Gay Marriage

[Velocity Kendall]

"The [UK] government wants to introduce gay marriage by 2015, but says churches would not have to perform weddings.

Last week Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the "grotesque" plans would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" if implemented"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17329902

Personally I think its a bit rich that a bunch of virgins who for decades covered up the sexual abuse of children think they can tell people who love eachother they're shaming their entire country by wanting to get married, but thats just me.

What do you think?

[dcorc]

Personally I think its a bit rich that a bunch of virgins who for decades covered up the sexual abuse of children think they can tell people who love each other they're shaming their entire country by wanting to get married, but thats just me.

Quoted for emphasis.

[tehmeh]

About damn time.

[Citrin3]

About damn time.

True That

[Trixtar]

I thought it already was legal, at least in England?

It's legal in Denmark.
And I support it fully, as long as they truly do love each other. Love should be honored!

This church doesn't only abuse children, I have also heard stories of it actually supporting spousal abuse by telling the beaten woman that she should suck it up and honor her husband!

Either way, I don't give much credit for the church. In my honest and very personal opinion, church marriages is just a hype. If the gay people can't get it in the church, they should make up something even better.
...Says the person who won't ever marry anyone! Ever!

[w176]

I think it interesting that people who is critical of gay marriages and makes statements saying that it will affect society in negative way, don't seem to be interested in statistics.

Countries that have allowed same sex marriages, and had it for at least 5 years have: Low STD rates, high fertility rates (for western society), low crime rates, often quite stable economies (despite the economical crisis in the world), low teen pregnancy rates, no higher or lower divorce rates then other countries, etc.

And gay marriages have had no effect on it. The countries that allowed gay marriages is still doing just fine. The changes that can be seen is things like positive effects on the mental health of HBTQ people.

[Beeston]

I think it's a fair move. Gays and lesbians have the right to civil union, and the Catholic Church still has the right to practice Marriage the way they want to. Everybody wins.

I can't see how anyone can be unhappy with this.

the Church's two most senior archbishops say the change would reduce the significance of marriage.

I believe it was the Church of England who institutionalized Divorce, but if the Catholic church feels so strongly about it then surely they can lobby for it's abolishment in parliament. I think that trivializes marriage more than same sex marriage. Maybe more people would realize what the word 'commitment' actually means. I chuckle every time I hear the words "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." Nobody believes it when they say it.

[Lhune]

Wait what? Gay marriage wasn't allowed yet in the UK? Odd, I thought it would be. It's been legal here for some time.

But yeah agreed with OP of course.

[Featheredface]

People are silly. There is nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, and it should be allowed in every state and country.

End of story.

[LordLouis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...me_08_03_2012/
(This won't be view-able outside the UK, sorry)

This week's question time talks about the topic, and a couple of interesting points have been made.
For example, that the state cannot/should not allow gay marriage in churches because the church is/should be independent from the state. Thus, civil marriage could/should be allowed, church however would fall beyond government jurisdiction.

[crossmirage]

Every time someone says something about the "sancticity/significance of marriage" or any variant thereof, I want to throw a giant stack of newspaper clippings and articles of divorces, arranged marriages, short celeb marriages and domestic violence in their faces.

[triggerpigking]

Personally I think its a bit rich that a bunch of virgins who for decades covered up the sexual abuse of children think they can tell people who love eachother they're shaming their entire country by wanting to get married, but thats just me.

Ha Ha hope you dont mind if I put that in my sig.

So until this point gay marriage hasnt been legal in the uk?
I always thought it already was.
The whole argument is as stupid as most other religious arguments.

Church "Gays are evil"
me "Um why?"
church "Because they are shut up!"

I have nothing against religion but it really pisses me off how they bitch about stuff and never give any evidence to back up what theyre saying.

I'm pretty sure most people just use the religious card to try to get things banned withought any evidence just because they don't like it.

Hell I have a friend who's christian and hes ashamed to admit it because he hates the christian community so much.

Sorry that I went on a bit of a rant there.

As lordlouis above me said though if the church don't want to support it you can't force them as I don't think the churches are under government jurisdiction and quite frankly even if they were forced I still don't think gay couples would want to be married there so fuck the church let them do what they do with there heads shoved up their asses just make sure that they can't affect anything outside of their church.

[Munin Raven]

Modern marriage is "gay" anyway. I say bring back the blood letting rituals and goat semen drinking. Nothing says "I am committed to you" like self flagellation and downing a chalice of luke warm sticky stuff on a Sunday afternoon!

Seriously though, I am surprised gay marriage is not already legal over here. I mean, it's not exactly the big moral and political issue it seems to be in places like the States.

[tobbA]

I think the church is more afraid that same sex marriage will reduce the significance of getting married in a church...

[Kamber Parrk]

"The [UK] government wants to introduce gay marriage by 2015, but says churches would not have to perform weddings.

Last week Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the "grotesque" plans would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" if implemented"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17329902

Personally I think its a bit rich that a bunch of virgins who for decades covered up the sexual abuse of children think they can tell people who love eachother they're shaming their entire country by wanting to get married, but thats just me.

What do you think?

Wake me up when the BBC gets around to asking reps from the Religion Of Peace what they think about Gay Marriage.

[Jason Ross]

I understand why churches would not allow gay couples to get marriage on their property. I mean they read from the same book that states that homosexuality is an abomination and that they should be put the death for such acts. Reconciliation with the good book seems close to possible given the theistic scripture. But gay rights are human rights and if gay people want to ceremoniously express their devotion and love to each other then they should be allowed the same status and rights as straight people. Good for the UK.

[Black Spot]

That's Old Testament. We need a lot more loving in the world, so I'm all for it.

Better quote about the Archbishop was "A sexually repressed virgin, wearing a frock with a big gay hat is in no position to talk about marriage in any way."

[Velocity Kendall]

To clarify, the UK has allowed civil unions for some time.

Wiki explains:
"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce."

The row at the moment is simply whether gay people can get "married," a concept the church feel they have an exclusive ownership over and responsibility to protect from filthy perverts in loving monogamous relationships.

[vineris]

I think that civil marriage should be the official marriage for everybody and the church ceremony should have no legal standing. It creeps me out to have the church's sticky fingers on things that have nothing to do with them.

If you want to be legal in the sight of the government then you should do the witness thing in front of the government and if you then want to give your god a heads-up you can do it on your own time.

[JDSart]

So they can establish romantic relationships, live together and share a life and properties but somehow establishing that union under the law as marriage is such a terrible shameful thing.

The church can have wathever ideas they want as to what they thing is right or wrong, they can frown gay weddings in their religion just as jewish people frown eating pork and so on. But i´m not really eager to hear arguments in law making and civil rights that affect everone by biased people who probably think farting is a sin, they can live their lives how they choose and should allow the rest to do the same.

Something that does upsets me is with the adoption issues, people will rather have kids go without parents than they being raised by a couple that can and most importantly want to provide and care for them.

Why do they get the idea that for adopting a kid you just go in the door, choose one from the shelve and they give it to you right away? even to rescue a stray dog or cat from a pound you need a process, so two straight people that go trough the hassle and the filtering required to prove worthy of the responsability are welcomed but two gay people equally as qualified to raise a kid woulnd´t be allowed in the door.

[Black Spot]

Quakers are okay with it and they're about the most peaceful Christians you can find. Of course you need to be a Quaker. If a quaint pious section like them can get their head round it, so should the rest.

[Aly Fell]

Quakers are okay with it and they're about the most peaceful Christians you can find. Of course you need to be a Quaker. If a quaint pious section like them can get their head round it, so should the rest.

So are The Unitarians. The first to actually allow the ceremony to take place in a church in England (can't speak for the rest of the UK). Good for them! The Unitarians have always been pretty progressive. Whether they can actually call it 'marriage' or not... So much fuss over a word.

Rev Barraclough said: "We note with sadness the history of homophobia in many faith traditions as well as the current hateful language from some faith leaders that has received so much coverage in the media.

"But this is a time of great celebration for us, not sadness."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-17311555

[rem92]

Im against it, its entirely against nature, nuff said.

[JDSart]

Im against it, its entirely against nature, nuff said.

I bet the gayness emited to the atmosphere is what it is causing global warming.
Nature need be protected!

[Lhune]

I bet the gayness emited to the atmosphere is what it is causing global warming.
Nature need be protected!

Bullocks, gayness is nature's answer to overpopulation!

[rem92]

I bet the gayness emited to the atmosphere is what it is causing global warming.
Nature need be protected!

You know what i mean, come on now, we were designed for males to pair with females, thats nature, we are part of it.

[Lhune]

You know what i mean, come on now, we were designed for males to pair with females, thats nature, we are part of it.

Animals that (have been recorded to) mate and form pairs with individuals of their own gender; Black swans, Gulls, Ibises, Mallards, Penguins, Vultures, Pigeons, Amazon Dolphin, American Bison, Bonobo and other apes, Bottlenose dolphins, Elephants, Giraffes, Monkeys, Japanese macaque, Lions, Polecat, Sheep, Spotted Hyena, Lizards, Dragonflies, Fruit flies, Bed bugs and presumably more.

Not quite as unnatural as you think. If you have a problem with "unnatural" things though better turn off your computer and start living in a forest or something, few things you use and consume can still be considered natural in that sense.

Oh, and you know what isn't natural either? Oral and anal sex and many common positions. You sir are boring in the bedroom!

[a.k.a.Ciel]

Oh, and you know what isn't natural either? Oral and anal sex and many common positions. You sir are boring in the bedroom!

My tea just made friends with my keyboard goddammit.

I wouldn'tusually bother trying to create an argument for homosexuality with someone this blind to their religion, buuuut;

"How did god invent gayness?"

Your so-called "God" gave us free-will, you of all people who are so into your religion should know this. If they didn't wish for anyone to be gay, should've thought about that first.

To be fair, your God has a marvelous sense of humour with the amount of wars, world hunger, disease blah blah blah. Don't think I'd want to believe in something so barbaric, let alone give a damn what they want.
Then again, not all religious people are homophobic prudes. Just people like you who give people who follow their faith and are open minded, an absolutely terrible name.

[Jason Ross]

You know what i mean, come on now, we were designed ...

No we were not.

[LordLouis]

You know what i mean, come on now, we were designed for males to pair with females, thats nature, we are part of it.

For a long time I struggled with that idea too.
And I still believe that just as animals, we evolved and we still are "designed" to mate male/female because that's the way it works, otherwise we would stop reproducing.
The difference however you can make is,
designed to mate m/f = only allowed form of existence or
designed to mate m/f = one of many forms of existence.

And as Lhune mentioned already, it is a natural occurrence amongst many species, and animals don't bother so much with the "acceptance" of homosexuality (god that in itself sounds homophobic already..)

//edit ah yes and I meant to add, sexuality/sexual orientation /= reproducing.