Same Sex Marraige and Civil Unions

[Greebo]

[s]Unregisted User :/ wrote on 15:34, 19th Nov 2003:
Until the church cancel homosexuality as being a sin it doesn't make sense for gay people to be married in a religous ceremony, same as it is often seen as wrong for a divorced person to be married in church.


Um where does it say homosexuality is a sin?


[hr]
http://greebopichost.netfirms.com - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[LeopardSkinQueen]

[s]Unregisted User :/ wrote on 15:34, 19th Nov 2003:
Until the church cancel homosexuality as being a sin


The church isn't in agreement on this issue. Surely you have noticed.

Theres also a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered church.

Everyone interprets scripture differently.

[hr]
[s]"Surely a young man like you has needs, Mister Kenobi. American Express can pay for them."

"Will it pay for dancing boys?"
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/frame.html
[/s]

[Kibet]

[s]Greebo wrote on 17:47, 19th Nov 2003:


Um where does it say homosexuality is a sin?


[hr]
http://greebopichost.netfirms.com - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.




i did a quick google search on this and here is a web page discussing this point.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

although it says it is mentioned in the bible, it also mentions on how there are 25 interpretations of the bible now. so not everyone is singing off the same hymn sheet.

just look at what 'apparently' he did to sodom and gomorrah! do it my way or not at all!

[Wong]

[s]Greebo wrote on 17:47, 19th Nov 2003:
Um where does it say homosexuality is a sin?


Leviticus, I think.

[hr]
When you play with fire, you must anticipate some burns
Chasing for desire, it's just a different way to learn

[LeopardSkinQueen]

[s]Wong wrote on 18:24, 19th Nov 2003:

Leviticus, I think.




Ah, Leviticus. A book condemnation from which is impossible to take seriously.

Seriously though, look here for discussion (posted by SPIG a wee while back): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3205727.stm

[hr]
[s]"Surely a young man like you has needs, Mister Kenobi. American Express can pay for them."

"Will it pay for dancing boys?"
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/frame.html
[/s]

[Pandyboy]

In addition to the Leviticus "statement" as it were, the issue could be interpreted as an argument against homosexual penetrative sex "Thou shalt not lie with man AS woman" rather than same sex relationships. Also, where do lesbians fit in? There are many such-like delights that can be gleamed from the more...outspoken Old Testament books - stoning of adulterous women or rebellious children, treatment of slaves etc etc.

How and when do we decide that certain aspects are outdated and irrelevant?

[EviLTwiN]

[s]Rex Mundi wrote on 17:44, 19th Nov 2003:
I'm a practicing christian but I support the idea of a same sex union. I think we have to separate the legal act of marriage and the spiritual. Homosexual couples should be allowed to make the same legal commitment in my opinion. I think it would be helpful though to call it a union and not a marriage, just to try and make a distinction between the two (I think the same should be for heterosexual marriage services in a registry office etc. so that people can see that a religious Marriage does have significance to religious people, and that it's more than just the legal side.)


Well since "marriage" isn't something that only belongs to christians, if you're cencerned about making the distinction, then you can make up a new name for a christian marriage. The cheek!

If you change the wording there will be a stimga attached at least initially to the new thing (ie. they're not really married). Well we're all quite happy with it all just being marriage, but some religiously blessed and some not. If you people are so bothered about the distinction then you can change the name of the religious marriage.

Why should we have to make up a new name for non-religious marriages?

Like I said, religious people seem to think they have some sort of control over marriage, whether that be the act or the word. You don't.

If marriage was a soley christian thing you would have an argument. As it is you do not have an argument for it whatsoever.


[hr]
IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]

[tintin]

Jubilee, sorry, I didn't mean to sound self-righteous, I was trying to convey sarcasm, but it obsiously didn't work. Sorry for any offence.

[EviLTwiN]

it looks like you're in a minority around here, and not because you're a christian.

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 18:48, 19th Nov 2003:

Well since "marriage" isn't something that only belongs to christians, if you're cencerned about making the distinction, then you can make up a new name for a christian marriage. The cheek!

If marriage was a soley christian thing you would have an argument. As it is you do not have an argument for it whatsoever.





What is marriage then?

As far as I know, the English word "marriage" comes from the Christian state of being.

After all, to the church, one doesn't need a wedding in order to be married, as marriage is a sacrament.

[Rex Mundi]

[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 18:48, 19th Nov 2003:
Well since "marriage" isn't something that only belongs to christians, if you're cencerned about making the distinction, then you can make up a new name for a christian marriage. The cheek!

If you change the wording there will be a stimga attached at least initially to the new thing (ie. they're not really married). Well we're all quite happy with it all just being marriage, but some religiously blessed and some not. If you people are so bothered about the distinction then you can change the name of the religious marriage.

Why should we have to make up a new name for non-religious marriages?

Like I said, religious people seem to think they have some sort of control over marriage, whether that be the act or the word. You don't.

If marriage was a soley christian thing you would have an argument. As it is you do not have an argument for it whatsoever.


I never said it did! I said religious people if you read my post carefully. Please don't put words into my mouth. Just to make that clear, seeing as it's obviously not clear enough for you; thats any religious belief; Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, whatever it may be.

As for the rest of your rant, well it's easier to change the UK law than it is to change every single religion in the world.

And as it happens the marriage laws in this country are borne out of christian marriages. So if you're going to change it you might as well change the lot, to make it clear and distinct from the old ideas. I don't see whats wrong with all marriages being a union but not all unions being a marriage.

[tintin]

"it looks like you're in a minority around here, and not because you're a christian. "

I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean. It might be that because the majority of people posting appear to be from the Left I seem a little normal.

[Kibet]

[s]tintin wrote on 20:01, 19th Nov 2003:
"it looks like you're in a minority around here, and not because you're a christian. "

I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean. It might be that because the majority of people posting appear to be from the Left I seem a little normal.



it doesn't matter if you are in the minority or the majority, at least you are contributing as pilmour wanted

[exnihilo]

Crikey. Its not often I'm accused of being from the Left. Reallqy quite the opposite normally. Though that's wrong too - appearances can be most deceiving. And, either way, "left" is not a dirty word. "Crevice" now that IS a dirty word (apologies to Black Adder).

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Wong wrote on 18:24, 19th Nov 2003:
Um where does it say homosexuality is a sin?

Leviticus, I think.

Leviticus says that you can't eat pork and shell-fish, that boys should be circumcised on the 8th day of their life, and various other laws - how many Christians practice any of these? The Laws of Leviticus are not normally considered to apply to Christians - the only reason they're included in the Bible is to provide some kind of historical context to the New Testament - they are only normally practiced by Jews. You can't just take one single law and say that applies to Christians, and then reject the rest of them.

There is nowhere in the New Testament that suggests that homosexuality is wrong, neither does it really mention marriage very much. From a Christian perspective, I can see no reason why homosexual marriage should be a bad thing. Indeed, Jesus encourages equality and non-judgementalism between all people in the New Testament - surely this would suggest that homosexual marriage would be seen as a good thing by Christians?

However, I do also agree with the people that have said marriage is more of a state, legal event and is not purely a religious one. We already have Civil Marriages - the word marriage is allowed to be used in these, and they have no religious significance whatsoever. Why could marriage not be used for similar legal bindings between homosexual men and women. I see no difference.

[EviLTwiN]

[s]Rex Mundi wrote on 19:44, 19th Nov 2003:


I never said it did! I said religious people if you read my post carefully. Please don't put words into my mouth. Just to make that clear, seeing as it's obviously not clear enough for you; thats any religious belief; Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, whatever it may be.


You said "I think it would be helpful though to call it a union and not a marriage, just to try and make a distinction between the two"

...isn't that your opinion...? i took it to be since you said 'i think' before saying it shouldn't be called marriage. Maybe i misunderstood your use of the word i.


AND my point is that it doesn't need to be changed. Everyone else is happy with the word marriage except religious people. If you want a distinction then you can change the word for a religious marriage. It doesn't matter how hard that would be, since there is no way you should be able to dictate that we can't call what we consider to be a marriage a marriage. THAT is the point... not how hard it would be to change but the fact that there is no obligation on us to change since we're quite happy with the word marriage.

And as has been pointed out marriage is quite seperate from religion.
Yes marriage law here is based with the church... but only because the church used to run the place since back in the day when the church took part in burning witches. Just because they've had a hand on marriage in this conutry in the past doesn't make it a christian thing.

It's quite clear that in this day and age marriage is seperate from religion for a lot of people, and they are perfectly entitled to call it marriage and have all the legal benefits as well as keeping the word marriage. And hence same sex couples should be allowed it too.

So thanks for "the rest of your rant" about keeping new ideas seperate from the old, but how about religious people keeping their old ideas seperate from the current times.

[hr]
IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]

[LeopardSkinQueen]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 20:46, 19th Nov 2003:
We already have Civil Marriages - the word marriage is allowed to be used in these, and they have no religious significance whatsoever. Why could marriage not be used for similar legal bindings between homosexual men and women. I see no difference.


I agree. Otherwise, you have the two-tier 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' system which is is fundamentally discriminatory in implication.

[hr]
[s]"Surely a young man like you has needs, Mister Kenobi. American Express can pay for them."

"Will it pay for dancing boys?"
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/frame.html
[/s]

[Kibet]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 20:46, 19th Nov 2003:

There is nowhere in the New Testament that suggests that homosexuality is wrong, neither does it really mention marriage very much. From a Christian perspective, I can see no reason why homosexual marriage should be a bad thing. Indeed, Jesus encourages equality and non-judgementalism between all people in the New Testament - surely this would suggest that homosexual marriage would be seen as a good thing by Christians?


are you sure?
Romans
1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy
all in the new testament

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

however Matthew 19:10-12 does accept it.

contradiction as always in the bible. history is written by the victors as they say.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Marriage is not - and never has been, unless Jesus at some point in the Bible used time travel - a specifically Christian or even religious state of union. Everyone needs to get over that and move on.

Additionally, the whole homosexuality in the Bible thing - somewhat contentious and like all religious texts, extremely open to interpretation. Although that's probably more down to people reading into something what they want to more than anything.

[Magus]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 19:16, 19th Nov 2003:
What is marriage then?

As far as I know, the English word "marriage" comes from the Christian state of being.


marry - c.1300, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "wed, marry," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman.

marriage - see marry.

There we go - it's a Roman thing. Yay!

[hr]
With a sense of deep emotion I approach this painful case,
For I never had a notion that a man could be so base.
Or deceive a girl confiding
Vows etcetera deriding