Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.

[Spud]

Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?

I'm not sure what you are saying. That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.

[Roses]

That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. As AT Still said, "structure governs function". This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.

What a disgusting sexist comment! My husband and I are EQUAL, I would divorce him if he treated me like the 'little woman'. Fortunately for him he believes in the equality of the sexes and never treated our daughters any differently to the way he would have treated them if they had been lads. Admittedly our youngest girl would often scream, 'Child Line' when they were arm wrestling, as he doesn't know his own strength.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think equality is possible while we still continue to condition people from childhood to think certain ideas about men and women being treated differently e.g. "women and children first" in a rescue situation, or that if a woman hits a man it's not justified for a man to hit her back.

[Gordon]

Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.
 I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.

Since 'we' don't claim to be a 'Christian country', and since 'we' don't have a national religion, then at best organised Christianity is just one group among many expressing a point of view - they aren't, however, authoritative in any binding sense across society at large although they are free to express their opinion. The CofE does have some anachronistic privileges that do need to be removed at some point, and of course in UK terms not all Christians are English or are aligned to the CofE.

Those of us who aren't Christian should certainly listen to what organised Christianity says but we don't have to agree with them or feel in any sense bound by their views. 

As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.

What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)

UKIP can say what they like of course but they are unlikely to ever be in a position where they can act with any authority anyway - I'm surprised that you value their opinion as much as it seems you do.

[Roses]

Since 'we' don't claim to be a 'Christian country', and since 'we' don't have a national religion, then at best organised Christianity is just one group among many expressing a point of view - they aren't, however, authoritative in any binding sense across society at large although they are free to express their opinion. The CofE does have some anachronistic privileges that do need to be removed at some point, and of course in UK terms not all Christians are are English or are aligned to the CofE.

Those of us who aren't Christian should certainly listen to what organised Christianity says but we don't have to agree with them or feel in any sense bound by their views. 

UKIP can say what the like of course but they are unlikely to ever be in a position where they can act with any authority anyway - I'm surprised that you value their opinion as much as it seems you do.

I fervently hope that highly unpleasant mob never get into a position of power in the UK, which would be hell on earth, imo.

[Sebastian Toe]

Have you not heard of a "Shotgun" wedding?

Yes.
Some of those will involve mutual love though and some will not.
My question still stands.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Yes.
Some of those will involve mutual love though and some will not.
My question still stands.

You have been given an answer.

You don't like it, but you have been given an answer. The fact that the answer does not suit your narrative is neither here nor there.

[Sebastian Toe]

You have been given an answer.

You don't like it, but you have been given an answer. The fact that the answer does not suit your narrative is neither here nor there.

My question was "how many?".
None of the replies have addressed that request.
If you want to engage with that fine, if you don't, equally fine by me.
My question still stands.

[Spud]

My husband and I are EQUAL,

Equal but different

[Spud]

I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?

Quite a few I should imagine. Why?

[jeremyp]

Quite a few I should imagine. Why?

Really? That’s easily fixed: easier divorce.

[Spud]

I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?

I see your point - people don't get married solely because they are the opposite sex, but because they love each other. That doesn't mean a same-sex couple can be joined in the way a hetero couple can.

[Maeght]

I'm not sure what you are saying. That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.

What do you mean by 'look after' exactly?

[ProfessorDavey]

That doesn't mean a same-sex couple can be joined in the way a hetero couple can.

Yes they can - I fail to see what in a civil marriage ceremony and vows means that a same-sex couple cannot be joined in the way a hetero couple.

[SteveH]

Equal but different

That is the usual weasel-worded formula beloved of conservative Christians, usually when defending their opposition to female ordination. If they really believed it, they would not need to ban female ordination, as men and women could be allowed to find their own levels, as it were. The question to ask them is "what roles in the church do you think should be reserved exclusively for women, and men banned from?".
I realise this is getting a bit off-topic, but I wanted to refute that tiresome and deceitful phrase. To bring it back on topic, one could use thesame level-finding argument against them regarding same-sex marriage. In any case, religious ssm is not allowed, and presumably a conservative Christian regards a civil marriage as no marriage at all, so they've really nothing to complain about.

[Roses]

Equal but different

Different in what way?

[SteveH]

Different in what way?

In the not-equal way.

[Anchorman]

It bugs me that so many Christians throw a wobbly as soon as SSM is mentioned. Marriage has meant different things to different cultures down through the ages - even Christian marriage. Scripture does not tell us what marriage should be, only that - according to the New Testament, Christians should be married in a one-man, onee woman marriage, and that, for Christians, sex outside that bond is sin - whether gay, straight or whatever. Scripture says absolutly nothing about gay marriage....so why do so many Christians condemn two people who do not accept the Christian faith getting married? It is not affecting them, nor is it affecting the church or the spreading of the Gospel. Indeed it could be argued that, in formalising an already existing bond, a gay marriage stabilises the couple, and indirectly benefits those around them. No, I'm not advocating gay marriage in Church - I cannot see any way round that in Scripture - but I am arguing that, amongst two consenting adults who are not Christian, nor contemplating marriage as Christian, it's none of my business.

[ProfessorDavey]

It bugs me that so many Christians throw a wobbly as soon as SSM is mentioned. Marriage has meant different things to different cultures down through the ages - even Christian marriage. Scripture does not tell us what marriage should be, only that - according to the New Testament, Christians should be married in a one-man, onee woman marriage, and that, for Christians, sex outside that bond is sin - whether gay, straight or whatever. Scripture says absolutly nothing about gay marriage....so why do so many Christians condemn two people who do not accept the Christian faith getting married? It is not affecting them, nor is it affecting the church or the spreading of the Gospel. Indeed it could be argued that, in formalising an already existing bond, a gay marriage stabilises the couple, and indirectly benefits those around them. No, I'm not advocating gay marriage in Church - I cannot see any way round that in Scripture - but I am arguing that, amongst two consenting adults who are not Christian, nor contemplating marriage as Christian, it's none of my business.

Quite - and Christians do not have a monopoly on defining what marriage is, and is not, nor who can and cannot get marriage.

Ultimately marriage is, and always has been, a civic construct. Religions have often added their own layer of belief on to that civic construct, but without the latter there is no marriage. This is very clearly the case in the UK (and I think most other countries) - if you fulfil the civil element of marriage then you are married, regardless of any additional religious element. The reverse isn't true - If you fulfil the religious element of marriage, but don't completely the civil element then you aren't married.

[Rhiannon]

It's shame then that so many Christians condemn gay Christians fir seeking equal relationships as their straight counterparts. I cant think of a better example than why Evangelical Christianity ruins lives than the pious 'but Scripture clearly says...' and so condemning people lives of misery and shame.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-45615029/didsbury-church-s-radical-change-after-gay-girl-s-suicide

Anyone not in tears after watching that, anyone not determined to do away with all this shit, should be ashamed.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's shame then that so many Christians condemn gay Christians fir seeking equal relationships as their straight counterparts. I cant think of a better example than why Evangelical Christianity ruins lives than the pious 'but Scripture clearly says...' and so condemning people lives of misery and shame.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-45615029/didsbury-church-s-radical-change-after-gay-girl-s-suicide

Anyone not in tears after watching that, anyone not determined to do away with all this shit, should be ashamed.

I agree - it's a weird attitude. Effectively that marriage is a good thing, an expected thing ... except if you are gay.

I think Cameron made an equivalent point in the context of the established Tory view that they are the party of marriage. His line being that if they were the party of marriage then surely they should be in favour of allowing more people to get married.

[Rhiannon]

I agree - it's a weird attitude. Effectively that marriage is a good thing, an expected thing ... except if you are gay.

I think Cameron made an equivalent point in the context of the established Tory view that they are the party of marriage. His line being that if they were the party of marriage then surely they should be in favour of allowing more people to get married.

It's this whole exclusive 'children of God' thing... that if you are one of God's saved (unlike us heathen) you can't have gay relationships or marriage equality. It doesn't matter for the rest of us since we are going to the burny burny place anyway.

Quite noxious really.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's this whole exclusive 'children of God' thing... that if you are one of God's saved (unlike us heathen) you can't have gay relationships or marriage equality. It doesn't matter for the rest of us since we are going to the burny burny place anyway.

Quite noxious really.

I think it links to the obsession of some religions with children and, lets face it, sex.

out in the 'real' world we consider marriage to be about a consensual and public commitment to each other by two people who love each other. It is decoupled from sex (we don't accept the notion that sex should only occur in marriage) and from children (married couples choose not to have children, unmarried couples have children, couples already with children decide to get married.

[Anchorman]

It's not that. The N.T. specifically mentions the criteria for Christians to marry. There are many ways to interpret many Scriptures, but I can;t see any other way than that for confessing Christians to marry, that marriage to be recognised by the church can only be man and woman. Again, that is not preventing secular marriage in any way.