![]() |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by montreal mike
(Post 11017710)
that is a fair question
I have been raised in the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and at my ripe old age I am not inclined to modernise my views It is not a matter of being against homosexuals as I have said several times I have difficulty in understanding why, to homosexuals, the term 'same-sex civil union' would not suffice, since it does not affect their rights in any way Maybe someone here can explain to me why the term marriage in a same sex situation is so important and worth fighting for? I was married in a registry office. Do you consider that a marriage? |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11017712)
Only if there is no intercourse. Remember contraception is frowned upon by the bible.
And if one wants to be celibate within marriage I can accept that sometimes that happens Mahatma Ghandi and his wife swore of sex. In the fifties in India this was confirmed to me by some of their acquaintances. I found it odd back then and still do, but that was the life they chose. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11017713)
But often it doesn't mean the same thing. The rights, obligations, and benefits are not equal to that of a marriage
I was married in a registry office. Do you consider that a marriage? I consider a registry office union to be a marriage as long as it is not a same sex relationship One does not need to be married in a church or synagogue or temple, etc, to be considered married. A civil ceremony is fine. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11017712)
Only if there is no intercourse. Remember contraception is frowned upon by the bible.
|
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by montreal mike
(Post 11017710)
that is a fair question
I have been raised in the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and at my ripe old age I am not inclined to modernise my views It is not a matter of being against homosexuals as I have said several times I have difficulty in understanding why, to homosexuals, the term 'same-sex civil union' would not suffice, since it does not affect their rights in any way Maybe someone here can explain to me why the term marriage in a same sex situation is so important and worth fighting for? Alan2005 had a good idea regarding this. He said that civil union should be the only legal relationship. Gay, straight, or whatever, this was the relationship that is recognized by law. Couples would then be free to have whatever religious union they desire but the extra religious ceremony would have no legal significance. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by R I C H
(Post 11017731)
What's marriage necessarily got to do with religion or necessity to have children?
|
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by montreal mike
(Post 11017724)
I can not be sure but from a legal point of view I think they are equal. Maybe someone can confirm or refute?
I consider a registry office union to be a marriage as long as it is not a same sex relationship One does not need to be married in a church or synagogue or temple, etc, to be considered married. A civil ceremony is fine. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by montreal mike
(Post 11017724)
I can not be sure but from a legal point of view I think they are equal. Maybe someone can confirm or refute?
I consider a registry office union to be a marriage as long as it is not a same sex relationship One does not need to be married in a church or synagogue or temple, etc, to be considered married. A civil ceremony is fine. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11017753)
so why can't gays get married, what is your reasoning?
|
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by paulry
(Post 11017767)
FFS. Because the basic ingredients of a marriage is one man and one woman. It's a bit like substituting the flour in a cake with another egg and claiming you have a cake. You don't. What you have is an omlette. :rolleyes:
|
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11017753)
so why can't gays get married, what is your reasoning?
the premise is a basic one: that marriage is between a man and a woman this has been so for generations worldwide, regardless of culture, race, religions and geographic region etc. It's only lately that same sex unions wished to be labeled 'marriage' and i think in time, maybe once i am gone from this earth, that matters will revert to traditional values |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 11017775)
Definitions change paulry, I know it's harder for you old guys to accept, but things move on. in the late 60's in many states in the US marriage was not permitted between black people and white ones - things changed.
interracial marriage was frowned upon, even verboten, in the fifties and prior the issue then was that whites married blacks, which was idiotic discrimination, but nevertheless marriage was still between a man and a woman Yes, definitions change but they are not cast in stone |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 11017744)
I see a contract that deals with the ownership and distribution of assets and a public personal commitment to make a life together. To me, it doesn't matter what it is called. That said, I can understand that if someone is only allowed to have a civil union, whereas others can have a proper marriage, and the only difference is sexual orientation, then it becomes discrimination.
Alan2005 had a good idea regarding this. He said that civil union should be the only legal relationship. Gay, straight, or whatever, this was the relationship that is recognized by law. Couples would then be free to have whatever religious union they desire but the extra religious ceremony would have no legal significance. there is no answer really, no right way or wrong way, just personal opinion |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by montreal mike
(Post 11017786)
but you are comparing apples and oranges
interracial marriage was frowned upon, even verboten, in the fifties and prior the issue then was that whites married blacks, which was idiotic discrimination, but nevertheless marriage was still between a man and a woman Yes, definitions change but they are not cast in stone It's interesting how you see the old US as "idiotic discrimination" - other might say the same now about the lack of same-sex marriage. |
Re: gays not welcomed
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 11017791)
In those States marriage was only between a white man and a white woman (or black & black) and if you had asked many of the locals they would have said it was sacrilege for interracial marriages to be permitted as marriage is between white and white. I don't see that it is much different than people now saying marriage is only between male and female.
It's interesting how you see the old US as "idiotic discrimination" - other might say the same now about the lack of same-sex marriage. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:16 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.