That is to some extent true. And what do we know about why some people find it difficult to leave abusive relationships? All beliefs are true, for a given value of 'true'.
I think our societies and cultures have sufficiently demonstrated that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, Nexxo, that it is an intrinsic part of the fabric of our cultures too, furthermore, that it has been the definition for the past (insert amount) of years. And as I said: The homosexuals are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. Afterwards they proceed to complain when the peoples whose values and beliefs they do not share react negatively to them imposing themselves onto said institution, that is to say: marriage. I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here.
Gays aren't forcing anyone else into gay marriages. You are against their right to marry whoever they choose, so it is you in fact that is imposing yourself on the lives of others, treading on the rights of others and claiming an institution that isn't yours.
Wrong, try again. Let me refresh your memory: "I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here." It is the homosexuals that are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. I (and others) are not imposing ourselves onto them, and despite this homosexuals are the ones accusing heterosexuals for bigotry and intolerance.
So you're essentially arguing for the protection of a word? Perhaps the new ceremony can be identical to marriage in every facet, but we'll just call it "garriage" instead, would that suit? We have already concluded that marriage transcends religion, and even within a religious framework we see polgamy etc, which is ample proof that for millenia leading up to this point the definition of marriage has been a bit more open than man + woman. If you're talking Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh etc marriage then that's got entirely different connotations to generic marriage. In the eyes of God(s) and the community, not just the state.
Who said that gay people who want to get married don't share the same values and beliefs (with respect to marriage) as straight people? Aside from considering marriage to be an union between two people, rather than an union between a man and a woman, I'm not seeing how the two things differ.
@Walle You're persistently laying claim to the definition of marriage. Your argument is that "it's been like this for a long time". Nexxo gave examples of cultures where the custom wasn't bound by the limitations you claim. You reiterate that "it's been like this for a long time". News flash, society evolves, customs change and gay marriages are already a reality. "It's been like this for a long time" doesn't mean it will be like this forever and ever. So if marriage is only between a man and a woman, what are all the gay marriages until now? If you say that they're not same-sex then you're denying reality. If you don't acknowledge them as marriages then you're imposing your views on other people's lives.
You can do the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly that you cannot hear me, but my previous posts have given ample factual data that indicates that you are wrong in that assumption. As for homosexuals imposing themselves into an institution whose beliefs and values they do not share: that's a bit like saying that atheists have no morals. They may not share your definitions of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have not got one of their own that is equally valid. Again: you don't get to define what marriage is for everybody else.
The one and only reason religious opposition exists, is because 'it says it's wrong in the bible' This would be fine if religious people followed the word of the bible, but they don't...none of them....yes, you read that right, not one of them. If you are religious, you are, by definition, a hypocrite. I could pull a hundred examples of why you are a hypocrite, but to be honest, you probably know them, but choose to ignore them, because you are a hypocrite, so I don't see the point in quoting them here for you to ignore them again. Opposition to gay marriage is just plain small minded HUMAN bigotry, that is all. You can hide behind a book that bears no resemblance to the original scriptures (not that they were true anyway) if you like, but when it comes down to it, the only thing you have is hypocrisy to fall back on. It's funny, but nowhere in the new testament does Jesus even mention Gays. You'd think, if he had an opinion either way on the subject, he would have dedicated at least a line to the subject, no?
News flash, our societies and cultures evolved from previous definition and social construct, if you want to argue for hitting reverse you're entitled to do so. Likewise Nexxo. Ah the irony. That said, I would respect them more if they extended the same courtesy.
I like what marriage represents, the union between a man and a woman. I see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, and certainly nor for reasons of accommodating a minority group who has set themselves out to attack the institution and those who share the values and beliefs they can't identify themselves with. Again: "I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here."
Walle.....Does your mother, wife or sister wear trousers ever? If so, she is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of god. Much the same way a man who lies with a man, or someone who wears mixed fibre clothing, or someone who eats shellfish. How do you distinguish between these examples? The bible doesn't.
What is reverse for some, is forward for others. Just look at the traffic in the opposite lane. They are; you're not. They are not messing about with your right to marry who you want; you are messing with their right to do so.
How are they attacking the institution? How do they not share the values and beliefs of marriage? As far as I'm aware the only thing that really differs is whether marriage is defined as between two people or between a man and a woman (which to be honest is probably the least important bit of marriage). Other than that I don't see how the values and beliefs aren't shared...
Yes, Walle, please tell us how a same sex couple getting married threatens what marriage represents to you.
Is it not ? From what i have read everyone seems to be either for or against homosexual couples being able to be married, versus a civil partnership. And AFAIK one of the main reasons they want to be married instead of a civil partnership, is because the two are not equal in the legal rights afforded to them. Is it not the politicians that have applied pressure to the institutions that perform marriage to include homosexual couples, because changing the law on civil partnership to afford the same rights as marriage comes with other complications.
Going with very iffy statistics here, but if 20% of the UK's population is CofE, then are they not a minority as well? Epecially consider that only 2 in ten of them even visit a church regularly. Better tax breaks than being gay though I suppose.
I agree with this in principle. If businesses are to be given legal protection to turn away custom, they should have the ability to do so for any reason at all. I agree with you here as well. In my post above, I tried to make that distinction by specifically mentioning private businesses. Hospitals, police, and other public functions would not have the same protections. And this is where things get murky, and why ultimately I oppose the Arizona law. Some hospitals are run as private businesses, and churches are given certain tax exemtpions (which in my opinion makes them not entirely a private organization). While legislators might have had good intentions, it would no doubt end up a confused mess. At least here in the US, gay couples aren't really fighting to get married in churches. All they want is the right to get married like everyone else, and for the marriages to retain all of the legal protections as heterosexual unions (e.g. tax benefits, retirements benefits, court privilege, hospital rights, etc.).
