Legislation for gay marriage

mikebeecham said:
The relevance is in your point about churches 'owning' marriage. Your point was simply inaccurate and I thought I would respond.

With regard 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. I would also imagine that they 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.
Click to expand...

And I repeat my earlier question, seeing as god created us, if as the church says, they can not bless same sex marriages, as they are wrong in the eyes of God why did he give humans this trait?
 
Last edited:
mikebeecham said:
they feel God has already defined marriage biblically
Click to expand...

i'm still stuck on this point.

God didn't define anything in the bible. It was penned by a human (or multiple humans) so surely that sentence should read

"they feel humans have interpreted God's definition of marriage biblically"
 
Headless Lois said:
I thought part of the bill was to address this issue, to make it so that a divorce would no longer be required?
Click to expand...

It could well be...I was sort of guessing but with an reasoning objectors hat on. I tried to read through the gov paper on it but got lost after a couple of pages, they don't half make it a struggle to read.
 
joescrivens said:
i'm still stuck on this point.

God didn't define anything in the bible. It was penned by a human (or multiple humans) so surely that sentence should read

"they feel humans have interpreted God's definition of marriage biblically"
Click to expand...

40 humans infact.

30 wrote the Old Testaments

10 wrote the new.

Spread over 1600 years.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
i'm still stuck on this point.

God didn't define anything in the bible. It was penned by a human (or multiple humans) so surely that sentence should read

"they feel humans have interpreted God's definition of marriage biblically"
Click to expand...

Well, you then start getting into topics of discussion, such as divine interpretation, inerrancy, infallibility, authoritative scripture and other wonderful and overly-deep topics...probably not wise for a forum thread like this Joe.

That said, my earlier point about some things not necessarily changing despite changes within culture should still stand, I think.
 
tiler65 said:
I wonder if they had a forum to discuss it?
Click to expand...

31056298.jpg
 
There is precedent for redefining marriage - things DO change. For example marriageable age.
 
mikebeecham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage - the concept of marriage - predates Christianity, and was present in ancient China, Persia, Greece and Rome.
Same sex marriage, although not common, did happen in China, Greece and Rome.
There is also the concept of group marriage - Polygamy - which even today exists in various places.
If we look back in history, then the idea that any religion, or in fact religion in general, should have a monopoly on what form marriage should take, or the rules which apply to it, well that seems to me to be absurd.
 
andy700 said:
Marriage - the concept of marriage - predates Christianity, and was present in ancient China, Persia, Greece and Rome.
Same sex marriage, although not common, did happen in China, Greece and Rome.
There is also the concept of group marriage - Polygamy - which even today exists in various places.
If we look back in history, then the idea that any religion, or in fact religion in general, should have a monopoly on what form marriage should take, or the rules which apply to it, well that seems to me to be absurd.
Click to expand...

Thank you, saves me answering :lol:
 
andy700 said:
Marriage - the concept of marriage - predates Christianity, and was present in ancient China, Persia, Greece and Rome.
Same sex marriage, although not common, did happen in China, Greece and Rome.
There is also the concept of group marriage - Polygamy - which even today exists in various places.
If we look back in history, then the idea that any religion, or in fact religion in general, should have a monopoly on what form marriage should take, or the rules which apply to it, well that seems to me to be absurd.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose if you take the death of Jesus as the birth of Christianity, then you would be right to say that marriage pre-dates Christianity. However, I would probably make an estimated guess that most people who believe in the Christian God also believe that marriage pre-dates Jesus..and probably starts somewhere in the region of Adam and Eve :lol:

Of course, thats an entire other topic which I'm confident you wont agree on :thumbs:
 
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...

No.

I know someone who has not registered her sex change with the state, so the machinery of government both local and national still considers her a man. The reason she has done this is to remain married to her wife, because at present they would have to divorce before she could "officially" be considered a woman.


The Bill before parliament at present would address this and allow post-op transexuals to remain married to their existing spouse if both parties wished to remain so.
 
mikebeecham said:
Well, I suppose if you take the death of Jesus as the birth of Christianity, then you would be right to say that marriage pre-dates Christianity. However, I would probably make an estimated guess that most people who believe in the Christian God also believe that marriage pre-dates Jesus..and probably starts somewhere in the region of Adam and Eve :lol:

Of course, thats an entire other topic which I'm confident you wont agree on :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't think the legal system would be quite right to disregard historical fact, based on the beliefs of creationsists. Even most Christians do not seem to be creationists, in this country.
 
Davec223 said:
And I repeat my earlier question, seeing as god created us, if as the church says, they can not bless same sex marriages, as they are wrong in the eyes of God why did he give humans this trait?
Click to expand...

God did not give humans that trait, he gave humans free choice
 
Headless Lois said:
I don't think the legal system would be quite right to disregard historical fact, based on the beliefs of creationsists. Even most Christians do not seem to be creationists, in this country.
Click to expand...

I think that in the UK, the percentage is (hopefully) quite low, but in the US it is quite another matter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

I actually think that this is quite relevant to the current topic, because people who hold fundamentalist views about any religion, have historically been the ones who have been least tolerant towards gay people (gay marriage), and this is undoubtably due to the teachings of the holy book(s).
 
Davec223 said:
So the church should do the same and not discriminate.
Click to expand...

No

A person has free choice to be a Christian and by being a Christian you are agreeing to abide by Gods rules in Gods house [Church]
 
Tigger.ufo said:
How long will it be before a church is persecuted for not wishing to perform a same sex wedding in the same way as the Cornwall bed and breakfast couple?

Heather
Click to expand...

How long before the church is prosecuted for not allowing someone a position based solely on their gender (women bishops).

Religion already has exemptions from the laws everyone else has to follow. ;-)

Edit: miss read persecuted on my phone screen.. The point follows though as religious organisations are not treated the same as organisations run by religious people.
 
Last edited:
Keith W said:
No

A person has free choice to be a christian and by being a christian you are agreeing to abide by God rules in Gods house [Church]
Click to expand...

but equally someone has free choice not to be a christian, and therefore should be able to marry in a registry office ceremony regardless of their orientation, without the church objecting to what doesnt concen them.
 
big soft moose said:
but equally someone has free choice not to be a christian, and therefore should be able to marry in a registry office ceremony regardless of their orientation, without the church objecting to what doesnt concen them.
Click to expand...

Which they are free to do already
 
Yes, it must be down to interpretation otherwise every vicar/bishop/what have you would be against it (which they quite clearly aren't).
 
Keith W said:
No you did not

What you did was try to skew what I actually said

Please do not do it again
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Christian view of God's Law is one that every religion should accept?

I'd say that Joe's amendment is fairly accurate. More to the point, different sects of Christianity interpret those rules in different ways!
 
tiler65 said:
Not sure a common law wife can claim half.
Click to expand...

all he/she has to do is prove financial contribution to the household and can thus claim money on the sale of the house, even just helping to pay the bills counts.

easier to do after a split, but just about impossible to do if a partner dies without leaving a will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top