If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Until the last few months - then things can get really nasty
Actually there's a pagan ceremony called handfasting that is extremely similar to weddings although it also applies to same sex couples.
I thoroughly agree with you actually. I'd work on Christmas day if given the chance. Maybe I'll try and get Yule off, it's a pagan festival after all.
Now now children, play nice.
"Queers"?!
Fair enough if you've got an opinion but "queers"? Gay, lesbian and homosexual yes but you make it sound a like a disease
:eek2:
If marriage is a religious ceremony for the couple in question, surely the religious leaders should be allowed to give/deny permission, not the govt.? If the govt. legalised civil marriage then perhaps they could introduce a clause stating that the Church / Jewish leaders / etc. could refuse to marry a couple if it seems to go against their teachings?
Just a thought.
There is actually a permanent ceremony as I know somebody who conducts them and afterwards you sign documents and stuff to say you're married. It is usually a year and a day though.
But then where is open to celebrate capitalism *cough* I mean Christmas.
I don't think pagans actually have any rights reguarding time off work for the sabbats by the way.
Thats because the law quite clearly states that religion is to do with "mans relationship with god". Paganism doesnt really fit into that category.
It is still as good as a wedding though.
Still awaiting the proof you have for your further comments on single parent families and the link between homosexuality and depression.
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me springs to mind.
It depends how it is said. If it is said in a cool, friendly way most gay people may accept it.
BUT when it is said as an insult, then it is unacceptable.
Along with all the ******s, spics, Pakis etc that you deride at your local BNP meetings?
And what "way of life" do you believe in? Christianity? Islam? Or some self-appointed notion that you've pieced together during the periods in your life when you aren't wanking?
Oh bully for you!!! Big deal! So you call a military career a life???? What sort of experience of LIFE do you get in the army? It's hardly NATURAL educating yourself to KILL people. In your case, it was more likely sheltered employment ...
Neither are most marriages.
Depends on who is saying it and in what context.
Because I don't believe in gay relationships that makes me a racist does it? I don't have anything against gays as a person it's just their beliefs. e.g, thinking that being in a relationship with another man is ok.
I wasn't in the army, I was in the Royal Marines to be defender for my Queen and country and to travel to all 4 corners of the globe and to learn every skill you can possibly learn. Being in the Marines is a life lesson pal... you can learn more about the ways of life than you ever can being a civy. It just shows how ignorant and stupid you are if you think it's just a life of killing. I very much doubt you could do it.
I am sure you know full well that marriage is not to do with religion, it can take place in a religious setting but that is not necessary.
I am sure everyone also realises that marriage is not to do with raising children. This may be a part of the reason for many people but agian it is not necessary.
Marriage is a formalisation of a relationship between two people in the eyes of society and the law and a clebration of that relationship.
I can see no way in which this rules out homosexual marriage.
Proper form?
I think you will have trouble giving a good reson why 'proper' marriage is religious.
My parents were married in a registry office, is this less proper?
I think you will find that only comparartively recently (last few centuries) that the majority of marriages were done formally in churches and wotnot. Most rural folk just did it rather unofficially with their families and a local important person to verify (I think that right from the history I have done)
"Marriage is an institution not exclusive of religious organisations."
So if the god-botherers don't want to allow gay marriages within their sects, they have perfect right to do so. They don't have a right, however, to tell others that civil gay marriages cannot take place.
That's all there is to it, really.
BTW Kermit, why would you oppose gay adoption?
Good as, but not actually. Seeing as were discussing semantics.
Find your own figures, I said from personal experience.
My comments on single-parent families is true, except everyone seems to be wilfully missing the point. All positive qualities being equal, a family with a father and a mother is the best way of raising children- psychologists and educationalists both say this, as it promotes understanding of both sexes and it provides balance for the child.
The discussion was NOT about wife-beaters or drug addicts, because single mums who are prostitutes or single dads who deal drugs from the front room are just as bad for a childs upbringing. Again no figures, but a lot of children in the adoption system, particularly young children, are there because a SINGLE mother either does not want or can not cope with the child.
I certainly arent saying that single parents are bad parents, but that it is not the best way of raising a child to be stable and well-adjusted. And if you asked them honestly, Im sure most single mums or dads would want a stable spouse to raise their child too.
Ive said it in the gay adoption thread.
But basically I oppose it for no other reason than I dont think having two mothers or two fathers gives a child a stable, balanced upbringing. I dont care how loving a homosexual adoptor is, my opinion is that it does not provide a stable, balanced upbringing for a child. And as there are more prospective adoptors than adoptees then its a moot point anyway.
I dont think that civil marriages are any less binding, but I believe in the religious base of marriage.
The local important person to verify was normally the local priest though. The main reason stopping marriages taking place in a church was cost- paupers couldnt afford it, so they didnt do it.
I suppose Im arguing little more than semantics really, gay partners should have the same legal protections as straight partners- especially in terms of next-of-kin legislation- but I dont think they should have the legal benefits that marriage provides. I suppose Im just a traditionalist really, but marriage should be for heterosexual relationships only.
Why should homosexuality be tolerated though?
It isnot untenable to argue that homosexuality is not normal and it is not natural- you rarely see homosexual dogs or cattle, and then only if there are no females- and that it is a lifestyle choice rather than a predeterminate personality trait. After all, the US psychologist that originally determined that homosexuality was not a personality defect has recently come out and said that homosexuals can, with intensive psychotherapy, become heterosexual and enjoy a full heterosexual sexual existence- out of a sample of 100 persons, 50 male and 50 female, about 70% changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
So again, why should it be tolerated?
Barriers are only in the mind of the beholder. All that counts is that the child is loved and cared for by their parents, regardless of their sex. If we were all to worry about what will others I guess practically no-one would be allowed to adopt children.
A child would be infinitely better off with two caring, loving, hetero parents rather than a gay couple that argues regularly.
Whats your point?
There is in fact no end of things that are not normal or natural (who determines what is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ anyway?), or that can't be changed. Give a group of experts some time and I reckon there is not a single straight person in this world, male or female, they couldn't turn gay.
The same would apply to Christians, Tory voters, Daily Mail readers and other anomalies found amongst the human race. So why should we tolerate people who insist in such contra-productive practices that go against human nature and the human race?
I do not think you have really given any convincing reason why marriage should be for heterosexuals only other than the fact that it has been that way before and that religions do not proscribe (and then I don't think you have really identified why you believ in the religious base of marriage above a more general one in the eyes of society)
Going back to your asserion that all religious groups support marriage, this is true, but religion itself comes form the fabric of society.
I very much doubt that before religion as we know it people did not get married and then the religious people suggested that people should get married.
More likely that in the society the religion sprung from, marriage was already the norm and this was reflected in the societies religion.
Thus I find it hard to believe in a 'religious base' that can be sepaerated and differentiated from a civil base.......
Actually there are many studies that do show homosexuality in animals. And have you got sources for that US psychology study? AFAIK its been discredited.
And please define "natural". Surely anything we do is natural? The binary opposition between "natural" and "unnatural" is a social construct.
But you can't generalise by your own experience, which is why I asked for evidence? Instead you make a statement based on only a few families.
Because gay people eat, drink and pay taxes like the rest of us.
Who said that then? Name... link if possible. (Psychology student... gotta look at different sides of the arguement).
Dude... if you're gonna make generalisations and stuff up, at least find some evidence to back it up.