Sould gay Marriage Be allowed

[TigerFly]

I was having a discussion about this earlier and thought that I would ask others oppinions?

[TigerFly]

Sorry about the misspelling ! lol It should read : Should Gay marriage be allowed?

[Hamsterwaffle]

In a word:No.

[TigerFly]

We were arguing today whether gay marraige should or shouldn't be allowed, some say how is it any different from the love that a man and a woman feels for each other? The boys were saying that it's unnatural BUT if you look at nature there's gayness in the animal kingdom too. Also we were talking about where children would come into this? If it is ethical to bring up a child in a partnership of same sex parents or if the child would grow up (to quote one of the boys) "warped" OR would it make them alot more accepting of other cultures and other peoples beliefs?

[TigerFly]

In a word:No.

Why? Why should it not be allowed ? What is so wrong with it that it should be banned?

[Hamsterwaffle]

The idea is just ridiculous, marriage is a union between man and woman.

[Deoxys]

The idea is just ridiculous, marriage is a union between man and woman.

Well that's one way to look at it. Harsh but that's you opinion and we're all entitled to one so I respect that.
I have abosoloutley nothing against it whatsoever and think it should definelty be allowed. What's so wrong with it? What harm are a gay couple doing getting married? Okay, it's not an actual marriage so to speak but a civil partnership or whatever but it should still be allowed.
Love is love, and two gay people should be allowed to celebrate their union like any straight couple do.

[Cowgirl36]

I think it should be allowed, i really can't see a problem with it. It doesn't bother me they fancy people of the same gender as long as they are happy and don't try and influence everyone else, then its fine.
I think people who enter into gay marriages should be somewhat respected because they must have a really strong relationship in order to risk being insulted and abused by 'normal' people.
You can't help who you fall in love with!

[Hamsterwaffle]

They have a right to be together and I have no problem with them having a de facto marriage, as long as it isn't called marriage.

[TigerFly]

as long as it isn't called marriage.


Why do you disagree with it being called a marriage? a marriage is something that two people in love have, they are in love thus it should be a marriage, shouldn't it?

[atearth]

Should gay Marriage Be allowed?

Two individual no matter the sex should be allowed to marry whoever they want for it is the matter that only involves the two party and not society

[make.me.smile]

Yes, it should be. It's fair and it's right. Religion should not get in the way of two people who love each other.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Religions not stopping them from being together.

[make.me.smile]

Well it's one of it's main opposers wouldn't you say?

[claire]

Well it doesn't really matter what religions say in the end because gay marriages are civil partnerships not religious ones so they shouldn't get a say in whether its right or wrong becasue it doesn't concern them.

[make.me.smile]

Shouldn't being the oporative word there...

[Deoxys]

risk being insulted and abused by 'normal' people.

You mean heterosexual people ;)
I understand what you're trying to say though - and I agree.
A marriage is a union of two people, and is a symbol of a couple's love for one another. Anyone can fall in love, and anyone should be allowed to have their love recognised like straight people can.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

The government was right to call it a civil partnership, it would have offended devout Christians a lot more if it was called a marriage. Some Churches do accept gay marriages (it only tends to be the Methodists and some Catholic churches)

Steven Jones

[Questionmark]

Yes Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed.

Because Firstly, If Two People Are In Love No Matter The Gender Than They should Be Able To Do As They Wish Without Harassment. It's Their Own Personal Life And Nobody Should Be Allowed To Interfere

Secondly, What Is The Difference?:confused: There Isn't One. If A Man And Women Are Allowed To Be Married Then So Should People Of The Same Gender. There Is Absolutely No Difference Except The Genders.

Thirdly, It's Just Selfish To Not Let People Do what They Want To Do If It's Not Causing Any Problems To The World.
:)
Steve: Who Care's Wether It Is Called Gay Marriage Or Civil Partnership.
It Should Be Allowed.
And I Suppose It Should Be Called Civil Partnership Since marriage Is A Religious Ceremony So you win On That One.

[Hamsterwaffle]

And after we do this people will start suggesting we allow people to marry animals and after that people will want to marry themselves.

[:Vampiress:]

And after we do this people will start suggesting we allow people to marry animals and after that people will want to marry themselves.

That has already been done. A guy married his horse but died after his wedding night after....ahem. It's on youtube.

[atearth]

The government was right to call it a civil partnership, it would have offended devout Christians a lot more if it was called a marriage. Some Churches do accept gay marriages (it only tends to be the Methodists and some Catholic churches)

Steven Jones

civil partnership, I will not use that term.

When I say marriage it will mean the union of two humans.

Plus it requires less work to say and type marriage than civil partnership

[soph41190]

Marriage, Civil Partnership. Just words, all beuraucratic nonsense and the honkings of a PC goose. There's no written law (other than the bible and if anyone uses that as 'evidence' then they need to find another forum) sugessting that homosexuality is wrong. Why shouldn't they be married? What other than biased, and bigotted religious teachings say that marriage is MEN AND WOMEN ONLY! As a catholic, I know that most of the gospels and teachings were edited and half discarded by a panel who 'decided' how things should be taught. Which in itself is infuriating. But at the end of the day, why, other than for discreditable relgious reasons, should a man and another man, or two women, not affirm their love the way straight people can. What separates men from women other than chest size, and where they shave???

[BlackPrincess]

I do not think gay marriage should be allowed because when God made Adam, He put a woman with him, not a man. Simple as.

[make.me.smile]

Not simple as. What about people who don't believe in God, Adam, Eve and all that? What reason do you give them?

[Liam Hannan]

The Adam and Steve Argument doesn't hold water.

If You believe the story of Genesis word for word then Cain killed Abel and was left with just his mother around with whom to populate the earth.

Ahem... the less said about that the better really.

As far as forcing your morality onto other people - I'm going to refer you to soph's post because she summed it up nicely.

[Matt. P]

I do not think gay marriage should be allowed because when God made Adam, He put a woman with him, not a man. Simple as.

Ha, that's a good one! You've certainly got me and the rest of the world convinced. Now, seeing as only Noah's 3 sons and 3 daughters were left after the great flood.... oh, we're back to this again.

[EmmaGallen]

Let people marry who they want. What difference will it make when they all divorce anyway.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Very cheery.

[Matt. P]

Yet sadly true.

By the way, what's the new emblem you've put on?

[Hamsterwaffle]

A quote from a cowboy politician called Kinky(Seriously)
"Gay marriage? Why not, if they wanna be miserable like the rest us let em'."
But while gay people have every right to be together, I am still uneasy in it being called marriage, I have no problem with them being married De Facto but I just dont like it being called such.
P.S. It is the flag of the lord leuitenant of Ireland but personally I chose it due to it representing my ROI and UK ancestry(The Union flag and the Irish harp.)

[Cowgirl36]

Well how comes if a man and a women get married in a civil ceremony they can call it a marriage but not two women/ two men?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Because that way both the gays and the religious are happy.

[soph41190]

I do not think gay marriage should be allowed because when God made Adam, He put a woman with him, not a man. Simple as.

Simple as?
you refer to the bible, end it with 'simple as' and expect to be taken seriously!?
Please tell me you're creationist, that WILL just make my day!
Adam and Eve....is a myth, same as Hercules, same as Robin Hood! It's symbolic possibly but doesn't hold water as an argument!
I'm going to argue my political battles using Star Wars as an example because...well....SIMPLE AS!!
Right, the bible...ok God put man with woman....my teacher sat me next to a guy the other day...should we get married then? The Bible was written by Roman superiors, such as Augustus (the world's original sexist if you REALLY no you're religious history) and aides. The put in what would make the Christian Church powerful, they left in what THEY wanted, and took out everything they personally didn't believe in. Jesus never said 'thou shalt not bugger!' Just as Jesus never said 'Thou shalt not hybrid you're own embryos with that of a dog in a lab...'....NO labs in Jesus' time oddly enough.....
The bible can not argue anything anymore. If Gordon Brown wrote a book of God and told everyone it was now law, you'd laugh in his face! The Bible is EXACTLY the same thing, only very old, therefore people are sentimental and ridiculous about it. As a historical artifact, incredibly useful, as religious accuracy almost none. But this isn't the point. People can't decide not to go through with something because an old book says so "simple as". This is a modern world, wake up to it. Let people do what they want! Unless you can present hard evidence as to why Gay marriage is criminally wrong. You have no argument.

[Paul]

Edwin Poots MLA (Lagan Valley - DUP), the Minister for Culture, Arts & Leisure in the NI Assembly is a young earth creationist (he believes that the earth was created by God some time around 4000 BC) and an opponent of The THEORY of Evolution - because his theory comes from an older book than "ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION)" or "PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL" by Charles Darwin MA is it wrong? There is no proof for the theories of Evolution or the Big Bang - yet anyone who disagrees is regarded as unscientific even though science relies on constant questioning of 'truths' to ensure that it is the truth.

[make.me.smile]

That's why none of this can be used to reason seeing as we cannot ever all agree on one set of beliefs. But religion in particular has no place in all this seeing as there is no proof whatsoever!

[EmmaGallen]

Poots is a four letter word that Johnny Rotten said on live TV.

[Spirited discussion]

Eh - what?

......
Two points:

1. Marriage (as marriage is today) is a religious christian conception, if you want their blessing surely you should conform to their rules - if we allow Gays to marry why not bigamists?

2. Innocent till proven guilty. Bible has not been proven truth (neither has evoloution) therefore we dont know it is evil to marry gays, so we should let them marry.

[pmgriller]

Gays can have civil partnerships. They cannot have marriages.

[Spirited discussion]

Do you wanna like, make a point and support that statement or just let it hang, like a word from god?

[soph41190]

Spirited,
Straights and Christian blessing...UH UH!
Many straight partners have civil marriages, signing a big book? yeah? well they are 'married' aren't they, that's fine and dandy with everyone else....Muslims marry, so do hindus, so do Jews, are they not married because it's not 'Christian'?? The previous point, about Civil marriages, so you'd consider a straight pair married even if not in a church, but not two people of the same sex?

[Spirited discussion]

uhhhh.

Yea oops, Ignore me.

[soph41190]

Why? haha (makes up 10 characters..)

[Spirited discussion]

Cus my point was so blatantly wrong, lol

[soph41190]

Well you're the first to come out and say that, so thumbs up to you:D
All opinion anyway.

[KateChaos]

The idea is just ridiculous, marriage is a union between man and woman.

But surely if you were a man who had extremely strong feelings for another man, you'd want a chance to show your love & devotion to each other? You're extremely passionate of your own beliefs & views, but surely some empathy towards those who don't have the feelings you do wouldn't go amiss. Not meaning to sound harsh, just a general comment.

Marriage is a union between any TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LOVE. Don't you think, and I'm being serious now, if marriage started off as union between two men, or two women, we'd think the idea of men/women union was wrong. We wouldn't know any better? x

[Spirited discussion]

Marriage is a union between any TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LOVE. Don't you think, and I'm being serious now, if marriage started off as union between two men, or two women, we'd think the idea of men/women union was wrong. We wouldn't know any better? x

Thats true, though we might be stuffed as far as reproduction went!

[mporcheron]

Hetereosexual partners can have "civil marriages"; so why should a homosexual couple have to be in a "civil parternship" which is nearly identical to a "civil marriage" bar the name.

Furthermore, A place that is approved for civil marriages to be held there legally is approved for civil partnerships; so again, the issue here is not whether gay civil marriage is allowed but that fact that is allowed under a different name - I can only presume that the PC mules decided that calling it a gay civil marriage would offend some religions although I'm not sure why as all civil marriages non-religious anyway.

In the end, I can't see a problem with Gay marriages. Some people are gay, they love each other, they want to express their love like any other couple. Why should anyone be allowed to stop them?

[soph41190]

We only see as far as we are told to see. For example, tradition or the Bible. The traditionalists amongst us will see venturing from the norm as a sin, or wrong. I think we are above that. In a world that is so rife with hate as it is, surely we should encourage love and affection of any kind, no matter who it's between, men, women, whoever. Not condemning it.

[adamlonsdale]

Okay here is my opinion.

In the world we live in today, which is becoming more politically correct, and more people are coming out as Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender etc. and I am all for gay marriage.

You have got to look at the religious side of things. One of the religious views is "Adam and Eve", which are male and female and therefore many people today follow their path and fall in love with the opposite sex.

However a question for you. What if Jesus was Gay? I'm sure you have all heard of "Adam and Steve", and then heterosexuality would be the "abnormal" thing to be.

Recently at some sexual health training we looked at this, and a person at the front was being interviewed by a memer of the "Media" and questions asked where like

"You say 'Straight', but I have never heard this before. What is 'Straight'?"
"So are your parents heterosexual too?" "That is crazy! I've never met someone with heterosexual parents" etc. etc. etc.

If a Man loves a Man, and a Woman loves a Woman, they are going to do things anyways, and marriage is just uniting them and preventing promiscuity.

Not allowing gay marriage is homophobic, and heterosexist! I feel that if I were to be in a homosexual relationship, and wanted to be married then I should have that option available to me.

Adam x

[KateChaos]

I agree with Adam.

It's crazy, because my best friend's mother is now bixsexual & lives with her girlfriend (or partner I should really say). He gets a lot of abuse at school; the usual, along the lines of 'Your mum's a dyke' etc..

What made me laugh is the idiot who asked him;
'If your mum likes women, how did she have you?'

Everybody is different, & allowing woman/woman marriage (and yes it would be a MARRIAGE) or man/man marriage is just allowing them to declare their love properly... Whatever happened to equality?


x

[make.me.smile]

Whatever happened to equality?


x

Religion happened.

[atearth]

I agree with Adam.

It's crazy, because my best friend's mother is now bixsexual & lives with her girlfriend (or partner I should really say). He gets a lot of abuse at school; the usual, along the lines of 'Your mum's a dyke' etc..


x

The think is I bet when these kids grow up they would must likely want a threesome that is one man and two women.

Who can perform a wedding ceremonies?

Because if I could I would allow it to be called a marriage.

Is it possible to have marriage ceremonies without religion. by this I mean can two humans be officially married without a religious wedding ceremonies.

[KateChaos]

What's in a name anyway? Does it really matter?

[Hamsterwaffle]

If what its called doesn't matter, then just leave it being called civil partnership and then everyones happy.

[KateChaos]

Why can't it be marriage? That's what I was getting at. When my Uncle MARRIED his partner, that's exactly what we said. He was MARRYING him. Not 'joining him in civil partnership'.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Because there is a large amount of the British religious community who would prefer it to be civil partnership rather than marriage. And nothing is lost by calling it that.

[KateChaos]

Fair enough. I get your point. I still think it should be called a marriage though.

[Liam Hannan]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM

Roy Zimmerman has a song that sums this up beautifully.

BTW, this video may be offensive to people who are extremely religious - not because it's offensive but because it shows them up for the bigots that deep down they really are.

If you watch this and are offended, UKYP isn't responsible, you are; for being a dumbass and watching it despite this warning.

Parental Advisory on the lyrics.
At one point he uses a slang word for male genetalia - which I'm sure nobody has ever heard before, right?

[make.me.smile]

haha that's just perfect! who cares about bloody PC - it's funny and true!

[Cowgirl36]

So once the two people get 'partnered' surly then you can call it a marriage?

[Pioneer]

I'm not against gay, lesbian or bi-sexual relationships, and I am NOT religious. But I'm against 2 men, or 2 women partaking in a ceremony which is called a marriage, a civil partnership is fine with me.

I think that the institute of marriage is sacred, and under-valued now-a-days.

[mporcheron]

I think that the institute of marriage is sacred, and under-valued now-a-days.

If thats the case, then I'll expect you'll be protesting against Civil Marriages as these do not involve a religion and yet claim to be marriage.

[adamlonsdale]

I think that the institute of marriage is sacred, and under-valued now-a-days.

So you are saying if two men or two women love each other. I mean love that you feel for your type of person, then it is not sacred, and not valued these days, because it is not a heterosexual marriage?

We are all people. Who cares about sexuality? We are all the same, and it is singling people out that cannot have a marriage.

I totally agree with katieCHAOS-x here becasue they love each other and deserve to show that.

What about atheist weddings? thats civil marriage, MARRIAGE even though it is not religious.

Sorry but i feel stronly on this subject.

Adam x

[Pioneer]

I feel strongly too, I think they should call it civil partnership, for one thing, by definition, marriage is a man and woman.

[Cowgirl36]

I feel strongly too, I think they should call it civil partnership, for one thing, by definition, marriage is a man and woman.

The term marriage has several meanings. A marriage is when a man and a women get married HOWEVER when 2 people/things are partnered they are married and are in a marriage. There are some other definitions as well but there not relevant to the conversation.

[adamlonsdale]

The term marriage has several meanings. A marriage is when a man and a women get married HOWEVER when 2 people/things are partnered they are married and are in a marriage. There are some other definitions as well but there not relevant to the conversation.

Thank you!

Why should it not be called Marriage? Why a Civil Partnership? I believe that homosexual people will loose a couple of privelages when they are married. Such as not being able to donate blood etc. So why not let it be called Gay Marriage for once?

Adam x

[Pioneer]

I would choose to honour the former definition, I believe there should be a distinction between a marriage between a man and a woman, where they will hopefully conceive children etc. and a civil partnership, where 2 people choose to formally commit themselves to one another and share a single house hold, and I have some evidence to suggest gay people would also want that distinction, a bishop said his gay friends had said they wanted it, obviously that's not concrete, but the implication is there.

[RobClews]

Marriage is the wrong word to use...gay partnerships though they are not approved of by many people, we need to accept their views and allow gay people to do as they please.

You wouldn't approve if i took away one of your freedoms in society and this is one of your freedoms

[Pioneer]

Agreed, regardless of what you call it, gay marriage, civil partnership, whatever, it ought to be allowed, gay people are allowed to be in love, and they are allowed to commit themselves to one another, to do otherwise is against freedom

[bryantman]

It seems that the civil partnership idea had a point: to give all the same right etc as a normal marriage. The only reason to call it a marriage rather than just a partnership is because they like the sound of it better really.

Calling it marriage would be confusing.
calling it marriage would annoy a lot of religious people
calling it marriage is unnessacary

[adamlonsdale]

But what if a heterosexual christian couple were to get marriaed. But choose to Abstain as a form of contraception, or because one of the partners has HIV/AIDS.

Does this then mean that the couple cannot be married because they will not concieve children? Because that is one of the only differences between a heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

Adam x

[Pioneer]

They have the potential, no matter how hard 2 men, or 2 women try they cannot have a baby by themselves, without ivf or sperm/egg donation.

[adamlonsdale]

But they can still have a healthy living child! So you are telling me, that a gay couple must be stripped of the title of "Marriage" just because they cannot concieve?

We are in a society with too many segregations, such as religion, political views etc. Gay relationships deserve to be called marriage to show that gay people can be the same as a heterosexual relationship! It would reduce discrimination.

Adam x

[Cowgirl36]

Why is the word used such a big deal!! I can understand why it is called a civil partnership but if I was to get married when I'm older (to a man by the way) I wouldn't get married in a religious ceromony becasue I am not religious but I would still call it a marriage!!

What is the difference between a male and female partnership and a man and man/ female and female partnership!! As long as the two people love each other to commit till death do they part surly that should be all that matters??

[Pioneer]

Personally, a lot of this kerfuffle appears to be coming from the hetero-sexual population (I don't want to enquire about everyone's sexuality, I'm not using evidence from people here) most gay people I know would rather it were called a civil partnership, so that it doesn't have to be called marriage, they like it that way, I like it that way.

[bryantman]

We don't call a chip a potato, even though thats essentially what it is, people would get confused!

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual ones, give them different names.

[adamlonsdale]

I am not going to disclose my sexuality here. But i think it would be a good choice to allow the couple getting joined, to chose what they wish to call it. As in if they want to write in the news paper "Couple Married" or "Couple Civil Partnered" then so be it.

I feel there shouldn't be a word to say it, but a few. But if there was just one word it Should be Marriage (:

This is quite a good debate

Adam x

[adamlonsdale]

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual ones, give them different names.

Why are they different? Because the sexuality of the couple are different?

That is like saying a White - White person marriage is different to a black - black person marriage and is different to a black - white person marriage. And should all be given different names.

We are all equal, and all deserve to be treated the same.

Adam x

[Pioneer]

If you griddled an egg, and you fried it, would you want those both to be called 'egg' on the menu?

[adamlonsdale]

On a menu when having a tea, do they say tea with full fat / skimmed / semmi skimed cows milk / full fat / skimmed / semi skimmed goats milk

or just

Tea with milk?

Adam x

[Pioneer]

Toucher, I will concede that point.

However, you may have knocked a hole in my analogy, but Hetero-sexual and Homo-sexual relationships are different, and deserved to be distinguished from one another, not because one is inferior to the other but because they are different.

[adamlonsdale]

I think i understand what you mean. Like Microsoft / Apple, although they are both very similar, they have minor differences and two seperate names.

If homosexual people wish to be called civil partnerships then i think that would be best! ^.^

And refering to the point of the topic, Yes - i think gay marriages SHOULD be allowed (:

Adam x

[Pioneer]

hear, hear, anyone who says any 2 people cannot be legally commited to each other, whether gay, lesbian, transvestite, transgender, or something else which we don't know of yet, is offending the very essence of freedom itself.

The only reason I see that 2 people cannot enter into marriages civil partnerships etc. is if they are already in one!

[Cowgirl36]

If you griddled an egg, and you fried it, would you want those both to be called 'egg' on the menu?

You can griddle an egg!! They say you learn something new everyday!! Please carry on the conversation!

[Pioneer]

Completely off topic, but eggs are very versatile and you can do almost anything with them :P and unless it's an omlette the chances are I won't approve :P

[KateChaos]

hear, hear, anyone who says any 2 people cannot be legally commited to each other, whether gay, lesbian, transvestite, transgender, or something else which we don't know of yet, is offending the very essence of freedom itself.




Our culture is changing rapidly, people might be offended if people want to call a 'civil partnership' a marriage, but they'll get over it. Two people joining together as one is a marriage - whatever the circumstances. If you started picking holes in what is a marriage & what is a civil partnership, we could be here for a long time. Isn't our country supposed to be pro-equality?

& thankyou Adam, you've got your head in the right place.



& I prefer my eggs poached, thanks x

[bensalisbury_sw]

Being Gay my-self :

I totally agree with the above comment. :D

[KateChaos]

Thankyou! This could be completely wrong & if so, I hold my hands up, but can't referring to that join of partnership not being able to be called a marriage be deemed homophobic? Or is that wrong entirely?

[Connor Sephton]

I completely agree with gay marriage, people should not have to compromise on what they are allowed to do just because of their orientation - not being able to get married just on the basis of the sexes of the people is plain ridiculous?

I have attended a civil partnership between two friends of mine and it was a different ceremony, but the basis of a couple in unity should be allowed.

To those people who disagree - saying you do disagree is on the same lines as saying you think that people from different ethnic minorities should not be allowed to get together.

[Huw]

Personally, a lot of this kerfuffle appears to be coming from the hetero-sexual population (I don't want to enquire about everyone's sexuality, I'm not using evidence from people here) most gay people I know would rather it were called a civil partnership, so that it doesn't have to be called marriage, they like it that way, I like it that way.

I'm gay and been following this debate with interest. It there should be gay marriage and it should be called marriage not civil partnerships. There is no difference aslong as they love eachother until death do them part what right do we have to stop them calling it a marriage??

[mporcheron]

I agree. Obviously some people believe in the traditional values of marriage (religion et al) but as Britain becomes a multi-cutural country our laws should become religion-free (bar discrimination acts); and if that's the case then I can't see a single reason why it must be called a civil partnership.

On the religious side, a church doesn't have to perform a Gay Marriage if it doesn't want to; it depends on the rules of that religion.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I think the civil partnership rather than marriage prevents conflict between the religious and the gays. I don't really see why we would want to provoke the religious just for the sake of a name.

[PKDhande]

If it's really about the bond between two people, why does it matter so much whether it's labelled as a marriage or a civil partnership?

(Playin' Devil's advocate a tad.)

[Hamsterwaffle]

Because there are a large group of people uncomfortable with it being called marriage, and there is no real reason to call it such.

[PKDhande]

Indeed - I was hoping to initiate a response from the opposition ;-)

[Liam Hannan]

There is also no real reason not to.

It seems like the majority of people are agreed that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals - which is overwhelmingly doss.

The only real point of debate appears to be the name given to it. I think we should let them call it whatever they want to; if people want to put up barriers and go
"it's a civil union, not a marriage" then it shows ho narrow minded they are.

That said, narrow minded people do have a right to their opinions too, and as long as we're not going to march backwards on gay rights would it really hurt to ease the term "gau marriage" in rather than slap it on the table at any given point.

Give it a few years, everyone will be calling it gay marriage by then anyway, and it wouldn't take much to change the name "officially"

[PKDhande]

"It seems like the majority of people are agreed that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals - which is overwhelmingly doss."

Actually, there's more opposition than you think. If you look at some of the votes on homosexual issues in the past, you'll see from the Cons. in particular there has been strong opposition to moderate opposition.

Also, whilst people might feel homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against say, for employment, etc. etc. - what about when it comes to adopting children? Should they be afforded the same rights? What about the children - is this fair on them?

Marriage, traditionally speaking, and by most defintions, is the joining of a man and woman - hence the term "civil partnership."

[Liam Hannan]

actually, the term marriage - in purest english, simply means a joining.

"A marriage of ideas"

It was never gender specific, those connotations are presumed.

I think the same applies to adoption agencies as churches - they should have the right to choose whom their clients are.
(Catholic adoption agencies handle less than 4% of all UK adoptions, but handle 50% of all "difficult" children in the care system, so an opt out on religious grounds - whilst not desirable, is excusable)

And, as I said, the majority seem to be in favour. There will always be a couple of people whom I would term as being on the "extereme fringe" of opinion.

[Pioneer]

I would like you to justify why people are narrow minded for wanting it called 'civil partnership' rather than marriage? I don't see people calling Brits narrow minded for differentiating between 'biscuit' and 'cookie' as opposed to the American idea of everything being 'cookie'?

[Liam Hannan]

It's the same difference between ice and frozen water.

Whether it's a civil partnership or a civil marriage what is the difference?

Only the spelling. If anyone thinks this makes a difference to anything other than ego then it is a pleasant fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.

[Pioneer]

It makes a difference because of tradition, gay marriage is a new concept, it deserves a new name of it's own. Hetero-sexual marriage is an old institution, and deserves to keep it's old name.

That's not ego, and it's not a fantasy, it's tradition, which isn't logical, isn't necessarily right, but it's something we should hold dear.

[Liam Hannan]

Traditional marriage takes place in a church.

The views expressed here all lean towards allowing individual churches to decide for themselves.

In civil ceremonies (a new invention) what is the difference?

[Pioneer]

There's no religion, which is why they are called civil ceremonies.

[Liam Hannan]

yeah...

what's the difference between a civil partnership, civil union and a civil marriage?

[Pioneer]

first one is a legal commitment, and a term generally used for gay or non-male-to-female ceremonies

second one I've never heard of

third one is a traditional marriage outside of the churches wretched influence.

[KateChaos]

I think the civil partnership rather than marriage prevents conflict between the religious and the gays. I don't really see why we would want to provoke the religious just for the sake of a name.

Provoking the religious? So gays should be cast out of being able to be MARRIED just because they're not heterosexual?

[Liam Hannan]

first one is a legal commitment, and a term generally used for gay or non-male-to-female ceremonies

second one I've never heard of

third one is a traditional marriage outside of the churches wretched influence.


"non male to female" as well as homosexuals... hmmm

If you don't mind my saying all you have done is produce semantics;
Marriage is a legal commitment.

Is there any real difference?

(BTW, I know the answer to that one - it's "no")

[adamlonsdale]

Provoking the religious? So gays should be cast out of being able to be MARRIED just because they're not heterosexual?

hear hear. I have said plenty of times now. All religions are different, and they need to learn to respect each other. Katie for example respects other peoples views. Why can't all religions accept that some people are gay, some people are transgender. etc, no matter whether Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Hindu, Jew.

Adam x

[KateChaos]

Exactly! Thankyou Adam! (:
At the end of the day, its all down to how willingly accepting British society is. One religion can't be dominant over another if democracy is in place here. I thought Britain was supposed to pride itself on welcoming those of different backgrounds, ethnicity, country, race, sex, gender, religion, culture.. And yet we're singling out those who want to be equal. Equality & diversity? I'm sure this is something religion has heard of!

[Hamsterwaffle]

I'm not saying we should discriminate against the gays, I'm saying we shouldn't call it marriage because that would cause too much outrage by the religious, who might I add have as much right to have their voice heard as the gays.

[Elpheen]

Personally, I believe that in a modern society such as ours where one of our basic human rights is freedom of speech and belief, there is absolutely no reason for gay marriage to be disallowed. Love is love, right? Marriage or civil partnership, call it what you will, the principle is the same.

[atearth]

I'm not saying we should discriminate against the gays, I'm saying we shouldn't call it marriage because that would cause too much outrage by the religious, who might I add have as much right to have their voice heard as the gays.

Two people of the same sex become married. In what way does that concern religious people?

It's like: Should smoking be banned? Answer is yes because it effects everyone. It should not be banned if 2nd hand smoke did not exist.

Because there are a large group of people uncomfortable with it being called marriage, and there is no real reason to call it such.

It is a word how can it make someone uncomfortable?

[Hamsterwaffle]

If its just a word, then why not stick with Civil partnership?

[atearth]

If its just a word, then why not stick with Civil partnership?

Why not change marriage between man and woman and call it civil partnership?

Solution to the problem on Earth is this:

Two people no matter the sex must be allowed legally on paper to call it marriage and/ or civil partnership. Thus problem solved and no conflict as all option are allowed for all views.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Because thats already called marriage and the gay version is called civil partnership. Theres no point in changing either.

[soph41190]

At the end of the day there is absoloutley nothing legal or credible to suggesst that a gay couple can not be 'married'. It is all merely taboo and religious whiners kicking up dust. We should we give a damn about 'religious outcry' becuase no matter who says it, if there is an outcry, whether from Muslims, Christians or Hindus, its prejudiced, because it is discriminative of something for no reason other than ignorance and intolerance. Just because it bears the ever glowing standard of "religion" doesn't make it right. If the BNP made an 'outcry' it would be 'ohhh those awful people!' but if its nice lovely friendly relgions...then its perfectly reasonable. Sorry but no it isn't. I don't care who's holy scriptures says what, there is no reason legally why two men or two women can not be together.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Noone's saying they cannot be together.

[EmmaGallen]

Gay version isn't cilvil partnership. Anyone can have a civil partnership if they want it's just used by homosexuals more than hetros.

I think let anyone marry another persona nd let everyone be happy and loved up. What a lovely idea.

[KateChaos]

Just let it be called a marriage for Christ sake.. Love is love, marriage is marriage.

[mporcheron]

Gay version isn't cilvil partnership. Anyone can have a civil partnership if they want it's just used by homosexuals more than hetros.

I think let anyone marry another persona nd let everyone be happy and loved up. What a lovely idea.

No it isn't.

A Civil Partnership is for same sex couples, a Civil marriage is for heterosexual couples.

http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/civilpartnerships/
http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/where-can-i-marry/civil--marriages.asp

[KateChaos]

But why? At the end of the day, it's the SAME THING. So calling it ALL marriage wouldn't harm anyone.

[mporcheron]

But why? At the end of the day, it's the SAME THING. So calling it ALL marriage wouldn't harm anyone.

That's been my point I've made several times in this thread. A Civil Partnership is practically a Civil Marriage. If the religious folk have been able to put up with Civil Marriages and then claim that they can't cope with same sex Civil Marriages, then they are been homophobic.

A Civil Partnership needs to either be renamed to a Civil Marriage, or vice versa for it to be fair.

[KateChaos]

Oh okay I agree then (: A girl turned around to me today and said 'The Church is really homophobic isn't it.' And on reflection, it is. And I think that's terrible to be honest. Equality is key here... Or lack of it.

[EmmaGallen]

Sorry. Knew the word civil was there. But yeah civil marriage for all!

[Hamsterwaffle]

Is it worth upsetting a lot of people just for the sake of fairness, especially when they are already allowed to de facto marry. Calling it a marriage just complicates things, if someone says they are in a civil partnership you know what they mean and when they say marriage you know what they mean. Its just easier this way.

[KateChaos]

It's also 'easier' not to go to war but we still do it.

[Liam Hannan]

Is it worth upsetting a lot of people just for the sake of fairness, especially when they are already allowed to de facto marry. Calling it a marriage just complicates things, if someone says they are in a civil partnership you know what they mean and when they say marriage you know what they mean. Its just easier this way.

But surely it should be one rule for everyone, under law?

[james Greenhalgh, MyP]

Is it worth upsetting a lot of people just for the sake of fairness.

Do you know what: im disguested at your arguments agsint this 'proposal', however i do respect your opinions s it is your democratic right however much i disagree

If u are an MYP, i think you should note that most young people are for equal gay rights, and you should represent what young people think

And on the point of fairness, a lot of people were 'upset' when the sufragettes (sorry bitu spelling) camoaigned for the women to get the vote, but loking back in hindsight it was the right thing to do to give them the vote!

modern society has moved on: we are a much more tolerate and liberal one today and I think we will look back on this and feel equally disgusted that we were ever opposed to same sex marriage - dont you think?

[Liam Hannan]

Whilst it goes against what I said before....
I enjoy playing Devils Advocate, so what the hell?

Firstly, Hamster isn't an MYP (I think we can all sleep a little easier for that fact)

Secondly, even if he is, he should be arguing for what he is arguing for.

As you say, most young people are for equal gay rights; but not all.
In any given constituency you will probably find that this is the case.

(arbitrary made up figers to follow)

90% for - 10% against.

If every MYP argues the case for the majority of their constituents then we are ignoring the views of 10% of the population completely. It's against our terms to do this.

So surely it's good for democracy that we have people who don't feel that they are bound by the will of the majority - because then UKYP can have access to all viewpoints and will more accurately reflect the political make up of the UK.

(This then raises the question, is each MYP supposed to represent everyone or is UKYP as a collective meant to represent the majority?

Personally, I plump for the latter because the former is physically impossible; but thats another debate entirely)

[Hamsterwaffle]

But surely it should be one rule for everyone, under law?

I never thought I would hear you say that Liam.

And calling it civil partnership for gays and marriage for straight people is a matter of convenience, if I say marriage and if I say civil partnership, people know I am refering to a man-woman legal relationship and a man-man or woman-woman relationship respectively.

[Liam Hannan]

That was a very freudian syntax error in your last post ;)

man-woman legal relationship

man-man or woman-woman relationship

where did the word Legal get to?

And I'm only asking you to justify your logic. You seem happy to overrule convenience when it comes to certain things - why so vehement on this one issue?

In all honesty - I don't understand it.

[Hamsterwaffle]

The lack of legal was an oversight on my part and I apologise for it.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I am only happy to "over rule" convenience when there is a benefit worth the loss of convenience. Calling two different things the same thing would have no benefit.

[Liam Hannan]

However what detriment would it bring?

The Gay Community and the Churchgoing Community are equatable factors in terms of electorate. Is it really a matter of choosing whom to please - or is there another reason for this logic?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well we can either offend the religious or we can offend nobody. A civil partnership is a de facto marriage so the gays are happy and its not a de jure marriage so the religious are happy.

[Liam Hannan]

Speaking as someone who is religious, but not gay - you can't peg me that easily sonny jim.

And if the gay community was happy this debate wouldn't exist.
The Religious community will be split between those who choose to follow the book of leviticus or those who choose to follow the gospel.

So either way you're going to lose some religious people.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well you can't please everyone, but I feel that calling two different kinds of legal union two different names is just easier.

[Liam Hannan]

But other than the name there is no difference between them.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well one is gay and the other is hetero, but otherwise there is no difference but name so what is the problem.

[Liam Hannan]

The problem is that the gay community want it to be called a marriage and it isn't.


It's no skin off any of our noses so why not just agree with it?

[make.me.smile]

I agree with hamster. I mean why bother changing it and have a load of religious people screaming about the loss of respect for their beliefs etc? Because you know that it would happen. I think when people are talking they'll call it all marriage anyway, it's just that officially it'll have the name civil partnership.

[alicebean]

Gay marriage perhaps not but civil partnerships yes. Marriage has the societal implications of religion, even if you have a non-religious ceremony civil partnerships celebrate a love for each other without undermining a religion's institution. Perhaps civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples as well, those who do not want a marriage but want to confirm their love for each other.

[kaity221]

What about the religious homosexuals, they might want a cermony by the law of god, i have been to a civil parnership, it was fun, but nothing like a real wedding.

[KateChaos]

What about the religious homosexuals, they might want a cermony by the law of god, i have been to a civil parnership, it was fun, but nothing like a real wedding.

There wouldn't be many Catholic homosexuals, as the Church does not agree with homosexuality.

[Liam Hannan]

There are just as many catholic homosexuals as there are of any other portion of society.

And, in our part of the world being gay and catholic isn't a very big deal - especially not in our generation.

In a catholic school with around 1,000 pupils we had maybe 20 or so who were openly gay - and they got hassle from nobody about it.

We lived the gospel - we didn't just quote it.

[KateChaos]

From experience, I've never met or heard of a homosexual Catholic; I've been with my Church parish for 7 years & been educated in Catholic schools from the start.

[make.me.smile]

That's because they won't admit they're gay seeing as the church disapproves.

[KateChaos]

Ahhh I guess you're right. That's what I'm against the Church for.. It's homophobia. For a religion that promotes diversity, it's very hypocritical.

[claire]

My schools a catholic school and i know loads of people on it who are openly gay and nobody cares at all about it and the most religious person i know is gay but still goes to church every week. I suppose it might depend where you are.

[kaity221]

Also there are many others religions other than catholics, what about, jews, islamics, pastafarians, protestants andall other religions.

[make.me.smile]

That's why the name shouldn't be changed - there's too many people that could get offended. Religious vs homosexuals - sorry but religion wins though I'm sad to say it.

[KateChaos]

The Church is against the very idea of homosexual marriage, so what you call it won't really make a difference.

[make.me.smile]

At least we won't be "stealing" their ceremony.

[KateChaos]

Marriage isn't a Catholic ceremony though.

[make.me.smile]

So what? Do they care? No, they claim it as their own. Just as they claim the right for their marriages to be "normal" rather than homosexual ones.

[KateChaos]

So why give us the right? The only reason they'd kick up a fuss about homosexual marriage being called just that, a marriage, is because people have let us keep it that way for a while.

[make.me.smile]

Well good point. Okay let's go anger the church!

[KateChaos]

I'm not saying that, but, since we've 'claimed' marriage as our own ceremony, I'll use the Catholic religion as an example. We're peaceful. What exactly can we do?

[make.me.smile]

I was agreeing with you, sorry if that sounded sarcastic. You're right.

[KateChaos]

Woohoo. Do you know what, that's actually made my day =)

[kaity221]

marriages to be "normal" rather than homosexual ones.
I very much disagree with comment, a homosexual wedding would be normal, if it was given a chance to become it. If people were brought up with the idea of homosexuals having weddings, not civil partnerships, then people would consider it normal.

Kaity x

[make.me.smile]

Taken totally out of context. Read the entire comment before judging. I am anything but homophobic thank you very much.

[kaity221]

Taken totally out of context. Read the entire comment before judging. I am anything but homophobic thank you very much.

Is this aimed at me?

Kaity x

[make.me.smile]

Who else...?

[KateChaos]

She's hardly homophobic. Where did that come from?

[kaity221]

Lol, yes, im sorry it came across that way, but in no way do i think your homophobic, i meant that if gay marriages were around then it would be considered a normal marriage.
Sorry you got the wrong idea.

Kaity x

[KateChaos]

I already raised that point a few pages back...

[kaity221]

Well it was not taken into enough consideration.

[KateChaos]

Lol, it was. But anyway, tomato, tomarrto.

[kaity221]

I disagree, it is a very important point that should be considered greatly.

Kaity x

[KateChaos]

Yeah, and it was a good point. [if I do say so myself ahahaha.]

[kaity221]

It was a good point, that is why i brought it back up again, lol. =]=]

Kaity x

[KateChaos]

Haha. Fair one. I think we exhausted this topic. =)

[kaity221]

Lol, twas a good debate.

[Spirited discussion]

Lol, it was. But anyway, tomato, tomarrto.

isnt it tomato/tomaytau?

Anyway, yes topic exhausted - verdict gay marriage should be allowed, though there will be opposition by homophobic religious zealots.

At least that what I understand of the last few pages

[KateChaos]

I don't know actually. I've always said 'Tomayto, Tomarrto', but I could be wrong... Chances are I am because up until a couple of weeks ago, I thought you could use that saying for the word 'potato'.

[kaity221]

lol, those bloody tomatoes and potatoes.=]=]

[Pioneer]

If gay people are called gay, homosexual, what ever is the least offensive term

And straight people are straight, heterosexual, whatever

They have 2 different names, so why should their committing themselves to each other have one name?

[KateChaos]

To make them equal.

[kaity221]

Otherwise, homosexuals will forever be branded an outcast and will never be seen as 'normal' by all people.

[KateChaos]

That's a little bit extreme, but it brings the community of diversity closer together. Nowadays, people are very accepting of homosexuality.

[kaity221]

Yes, i agree, people are a lot more accepting, but not everone.

[KateChaos]

Of course; those who are now branded homophobes.. But these aren't the group of people against civil partnership being called marriage x

[kaity221]

Lol, yes but more people wouldn't mind it being called marriage, if they were more accepting of homosexuals in the first place.

[KateChaos]

The majority of those who want it to stay civil partnership are religious; its a sad fact that the Catholics aren't going to be accepting homosexuals anytime soon.

[kaity221]

That is what i dislike about religions, many cant seem to get used to a modern world.

[KateChaos]

That's because religion is a traditionalised thing.

[kaity221]

Yes, and i can understand that, but sometimes people just have to accept things.

[Graeme McConnell]

The majority of those who want it to stay civil partnership are religious; its a sad fact that the Catholics aren't going to be accepting homosexuals anytime soon.

To answer that the Catholic Church does accept homosexuality, here is a quote from the Cathechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Marriage is the loving union of one man and one woman in which they become one flesh and in most cases produce a child. However, Homosexual unions cannot be recognised because they close the function of sex to merely pleasure - no child can ever be born out of homsexual intercourse - therefore in a homosexual partnership the meaning and value of sex is reduced because of its incapacity to procreate. Consequently, by natural law, homosexual intercourse is a disordered act because it fails to carry out our first function as human beings - to procreate for the continuence of humanity.

However, the Church understands that life is not 'black and white' which is why it embraces homosexuals with sensitivity and respect and indeed encourages others to do the same but because the Church is only the defender and interpreter of God's Law and not the arbiter it cannot change such rules to accommodate for a homosexual marriage.

[KateChaos]

As a traditional, it doesn't willingly accept homosexuality. I've had this conversation with my parish father, & he brought up the same point; but after a bit of conversation, he admitted it's not the norm & they don't accept homsexuality with the willingness & openness as heterosexual relationship.

[kaity221]

Exactly my point, they dont, but they should do.

[KateChaos]

I'm not disputing that.. One of the reasons I get told in school I'm not a 'proper Catholic' because I accept homosexuality. It's a cruel world, ay?

[Graeme McConnell]

yes but you could say that with the secualr society. By law we must accept homosexuality and not discriminate against homosexuals but the majority of people still do not see it as normal and if one were to call someone gay for example, they would take it as insult. Therefore its not just catholics but the whole of society that frowns upon homosexuality.

[kaity221]

Not the whole society, because i certainly dont.

[KateChaos]

I was using Catholic as an example because I am one & can speak from experience. That's where you're wrong, the majority of people do accept homosexuality, its the minority that don't. It's become part of society & a lot more people are accepting than those who are not.

[kaity221]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was using Catholic as an example because I am one & can speak from experience. That's where you're wrong, the majority of people do accept homosexuality, its the minority that don't. It's become part of society & a lot more people are accepting than those who are not.

Yes, that is what im saying, it is still not accepted by all, when it should be.

[Graeme McConnell]

I think you getting too wrapped up in you 'catholic world' the reality is homosexuality in the secualr society is still no accpeted as natural by the majority otherwise the majority would infact be homosexual.

[kaity221]

you dont have to be homosexual to accept it, you just have to be an open minded person

[KateChaos]

I think you getting too wrapped up in you 'catholic world' the reality is homosexuality in the secualr society is still no accpeted as natural by the majority otherwise the majority would infact be homosexual.

That's not true at all. The society we live in is actually very accepting of homsexuality. To accept does mean you have to be. I accept homsexuality, I'm not homosexual.

[Graeme McConnell]

You can accept it exists - you would be a bloody fool not to because the fact is, homosexuality does exist.

However, it cannot be accepted as the moral norm because it is not - from both a religious and Darwinian point of view it is naturally disordered because it cannot and does not participate in the preservation of the human race.

[kaity221]

But in modern times there are ways of homosexuals having children.

[KateChaos]

Of course it's 'normal'. Times have changed. And at the end of the day, whats normal nowadays anyway?! It doesn't have a meaning because normal can change from day to day.

[Graeme McConnell]

Please answer me - how do two men or indeed two women naturally create a child? Forgive me if I am mistaken but I thought that it was a man and woman that through their sexual intercourse naturally create a child.

[KateChaos]

Of course its can't be done naturally.

[kaity221]

I didnt say naturally, but if it is lesbians one can have ivf, or a sperm donation, if it is gays, then they can find someone to carry a child for them, or both can adopt.

[Graeme McConnell]

Yes the definition of normal may change from day to day - I agree with that but how can natural law change?

The laws of nature concerning procreation and morality do not change.

If everyone were to accept that rape was ok and normal would that then make rape morally and naturally acceptable? Absolutely not!

[KateChaos]

Exactly. There's always ways around it. The point being, the religious are in the wrong by being against homosexuality. Traditional can only go so far before it needs to get in touch with modern soceity.

[kaity221]

Rape is a totally different matter.

[KateChaos]

So you're trying to say homosexuality is not morally right?

[kaity221]

Exactly. There's always ways around it. The point being, the religious are in the wrong by being against homosexuality. Traditional can only go so far before it needs to get in touch with modern soceity.

well said, katie

[KateChaos]

Haha, thanks. I have a way with words =)

[kaity221]

lol, you certainly do =]

[Graeme McConnell]

I am saying that homosexual sex is not morally right becuase of its failure to uphold the value, meaning and sanctity of sex

[kaity221]

Yes but the modern world doesn't really uphold to those morals anymore anyway.

[KateChaos]

Why? Because it isn't a penis/vagina relationship?

[Graeme McConnell]

oh well its okay then - moral and natural law has just changed because we choose not to follow it - case sorted!

[kaity221]

Yes, case sorted.=]

[KateChaos]

oh well its okay then - moral and natural law has just changed because we choose not to follow it - case sorted!

I sense a note of sarcasm, Graeme.

[Spirited discussion]

To answer that the Catholic Church does accept homosexuality, here is a quote from the Cathechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Marriage is the loving union of one man and one woman in which they become one flesh and in most cases produce a child. However, Homosexual unions cannot be recognised because they close the function of sex to merely pleasure - no child can ever be born out of homsexual intercourse - therefore in a homosexual partnership the meaning and value of sex is reduced because of its incapacity to procreate. Consequently, by natural law, homosexual intercourse is a disordered act because it fails to carry out our first function as human beings - to procreate for the continuence of humanity.

However, the Church understands that life is not 'black and white' which is why it embraces homosexuals with sensitivity and respect and indeed encourages others to do the same but because the Church is only the defender and interpreter of God's Law and not the arbiter it cannot change such rules to accommodate for a homosexual marriage.

You've basically just said that homosexuals are alright so long as they dont have sex, which kinda defeats the object and makes it sound as catholics are against homosexuals - just only nicely against them.
The catholic church does not embrace homosexuals with sensetivity and respect, it kicks them out.
Its natural to have sex. Priests dont, surely they're as unatural as homosexuals?
Whats wrong in having sex for pleasure? Seriously if we only ever had sex to make kids there would be an awful lot of sexual fustration going round in the world.
In nature stags can be gay if they're not alpha males. In nature you wouldn't have marriage.
Marriage is not just a construct in which to have kids (and homosexuals, lesbians in particular, can have kids) its to show your everlasting love to one another.

To another point you made about morals being natural and unchanging, like rape has always been wrong.
Well what about sex before marriage? That was once considered wrong - I certainly dont see why now: morals do change as reasoned debate establishes new boundaries. (of course this doesnt mean I expect rape to become accepted)

[Graeme McConnell]

You are wrong - the Church does not kick homosexuals out because that would be excluding someone from their right of communion with Christ - something whiich no one has the authority to do.

And sex before marriage still is wrong becuase it is the most intmate act between two people and can only be dignified and given its full value and respect if done in the selfless union of marriage.

For if we only have sex for pleasure we then turn our partners into object through which we obtain pleasure for our own sexual gratification. Surely you would not want to be used as a means for someone else to gain thri own selfish pleasure?

[KateChaos]

And sex before marriage still is wrong becuase it is the most intmate act between two people

There is nothing to say those two people cannot be of same sex.

[Graeme McConnell]

well if they cannot morally get married they cannot morally have sex.

By the way I think that it is also wrong for heterosexuals to have sex before marriage - so dont think I am only having a go at homosexuals.

[KateChaos]

Of course they can morally get married. Its not morally wrong.

[Graeme McConnell]

Yes it is - marriage is for one man and one woman

[KateChaos]

NO people THINK the IDEA of marriage between same sex is wrong because they don't know any different! Marriage is for two people who LOVE each other & who want to commit!

[Graeme McConnell]

You misunderstand the meaning of marriage

[KateChaos]

Marriage has been thought of as between a man & a woman.

If marriage started off as same sex, we would be thinking the same of heterosexual marriage, am I right?

Marriage is a ceremony of commitment between two people who love each other & are ready to spend the rest of their life together.

Not necessareily a man & a woman.

That's just what's been preached to us.

[kaity221]

Yes, i very much agree with you katie.

[Graeme McConnell]

I would ask what is marriage then?

You have spoken of marriage being merely a ceremony of commitment - marriage is far more than a ceremony it is a state of conjugal love.

Marriage was ordained firstly through faith therefore only the Church has the right to interpret the morality of marriage.

[KateChaos]

Marriage is not a Catholic ceremony.

[make.me.smile]

Religion is always supposed to be all "accepting", but it really really isn't. I'm not insulting anyone's views here, but come on!

[KateChaos]

I completely agree with you, make.me.smile. You're completely right. I respect my religion - and others! - but it's madness.

[Spirited discussion]

You are wrong - the Church does not kick homosexuals out because that would be excluding someone from their right of communion with Christ - something whiich no one has the authority to do.

And sex before marriage still is wrong becuase it is the most intmate act between two people and can only be dignified and given its full value and respect if done in the selfless union of marriage.

For if we only have sex for pleasure we then turn our partners into object through which we obtain pleasure for our own sexual gratification. Surely you would not want to be used as a means for someone else to gain thri own selfish pleasure?


To the first point. The pope has no problem with doing that. Homosexual sex is a sinful act and so homosexuals who practice sex can be thrown out of the church. The pope, less so now, never used to have a problem with excommunicating entire countries and supposedly denying them communion with christ. I am a protestant, I'm not allowed to commune with christ in a catholic church.

To the second, what!? It is more like the third most intimate act between two people, after marriage and after having kids together- so how can you say that you should marry before having sex? Seriously, I dont think I would marry anyone I hadn't had sex with. + sex is never particuarly dignified, its a bit clumsy and messy usually.

I would not want to be the means for which just anyone gains their own selfish pleasure, but sex takes two and you both get pleasure from it. However If I loved someone I would find it easy to have sex to please them, in the same way that I might let them drag me round shops looking at clothes.

[Graeme McConnell]

I have little problem with civil partnerships, but marriage (which is a religious institution and office) should not be devalued by this growing trend of non-religious politically correct liberals who have no education in Theology and expect, because of their own arrogant politcal opinion, to change something they dont understand.

[Rebecca Adams]

In my opinion yes they should be allowed. Marriage is about two people getting together who love each other so therefore that doesn't mean marriage is just about a man and women being in love it could be two women or two men. Without being harsh people should start respecting other people's decisions.

[make.me.smile]

So what about atheists? Is it marriage? A civil partnership? Please, enlighten me.

[KateChaos]

I have little problem with civil partnerships, but marriage (which is a religious institution and office) should not be devalued by this growing trend of non-religious politically correct liberals who have no education in Theology and expect, because of their own arrogant politcal opinion, to change something they dont understand.

What about understanding homosexuals who are in love & want to be married?

[Graeme McConnell]

People must accept that whilst the government thinks it can dish out civil partnerships it has no authority concerning real marriage because it is not a religious institute.

People must accept that the Church cannot marry or give any blessing to homosexual unions because of it be fundamentally in opposition to the Bible, because it is against both moral and natural law and because it is intrisically disordered.

But if the government feels it wants to give homosexuals the second best alternative of a civil partnership then sobeit - but not even the government has called it a marriage because it is only a legal contract that may reflect a deeper emotional feeling - but nothing more.

[make.me.smile]

Again - what about non religious people/atheists?

[Graeme McConnell]

well get something from the government but if they dont believe in God their marriage is only a legal contract that has been entered into because of their love for eachother - such a legal contract has no deeper spiritual meaning and consequently cannot be called a real marriage.

[Liam Hannan]

I would ask what is marriage then?

You have spoken of marriage being merely a ceremony of commitment - marriage is far more than a ceremony it is a state of conjugal love.

Marriage was ordained firstly through faith therefore only the Church has the right to interpret the morality of marriage.


However the role of the church has changed in relation to the governance of society.
If you're talking about christian marriage (which is extremely shortsighted considering that pagans married well before the romans came here...)

Then you have to consider that from the fifth century the church was the main civil institution as well as the main religious one.
Maintaining records on who held what land, who married whom, who had children, who had died, who had moved on, what property people owned etc etc was all the work of clergymen. They also had to provide what we would now term statutory services;
Medical care, counselling, social work, poor relief, education, libraries, social gatherings... there was a lot more to the church than God.

These days the church is a lot less involved in the community because we now have bureacrats to take these roles on. The church had political reasons for pushing marriage the way it did, and those reasons are no longer valid.

The historical interpretation of marriage was that the institution was originally pushed by the church in order to protect the rights of the woman - to stop a gentleman leaving her after getting her up the duff; if I'm being blunt.

Hence both the role of the church in the marriage ceremony, and the reasons behind the ceremony have now changed and as such should be brought into the 21st century.


Additionally, the gospel has nothing against homosexual activity being immoral or amoral.

In Romans 6:1 St Paul mentions soemthing worth noting - a concept as old as christianity itself. That sin must be committed in order to be reconciled, and reconciliation achieved in order to get closer to god.
Thus sinning brings you closer to god.

Lastly, sex outside of marriage cannot be considered to be immoral. In the Neale Donald Walsch books "conversations with God" God himself states that he put two genders on this earth for them to enjoy each other (responsibly mind you. As lon as you respect each other) so if God is directly saying it is ok to have sex outside of the wedding bed - even if just in a monogomous relationship - who are we to question him?

[Spirited discussion]

I have little problem with civil partnerships, but marriage (which is a religious institution and office) should not be devalued by this growing trend of non-religious politically correct liberals who have no education in Theology and expect, because of their own arrogant politcal opinion, to change something they dont understand.

I'm not saying that the catholic church has to mary gays.

I'm advocating civil marriage, that is not a religious institution.

And marriage (the formal union of two people) has been around for long before the catholics. Jews practiced it, pagans practiced it, hindus practiced it, atheists practised it - and whilst they might not have spoken the same language, it was marriage all the same.

[Graeme McConnell]

Do you have any real understanding of the Church or its reaosn and teaching because so far you have only flaunted your sheer ignorance of it and badly misinterpreted the Bible.

Your clearly not an informed Church-goer which is why your making such statements - I'm no massive theologian but even I can see the absurdity of what you just said.

[make.me.smile]

such a legal contract has no deeper spiritual meaning and consequently cannot be called a real marriage.

So if we had your way only Christians could marry? I don't how you have earned that right. And not buying into religion does not make you ignorant (some people might even say it were the other way around).

[Graeme McConnell]

So if we had your way only Christians could marry? I don't how you have earned that right. And not buying into religion does not make you ignorant (some people might even say it were the other way around).

Not only Christians but Jews, Muslims and so on; those who have a deep seated belief in marriage for its true sense that being a gift from God - anything else is merely a legal contract

[KateChaos]

Marriage is not a Catholic ceremony; therefore Catholic attitudes should not be imposed on it.

[Graeme McConnell]

I do not deny that homosexuals enter into civil partnerships (which are only legal contracts and not marriages because marriage is a faith matter) because love exists between them to want to do so - but they cannot be called marriages because they are only legal contracts.

[make.me.smile]

Oh silly me - I thought marriage was about 2 people, not 3! I cannot believe you are undermining marriage in that way - or others people's beliefs. You'd rather call it a marriage when it's a 12 year old girl with a man that could be her father, because they are religious? Sorry, but think it through.

[KateChaos]

What about marriages which are 2nd, or 3rd, maybe more, marriage that cannot be performed in a Church & has to be done so in a registary office - that is too just a legal contract & yet it is a marriage.