Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Threatening Gay Marriage

  1. #21
    Junior Member mostyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Thanks Northumbrian, and I appreciate the point you are making.

    I suppose gay's might say also, well really , what business is it of the Church to interfere with our lives and our rights in society.
    What I would say is that the institution of marriage is availabe to everyone who has reached the age of consent. We have since the dawn of time defined such marriage which is freely available to all as a union between one man and one woman. The gay response would be , I guess, but we don't want that institution, we want another institution to allow same gender marriage. But that is a different institution , and you can't say that that's the same institution of marriage on which society has been been based for countless centuries. I quite like the philosopher Roger Scruton , who makes the interesting point that we need to be a bit careful in radically changing something so basic in favour of people who happen to be alive at the present time. It seems the height of arrogance to ignore what might be called the judgement of the dead, that is, the countless upon countless of generations of people before us who have always held to the marriage of one man and one woman as the bedrock of society. There is also of course the future generations on whom the effect of such a radical change is unknown, but could be harmful to them.
    There is also the point that the Church has always regarded marriage as a kind of vehicle for the procreation of children , which again goes to the heart of the definintions of a man and a woman, whether in fact she is capable of bearing children or not. That cannot possibly apply to a same gender couple who have to resort necessarily all kinds of techniques and other arrangements of support to bring about their own family.
    When dealing with the issue of celibacy and sinful conduct , that is really a deal you either accept or you do not accept. If you don't accept the concept of sin in relation to carnal matters, then really to be honest, no discussion is possible between Christians and non Christians, which is a shame, but there we are.
    On to Catholic priest, they are not forced into celibacy, it is a choice/sacrifice they make, and sadly some of them as we know to our cost are not cut out for it.
    Last edited by mostyn; 09-25-2012 at 01:07 PM.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mostyn View Post
    What I would say is that the institution of marriage is availabe to everyone who has reached the age of consent. We have since the dawn of time defined such marriage which is freely available to all as a union between one man and one woman.
    Well it isn't freely available to a gay person, unless you expect them to live a lie and marry someone of the opposite sex. Don't you accept that some people are just born attracted to the same sex? Gay people are only about 4% of the population. Why would your "institution" of marriage fall down if a tiny extension of the definition of marriage was made to include gays?

    Quote Originally Posted by mostyn View Post
    The gay response would be , I guess, but we don't want that institution, we want another institution to allow same gender marriage. But that is a different institution , and you can't say that that's the same institution of marriage on which society has been been based for countless centuries.
    I think most gay people would like society to recognise that their love and their relationships are as valid as those between straight couples. Why invent a new institution which makes an artificial distinction between straight and gay people, when the old institution can easily be adapted to include gays?

    Quote Originally Posted by mostyn View Post
    I quite like the philosopher Roger Scruton , who makes the interesting point that we need to be a bit careful in radically changing something so basic in favour of people who happen to be alive at the present time. It seems the height of arrogance to ignore what might be called the judgement of the dead, that is, the countless upon countless of generations of people before us who have always held to the marriage of one man and one woman as the bedrock of society. There is also of course the future generations on whom the effect of such a radical change is unknown, but could be harmful to them.
    As a natural conservative, I have some sympathy with Scruton. We should always be careful about trying to fix things which are not broke. However, change can sometimes be for the better. As a Christian yourself, you might appreciate that the teachings of Jesus were an improvement on the often barbaric traditions of the Old Testament (in fact they were so controversial at the time that they cost Jesus his own life!).

    Only half a century ago, gay people could be arrested or otherwise harassed by the state because of their sexual preference. Luckily we live in more enlightened times. Why would marriage no longer be the "bedrock of society" if it was defined in terms of the love between two people, rather than the love between a man and a woman? Surely it is the loving and stable relationship between the individuals which is the important thing as far as society is concerned, not the gender of the two people.

    I do have concerns about the polygamous marriages, arranged marriages and forced marriages practiced by some immigrant communities in Britain, particularly Muslims. These do make a mockery of what I would consider to be the institution of marriage, based on consentual love between two people. I think it is very difficult to argue a good reason why marriage between gay couples is not permitted, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by mostyn View Post
    There is also the point that the Church has always regarded marriage as a kind of vehicle for the procreation of children , which again goes to the heart of the definintions of a man and a woman, whether in fact she is capable of bearing children or not. That cannot possibly apply to a same gender couple who have to resort necessarily all kinds of techniques and other arrangements of support to bring about their own family.
    If the purpose of marriage is to procreate children then what about heterosexual couples who cannot conceive because of fertility problems? Should a man divorce his wife once she reaches the age of menopause so that he can marry a younger woman who can bear him more children? If there is one things that humans are good at it is procreating children. In fact, for the good of the planet, we need to do a whole lot less procreating either within or outside marriage.

    If you asked me if I thought that children are better being brought up by married parents then I would say yes, for the most part (not to diminish single parents or unmarried parents in any way). This doesn't have any impact, however, on the argument about whether marriage should be extended to include gay couples. Indeed, there are ways and means by which gay couples can become parents - adoption and surrogacy for example. The arguments about marriage providing more stability for the upbringing of children surely applies equally to these couples as they do to heterosexual couples.

    Quote Originally Posted by mostyn View Post
    When dealing with the issue of celibacy and sinful conduct , that is really a deal you either accept or you do not accept. If you don't accept the concept of sin in relation to carnal matters, then really to be honest, no discussion is possible between Christians and non Christians, which is a shame, but there we are.
    Are you saying here that you regard homosexuality as a sin, and expect homosexuals to be celibate rather than to physically engage in their sexuality? What your holy book defines as "sinful" has been edited many times in its history, as has similar definitions in the scriptures of other religions. As a rationalist I cannot consider any sexual behaviour to be "sinful" unless it involves coersion, abuse of power or lack of consent (so child abuse and rape, for example). You should update your scriptures to bring them into line with modern thinking.

  3. #23
    The Friendly Ghost! Casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I do have concerns about the polygamous marriages. These do make a mockery of what I would consider to be the institution of marriage, based on consentual love between two people. I think it is very difficult to argue a good reason why marriage between gay couples is not permitted, however.
    I'm gutted that Northumbrian is now banned and cannot reply to me, but for anyone else interested in replying, I wanted to point out something.

    I think the concerns about polygamous marriages are almost exactly the same as the concerns about gay marriage. It's a traditionalist argument to say that marriage should be between two consenting adults in the same way it is a traditionalist argument to say that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

    Just to clarify, I admit my faith in Christianity naturally leads me to a biased position against the notion of gay marriage. However, I would suggest that it is hypocritical for someone to be in favour of gay marriage but not polygamous marriage. The arguments used against gay marriages are the very same arguments that can be used against polygamous marriages.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Effing 'gays' - the trouble they cause eh? They don't want equality, they want superiority!

    I wonder if the B&B couple that Stonewall bankrupted ever became solvent again?

  5. #25
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casper View Post
    I'm gutted that Northumbrian is now banned and cannot reply to me, but for anyone else interested in replying, I wanted to point out something.
    He's banned?? When did that happen?

    I thought he just stopped posting . .

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Who needs Northumbrian when you've got me?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •