Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 9:53 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

Either way, marriage has been around for a long time and was largely accepted to mean the union of a man and a woman,

Or a man and several women. Or a man and a 9 year old girl.

The Video Ref wrote:

Seems to be exactly what is happening at the moment. People are attempting to redefine marriage.

No. What is happening is that people are attempting to have equal rights. There is no single universally accepted definition of what a marriage should be, despite what certain religious groups might have us believe. Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by several centuries and many religious groups (the Quakers, for example) already recognise and perform same-sex marriage.

Concepts evolve as society changes. Marriages used to be arranged/forced. This is no longer the case (in many cultures, our own included). Marriages used to be polygamous. This is no longer the case. Grown men used to be allowed to marry children. This is no longer the case. Inter-faith marriages weren't allowed. This is no longer the case. Divorcees were not allowed to remarry. This is no longer the case. The notion that marriage has been an unchanging, Christian-owned concept since the dawn of time and that only they may authorise changes to its meaning is totally ridiculous.

If gay people are allowed to get married, the only people this will affect are gay people. They're not trying to force their will on anyone - unlike the religious groups.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 10:14 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Or a man and several women. Or a man and a 9 year old girl.

No. What is happening is that people are attempting to have equal rights. There is no single universally accepted definition of what a marriage should be, despite what certain religious groups might have us believe. Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by several centuries and many religious groups (the Quakers, for example) already recognise and perform same-sex marriage.

Concepts evolve as society changes. Marriages used to be arranged/forced. This is no longer the case (in many cultures, our own included). Marriages used to be polygamous. This is no longer the case. Grown men used to be allowed to marry children. This is no longer the case. Inter-faith marriages weren't allowed. This is no longer the case. Divorcees were not allowed to remarry. This is no longer the case. The notion that marriage has been an unchanging, Christian-owned concept since the dawn of time and that only they may authorise changes to its meaning is totally ridiculous.

If gay people are allowed to get married, the only people this will affect are gay people. They're not trying to force their will on anyone - unlike the religious groups.

People are confusing equality with identicality.

Equal rights happened, it was called a Civil Partnership, and was a marriage in all but name.

Out of interest, how far do we go in the name of 'equality'? Do we, say, allow polygamous marriages in the name of extending the equality agenda?

[DaveO]

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 10:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'm intrigued how you have my words of wisdom attributed to Dally!

I have no idea!

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 10:26 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

People are confusing equality with identicality.

Equal rights happened, it was called a Civil Partnership, and was a marriage in all but name.

So what's the issue about changing the name? Plenty of things change their names.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 10:28 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

People are confusing equality with identicality.

Equal rights happened, it was called a Civil Partnership, and was a marriage in all but name.

Should we refer to white people as 'people' and black people as 'apes'? Both are accurate, so what's the big deal, right? To state that gay people may only refer to themselves as being 'in a civil partnership' whilst straight people are able to say they are 'married', automatically confers a lower status on their union. There's also the issue of religious recognition. There are actually quite a few gay people who are religious (though I can't for the life of me work out why). If they want to have religious texts read out at their ceremony, or sing hymns, they should be allowed to do so.

The Video Ref wrote:

Out of interest, how far do we go in the name of 'equality'? Do we, say, allow polygamous marriages in the name of extending the equality agenda?

Not allowing polygamous marriage doesn't affect an entire demographic in the same way as not allowing same sex marriage. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it if all parties were entering into the union willingly. The problem is that all too often in the past, polygamous marriages were anything other than consensual.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 12:53 pm  

Rock God X wrote: Oh, you see, I was under the impression that The Bible was supposed to be the 'word of God'. Are you telling me that it's not? Or was God wrong to condone the marriages that didn't consist of one man and one woman? This is a typical attitude where Christians are concerned - take the bits of The Bible that suit your agenda and ignore the rest. The Bible is a revelationary book. It serialises the evolution of a people and the pinnacle of that evolution is the arrival of the Christ. Obviously, Jews (unless they are Messianic Jews) do not believe Jesus was the Christ and so we continue to have Judaism (of the OT) operating alongside Christianity (of the NT). Jesus pronounced himself as the fulfilment of the Law (represented by the first 5 books of the Christian Bible), not a continuation of it. Therefore, the cultural differences between the OT and NT have to be closely studied for relevance to Christian life. The Bible is a guide book, not a rule book and there are contradictions galore, which have kept ordinary Christians and theologians engaged in spirited arguments for centuries. On your other point, have a read.

Rock God X wrote: Oh, you see, I was under the impression that The Bible was supposed to be the 'word of God'. Are you telling me that it's not? Or was God wrong to condone the marriages that didn't consist of one man and one woman? This is a typical attitude where Christians are concerned - take the bits of The Bible that suit your agenda and ignore the rest. The Bible is a revelationary book. It serialises the evolution of a people and the pinnacle of that evolution is the arrival of the Christ. Obviously, Jews (unless they are Messianic Jews) do not believe Jesus was the Christ and so we continue to have Judaism (of the OT) operating alongside Christianity (of the NT). Jesus pronounced himself as the fulfilment of the Law (represented by the first 5 books of the Christian Bible), not a continuation of it. Therefore, the cultural differences between the OT and NT have to be closely studied for relevance to Christian life. The Bible is a guide book, not a rule book and there are contradictions galore, which have kept ordinary Christians and theologians engaged in spirited arguments for centuries. On your other point, have a read.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 1:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: The Bible is a revelationary book. It serialises the evolution of a people and the pinnacle of that evolution is the arrival of the Christ. Obviously, Jews (unless they are Messianic Jews) do not believe Jesus was the Christ and so we continue to have Judaism (of the OT) operating alongside Christianity (of the NT). Jesus pronounced himself as the fulfilment of the Law (represented by the first 5 books of the Christian Bible), not a continuation of it. Therefore, the cultural differences between the OT and NT have to be closely studied for relevance to Christian life. The Bible is a guide book, not a rule book and there are contradictions galore, which have kept ordinary Christians and theologians engaged in spirited arguments for centuries. Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion? SaintsFan wrote: On your other point, have a read. That is totally irrelevant to my point.

SaintsFan wrote: The Bible is a revelationary book. It serialises the evolution of a people and the pinnacle of that evolution is the arrival of the Christ. Obviously, Jews (unless they are Messianic Jews) do not believe Jesus was the Christ and so we continue to have Judaism (of the OT) operating alongside Christianity (of the NT). Jesus pronounced himself as the fulfilment of the Law (represented by the first 5 books of the Christian Bible), not a continuation of it. Therefore, the cultural differences between the OT and NT have to be closely studied for relevance to Christian life. The Bible is a guide book, not a rule book and there are contradictions galore, which have kept ordinary Christians and theologians engaged in spirited arguments for centuries. Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion? SaintsFan wrote: On your other point, have a read. That is totally irrelevant to my point.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 1:08 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion?

Well, sort of, sort of not.

It's a big puzzle really, and so you've got to be in proper tune with the big dude in the sky, so that he can help you understand which bits to pay heed to and which not.

You'd think that a god could have actually managed to make it all easier, but apparently not. So it's just those 'in the know' who, err, know.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 1:19 pm  

Rock God X wrote: Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion? First of all, I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. Secondly, 'the word of God' can be interpreted in two ways: God-inspired (but not dictated by a big man in the sky down a microphone) and Jesus, who was referred to in Genesis as 'the Word'. That is totally irrelevant to my point. Here is your point: Christians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept And once again here is the link. From the link: However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani. The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent. The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University. 1140 is a long time for marriage as we know it today to have been in place and it must have existed prior to this date as the monk was simply formalising what was already being practised. I have not denied that other coupling ceremonies were around prior to the arrival of Christianity to England almost 2000 years ago. However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church.

Rock God X wrote: Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion? First of all, I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. Secondly, 'the word of God' can be interpreted in two ways: God-inspired (but not dictated by a big man in the sky down a microphone) and Jesus, who was referred to in Genesis as 'the Word'. That is totally irrelevant to my point. Here is your point: Christians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept And once again here is the link. From the link: However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani. The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent. The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University. 1140 is a long time for marriage as we know it today to have been in place and it must have existed prior to this date as the monk was simply formalising what was already being practised. I have not denied that other coupling ceremonies were around prior to the arrival of Christianity to England almost 2000 years ago. However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 1:28 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: First of all, I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. Of course you are. SaintsFan wrote: Secondly, 'the word of God' can be interpreted in two ways: God-inspired (but not dictated by a big man in the sky down a microphone) and Jesus, who was referred to in Genesis as 'the Word'. No. The Bible itself is said by believers to be the word of God. Trying to muddy the waters won't alter that. SaintsFan wrote: Here is your point: Christians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept And once again here is the link. From the link: However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani. The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent. The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University. 1140 is a long time for marriage as we know it today to have been in place and it must have existed prior to this date as the monk was simply formalising what was already being practised. I have not denied that other coupling ceremonies were around prior to the arrival of Christianity to England almost 2000 years ago. However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church. All your link shows is the history of the Church's view of marriage. I pointed to a whole list of ways in which marriage has changed in a previous post, all of which have happened since the 12th Century. That marriage was first formalised by the Church in this country does not mean that they own the word or the concept, merely that they have used it to suit their own purposes. Does the Christian church 'own' Muslim marriages in this country? Or Hindu marriages? Does it 'own' civil marriages between two atheists? You're talking absolute rubbish.

SaintsFan wrote: First of all, I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. Of course you are. SaintsFan wrote: Secondly, 'the word of God' can be interpreted in two ways: God-inspired (but not dictated by a big man in the sky down a microphone) and Jesus, who was referred to in Genesis as 'the Word'. No. The Bible itself is said by believers to be the word of God. Trying to muddy the waters won't alter that. SaintsFan wrote: Here is your point: Christians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept And once again here is the link. From the link: However, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani. The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent. The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University. 1140 is a long time for marriage as we know it today to have been in place and it must have existed prior to this date as the monk was simply formalising what was already being practised. I have not denied that other coupling ceremonies were around prior to the arrival of Christianity to England almost 2000 years ago. However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church. All your link shows is the history of the Church's view of marriage. I pointed to a whole list of ways in which marriage has changed in a previous post, all of which have happened since the 12th Century. That marriage was first formalised by the Church in this country does not mean that they own the word or the concept, merely that they have used it to suit their own purposes. Does the Christian church 'own' Muslim marriages in this country? Or Hindu marriages? Does it 'own' civil marriages between two atheists? You're talking absolute rubbish.