# Angela Merkel and gay marriage



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

Gay marriage was legalised in Germany today after a vote in the German parliament by 393 votes to 226. Angela Merkel voted against legalisation on the grounds that she believes that in her opinion the union is "the preserve of a man and a woman". Shortly after the vote she said "To me, marriage as defined in the German basic law means the marriage between husband and wife".

I kind of agree with her in her beliefs. Does that make the two of us and anyone else that agrees horribly outdated? Marriage between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman so why does it need to have the same name? Is there really any problem with it being called a civil partnership rather than a marriage as long as equal rights are applied to all relationships?


----------



## Lump (Jun 30, 2017)

Genuine question for anyone against gay marriage. 

Do you closely know any gay couples? By closely I mean personally, not just friends of friends.


----------



## User20205 (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			Gay marriage was legalised in Germany today after a vote in the German parliament by 393 votes to 226. Angela Merkel voted against legalisation on the grounds that she believes that in her opinion the union is "the preserve of a man and a woman". Shortly after the vote she said "To me, marriage as defined in the German basic law means the marriage between husband and wife".

I kind of agree with her in her beliefs. Does that make the two of us and anyone else that agrees horribly outdated? Marriage between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman so why does it need to have the same name? Is there really any problem with it being called a civil partnership rather than a marriage as long as equal rights are applied to all relationships?
		
Click to expand...

Why isn't it the same?

Merkel's party is the Christian democrats? No ? Maybe she feels that she needs to reflect the attitudes of her core supporter. 
For me full equality isn't full unless it's normalised. This includes the name of the union. 
I'm prepared to listen to a contrary view point, but I can't think of a rational reason to object to gay marriage


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 30, 2017)

this'll end well


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

Lump said:



			Genuine question for anyone against gay marriage. 

Do you closely know any gay couples? By closely I mean personally, not just friends of friends.
		
Click to expand...

My female cousin is in a same sex relationship. Why?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

therod said:



			Why isn't it the same?
		
Click to expand...

In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

guest100718 said:



			this'll end well
		
Click to expand...

There's no reason for it not to end well. Surely we can have a grown up discussion about this without it having to turn bad.


----------



## User20205 (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?
		
Click to expand...

Because civil partnership isn't marriage & therefore not full equality. The definition that you use is very narrow. Where is this defined? Change is good


----------



## Lump (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			My female cousin is in a same sex relationship. Why?
		
Click to expand...

Would you deny her the right to call her partner her wife and everything that goes with that.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jun 30, 2017)

Don't see the issue
2 people who love each other, live together and share everything.
The public announcement of their bonding is a marriage regardless of their sexes.

Calling it something else is just splitting hairs, just because it's always been so, doesn't mean it has to stay that way 

Glad the churches are gradually catching up


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

Lump said:



			Would you deny her the right to call her partner her wife and everything that goes with that.
		
Click to expand...

No not at all. As long as there is equality (which it seems from therod's post that there isn't, which I didn't know) between marriage and whatever same sex "marriage" is to be called. I'm not arguing against same sex marriage but against the terminology.


----------



## User20205 (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			No not at all. As long as there is equality (which it seems from therod's post that there isn't, which I didn't know) between marriage and whatever same sex "marriage" is to be called. I'm not arguing against same sex marriage but against the terminology.
		
Click to expand...

 I'm no expert. I believe that there are subtle differences, but even without those a civil partnership would feel like a pale imitation, even if only a perception.


----------



## GreiginFife (Jun 30, 2017)

Who or what (aside from basic German law) defines marriage as between man and woman? 

Is this a universal definition? Is it an agreed definition? Agreed by whom, if so?


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			In my opinion (and that's all it is) because the definition of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've no issue with civil partnerships or any other term for it but why does it have to be marriage?
		
Click to expand...

Why can't it be marriage? After all it is another term for a civil partnership...

I don't see gay and not gay, I just see people.


----------



## chrisd (Jun 30, 2017)

Marriage can be the union of anyone to anyone as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe that it is a religious matter and no one should be denied because of a load of tosh spouted particularly by so called Christian writings.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jun 30, 2017)

GreiginFife said:



			Who or what (aside from basic German law) defines marriage as between man and woman? 

Is this a universal definition? Is it an agreed definition? Agreed by whom, if so?
		
Click to expand...

I think certainly historically and religiously marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. In the bible it's described as "a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman".


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jun 30, 2017)

I'm not religious so marriage doesn't interest me. 
If 2 people of the same sex choose to get wed,crack on.


----------



## GreiginFife (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think certainly historically and religiously marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. In the bible it's described as "a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman".
		
Click to expand...

Well history is really just culture and that changes all the time, earth flat, man willl never fly and all that.

Religion on the other hand, well thats different. My wedding didnt have an ounce of religion in it, not a smidgeon. Does that mean I can tell the wif... I mean the Mrs... hang on, her indoors to sling the hook?
If I'm not religeous, does it not apply to me then? 

Or, is it another element, like women in the cloth, that needs to change because culture and history is being made?


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 30, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			There's no reason for it not to end well. Surely we can have a grown up discussion about this without it having to turn bad.
		
Click to expand...

you'd like to think so


----------



## ScienceBoy (Jul 1, 2017)

Every couple should be allowed the same legal and financial security of a recognised union, whatever you call it it should be open to everyone and no special pairing should get a better deal.

IMO it's marriage that is outdated and we should be moving to something more modern. 

No idea what that would be but marriage is far to messy to sort out when it goes wrong or even when it comes to a natural end. I bet those who make money off divorce would not like my suggestion!


----------



## Kellfire (Jul 1, 2017)

Doubled edge sword for me. 

Yes, gay people should absolutely be able to say they are married if that's what they desire. 

But I also wonder why any gay person would want to use the term in a religious way when most, if not all, faiths are against homosexuality unless they're "progressive" which is another term for "ignoring their religious texts". 

The most important thing we could do is take the term marriage back from the religious.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 1, 2017)

Not long ago divorced couples could not re-marry in church.
The world moves on, we should move with it.


----------



## PieMan (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm all for equal rights for everyone......apart from gingers obviously!! &#128514;&#128514;


----------



## Tashyboy (Jul 1, 2017)

ScienceBoy said:



			Every couple should be allowed the same legal and financial security of a recognised union, whatever you call it it should be open to everyone and no special pairing should get a better deal.

IMO it's marriage that is outdated and we should be moving to something more modern. 

No idea what that would be but marriage is far to messy to sort out when it goes wrong or even when it comes to a natural end. I bet those who make money off divorce would not like my suggestion!
		
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth when it comes to going wrong. But having said that I still don't think that is a reason not to get married, just coz it could go tits up.

re same sex marriage, I understand where Colchester is coming from but it is an old fashioned attitude or view which some will not change. It don't make them ignorant, for people like me ma and pa who celebrated there 60th wedding anniversary two days ago it is something they were brought up to believe in.

If you love someone, you love someone. Thats it irrespective of gender or race. Going back years, there was shock and horror if a white woman courted a black man or vica versa. If you had a child out of marriage, said child went to live with an " auntie" to save the family from shame.

Times change quicker than people's beliefs.


----------



## Val (Jul 1, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not long ago divorced couples could not re-marry in church.
The world moves on, we should move with it.
		
Click to expand...

Still can't in the Catholic Church


----------



## sawtooth (Jul 1, 2017)

Can't a compromise be struck?

Allow gay marriage but if the catholic church don't allow the ceremony in their churches then so be it. 

Plenty of other places to marry.


----------



## Val (Jul 1, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			Can't a compromise be struck?

Allow gay marriage but if the catholic church don't allow the ceremony in their churches then so be it. 

Plenty of other places to marry.
		
Click to expand...

That already happens in this country


----------



## sawtooth (Jul 1, 2017)

Val said:



			That already happens in this country
		
Click to expand...

This should be the precedent everywhere.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 1, 2017)

PieMan said:



			I'm all for equal rights for everyone......apart from gingers obviously!! &#128514;&#128514;
		
Click to expand...

Here here :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## bobmac (Jul 1, 2017)

PieMan said:



			I'm all for equal rights for everyone......apart from gingers obviously!! &#62978;&#62978;
		
Click to expand...

and fatties


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jul 1, 2017)

If one human wants to declare their love and intent for life long commitment for another human with a "marriage" then who are we to say no? 
I dont see sexual bias descrimination to be any different to race or colour discrimination.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

PieMan said:



			I'm all for equal rights for everyone......apart from gingers obviously!! &#128514;&#128514;
		
Click to expand...




Stuart_C said:



			Here here :clap: :clap: :clap:
		
Click to expand...

This caused quite a debate at my son's school recently. One of the kids was being picked on because he's ginger. The parents weren't happy and demanded action was taken because the school wouldn't tolerate bullying if it was due to skin colour so why should it be different because it was due to hair colour.


----------



## PieMan (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			This caused quite a debate at my son's school recently. One of the kids was being picked on because he's ginger. The parents weren't happy and demanded action was taken because the school wouldn't tolerate bullying if it was due to skin colour so why should it be different because it was due to hair colour.
		
Click to expand...

Bullying of any form is unacceptable, especially in schools when kids are young.

Both my wife and youngest son are red heads. I don't think anyone would dare pick on my son for his hair colour - he's in year 4 (age 9) and taller and bigger than most of the kids in Year 6!! Gonna be a big old unit!!


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 1, 2017)

bobmac said:



			and fatties 

Click to expand...

Fatties keep the economy going


----------



## bobmac (Jul 1, 2017)

Stuart_C said:



			Fatties keep the economy going 

Click to expand...

and the pie industry


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 1, 2017)

To me marriage is marriage, doesn't matter which flavour the couple is really.   Understand that certain people do not agree, but I expect with most societal changes, those that believe that a marriage has to be with members of the opposite sex will gradually reduce over time.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

Marriage is viewed by many (of all religions) as a religious institution.  Rightly or wrongly.  That the state has appropriated the word 'marriage' for secular political reasons is an upset to many of faith.   The political reasons for defining a same-sex relationship are well understood by those of such a view - it is the appropriation of 'marriage' that upsets as many who are married - especially those of an older generation for whom marriage had, and still has, a deep religious meaning.  I suspect the opposition some hold over same-sex marriage would largely disappear were a different terminology used.  Yes that is a rather 'really?' observation but it is one I have formed through observation and listening...as for such couples 'marriage' is indeed a sacred institution in the eyes of God and not one to be taken lightly or abused.

As it happens, my own tradition is very relaxed about same-sex marriage and my own congregation has been empowered by our General Assembly to decide whether or not we wish to accommodate same-sex marriage in our church - the tradition as a whole has decided that it does not oppose it.  And though I know there is some opposition in my own congregation it is very limited - and I am very confident that, when we come to make that decision, we will do so in an open and enlightened way to the affirmative.

But please don't summarily dismiss the concerns of those who are opposed, their reasons may not be quite what you imagine them to be.


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 1, 2017)

I dont hold a view on who should or shouldnt be allowed to marry, but i do wish that some who marry would think more about it. It should be about finding a life partner, and yes, it can go wrong, but for many it looks like they didnt put enough effort into it. Divorce should be rare, but sadly, it is not.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			I dont hold a view on who should or shouldnt be allowed to marry, but i do wish that some who marry would think more about it. It should be about finding a life partner, and yes, it can go wrong, but for many it looks like they didnt put enough effort into it. Divorce should be rare, but sadly, it is not.
		
Click to expand...

So true.  Of the dozen or so couples we got to know well when our children went to Primary School - only a couple (of couples) are still together.  And somehow me and Mrs SiLH made 26yrs on the 29th June - and it has not been plain sailing.  Far from it at times.  But we persevered (rather Mrs SiLH did)

As far as we can see the main 'culprits' behind the breakdowns have usually been the blokes - having money and success, feeling too young to be boring and not wanting to be tied down by the constraints of marriage to 'the same old same old' and with bringing up children.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			Gay marriage was legalised in Germany today after a vote in the German parliament by 393 votes to 226. Angela Merkel voted against legalisation on the grounds that she believes that in her opinion the union is "the preserve of a man and a woman". Shortly after the vote she said "To me, marriage as defined in the German basic law means the marriage between husband and wife".

I kind of agree with her in her beliefs. Does that make the two of us and anyone else that agrees horribly outdated? Marriage between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman so why does it need to have the same name? Is there really any problem with it being called a civil partnership rather than a marriage as long as equal rights are applied to all relationships?
		
Click to expand...

Yip! Sorry but it's pure bigotry on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 1, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			My marriage is no less valid than yours.
		
Click to expand...

I cannot agree more Karen!


----------



## louise_a (Jul 1, 2017)

Someone who undergoes gender reassignment can get their birth certificate changed so if they are married they are then in a same sex marriage. Previously they would have to divorce and then enter a civil partnership which was just silly.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yip! Sorry but it's pure bigotry on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree that your marriage is no less valid than mine or anyones. But to accuse me of bigotry because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is bigoted on your part.

From dictionary.com - Bigotry -  "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You are clearly intolerant of my opinion. I'm not arguing against same sex relationships, civil partnerships or any other celebration of that relationship. I've clearly stated that I support them and that whatever they are called they should enjoy exactly the same rights as a "traditional" marriage. My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 1, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yip! Sorry but it's pure bigotry on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.
		
Click to expand...

Where is the massive like button. :thup:


----------



## dewsweeper (Jul 1, 2017)

Nice to see many on here bending over backwards to be tolerant of others views!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 1, 2017)

Some of my wives best friends are in same sex marriage and I know they treat the meaning of marriage far more seriously than some "traditional" couples 

I don't care about political or religious views for me marriage is only ever about two people being totally in love with each other and wanting to confirm that commitment for the rest of their lives - it shouldn't matter if that's same sex or opposite sex


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.
		
Click to expand...

But the problem is that if you have different terms for different types of relationships, you automatically introduce an identifiable marker that leaves it wide open to potential prejudice . 

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage in my book


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			But the problem is that if you have different terms for different types of relationships, you automatically introduce an identifiable marker that leaves it wide open to potential prejudice . 

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage in my book
		
Click to expand...

But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.
		
Click to expand...

Then we must agree to disagree


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.
		
Click to expand...

All the relationships are the same - they are people being in love with another person regardless of their sex 

Wasn't civil partnerships created because same sex weren't allowed to be married - as soon as that's removed then so can civil partnerships and it's just marriage to one and all if they so wish - no one should be treated any differently because of who they love


----------



## GreiginFife (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			But a relationship between a man and a woman is different to a relationship between a man and a man which is also different to a relationship between a woman and a woman. My argument isn't that any of these relationships is better or more important than any of the others, just that they are different and why do we need one term to cover all of them. A heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership. That is (currently) only for same sex couples.
		
Click to expand...

How are they different? Procreation aside which is not a necessity of a relegation ship and vice Verda, how is two people regardless of sex, being in love and dedicated to each other, different?
Is it because religion tells you it is? Or have you personally defined why it's different and can articulate it?


----------



## Val (Jul 1, 2017)

The only difference between a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage is procreation. Same sex couples cannot have a family naturally but a same sex marriage can create a more loving household for a kid through fostering or adoption than many opposite sex marriages can.

Ive no objections at all to same sex marriages (I've been to 2) despite the fact as a catholic my religion don't permit it.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

GreiginFife said:



			How are they different? Procreation aside which is not a necessity of a relegation ship and vice Verda, how is two people regardless of sex, being in love and dedicated to each other, different?
Is it because religion tells you it is? Or have you personally defined why it's different and can articulate it?
		
Click to expand...

In my opinion (and that's all it is, and a very minority one judging by the replies to this thread) the difference is only that one relationship is between a man and a woman, one is between a man and a man and one is between a woman and a woman. To me they are different relationships, regardless of the fact that all of them are just two people being in love and wanting to celebrate that. None of them are any less valid or less important than any of the others but to me they are different. It's nothing to do with religion as I am one of the least religious people I know. A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. They are different. We don't feel the need to call them all four legged domesticated mammals.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 1, 2017)

The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

therod said:



			The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.
		
Click to expand...

I've tried to explain why I think they are different. It's not based on facts, it's purely my opinion. I am happy to accept that other people have a different opinion and that their opinion is equally as valid as mine.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I completely agree that your marriage is no less valid than mine or anyones. But to accuse me of bigotry because I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is bigoted on your part.

From dictionary.com - Bigotry -  "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You are clearly intolerant of my opinion. I'm not arguing against same sex relationships, civil partnerships or any other celebration of that relationship. I've clearly stated that I support them and that whatever they are called they should enjoy exactly the same rights as a "traditional" marriage. *My only disagreement is with using the term marriage.*

Click to expand...

Which is just what I was saying about the view of some having a religious faith, and a belief in the 'traditional' meaning and the sanctity of marriage.  I am unfortunately not surprised that you are rather shot down - when I asked that those who disagree with your view do not make assumptions about *why* you might think this.  But of course those assumptions are made and your view is summarily dismissed.  Which is a pity.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. They are different. We don't feel the need to call them all four legged domesticated mammals.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't a human a human, a person a person, no one chooses their sexuality and there's no need to label a union between two people anything other than marriage no matter what their sex they are, after all it's just a word and, for me, any other word differentiates them from the norm which, of course, is quite wrong imo


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

therod said:



			The key issue is that you can't explain why you believe that they are different, just that they are.
The 'I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot' argument falls down if your opinion isn't based on fact, just a ingrained feeling that you can't rationalise.
		
Click to expand...

Why does he have to explain a belief?  It is a belief.  If you are not open to individuals holding beliefs, and a belief such as this, then you will never understand why such a belief can be held.  Not everything in, on and about this world has to be subject to detailed analysis and scientific proof.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I've tried to explain why I think they are different. It's not based on facts, it's purely my opinion. I am happy to accept that other people have a different opinion and that their opinion is equally as valid as mine.
		
Click to expand...

No you haven't . You've just said they are different, cats are cats, dogs are dogs etc.
thats not explanation just a paper thin justification for a opinion that may be underpinned by something more sinister


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Which is just what I was saying about the view of some having a religious faith, and a belief in the 'traditional' meaning and the sanctity of marriage.  I am unfortunately not surprised that you are rather shot down - when I asked that those who disagree with your view do not make assumptions about *why* you might think this.  But of course those assumptions are made and your view is summarily dismissed.  Which is a pity.
		
Click to expand...

My views are based on tradition rather than religion and I am happy for my opinion to be challenged/dismissed and for me to be considered as some kind of dinosaur because of my views. But I have a lot more respect for those that are putting forward a counter argument to my views rather than those that simply dismiss them. Many people on this thread have disagreed with my opinion and have explained why and while I may not agree with what they have said, and equally they obviously don't agree with my opinion, I think that this thread has shown that it is possible to discuss a serious topic on the forum without it descending into name calling and abuse.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 1, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Why does he have to explain a belief?  It is a belief.  If you are not open to individuals holding beliefs, and a belief such as this, then you will never understand why such a belief can be held.  Not everything in, on and about this world has to be subject to detailed analysis and scientific proof.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does. If you are actively promoting discrimination then explain your reasons. Don't hide behind being entitled to have a belief because it's a 'right'
If it's nonsense expect to be challenged


----------



## chrisd (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think that this thread has shown that it is possible to discuss a serious topic on the forum without it descending into name calling and abuse.
		
Click to expand...

I agree totally, its called opinions and many dont think anyone should hold one different than theirs. Whilst I totally disagree with you on the subject you are entitled to hold the view that you do


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

therod said:



			No you haven't . You've just said they are different, cats are cats, dogs are dogs etc.
thats not explanation just a paper thin justification for a opinion that may be underpinned by something more sinister
		
Click to expand...

Why don't you just come out and make the accusation that you obviously want to make? What is it that you think is more sinister?


----------



## User20205 (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			Why don't you just come out and make the accusation that you obviously want to make? What is it that you think is more sinister?
		
Click to expand...

No accusation, but in the absence of an explanation, it may be a conclusion some will draw. If you could rationalise why you believe full marital privilege shouldn't exist then there would be no chance of an incorrect conclusion. 
I'm all for different opinions, and the right to hold them, but unless you can explain yourself it could be misinterpreted


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 1, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Why does he have to explain a belief?  It is a belief.  If you are not open to individuals holding beliefs, and a belief such as this, then you will never understand why such a belief can be held.  Not everything in, on and about this world has to be subject to detailed analysis and scientific proof.
		
Click to expand...

But equally, many beliefs down the years have been proven to be wrong. Do you believe UKIP's position on immigration is correct or that Brexit is a good thing? We know from previous threads that you believe UKIP and Brexit are very wrong.

To allow one person to do something but another not to, in this instance, is discrimination.

The Equalities Act 2010 is pretty clear about discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace yet those same rules haven't been applied across the whole of society. That, to me, is more about a government bottling it when it comes to confronting the church about discrimination based on sexual orientation.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 1, 2017)

therod said:



			No accusation, but in the absence of an explanation, it may be a conclusion some will draw. If you could rationalise why you believe full marital privilege shouldn't exist then there would be no chance of an incorrect conclusion. 
I'm all for different opinions, and the right to hold them, but unless you can explain yourself it could be misinterpreted
		
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that all "marriages" (only in inverted commas due to my opinion that they shouldn't all be called "marriage") should have the same rights and privileges. I just don't understand why we need to call all of the different types of relationship celebrations as the same thing. I think that whether you choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex then that relationship should be recognised as equal and have equal standing in the eyes of the law but I don't agree that they all need to have the same name.


----------



## User20205 (Jul 1, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I'm not disagreeing that all "marriages" (only in inverted commas due to my opinion that they shouldn't all be called "marriage") should have the same rights and privileges. I just don't understand why we need to call all of the different types of relationship celebrations as the same thing. I think that whether you choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex then that relationship should be recognised as equal and have equal standing in the eyes of the law but I don't agree that they all need to have the same name.
		
Click to expand...

If you go all the way in acceptance of equality, which is the biggest barrier for some, you may as well go the whole hog and call it marriage. In my opinion of course. Calling it something else hints at division and potential discrimination


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			But equally, many beliefs down the years have been proven to be wrong. Do you believe UKIP's position on immigration is correct or that Brexit is a good thing? We know from previous threads that you believe UKIP and Brexit are very wrong.

To allow one person to do something but another not to, in this instance, is discrimination.

The Equalities Act 2010 is pretty clear about discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace yet those same rules haven't been applied across the whole of society. That, to me, is more about a government bottling it when it comes to confronting the church about discrimination based on sexual orientation.
		
Click to expand...

I repeat - the quibble that some of religious faith have with same-sex marriage is simply that in their view the word 'marriage' has been appropriated by government for political and broader societal reasons, their view being that the word 'marriage' has a specific meaning in a specific context.  And were the legislation to refer to same-sex 'joining-in-love' or any such as - then for most who have concerns about same-sex marriage then there would be no issue.  

A new sport comes along that involves hitting a a ball the size of football with a something that looks like a hockey stick at a target and we are told by the authorities that it will be in all respects equivalent in standing to golf, and so we must call it golf and accept it as golf.  I think I might just have reservations and might just tell the authorities to hold on a bit.  Golf is Golf - it is defined by the traditions and rules of the game.  Call this new sport that is like golf (but isn't) anything you want - call it 'clubball' if you want - but don't call it golf, because we golfers *know *what golf is, and have a complete belief and understanding that this new sport just isn't golf.  End of.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 1, 2017)

therod said:



			Yes it does. If you are actively promoting discrimination then explain your reasons. Don't hide behind being entitled to have a belief because it's a 'right'
If it's nonsense expect to be challenged
		
Click to expand...

I might say - _it's not nonsense and so I don't have to justify it_.  You might disagree - but that's just your opinion.  

A belief in the meaning of the word 'marriage' does not actually harm anyone in any way.  We are talking about the meaning of a word.  Just don't use the same word.  In time, the old and traditional beliefs and understanding of the word will most probably die out - as has happened for many words - and then it may well be appropriate to simplify things by extending the meaning and context of the word.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 1, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I repeat - the quibble that some of religious faith have with same-sex marriage is simply that in their view the word 'marriage' has been appropriated by government for political and broader societal reasons, their view being that the word 'marriage' has a specific meaning in a specific context.  And were the legislation to refer to same-sex 'joining-in-love' or any such as - then for most who have concerns about same-sex marriage then there would be no issue.  

A new sport comes along that involves hitting a a ball the size of football with a something that looks like a hockey stick at a target and we are told by the authorities that it will be in all respects equivalent in standing to golf, and so we must call it golf and accept it as golf.  I think I might just have reservations and might just tell the authorities to hold on a bit.  Golf is Golf - it is defined by the traditions and rules of the game.  Call this new sport that is like golf (but isn't) anything you want - call it 'clubball' if you want - but don't call it golf, because we golfers *know *what golf is, and have a complete belief and understanding that this new sport just isn't golf.  End of.
		
Click to expand...

It sounds to me that you feel the word 'Marriage ' is owned by the church - no, it's owned by people and can be used in any context they choose


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 1, 2017)

chrisd said:



			It sounds to me that you feel the word 'Marriage ' is owned by the church - no, it's owned by people and can be used in any context they choose
		
Click to expand...

Saved me putting that very point Chris. 

Which leads onto which church doesn't own marriage as a ritual? Should Sikhs be 'allowed' to marry...?

The definition of marriage is actually very encompassing, and includes, opposite sex marriages, same sex marriages, plural marriages and arranged marriages. Its churches that limit marriages, and in so doing make a significant group of people unhappy - and shame on any church for doing that.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 1, 2017)

Thought marriage itself was an old fashioned concept...

Merely an excuse for a day out..


----------



## bobmac (Jul 2, 2017)

If a man and a woman who aren't married have a child, is that child still considered illegitimate?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 2, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			I'm not disagreeing that all "marriages" (only in inverted commas due to my opinion that they shouldn't all be called "marriage") should have the same rights and privileges. I just don't understand why we need to call all of the different types of relationship celebrations as the same thing. I think that whether you choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex then that relationship should be recognised as equal and have equal standing in the eyes of the law but I don't agree that they all need to have the same name.
		
Click to expand...

I would argue that marriage is seen as the 'ultimate' way of declaring your love and commitment for another person. So for true equality anyone should be allowed to get 'married'. Once you start calling it different terms then it is very difficult to justify that logically IMHO.

The only answer in your scenario would be for terms like marriage and civil partnership to have the same perception (and legal standing) in society, which I do not think will happen.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 2, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yip! Sorry but it's *pure bigotry* on your part. My marriage is no less valid than yours.
		
Click to expand...

Er...If it's not simply poor selection of wording, then I'm inclined to think that the 'bigotry' (definition: intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself) is more on your side! Though I can certainly understand how your attitude could have been shaped!  Neither Colchester nor Merkel suggested they were 'intolerant', simply that they had a different view!

Unfortunately, this is an issue where views tend to be easily polarised/intransigent/bigoted!

I'm pleased to see the German result! UK (except NI) finally got around to 'equality' through a typically British iterative process! NZ (especially Wellington, where I lived) seemed to be at the forefront of the progression to equality back in the 70s - I worked with a leading spokesperson for several years back then! 

I'm afraid bigotry still exists in many religions - over many matters! Such 'intolerance' is generally against the principles of the religion, which makes for an 'interesting dilemna'! Seems to me more asserted dogma than fundamental doctrine!

Edit: And yes; it should be called 'marriage' because that's what it is! No need for different names!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 2, 2017)

chrisd said:



			It sounds to me that you feel the word 'Marriage ' is owned by the church - no, it's owned by people and can be used in any context they choose
		
Click to expand...

I repeat - the opposition that some have to gay marriage is that they feel that they word has been appropriated by the government and those of no particular religious faith for political purposes, and that it's broader use undermines their own traditional and deeply held beliefs and understanding of their own marriage.  And I said at the outset - that view is held 'rightly or wrongly'.


----------



## Fish (Jul 2, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I repeat - the opposition that some have to gay marriage is that they feel that they word has been appropriated by the government and those of no particular religious faith for political purposes, and that it's broader use undermines their own traditional and deeply held beliefs and understanding of their own marriage.  And I said at the outset - that view is held 'rightly or wrongly'.
		
Click to expand...

That's just generalising, what's your view?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 2, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			I would argue that marriage is seen as the 'ultimate' way of declaring your love and commitment for another person.
		
Click to expand...



Loads of folk 'co-habit' without feeling the need of declaring their love by getting 'married'... Are you saying their love [for one another] is less than those that have said 'I do' a couple of times...


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 2, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I repeat - the opposition that some have to gay marriage is that they feel that they word has been appropriated by the government and those of no particular religious faith for political purposes, and that it's broader use undermines their own traditional and deeply held beliefs and understanding of their own marriage.  And I said at the outset - that view is held 'rightly or wrongly'.
		
Click to expand...

Thank goodness the government has appropriated marriage, if that is true. It could be argued that governments have made marriage more inclusive. Churches excluding people because they are different is abhorrent, and very much goes against the live and let live they preach.

How can someone's marriage be diminished just because someone else wants to be married. Surely they should take comfort in so many people wanting the same thing.


----------



## GreiginFife (Jul 2, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I repeat - the opposition that some have to gay marriage is that they feel that they word has been appropriated by the government and those of no particular religious faith for political purposes, and that it's broader use undermines their own traditional and deeply held beliefs and understanding of their own marriage.  And I said at the outset - that view is held 'rightly or wrongly'.
		
Click to expand...

Do these deeply held and traditional beliefs still consider that old women with cats should be burned at the stake? If not, why not? Or is it ok to move on from some beliefs than others? I personally don't believe that governments have done any of what you claim in "appropriating" marriage, people have don't that and through protest and suffering (lots of suffering) have pressurised the people in power to do something. You make it sound like it's the politicians doing t off their own back which is utter crap. Two of my closest friends are married (yes I consider them as married as I am) and have suffered unbelievable and, in my view, in humane treatment by religious people who surely should be better than that? Is that not the position to be forgiving or to treat people as they treat you? 
The world moves on and it does not wait for people to catch up.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 2, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			Loads of folk 'co-habit' without feeling the need of declaring their love by getting 'married'... Are you saying their love [for one another] is less than those that have said 'I do' a couple of times...
		
Click to expand...

I am taking about the perception in society of what marriage is. Of course people do not have to get married if they do not want to, and they may well have a long and happy life together. But I would argue that all people should have the option to get married as currently in society I feel that 'signifies' more than just cohabiting in the eyes of many.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 2, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			perception in society
		
Click to expand...


Ugly words them...

Certainly counted for a lot half a century ago.... Thought/hoped we'd moved on from that... And, folk could plough their own furrow without being 'judged'...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 2, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			Ugly words them...

Certainly counted for a lot half a century ago.... Thought/hoped we'd moved on from that... And, folk could plough their own furrow without being 'judged'...
		
Click to expand...

I think you are extrapolating the fact that I see marriage as the ultimate way in which a couple can declare their love and commitment to each other to that I see those that are not married as not being as much in love/happy etc.  I don't, I know plenty of married couples who are pretty unhappy and couples who live together who are right as rain.  Ironically enough the couple I think are the most happiest in a relationship are a married lesbian couple I know who seem to have a fantastic relationship.  I am sorry if it came across that was as I did not mean that, I want all couples to have the opportunity to get married.  If they do not want to then fine, but at least give them the chance.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 2, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			I think you are extrapolating the fact that I see marriage as the ultimate way in which a couple can declare their love and commitment to each other to that I see those that are not married as not being as much in love/happy etc.  I don't, I know plenty of married couples who are pretty unhappy and couples who live together who are right as rain.  Ironically enough the couple I think are the most happiest in a relationship are a married lesbian couple I know who seem to have a fantastic relationship.  I am sorry if it came across that was as I did not mean that, I want all couples to have the opportunity to get married.  If they do not want to then fine, but at least give them the chance.
		
Click to expand...



Apologies... I wasn't intending my post to come across as criticism of your own views... [Which, I suspect, are close/similar to my own...] But, the intolerant parts of society which I thought/hoped had been left behind...


I got wed 40+ years ago mostly to please the family and secondary to have a party... Forty years on, we both feel we'd have been just as happy had we not bothered...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 3, 2017)

If you don't call them both "marriage" then you're not giving them equivalence.

Marriage is a civil institution, not the preserve of religions. The government recognises religious marriage - not the other way round. There was no religion anywhere near my marriage, it is frankly none of their business.

And, yes, I am very intolerant of those who discriminate against me and rightly so!


----------



## Jensen (Jul 3, 2017)

So what about couples that get married at a non religious location, ie a registry office. Does that make their marriage less validated because it didn't take place at a church ?
Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage is marriage. It is 2 people confirming their love and commitment to each other.
I don't understand homophobia, what are the issues, it's what's on the inside that counts.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 13, 2017)

Fish said:



			That's just generalising, what's your view?
		
Click to expand...

As you ask I would be supportive of marriage of same sex couples in my church, but I recognise the issues that some older members of the congregation have.  My view is that notwithstanding what the Bible might say on any specific matter (and Leviticus is particularly interesting), we seek the Lords guidance on how to interpret these words in the context of the overriding principles set out in Mark 12:30-31, specifically that we love our neighbour as we love ourselves.

I am not aware of any Christians that oppose civil marriage.


----------

