Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Rhiannon on April 25, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
-
"At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls 'the dignity of marriage' by recognising that matrimony is not based on anyone's sexual nature, choices or dreams.
"It is based on love."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36127215
-
Hear hear.
-
I am not exactly sure what our long married is based on, but we have kept it going for 47 years in August, and haven't murdered each other yet, so must be doing something right.
-
"At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls 'the dignity of marriage' by recognising that matrimony is not based on anyone's sexual nature, choices or dreams.
"It is based on love."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36127215
Splendid! Love has nothing to with gender.
-
To add poignancy to this story, the BBC are reporting (and at time of writing are still updating) that the editor of the first LGBT magazine in Bangladesh has been hacked to death.
-
Splendid! Love has nothing to with gender.
But then, does marriage merely have to do with love? Aren't there other elements - such as respect?
-
But then, does marriage merely have to do with love?
who has said that marriage is merely to do with love?
Aren't there other elements - such as respect?
Yep, but I seem to recall a verse in Corinthians that arranges them in order of priority.
Incidentally, even if there are other things, then they can equally be displayed by all people regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.
-
But then, does marriage merely have to do with love? Aren't there other elements - such as respect?
Respect may well be a necessary condition in marriage, but hardly a sufficient one.
-
The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.
-
The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.
10/10
-
The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.
Conversely, a marriage with respect but no love seems a rather formal, stiff business arrangement that few would regard as a marriage worthy of the name.
-
Yes, that sounds like the kind of marriages people had in the past where class, aspiration and 'not being left on the shelf' mattered over personal fulfilment. The results were often disasterous.
-
Civil partnership equality for all.
-
Civil partnership equality for all.
I agree, Vlad.
-
Me too. Think it's a great idea.
-
Me too. Think it's a great idea.
Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.
-
Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.
I just started a thread about it.
-
Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.
Yep, in agreement with that one.
Didn't Welby argue something along the lines of marriage equality within the CofE leading to more persecution of gay people in Africa?
-
We are living in the age of illusions.
Or should that be delusions.
Marriage is for a man and a woman. It isn't about sexuality, that is true. It isn't about sex.
It is about God saying a man will cling to his wife and the two will become one.
So marriage is about a man and a woman.
There is now different beliefs about marriage and for legal purposes there is also a marriage for same sex couples.
But only in the legal sense of the piece of paper. They can never be married in the original sense of one man and one woman coming together and being one in Gods eyes.
Without God marriage is just a piece of paper but is has not heart, soul or definition.
Most people do not marry because they do not believe a piece of paper means anything.
Again homosexuality raised under a banner of 'The dignity of marriage' and shows the atheist have the real problem with homosexuality not the believer.
Whoopee do! How is homosexual marriage and a piece of paper different from heterosexual marriage and a piece of paper?
So how is the dignity of mariage only dignity if about homosexual marriage?
I am not surprised that we do not have many homosexual members. All this forum ever does is single homosexuality out as a soap box or a band stand display.
-
We are living in the age of illusions.
Or should that be delusions.
Marriage is for a man and a woman. It isn't about sexuality, that is true. It isn't about sex.
It is about God saying a man will cling to his wife and the two will become one.
So marriage is about a man and a woman.
There is now different beliefs about marriage and for legal purposes there is also a marriage for same sex couples.
But only in the legal sense of the piece of paper. They can never be married in the original sense of one man and one woman coming together and being one in Gods eyes.
Without God marriage is just a piece of paper but is has not heart, soul or definition.
Most people do not marry because they do not believe a piece of paper means anything.
Again homosexuality raised under a banner of 'The dignity of marriage' and shows the atheist have the real problem with homosexuality not the believer.
Whoopee do! How is homosexual marriage and a piece of paper different from heterosexual marriage and a piece of paper?
So how is the dignity of mariage only dignity if about homosexual marriage?
I am not surprised that we do not have many homosexual members. All this forum ever does is single homosexuality out as a soap box or a band stand display.
As has been said many times, you make very silly assertions without the slightest shred of evidence to back them up. You attribute stuff to god with no evidence it even exists, let alone what it thinks on any topic.
-
Sass
The historical purpose of marriage has little to do with sex - as such.
The purpose of marriage was to restrict and control the transfer of property, to control inheritance. Hence, the first duty of a wife was to produce an heir so that property could be kept within the "bloodline" the easiest way to do this was to control the sexual opportunities available to the wife. Two men together or two women together could not produce an heir.
The nasty hand of religion only came into marriage at a rather late stage when it was used to effect social control. Credulous people (and there are still some around) could be frightened into submission by being told they were offending the King of the Fairies in the Sky.
What other people choose to do with contents of their underwear should be of no interest to anyone else. And if two people want to celebrate their affective relationship by making a public declaration of this relationship then why should anyone else, including the King of the Fairies, be in the least bit bothered?
-
I just started a thread about it.
I saw that Len, read it when I was up during the night. It was so awful I didn't know what to say which would be adequate (I am saying inadequate stuff now).
Regarding love, respect etc, I would have thought they go hand in hand when it comes to a relationship like marriage. Respect is a facet of love, you wouldn't necessarily want a personal relationship with someone you only respect, however if you truly love someone you will respect them. I think Rhi said much the same, above.
-
Sass
The historical purpose of marriage has little to do with sex - as such.
The purpose of marriage was to restrict and control the transfer of property, to control inheritance. Hence, the first duty of a wife was to produce an heir so that property could be kept within the "bloodline" the easiest way to do this was to control the sexual opportunities available to the wife. Two men together or two women together could not produce an heir.
The nasty hand of religion only came into marriage at a rather late stage when it was used to effect social control. Credulous people (and there are still some around) could be frightened into submission by being told they were offending the King of the Fairies in the Sky.
What other people choose to do with contents of their underwear should be of no interest to anyone else. And if two people want to celebrate their affective relationship by making a public declaration of this relationship then why should anyone else, including the King of the Fairies, be in the least bit bothered?
I suppose that makes a change from the usual lectures about what the ancient Greeks got up to.
If two people want to get married in the House of God, then yes it is the business of his believers as to who those two people are.
-
But many believers want gay couples to be able to marry in church. Gay believers want to marry in church. And there are clergy who want the right to be able to marry them.
-
If two people want to get married in the House of God, then yes it is the business of his believers as to who those two people are.
The problem there though is that, here in the U.K. anyway, marriage is a civil institution: if you aren't married in civil terms then you aren't married in the legal sense, where those conducting religious marriages are also, concurrently, carrying out a civil legal process.
As such it can never be an issue for believers in isolation since marriage in the legal/civil sense isn't a religious status.
-
Sass
The historical purpose of marriage has little to do with sex - as such.
The purpose of marriage was to restrict and control the transfer of property, to control inheritance. Hence, the first duty of a wife was to produce an heir so that property could be kept within the "bloodline" the easiest way to do this was to control the sexual opportunities available to the wife. Two men together or two women together could not produce an heir.
The nasty hand of religion only came into marriage at a rather late stage when it was used to effect social control. Credulous people (and there are still some around) could be frightened into submission by being told they were offending the King of the Fairies in the Sky.
What other people choose to do with contents of their underwear should be of no interest to anyone else. And if two people want to celebrate their affective relationship by making a public declaration of this relationship then why should anyone else, including the King of the Fairies, be in the least bit bothered?
The King of the Fairies?
Isn't that what people used to call gay people once? Fairies?
;D
-
If two people want to get married in the House of God, then yes it is the business of his believers as to who those two people are.
No it isn't! His believers may think that, but it is just their opinion, warped by what they have read. If he is truly a God of love then he won't deny the covenant of love between two people, no matter what their sex is.
-
No it isn't! His believers may think that, but it is just their opinion, warped by what they have read. If he is truly a God of love then he won't deny the covenant of love between two people, no matter what their sex is.
So you would force SSM into those places whose members do not want it?
-
People have to examine their reasons for not wanting it, Humph. Something they are doing and have been doing for many years, the latter having resulted in all the changes in attitude and law in recent years.
I don't like the idea of forcing clergy to perform any ceremony that goes against their conscience but those who feel that way are becoming fewer in number and will eventually disappear altogether as younger people move up.
At the moment there are plenty of clergy who will perform same sex marriage, sometimes in church and sometimes at another venue. Even the hierarchies of the big, established churches are divided on this and there is a general 'softening' of attitude so I am confident that in time church rules will change.
-
As far as I'm aware when a cleric conducts a marriage they are performing two roles: the religious one, obviously, and the civil/legal element on the same basis as a registrar conducting a civil (non-religious) marriage.
Aside from the shameful ring-fencing of the C of E under SSM legislation in England & Wales I'd have thought that religious organisations declining to conduct SSM to those who meet the legal requirements to marry might consider opting out of the civil element altogether (since they can't discriminate if they aren't providing the civil element to anyone) and restrict themselves to doing a post-civil religious ceremony - else they provide the civil element without discrimination.
-
In England the last I knew only CofE clergy could also act as registrars. Has that changed?
-
In England the last I knew only CofE clergy could also act as registrars. Has that changed?
Don't know, but I'd imagine RCC priests can do both the religious and civil.
-
Yes they can - and they can perform a civil and religious service somewhere other than church (as long as the place is licensed for marriages or a special licence is obtained), as can Anglicans. Most church ministers are licensed to perform a civil marriage in this country, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical Free, etc.
The only time I have known of a church being unable to, was one that was fairly new and occupied a school building at weekends; they didn't have a licence so the people I knew of went to the registrar first and then had a marriage ceremony in their church. Later on the church bought their own premises and had a licence for marriages and their clergy were licensed to perform them.
-
So you would force SSM into those places whose members do not want it?
I would expect everybody to obey anti-discrimination laws, or suffer the consequences.
-
Yes they can - and they can perform a civil and religious service somewhere other than church (as long as the place is licensed for marriages or a special licence is obtained), as can Anglicans. Most church ministers are licensed to perform a civil marriage in this country, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical Free, etc.
The only time I have known of a church being unable to, was one that was fairly new and occupied a school building at weekends; they didn't have a licence so the people I knew of went to the registrar first and then had a marriage ceremony in their church. Later on the church bought their own premises and had a licence for marriages and their clergy were licensed to perform them.
That's interesting. The last RCC wedding I attended had to have a registrar present for the legal bit.
-
I've never seen that, Rhiannon, but obviously it happens sometimes. I wonder why the priest wasn't licensed to marry people? We'll never know. Perhaps he'd lost it :D.
Not a bad thing actually, in many other countries, eg France and Germany, the legal and religious aspects are kept quite separate, everyone goes to the registrar for the legal bit and then to church if they want to.
-
I've never seen that, Rhiannon, but obviously it happens sometimes. I wonder why the priest wasn't licensed to marry people? We'll never know. Perhaps he'd lost it :D.
Not a bad thing actually, in many other countries, eg France and Germany, the legal and religious aspects are kept quite separate, everyone goes to the registrar for the legal bit and then to church if they want to.
It can depend on the venue as well. I have attended a Methodist wedding in a chapel where no services had taken place for ages. They had a minister and an official registrar. Maybe they had not renewed a license or something?
-
Not a bad thing actually, in many other countries, eg France and Germany, the legal and religious aspects are kept quite separate, everyone goes to the registrar for the legal bit and then to church if they want to.
That would work for the civil/legal aspects so that marriage in the legal sense is secular, and since the religious add-on (however important this is for some on a personal basis) doesn't impact at all on the civil/legal element so that there is no discrimination on that score.
There would still be the issue of whether religious organisations would be inclined to discriminate against religious gay people by denying them access to the religious add-on.
-
It's likely that some would, as they do here.
-
As far as I'm aware when a cleric conducts a marriage they are performing two roles: the religious one, obviously, and the civil/legal element on the same basis as a registrar conducting a civil (non-religious) marriage.
Aside from the shameful ring-fencing of the C of E under SSM legislation in England & Wales I'd have thought that religious organisations declining to conduct SSM to those who meet the legal requirements to marry might consider opting out of the civil element altogether (since they can't discriminate if they aren't providing the civil element to anyone) and restrict themselves to doing a post-civil religious ceremony - else they provide the civil element without discrimination.
I think you are forgetting that vicars of the Church of England are automatically licensed to perform marriages and have a register in their Church. Other Churches like the Roman Catholic require a registrar to be present they are not automatically allowed to marry people.
In the Church the vicar has the right to say who he marries. Because he has his license due to the fact he is a vicar and for religious purposes.
The vicar believes marriage for a man and woman so religiously will only marry a man and a woman.
That is because he believes that marriage outside God and a man and a woman is not marriage.
For legal purposes two people of the same sex can marry. But it is a legal ceremony with no definition in religious beliefs.
I am not sure why everyone cannot just accept the truth for what it is.
In Gods eyes there is no marriage outside that of a man and a woman.
In the eyes of the world anyone can legally marry now.
Are people saying they can change God and what he teaches?
That would not be honest, truthful or based in trust in God and his word.
We are being ridiculous if we think we can change everything to suit man. Adam and Eve tried it, mistrusted what God told them and look how that ended up.... HERE....
-
In England the last I knew only CofE clergy could also act as registrars. Has that changed?
Registrars and Vicars have licenses to marry within their own legal places of work.
Both registrars but working in different offices.
Vicars having a religious right to marry others and so given a license automatically.
Registrars apply to become registrars vicars are automatically given a license to perform marriages.
-
Don't know, but I'd imagine RCC priests can do both the religious and civil.
No they cannot. Roman Catholic priests cannot marry anyone in this country they have no license and require a registrar to be present.
-
That's interesting. The last RCC wedding I attended had to have a registrar present for the legal bit.
That is because they have no license I think Brownie thinking of the Anglican Church.
-
No I wasn't. It's just that I've not attended a Catholic wedding where a registrar was present (though I've only been to a couple), so I assumed they were all licensed like the CofE but, having looked it up, it seems that some priests apply to be licensed as registrars and others don't bother. Not a big deal I suppose.
-
I think it is only Anglican priests, like my daughter, who are licenced to marry people without a registrar present.
-
https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/religious-ceremonies
"Authorised officials, including ministers and priests of other religions, can register marriages."
But this does not include Humanists ... except in Scotland.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/human-rights-and-equality/marriage-laws/
-
I was talking to a friend last week whose sister is a Quaker and had a Quaker wedding some thirty years ago. In the far off days when the Friends were persecuted, their marriages were not recognised so all the Friends present at a wedding signed a document stating they had witnessed the marriage. I don't know about the legalities of that but it was long before our time. However, though their weddings are now recognised in law, they still do the traditional signing of a document.
My friend said that one of the Elders at his sister's wedding was licensed as a registrar so they didn't have to import a registrar or go the register office. That was more than thirty years ago.