Angela Merkel and gay marriage

[User20205]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

Thought marriage itself was an old fashioned concept...

Merely an excuse for a day out..

 

[bobmac]

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

 

[Hacker Khan]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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'.

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

 

[MegaSteve]

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

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]

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'.

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]

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'.

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.