You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Should gay marriage be made legal?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
Refering to today's poll, whats your opinion on gay marriage?

I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definition of marriage.
If homosexual couple's wish to show their commitment to each other, then they can do it by other means, but not 'marriage'.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definition of marriage.

    I agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it should. Why can't the definition of marriage be changed? Over the years dictionary definitions of many words have been changed. I am pretty sure the deefinition for "tosser" will always remain the same though.......

    I think same sex couples should be allowed to do anything that heterosexual couples can do by law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The reason why marriage is the union between a man and a woman is simply a matter of design.

    In this day and age, humans can be attracted to almost anything ranging from people of the same sex, threesomes, children, even animals. (please note, I am not trying to imply that all these things are equally disgusting/pleasant).

    But I think there's no doubt that a male human being is designed to be with a female human being, hence, the reason why the union between a man and a woman is called marriage.

    Any other union shouldn't be classed as marriage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am pretty sure the deefinition for "tosser" will always remain the same though.......

    Was that directed at anyone in particular?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by The Matadore
    Was that directed at anyone in particular?
    Good question ..........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, because it is a contradiction in terms. Holy matrimony is to join a man and a woman together in order to create a family- thats why a marriage can be annulled if the man and wife do not have sex together.

    But there should be legal protection for gay couples that there isnt at the moment. Gay couples are not seen as next-of-kin for instance, and I think there should be a legal effect equivalent to a civil marriage for gays, should they want it. But it shouldnt be marriage, though thats merely an issue of semantics I suppose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by crescendo
    In this day and age, humans can be attracted to almost anything ranging from people of the same sex, threesomes, children, even animals. (please note, I am not trying to imply that all these things are equally disgusting/pleasant).

    "In this day and age"? What do you think homosexuality is a new fad or something?

    Christ man, we're all born from the womb and one day we'll die and be burried and rot underground (or be cremated. Either way we'll return to the earth) and that makes us equal. Thus being equal we should all have the same rights.

    I'm sure it says somewhere in the Bible "thou shalt not judge".


    If homosexual couple's wish to show their commitment to each other, then they can do it by other means, but not 'marriage'.

    So because somebody's gay, they're instantly denied the rights that heterosexuals have? Just because they can't reproduce doesn't make it wrong. If marriage is entirely for having kids then maybe we should ban infertile people from marriage too, eh?
    :rolleyes:


    Originally posted by Bumblebee
    I think it should. Why can't the definition of marriage be changed?

    There's actually a handfasting ceremony similar to marriage which binds a couple for a year and a day and can be done with same sex couples. It's not the same as marriage, but could still hold just as much meaning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Holy matrimony is to join a man and a woman together

    Indeed, Holy matrimony is, but that is different from marriage - which is a legal contract between two people. You don't have to be married in a Church.
    But there should be legal protection for gay couples that there isnt at the moment. Gay couples are not seen as next-of-kin for instance, and I think there should be a legal effect equivalent to a civil marriage for gays, should they want it. But it shouldnt be marriage, though thats merely an issue of semantics I suppose.

    Yes, semantics. The Church can have the view that it doesn't want to "marry" homosexual couples but I don't think that the state should prevent it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oriinally posted by MoonRat
    So because somebody's gay, they're instantly denied the rights that heterosexuals have? Just because they can't reproduce doesn't make it wrong. If marriage is entirely for having kids then maybe we should ban infertile people from marriage too, eh?
    :rolleyes:

    Marriage and rights are not the same thing- marriage *is* for reproducing kids, that is why even in legal terms a marriage can be annulled if the two partners do not have sex with each other. And actually, if you know you are infertile you arent actually supposed to get married- you vow to have children at the wedding.

    Oh, and MoK, I dont think the legal "marriage" is a marriage. You said it youself- its a contract. But it should have the same legal effect as marriage, and a similar contract should be available for homosexual couples. Though I still dont think that any homosexual should eb allowed to either have a test-tube baby or adopt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Should gay marriage be made legal?
    Originally posted by crescendo
    Refering to today's poll, whats your opinion on gay marriage?

    I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definition of marriage.
    If homosexual couple's wish to show their commitment to each other, then they can do it by other means, but not 'marriage'.

    Hmmmmm .... so while over 1 in 3 "committed" heterosexual "marriages" end in divorce, it shows heterosexuals are good custodians of the word "marriage"?

    Don't be narrow minded and pedantic. Words change in usage over time and anyone who loves someone else and is committed to their partner regardless of sex, race etc should be allowed to be "married".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Marriage and rights are not the same thing- marriage *is* for reproducing kids, that is why even in legal terms a marriage can be annulled if the two partners do not have sex with each other. And actually, if you know you are infertile you arent actually supposed to get married- you vow to have children at the wedding.

    So you wouldn't recognise a registry office union as marriage then? Or a wedding? Hmmmmmmmmmm ..... millions of people in this country are living under quite an illusion then.
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Oh, and MoK, I dont think the legal "marriage" is a marriage.

    Look up "marriage" in the dictionary ... its a "legal union" .... not religious ... LEGAL!

    The definition of wedding? "A marriage ceremony ... "
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    you vow to have children at the wedding.

    I don't remember that part. Which vow covers this?
    Oh, and MoK, I dont think the legal "marriage" is a marriage.

    Huh? Not sure I understand what you mean by that :confused:

    A marriage in church is a marriage "before God" and only CoE weddings carry legal rights. For weddings in a catholic church a registrar needs to be present. Unless the law on this has changed recently.

    In the eyes of the State, weddings are a contractual issue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only reason gay marriages and homosexuality in general are seen as wrong is because the bible and church say so. About 60% of the country dont give a fuck about Christianity ( this includes all of the other religions) so why listen to the church? The fact that gay couples are only "marrying" for love ( well they don't get any legal benefits as it is not a completely legal marriage outside London) can only be a good thing.

    So people who are infertile, or dont plan on having children shouldnt get married? Well they are anyway, so why not let gay couples?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes it should. I think it's pathetic and disrespectful for it not to be legal. I mean shouldn't gay people have the right???
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by the doc horatio
    So people who are infertile, or dont plan on having children shouldnt get married? Well they are anyway, so why not let gay couples?
    Because those people consist of a male and a female, but a homosexual relationship consist's of two males/females.
    Originally posted by Teagan
    Hmmmmm .... so while over 1 in 3 "committed" heterosexual "marriages" end in divorce, it shows heterosexuals are good custodians of the word "marriage"?
    A homosexual marriage has just as much chance of ending in divorce as a hetrosexual marriage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Marriage it is not an exclusive institution of organised religion.

    For those who haven't noticed, people can get married in civil ceremonies and without a single god-botherer in sight.

    If organised religions choose not to accept same-sex marriages in their sects, it's their loss. However they have no say whatsoever on who should be eligible for marriages conducted outside their own sects.

    It's about time the authorities introduce same-sex marriages. At the end of the day gay couples might be the only salvation of this institution, judging by the increasing number of hetero couples who can't be arsed to get married, and by those who end up divorcing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the definition of marriage.
    If homosexual couple's wish to show their commitment to each other, then they can do it by other means, but not 'marriage'.


    :yes: :thumb:

    Homos can get married now but it's not a "proper" one?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by crescendo
    A homosexual marriage has just as much chance of ending in divorce as a hetrosexual marriage.

    Exactly! So why try and make marriage an exclusively hetersexual event when clearly it has no right to be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Teagan
    Exactly! So why try and make marriage an exclusively hetersexual event when clearly it has no right to be?
    Because male's are designed to be the partner's of females. That is how human being's are designed (and every other animal for that matter).

    Anything else is unnatural and shouldn't be classed as a legal union between two people. Homosexuality may be present in society, but so are many other unnatural activities (listed below) and they shouldn't be established legally in society.

    Paedophillia
    Animal fetishes/attraction
    Multiple partners (threesomes etc)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Marriage is not based on what is "natural".

    You will find that homosexual bonks are rife in the animal kingdom- making it by your own rules, a natural act.

    And you keep missing the key point to this. The instituion of marriage is not exclusive to organised religions. They can ban same-sex marriages from taking place within their sects, but they cannot do anything about civil marriages.

    Live with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmm, tricky. I'm going to try and be diplomatic here... but will probably fail totally!

    I've been a Christian for about a year - and I don't think I would have come to Christ when I did if I hadn't come out to a friend, who is opposed to homosexual relationships on Biblical grounds. Oh, the irony! :rolleyes:

    Anyway, I cannot dispute that in the Bible, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman (the verses springing to mind are from Paul's letters, if anyone wants references feel free to PM me). Therefore, if marriage is to be seen as a couple swearing a commitment to one another in the sight of God and His Church, then actually the arguments against it do hold water.

    However, in "this day and age" that is not what marriage is about to many people. Marriage has legal advantages, tax benefits, etc. as well as simply being a way of showing commitment to your partner. Many marriages are either non-Christian or completely non-religious ceremonies, but they are still binding in the law - so in my opinion we cannot therefore refuse to condone homosexual marriages simply because they appear to oppose the teachings of the church.

    I could go on, to talk about whether homosexual union in Christ is do-able or not, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread. I do have a few ideas so if anyone really cares feel free to PM me! (Like that's going to happen... haha)

    Lots of love,
    Picc.
    xxx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    You will find that homosexual bonks are rife in the animal kingdom- making it by your own rules, a natural act.
    Just because it happens, it doesn't make it right.
    A lot of thing's happen in this world.

    Should relationship's consisting of more than two people be legally regarded as a 'marriage' (or whatever you want to call it)?
    What about the woman that get's fucked by her dog? Can she legally marry it?

    Like I said, a lot of shit happen's in this world. The world isn't perfect, but the rules and laws controlling it should be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by crescendo
    What about the woman that gets fucked by her dog? Can she legally marry it?

    To be somewhat harsh, Cresc., your response seems to show very little understanding of the nature of homosexual relationships. You imply that they are totally based on sex, and on sexual attraction. Of course, every human being has sexual desires, and these are the root of human sexuality, I am not disputing that. However, I would argue that there is a world of difference between someone having a sexual relationship with an animal and someone else having either a sexual or celibate relationship with someone of their own gender.

    Marriage is about showing long-term commitment to your partner. Many people don't marry everyone they sleep with(!), so why do you assume it's all about sex?

    And another thing....
    Originally posted by crescendo here
    Here's another link.
    http://www.extreme-athlete.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=85526

    No comment :naughty:

    Interesting that you don't mind watching two women kissing, but are apparently completely opposed to gay relationships? What's that about?

    Sorry if I'm changing the subject!

    Picc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And who should determine what's right or wrong, natural or unnatural? The Christian brigade?

    For most homosexual people same-sex relations are the most natural thing in the world. And we live in a society that is not dictated by any particular organised religion, like it or not. Therefore organised religions don't have any say on the laws of this country and what should or shouldn't be allowed.

    Society nowadays see homosexual relations every bit as right and acceptable as heterosexual ones. Those who need to consult ancient books and beliefs to form an opinion and determine what is right and wrong are most welcome to repel anything they perceive as wrong within their church. And leave the rest of us alone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by crescendo
    Because male's are designed to be the partner's of females.

    Says who? Just because religious teaching say that doesn't make it reality. Eveidence of animal behaviour shows that some animals (notably Chimpanzees) engage in what we would recognise as homosexual acts. Are they unnatural too?

    If so, how do you define what is "natural" behaviour?
    Anything else is unnatural and shouldn't be classed as a legal union between two people.

    But marriage itself isn't a "natural" thing to do, I have yet to hear about married animals, so your argument doesn't hold water there either.

    Marriage is an agreement between two individuals, usually based on love.
    Just because it happens, it doesn't make it right.
    A lot of thing's happen in this world.

    Yes, but we aren't talking about "a lot of thing's" [sic] are we.

    What we are saying is that the State shouldn't prevent two people from becoming 'legally' married. There is no suggestion that the Church should be forced to accept this.

    So why shouldn't it happen, why shouldn't the State sanction indivual choice on this matter?
    Should relationship's consisting of more than two people be legally regarded as a 'marriage' (or whatever you want to call it)?

    Why not? It doesn't float my boat, but why shouldn't three people be able to form such a contract?
    What about the woman that get's fucked by her dog? Can she legally marry it?

    How many dogs do you know of who can give consent, can vocalise vows and sign a legal contract?

    You really do pick some ridiculous examples, dude.
    Originally posted by piccolo
    [/b]Marriage has legal advantages, tax benefits, etc[/b]

    Sorry, no tax breaks anymore. That is dependant on having children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Sorry, no tax breaks anymore. That is dependant on having children.

    I stand corrected - I'm not too hot on laws that don't concern me! :p

    Picc.
    xxx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    But marriage itself isn't a "natural" thing to do, I have yet to hear about married animals
    The reason for that is this...
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    How many dogs do you know of who can give consent, can vocalise vows and sign a legal contract?
    Other than that, some good points made there MOK :thumb:

    Just wondering what other people think about the idea of more than two people getting married...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The three most intelligent mammals ( dolphins, humans and chimps) all have homosexuals. So heck, let the marry. How are a gay couple hurting you? They dont cost you any more taxes than anyone else. If they want to marry, we should let them. People seem to think if we let gays marry we will have an anarchic state or something and the extreme left will take over. They won't.

    Why did we go to the moon? It isn't natural. We have gravity to keep us on Earth. Why control all other species? We have no right. It's not natural. I can go on about his for ages, but at the end of the day, if they are in love, let them marry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes of course it should be made legal. If religions don't want to allow it then that's up to them but why should we stop two people who are able to consent to spending the rest of their lives together doing so? To be honest I think it's extremely petty and vicious of people to seek to stop it happening when it doesn't affect them.

    I'd also allow gays to adopt subject to the same examinations of whether their relationship is stable that straight couples go through. What's better for these kids - being left in homes feeling unwanted and unloved all their lives or being given a loving home by parents who want them no matter how "unusual" outsiders might say that family is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.