and I'm not demanding anyone else should think the same.

You have to have a reason for an opinion. People have asked for your reasons.

I think your opinion is horsecrap in my opinion because it's prejudiced and it excludes people unfairly.

I'm sure you don't mean it, but were you aware that your response might come across to some people as quite rude and aggressive?
The OP never asked people to justify their opinions, so demanding one, particularly when you yourself say people should be allowed to live their lives as they wish, seems rather inappropriate.

Toby. wrote:I don't want a huge debate about the morality of it all, so leave any aggressive criticisms at the door. The request is simple: Would you vote for or against same-sex marriage if you were given the opportunity?

People's opinions are often simply based on how they feel, rather than some deep intellectual thought process, so justifying or explaining then isn't always necessarily possible - it's just how they feel.
Bearing in mind we are to a large extent the product of our environment, people can't just simply choose how they feel about things, and although you can modify your behaviour or learn to think about things in a different way, changing your underlying feelings is going to be a lot more difficult.

Not trying to justify his opinion for him - just saying.


Out of interest, one of my wife's friends got married last year (she only told people she was lesbian a few months before - everyone knew already anyway), there was no fuss or drama, they went to the registry office, signed all the paperwork, and as far as they're concerned they're now married - doesn't matter what the correct legal term is, they think they're married.

I can have respect for a homophobe who states his belief on this subject and then simply say's: I think this because I am uncomfortable with homosexuality. People generally can't choose how they feel about something like this and should have the right to feel however they do, regardless of how abhorrent you or I think that opinion is. Most homophobes just don't like the idea of homosexuality, they don't all spread hate or oppress people. But they can choose whether they're honest about it, and they can choose whether they act upon any negative opinions. One of my closest friends is homophobic (tricking him into sharing a hotel bed with another friend he didn't know was gay produced some of the funniest results I've ever seen), he's thoroughly decent in all other ways but was unfortunate to grow up in a homophobic environment and seems not to have the ability to get past it. You'd never know it.

But I have far less respect for people who try and use religious dogma and false scare stories etc. to try and justify an innate homophobia.

If Tyrrell just said: 'look, I'm simply a bit homophobic', I'd respect him considerably. It would be bloody brave apart from anything else.

Being "brave" by admitting that you hold a repugnant viewpoint isn't something to be respected for in my view...

Laura23 wrote:I agree with P4E on that one. Disliking someone for loving a man or a women just because they are of the same sex as the person they love is ridiculous in this day and age. Most homophobes are such because it scares them, they are scared that 'normality' has been challenged. There nothing to be scared about a gay person, they eat, pee and poop just like the rest of us.

I just wrote a better explanation of my comment but something must have gone wrong when I posted it.

The gist of it was...

1. My assumption is that Kolby merely holds this view and doesn't act upon it. As such it's simply a view that my/our sensibilities disagree with. To me it's obvious any form of homophobia, racism, sexism etc. is wrong, I will and do vehemently argue against such traits whenever I see them because my opinion is so strong. But is it written in the stars that I'm right? I'm cautious of the way people (who hold the same 'liberal' views I do) can sometimes fall into the black and white trap of assuming our view is the only righteous truth. I'm aware I do it myself too much. Given that assumption, I respect the honesty involved in clearly stating a view you know will be unpopular, certainly when others have also expressed homophobic views (and escaped comment) by dressing them up a bit. I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

2. An example. Should an otherwise delightful old lady who (as a result of ignorance, circumstance and conditioning) uses racist terms to describe ethnic minorities be unworthy of respect? Or is she almost a victim, someone who needs and deserves educating?

3. Ultimately I see the extremely religious (those who believe they must live their lives and believe as per the words of a god-figure) as victims of their own mental prisons. If someone's morality is (to their mind) unavoidably, uncontrollably, based on someone else's edicts... is it even their fault if they hold such out of date (in our world) beliefs? As with the previous point, should they not be pitied/educated/treated? Whether of your own making or not, a mental prison can be inescapable.

minchy wrote:

flyboy10 wrote:

minchy wrote:As for mutually ending the contract, in the UK you can get a divorce cheap and quick if it's mutual and you you're not going to argue about dividing things up.

Not unconditionally. You would still have to satisfy one of the five criteria (I think, if the law hasn't changed too much). There would either have to be some blame or a period of separation even if both parties consented to the divorce.

i.e. the parties involved couldn't decide they wanted to legally separate (divorce) and go about it the next day. There's also the matter of having to be married for a year before a divorce can be granted.

Please correct me if this law has changed.

you're probably right, especially about the separation part, the people that I know who've had a quicky had already been separated!

But to be fair if you're looking at the legal aspect, when you get married you are entering into a legal lifetime contract so it shouldn't be easy to get out of. I think one of the problems with modern marriage (when not arranged or forced upon someone) is that it is too easy to do and too easy to get out of so it has lost it's relevance. If it was harder to get of, maybe people would think about doing it a lot more before going ahead. But we digress from the topic in question, so I'm going to leave it there.

That's an interesting point. I would prefer to see marriage much harder to get into, rather than (or maybe as well as) harder to get out of. I found that it was far too easy to get into compared with how much less easy it was for both me and my wife to get out of. I think there should be a period (6 months maybe) where you should be allowed to say, "This marriage is faulty and I'd like to return it please.", as long as there are no children and no property/finances to argue over.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:As we are on the subject of the acceptance of different types of relationships beyond the basic man+wife arrangement, how do people feel about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120

It should be pointed that that that arrangement isn't the only way polyamory works, although I suspect for the purposes of the article, the fact it is intended to be an informative piece for people unaware, they chose a more straightforwards example to make it easier to understand.

This is definitely seen as more of a taboo than same sex relationships, but how do people feel about it? How would people feel about marriages involving more than two people?

They're old enough to consent so good luck to them. Even if I didn't like the idea, how do I have any right to impose my values on other people?

You hear about these relationships often ending in tears as emotional imbalances are revealed and insecurities set in. I don't know if there's truth to that but, if there is, so what? Their decision.

Balibari wrote:You hear about these relationships often ending in tears

NEWSFLASH!!! This sometimes happens in traditional marriages too. I think you may hear about it because it is an unusual arrangement and the naysayers want to indulge in a little "I told you so". Sadder still the marriages that don't end up in divorce but consist of a lifetimes misery for both parties.

Balibari wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:As we are on the subject of the acceptance of different types of relationships beyond the basic man+wife arrangement, how do people feel about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120

It should be pointed that that that arrangement isn't the only way polyamory works, although I suspect for the purposes of the article, the fact it is intended to be an informative piece for people unaware, they chose a more straightforwards example to make it easier to understand.

This is definitely seen as more of a taboo than same sex relationships, but how do people feel about it? How would people feel about marriages involving more than two people?

They're old enough to consent so good luck to them. Even if I didn't like the idea, how do I have any right to impose my values on other people?

You hear about these relationships often ending in tears as emotional imbalances are revealed and insecurities set in. I don't know if there's truth to that but, if there is, so what? Their decision.

Right, well I was specifically asking about the possible question about marriage being opened up to include more than two people.

With regards to the relationship - consenting adults can do what they want. However, many people have a strong opinion that "marriage" means a "man and a woman" - is the opinion that marriage only means two people stronger or less strongly held than this?

And in a multi person relationship what happens regarding children? While it would be possible to set up legal custodian status on the non biological parents, what would happen in the event of a disagreement? Would the biological parents have more rights? And what happens if a baby was genetically engineered from the DNA of all parents? It's not inconceivable that we could soon fertilise an egg randomly extracting DNA from more than two parents (although obviously, genetics mean that each attribute can only have two parents) - this would make the babies as genetically similar to their parents as most babies are to their grandparents (assuming 4 people were involved)

I would assume that in the 'normal' procreation method, whereby two people in the relationship did the breeding, that the law would give them more rights, and the others in the relationship would be more like adopted parents in law, but assuming that the group decided as a whole they wanted children what should the moral and ethical decision be? Does a DNA provider have more rights? If the child had been raised to view all parents equally surely they would be equally emotional invested in all of them (and would be able to say "my two dads can beat up your dad" in the playground.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Balibari wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:As we are on the subject of the acceptance of different types of relationships beyond the basic man+wife arrangement, how do people feel about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120

It should be pointed that that that arrangement isn't the only way polyamory works, although I suspect for the purposes of the article, the fact it is intended to be an informative piece for people unaware, they chose a more straightforwards example to make it easier to understand.

This is definitely seen as more of a taboo than same sex relationships, but how do people feel about it? How would people feel about marriages involving more than two people?

They're old enough to consent so good luck to them. Even if I didn't like the idea, how do I have any right to impose my values on other people?

You hear about these relationships often ending in tears as emotional imbalances are revealed and insecurities set in. I don't know if there's truth to that but, if there is, so what? Their decision.

Right, well I was specifically asking about the possible question about marriage being opened up to include more than two people.

With regards to the relationship - consenting adults can do what they want. However, many people have a strong opinion that "marriage" means a "man and a woman" - is the opinion that marriage only means two people stronger or less strongly held than this?

I think of marriage as a legal union between two people. And as it's a 'contract', then would the contract need renegotiating whenever another person enters? This seems difficult, and to me it would appear to invalidate the initial marriage if the contract was changed, I could see it being similar to having two people divorced and then re-marrying with a third person, I can't imagine it being so easy to get three or more people all wanting to get married to each other, but it would be simpler. However, in the example you linked, the two men would effectively be married in practice, but not legally, and not in a relationship between themselves?
Perhaps legalizing bigamy would be the simplest option. But if you want to bring another person into a current couple, would both would have to marry the third, or just one of them? And so on.

From a personal viewpoint, it's not for me, but neither is wanting another person of the same sex, and I support equal rights. But then is this the same thing? I don't see this as being an equal rights issue. And is it open to abuse, one spouse deciding that the other is getting to old and wrinkly and wanting to bring in a younger partner every few years? And with divorce rates, (and unmarried couples, and so on), keeping more than two people together until death seems even more improbable.

bbobeckyj wrote:I think of marriage as a legal union between two people. And as it's a 'contract', then would the contract need renegotiating whenever another person enters? This seems difficult, and to me it would appear to invalidate the initial marriage if the contract was changed, I could see it being similar to having two people divorced and then re-marrying with a third person, I can't imagine it being so easy to get three or more people all wanting to get married to each other, but it would be simpler. However, in the example you linked, the two men would effectively be married in practice, but not legally, and not in a relationship between themselves?
Perhaps legalizing bigamy would be the simplest option. But if you want to bring another person into a current couple, would both would have to marry the third, or just one of them? And so on.

From a personal viewpoint, it's not for me, but neither is wanting another person of the same sex, and I support equal rights. But then is this the same thing? I don't see this as being an equal rights issue. And is it open to abuse, one spouse deciding that the other is getting to old and wrinkly and wanting to bring in a younger partner every few years? And with divorce rates, (and unmarried couples, and so on), keeping more than two people together until death seems even more improbable.

Right, and this was the point I was getting at. People previously saw marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Now we, well those of us in favour of gay marriage anyway, have simplified it to being a union between two adults.

What I suggesting is that as things progress, that may get simplified further to simply being "a union between adults".

Is the limitation of 'two' fundamental to the concept of marriage? Could three people, four people, all decide that they want to get together as a group?

This is a different concept to bigamy. Bigamy is the practice of having more than one simultaneous marriage. This is still only having one marriage, there are just more than two people involved in it.