Legislation for gay marriage

Davec223 said:
Just a thought, the churches say it cant bless same sex marriages as it's not right in gods eyes, so if good created us why would he have allowed this traight in humans?
Click to expand...

Easy. I'm betting either it's because we're given free will, because the Lord works in mysterious ways, or some other get out of jail free card that's always fallen back on when religious people run out of reasonable arguments to support their faith.
 
viv1969 said:
Why? Who decided that? (Serious question)
Click to expand...

Explain how Multiple Gods would exist - serious question too


For me there can only be one - I could not handle any more - I mean All cant be right you need to discern who the one true God is and worship no other dont you? Its up to the individual I suppose.
 
cambsno said:
So whats the point of a Black group like the Association of Black Lawyers, why not just call it Association of lawyers?
Click to expand...

I assume, because black lawyers/people feel they face specific challenges that the white lawyers/people don't experience. I'd be amazed if they actively excluded white members. White members should be free to join if they wish to support the organisation, just the same way as a straight person can campaign with the LGBT Alliance.
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
People seem to be forgetting that this isn't set to become law yet. It has passed the first big hurdle in a vote by MPs but it still has to get approval from the House of Lords. For the time being, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...


Indeed - just been reading up on the process.
 
cambsno said:
So whats the point of a Black group like the Association of Black Lawyers, why not just call it Association of lawyers?
Click to expand...

My sense is that they are setup to help black people who are discriminated against.

if you applied to work there and didn't get the job because you were white however, it would be against the law.
 
LASTOLITE said:
Explain how Multiple Gods would exist - serious question too


For me there can only be one - I could not handle any more - I mean All cant be right you need to discern who the one true God is and worship no other dont you? Its up to the individual I suppose.
Click to expand...

explain how even one god can exist
 
joescrivens said:
explain how even one god can exist
Click to expand...

Careful now...

This thread has been a good read and not too controversial. Would be a shame for it to go the way of so many others.
 
norters said:
Careful now...

This thread has been a good read and not too controversial. Would be a shame for it to go the way of so many others.
Click to expand...

Why is explaining how one god can exist more controversial than explaining how more than one god can exist?
 
I feel the more this thread drifts away from the subject of same-sex marriage towards theism itself, the greater the chance of it being locked down.
 
joescrivens said:
explain how even one god can exist
Click to expand...


I think the issue is between you and God. Not up to me to prove anything, I have just added to the debate.

What I believe or dont believe is irrelevant to you or the debate. I am not asking anyone to see anything any particular way here. I am not preaching either or offering anything.

Just saying what the bible says on the subject of marriage.
 
norters said:
Careful now...

This thread has been a good read and not too controversial. Would be a shame for it to go the way of so many others.
Click to expand...

ZoneV said:
I feel the more this thread drifts away from the subject of same-sex marriage towards theism itself, the greater the chance of it being locked down.
Click to expand...

I agree. A few of us have drifted.
 
LASTOLITE said:
For me there can only be one - I could not handle any more - I mean All cant be right you need to discern who the one true God is and worship no other dont you? Its up to the individual I suppose.
Click to expand...

only if you subscribe to islam, judaeism, christianity, mithrasist or another monotheistic religion. If you are hindu , or wiccan, or a norse pagan etc ( i forget what the actual term is) then you believe in multiple gods with just as much fervour
 
big soft moose said:
only if you subscribe to islam, judaeism, christianity, mithrasist or another monotheistic religion. If you are hindu , or wiccan, or a norse pagan etc ( i forget what the actual term is) then you believe in multiple gods with just as much fervour
Click to expand...

I'm a Bacchus fan personally.
 
ZoneV said:
I wonder what The Church will do with all the clergy, some of which are senior members, who will now happily marry same-sex couples in their Church.

This could get messy! :lol:
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. The church has to oppose equal marriage because it knows full well there are already many of its members who are in favour. Currently churches (all churches) are legally prohibited from marrying same sex couples. That's very convenient for conservative church-goers because it stifles the debate. Remove that prohibition and all hell breaks loose (pun intended). Ultimately, the risk is that churches divide into "orthodox" and "modern" variants and their overall influence is diminished.

The whole question of churches getting sued is a red herring. The Tory right will make sure that can't happen. Think of the trouble it'll cause with the Muslims, if nothing else. No, the real threat is from within the churches themselves.
 
cambsno said:
So whats the point of a Black group like the Association of Black Lawyers, why not just call it Association of lawyers?
Click to expand...

because they campaign for the rights of and support minorities - i believe they use black as a catchall term for any ethnic minority though

a white person who is in a minority will thus be equally supported, and even a white person who isnt can still join if they want to support/campaign etc towards the groups ends.

it is not the same thing as an all white group like say the klan , who do not admit black members and who actively discriminate against them.
 
ZoneV said:
I feel the more this thread drifts away from the subject of same-sex marriage towards theism itself, the greater the chance of it being locked down.
Click to expand...


I agree

But the Biblical precept of marriage is at the heart of the debate and the very reason why there has been opposition in the first place - the government want to redefine marriage - so taking ownership of it all be it in its new form.

But according to scripture Marriage is a divine institution - that is to say defined by and introduced by God. As I understand the first mention of marriage is in the Bible.

So very relevant to the original debate.


As I understand it so far that is.
 
LASTOLITE said:
Explain how Multiple Gods would exist - serious question too


For me there can only be one - I could not handle any more - I mean All cant be right you need to discern who the one true God is and worship no other dont you? Its up to the individual I suppose.
Click to expand...

After being raised RC and having gone through 12 years of RC schooling, I can't even explain how someone can believe in a single deity. :)
 
Johnd2000 said:
This is exactly the point. The church has to oppose equal marriage because it knows full well there are already many of its members who are in favour. Currently churches (all churches) are legally prohibited from marrying same sex couples. That's very convenient for conservative church-goers because it stifles the debate. Remove that prohibition and all hell breaks loose (pun intended). Ultimately, the risk is that churches divide into "orthodox" and "modern" variants and their overall influence is diminished.

The whole question of churches getting sued is a red herring. The Tory right will make sure that can't happen. Think of the trouble it'll cause with the Muslims, if nothing else. No, the real threat is from within the churches themselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you, I didn't think anyone else was going to pick up on that. :)

Interesting times ahead for The Church, if a little awkward to say the least.
 
LASTOLITE said:
I agree

But the Biblical precept of marriage is at the heart of the debate and the very reason why there has been opposition in the first place - the government want to redefine marriage - so taking ownership of it all be it in its new form.

.
Click to expand...

No the government wants to make gay marriage legal - thus dealing with the form in which they already have ownership of it.

The false preposition that the church has 'possession' of marriage in the foirst place is the problem here.
 
big soft moose said:
Nuff said

I don't necessarily disagree with your core point - but people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones
Click to expand...

But you need humility in a thread, it stops it becoming tedious and a game of one-upmanship. I take it you were not in the debating team at school?
 
big soft moose said:
Nuff said

I don't necessarily disagree with your core point - but people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones
Click to expand...

eh come on a bit of light humour every now and again is good! keeps the thread grounded, tom just distracts with irrelevant questions - i lighten the mood with hilarity
 
Marriage is ALREADY absolutely NOT a church defined term, as evidenced by the fact that you can opt to marry in a civil ceremony, in which there is no mention of God whatsoever. You are not marrying the eyes of God, you are marrying in the eyes of the law.
Churches do not somehow 'own' marriage.
 
joescrivens said:
eh come on a bit of light humour every now and again is good! keeps the thread grounded, tom just distracts with irrelevant questions - i lighten the mood with hilarity
Click to expand...

It is never your fault is it Joe...where have I heard that before I wonder.......
 
Headless Lois said:
Marriage is ALREADY absolutely NOT a church defined term, as evidenced by the fact that you can opt to marry in a civil ceremony, in which there is no mention of God whatsoever. You are not marrying the eyes of God, you are marrying in the eyes of the law.
Churches do not somehow 'own' marriage.
Click to expand...

Would it be fair to say that covenental marriage has been around a LOT longer than our legal system? To infer that marriage as a concept is somehow a political or legal institution is preposterous. Granted, civil ceremonies were introduced as a political/legal option because those who didn't prescribe to a faith-based religion still wanted an established and recognised covenant, the least benefit of which afforded them the same legal rights as those who were married.

To somehow infer that, therefore, the legal or political system 'owns' marriage simply isn't the case.

I'll grant you that the Church of England has knee-jerked badly over a lot of these issues, but I suspect that it was less of a 'control' issue and more to do with how they live out their faith and creeds amongst an ever-changing society. One thing I would ask though, is dont suppose that everyone who claims Christianity as their faith is somehow connected to the Church of England, because they're not. The CofE is very young compared to the Christian faith.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
mikebeecham said:
Would it be fair to say that covenental marriage has been around a LOT longer than our legal system? To infer that marriage as a concept is somehow a political or legal institution is preposterous. Granted, civil ceremonies were introduced as a political/legal option because those who didn't prescribe to a faith-based religion still wanted an established and recognised covenant, the least benefit of which afforded them the same legal rights as those who were married.

To somehow infer that, therefore, the legal or political system 'owns' marriage simply isn't the case.

I'll grant you that the Church of England has knee-jerked badly over a lot of these issues, but I suspect that it was less of a 'control' issue and more to do with how they live out their faith and creeds amongst an ever-changing society. One thing I would ask though, is dont suppose that everyone who claims Christianity as their faith is somehow connected to the Church of England, because they're not. The CofE is very young compared to the Christian faith.

Cheers
Click to expand...



:thumbs:
 
Headless Lois said:
Marriage is ALREADY absolutely NOT a church defined term, as evidenced by the fact that you can opt to marry in a civil ceremony, in which there is no mention of God whatsoever. You are not marrying the eyes of God, you are marrying in the eyes of the law.
Churches do not somehow 'own' marriage.
Click to expand...

very true, and in fact, a civil ceremony specifically forbids the use of the word 'God' in the ceremony.

to go back to me original point (page 1) there are many reasons why couple have to get married

an example - a dear friend of mine died a few years ago, and the girl who he'd lived with (as man and wife) for the last 25 years was kicked out of their home and was not entitled to any of his estate (his sister got it all). If they'd split up and gone their separate ways she would have been able to claim half of his assets (in theory anyway) as a 'common-law wife'. But living together means nothing when it comes to death.

Perhaps you can remember the case of the singer Barry White - his common-law wife was not even allowed to attend his funeral. He hadn't bothered to divorce his 1st wife so she was classed as his next of kin, and barred his partner from being at the funeral. His partner had been living with him for 17 years...

so yes, sometimes, marriage is more important than plain old living over the brush.
 
mikebeecham said:
Would it be fair to say that covenental marriage has been around a LOT longer than our legal system? To infer that marriage as a concept is somehow a political or legal institution is preposterous. Granted, civil ceremonies were introduced as a political/legal option because those who didn't prescribe to a faith-based religion still wanted an established and recognised covenant, the least benefit of which afforded them the same legal rights as those who were married.

To somehow infer that, therefore, the legal or political system 'owns' marriage simply isn't the case.

I'll grant you that the Church of England has knee-jerked badly over a lot of these issues, but I suspect that it was less of a 'control' issue and more to do with how they live out their faith and creeds amongst an ever-changing society. One thing I would ask though, is dont suppose that everyone who claims Christianity as their faith is somehow connected to the Church of England, because they're not. The CofE is very young compared to the Christian faith.

Cheers
Click to expand...

How is this relevant? We have a legal definition for marriage. Churches, any of them, will not have to perform gay marriages.
There are religions much older than Christianity that may have no problem with it. There are churches within Christianity that will have no problem with it (eg Quakers).
So just what IS it that bothers some churches?
 
sturisoma said:
very true, and in fact, a civil ceremony specifically forbids the use of the word 'God' in the ceremony.

to go back to me original point (page 1) there are many reasons why couple have to get married

an example - a dear friend of mine died a few years ago, and the girl who he'd lived with (as man and wife) for the last 25 years was kicked out of their home and was not entitled to any of his estate (his sister got it all). If they'd split up and gone their separate ways she would have been able to claim half of his assets (in theory anyway) as a 'common-law wife'. But living together means nothing when it comes to death.

Perhaps you can remember the case of the singer Barry White - his common-law wife was not even allowed to attend his funeral. He hadn't bothered to divorce his 1st wife so she was classed as his next of kin, and barred his partner from being at the funeral. His partner had been living with him for 17 years...

so yes, sometimes, marriage is more important than plain old living over the brush.
Click to expand...

This just proves that people should have the good sense to make a Will.
 
And how about the rights of a couple, one of whom has a sex change, but they wish to stay as a married couple. How can it be right that, as it currently stands, they have no choice except to get divorced?
 
Headless Lois said:
And how about the rights of a couple, one of whom has a sex change, but they wish to stay as a married couple. How can it be right that, as it currently stands, they have no choice except to get divorced?
Click to expand...

wouldn't the marriage certificate be null as there are sections for Male and female to sign...(can't find mine so I am guessing) and because one of them has changed sex (in the eyes of the law) the certificate is worthless from a legal point of view?
 
tiler65 said:
Not sure a common law wife can claim half.
Click to expand...

Nope. No such thing in England / Wales as "common law" parter of either kind.
 
tiler65 said:
wouldn't the marriage certificate be null as there are sections for Male and female to sign...(can't find mine so I am guessing) and because one of them has changed sex (in the eyes of the law) the certificate is worthless from a legal point of view?
Click to expand...

Yes, currently that is the case. But if gay marriage is allowed, then they will be able to stay married.
 
Headless Lois said:
How is this relevant? We have a legal definition for marriage. Churches, any of them, will not have to perform gay marriages.
There are religions much older than Christianity that may have no problem with it. There are churches within Christianity that will have no problem with it (eg Quakers).
So just what IS it that bothers some churches?
Click to expand...

The relevance is in your point about churches not 'owning' marriage. I felt it right to contradict you!

With regards to your question about the problem some churches have with it, I would suspect that they feel God has already defined marriage biblically, and they would refer to God as authoritative in this or any other matter over that of the government's wisdom. I would also imagine that they would agree it right to obey all governmental laws until such time as it conflicts with what God has already said on the matter...

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God", and all that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top