Looks like men are gonna marry each other.

[gazzthompson]

reading this it seems there are those who agree with standing up for minority groups rights, my question is when is someone gonna stand up for the majority, ie those considered normal, you know the ones who work, have families, bring up the kids, obey the law,stand by their beliefs and faith, rather than constant pandering to those I consider nothing more than deviant freaks, oh and thats not a homophobic remark its my opinion, or is that not allowed by the noisy few?

 

KW

 

You imply allowing gay marriage actually makes the above lose something.

Edited February 6, 2013 by gazzthompson

[Gimlet]

You still haven't explained how homosexual marriage debases the 'sanctity' of marriage.

 

I haven't read all of this topic so if I'm repeating a point already made I apologise. I haven't read it because I'm not particularly passionate about it. But since the question is asked I'll have a go at answering it.

Marriage, or matrimony means in literal translation the quality or condition of motherhood. The ceremony of marriage is intended as a public solemnising of a pledge between two people to unite for life in the state of matrimony, that is in a partnership dedicated to procreation. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. One or other of them may with another person but they cannot with each other. Their marriage as a union of their flesh to bring forth life is therefore meaningless. As such applying the word 'marriage' to a homosexual union is etymological nonsense. Homosexuals can form a union as a proclamation of love, and there is no reason why they should not have a ceremony of public solemnising that recognises that (a civil partnership sounds more of a legal contract than a proclamation of love); but they cannot enter a state of matrimony. To call a homosexual union 'marriage' does debase the word at least, if not the concept because it is blatantly contradictory.

Personally, I've always thought that homosexuals were a good idea because they do not add to the population and as such the more of them there are in the world the better. Unfortunately since Elton John abandoned cocaine and catamites and discovered domesticity, infants have become the must-have accessory, the new scatter cushion in chic households which has undone all the good work.

[gazzthompson]

I haven't read all of this topic so if I'm repeating a point already made I apologise. I haven't read it because I'm not particularly passionate about it. But since the question is asked I'll have a go at answering it.

Marriage, or matrimony means in literal translation the quality or condition of motherhood. The ceremony of marriage is intended as a public solemnising of a pledge between two people to unite for life in the state of matrimony, that is in a partnership dedicated to procreation. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. One or other of them may with another person but they cannot with each other. Their marriage as a union of their flesh to bring forth life is therefore meaningless. As such applying the word 'marriage' to a homosexual union is etymological nonsense. Homosexuals can form a union as a proclamation of love, and there is no reason why they should not have a ceremony of public solemnising that recognises that (a civil partnership sounds more of a legal contract than a proclamation of love); but they cannot enter a state of matrimony. To call a homosexual union 'marriage' does debase the word at least, if not the concept because it is blatantly contradictory.

Personally, I've always thought that homosexuals were a good idea because they do not add to the population and as such the more of them there are in the world the better. Unfortunately since Elton John abandoned cocaine and catamites and discovered domesticity, infants have become the must-have accessory, the new scatter cushion in chic households which has undone all the good work.

 

So people who do not want , or cannot have children (infertile) should not be allowed to marry i assume?

[guest1957]

I haven't read all of this topic so if I'm repeating a point already made I apologise. I haven't read it because I'm not particularly passionate about it. But since the question is asked I'll have a go at answering it.

Marriage, or matrimony means in literal translation the quality or condition of motherhood. The ceremony of marriage is intended as a public solemnising of a pledge between two people to unite for life in the state of matrimony, that is in a partnership dedicated to procreation. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. One or other of them may with another person but they cannot with each other. Their marriage as a union of their flesh to bring forth life is therefore meaningless. As such applying the word 'marriage' to a homosexual union is etymological nonsense. Homosexuals can form a union as a proclamation of love, and there is no reason why they should not have a ceremony of public solemnising that recognises that (a civil partnership sounds more of a legal contract than a proclamation of love); but they cannot enter a state of matrimony. To call a homosexual union 'marriage' does debase the word at least, if not the concept because it is blatantly contradictory.

Personally, I've always thought that homosexuals were a good idea because they do not add to the population and as such the more of them there are in the world the better. Unfortunately since Elton John abandoned cocaine and catamites and discovered domesticity, infants have become the must-have accessory, the new scatter cushion in chic households which has undone all the good work.

 

Matrimony and marriage have two different etymological routes; therefore there is an issue with you using them synonymously. There is no requirement in a civil marriage ceremony for the word matrimony to be used at all.

 

The etymological route of marriage simply means to be presented with a husband or wife.

[Beretta06]

The outcome of the vote in the UK was discussed on a news channel in Kazakhstan today. According to the Minister of Health in Kazakhstan, there are no gay people in this country so no laws to give them equal rights is required :-). He obviously hasn't met the two guys in our office that keep making eyes at each other!!!

[welsh1]

I haven't read all of this topic so if I'm repeating a point already made I apologise. I haven't read it because I'm not particularly passionate about it. But since the question is asked I'll have a go at answering it.

Marriage, or matrimony means in literal translation the quality or condition of motherhood. The ceremony of marriage is intended as a public solemnising of a pledge between two people to unite for life in the state of matrimony, that is in a partnership dedicated to procreation. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. One or other of them may with another person but they cannot with each other. Their marriage as a union of their flesh to bring forth life is therefore meaningless. As such applying the word 'marriage' to a homosexual union is etymological nonsense. Homosexuals can form a union as a proclamation of love, and there is no reason why they should not have a ceremony of public solemnising that recognises that (a civil partnership sounds more of a legal contract than a proclamation of love); but they cannot enter a state of matrimony. To call a homosexual union 'marriage' does debase the word at least, if not the concept because it is blatantly contradictory.

Personally, I've always thought that homosexuals were a good idea because they do not add to the population and as such the more of them there are in the world the better. Unfortunately since Elton John abandoned cocaine and catamites and discovered domesticity, infants have become the must-have accessory, the new scatter cushion in chic households which has undone all the good work.

 

Marriage is just two people publicly declaring their intentions to stay together,the motherhood thing is just a load of tripe.

 

 

mar·riage

[mar-ij] which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b.

a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

2.

the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3.

the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple,including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriageceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4.

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husbandand wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5.

any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism.

 

I cannot understand why people are so threatened by two people declaring that they will spend the rest of their life together.As to all this religion rubbish most people who have the big wedding in the church and make the so called solemn vows end up getting divorced anyway.

 

I got married in a chapel,i am an atheist,my wife wanted it,but i believed in the commitment i made,and we will hve been married 25 years in august

[unapalomablanca]

Reading the posts as i have, i think most people either think homosexuals are born that way, and if they think and believe that, then they dont have an issue with gay marriage, or they think that being gay is a choice, or a type of mental condition on a par with something like anorexia. With the latter mindset, equality to gays doesnt register, as being gay is seen as wrong and deviant. I also think that many people cant get the thought of the physical act out of their minds and this also adds to their belief that being gay is just a poor choice for whatever reason.

 

My own view is that gays have never had it so good, much better than those living in uganda.

[pegasus bridge]

the creationist / sanctity of marriage arguments really hold no water at all. And hanging your hat on 'majority opinion' to justify not allowing gay marriage is hypocritcal considering you could get 'most' people to disagree with the legality of shooting cute animals with nasty guns - i'm sure we would all agree this should be given no weight.

[gazzthompson]

According to the Minister of Health in Kazakhstan, there are no gay people in this country so no laws to give them equal rights is required :-).

 

[Zapp]

 

[jasper3]

I heard a wonderful guy speak on the local radio yesterday on this very subject.... i wish i could remember word for word what he said...basically he said people are so wrapped up in their christian and religious beliefs they have forgotten their belief in humanity ....

[kdubya]

Thing is, just because people who work, have families, bring up the kids, obey the law and stand by their beliefs and faith doesnt mean they would agree with your views for a second. Nor does it mean that in disagreeing that they are pandering to anything or anyone - their opinions will be formed on their thoughts and experiences just the same as yours are.

 

Dead right but I am not allowed to air those views and opinions borne from experience or thought as I am automatically labeled a bigot or an intransigent duffer living in the past, you see the sad fact is by prejudiced favour of the "minority" the mainstream has been alienated to the point it is he who is the leper in society, rather than the man with bits dropping off him.

 

KW

[Gimlet]

Marriage is just two people publicly declaring their intentions to stay together,the motherhood thing is just a load of tripe.

 

 

mar·riage

[mar-ij] which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b.

a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

2.

the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3.

the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple,including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriageceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4.

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husbandand wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5.

any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism.

 

I cannot understand why people are so threatened by two people declaring that they will spend the rest of their life together.As to all this religion rubbish most people who have the big wedding in the church and make the so called solemn vows end up getting divorced anyway.

 

I got married in a chapel,i am an atheist,my wife wanted it,but i believed in the commitment i made,and we will hve been married 25 years in august

 

I only point out the origins of the word. Marriage is a holy sacrament and that is where the word has its origins. It is the ceremony, and matrimony is the state entered through marriage. It comes from mater, mother and the suffix -mony, a condition or state. It doesn't mean only a declaration of fidelity, it means a pledge before God to join two flesh forsaking all others for life for the express purpose of creating and raising children.

 

I an a disinterested observer. I endeavour to shed light not heat. I didn't write the rules or history of language so don't blame me, and for the record I'm not threatened by this subject, nor are my non-existent religious scruples offended in the slightest. In fact I couldn't care less one way or the other. Marriage like so much else in a world where people clamour for participation while resenting the implications, and who lack the wit to forge new words to describe new conditions preferring instead to hi-jack others already in use elsewhere, was debased long ago. It is debased by marriage for money; marriage for convenience; marriage for social respectability, marriage for spectacle, for the memory of the day, for the pretty photos and the p*** up afterwards, and by the throwaway ease of divorce. As far as I'm concerned Its a bit late to worry about homosexuals joining in.

[kdubya]

I only point out the origins of the word. Marriage is a holy sacrament and that is where the word has its origins. It is the ceremony, and matrimony is the state entered through marriage. It comes from mater, mother and the suffix -mony, a condition or state. It doesn't mean only a declaration of fidelity, it means a pledge before God to join two flesh forsaking all others for life for the express purpose of creating and raising children.

 

I an a disinterested observer. I endeavour to shed light not heat. I didn't write the rules or history of language so don't blame me, and for the record I'm not threatened by this subject, nor are my non-existent religious scruples offended in the slightest. In fact I couldn't care less one way or the other. Marriage like so much else in a world where people clamour for participation while resenting the implications, and who lack the wit to forge new words to describe new conditions preferring instead to hi-jack others already in use elsewhere, was debased long ago. It is debased by marriage for money; marriage for convenience; marriage for social respectability, marriage for spectacle, for the memory of the day, for the pretty photos and the p*** up afterwards, and by the throwaway ease of divorce. As far as I'm concerned Its a bit late to worry about homosexuals joining in.

 

yep wonder what would have happened had Adam met Adam? IE the ultimate "minority" group

 

KW

Edited February 6, 2013 by kdubya

[gazzthompson]

To be fair, Adam and Eve existed as much as Adam and Steve did. Ie not at all.

[njc110381]

i don't see the point, they can have a civil patnership, what's wrong with that?

Dr Paddy foresees hordes of homos demanding compensation from the church for breach of their human rights

 

Exactly! When you're gay you shouldn't be able to be joined by a ceremony when what you are doing is frowned apon by the very people who created it in the first place. Have a civil partnership and be done with it! What about the rights of those who are against it? Is it ok that we have to comply with these rules (like that couple who refused a gay couple entry to their B&B - it is theirs after all)? Human rights are a pain in the backside and this country is a joke!

 

I see homophobic people......

 

No you don't. One of my very oldest friends is gay and I don't see him any differently to you. But I don't think he should be allowed to marry because that disrespects the wishes of others.

 

Should I go to the local mosque in my shorts and a string vest? No, it's disrespectful. It's just the same, apart from for some reason the homo's think they're something special! Like most minority groups I should add.

[gazzthompson]

Exactly! When you're gay you shouldn't be able to be joined by a ceremony when what you are doing is frowned apon by the very people who created it in the first place. Have a civil partnership and be done with it! What about the rights of those who are against it? Is it ok that we have to comply with these rules (like that couple who refused a gay couple entry to their B&B - it is theirs after all)? Human rights are a pain in the backside and this country is a joke!

 

 

Who created it? Marriage has pre-dated religion. And what about civil marriage that has nothing to do with religion?

 

No you don't. One of my very oldest friends is gay and I don't see him any differently to you. But I don't think he should be allowed to marry because that disrespects the wishes of others.

 

Should I go to the local mosque in my shorts and a string vest? No, it's disrespectful. It's just the same, apart from for some reason the homo's think they're something special! Like most minority groups I should add.

 

And not allowing them to marry is disrespecting the wishes of others.

Edited February 6, 2013 by gazzthompson

[njc110381]

Civil marriage is ok. I'm taking that route myself because I don't do god.

 

My honest worry is that the church could be forced into something which goes against the rules of it's holy book. I'm not religious, but at the same time I respect the feelings of those who are. To force someone into something is disrespectful - why does it always have to be about those who can't have something? **** happens, we can't have everything we want.

[welsh1]

No you don't. One of my very oldest friends is gay and I don't see him any differently to you. But I don't think he should be allowed to marry because that disrespects the wishes of others.

 

 

So you don't see one of your oldest friends any differently to myself,yet in the same sentence you would deny him the opportunity to get married to someone he loves.

Hypocrite.

[njc110381]

I don't see why you'd call me that? Lets go back to the whole mosque thing - should I be allowed to walk in there in my shorts and t-shirt just because I feel that I should be allowed to? I wouldn't consider having to cover up a breach of my rights, I'd consider it me breaching theirs by not doing so. It's the same thing!

 

As a person he's no different to anyone else but what he does could cause upset to some. For that reason the person who is upset also needs to be considered.

Edited February 6, 2013 by njc110381

[gazzthompson]

Civil marriage is ok. I'm taking that route myself because I don't do god.

 

My honest worry is that the church could be forced into something which goes against the rules of it's holy book. I'm not religious, but at the same time I respect the feelings of those who are. To force someone into something is disrespectful - why does it always have to be about those who can't have something? **** happens, we can't have everything we want.

 

Because the churches can't be forced. If they where being forced, I would oppose the bill.

[njc110381]

Is the church not a business open to everyone the same as a B&B?

[subsonicnat]

What you have to remember is, in a few generations, According to >>muslims<<<, we will all be converted to said faith:

if that happens, maybe there will be some be-headings in this country: Now there`s a thought::..

Because they certainly will not have it:::!!!!!.

[Paddy Galore!]

i still think the government is trying to hide something else...

[welsh1]

I don't see why you'd call me that? Lets go back to the whole mosque thing - should I be allowed to walk in there in my shorts and t-shirt just because I feel that I should be allowed to? I wouldn't consider having to cover up a breach of my rights, I'd consider it me breaching theirs by not doing so. It's the same thing!

 

As a person he's no different to anyone else but what he does could cause upset to some. For that reason the person who is upset also needs to be considered.

 

So if you met a woman who you wanted to marry,but your mother said no because it would hurt her feelings you would not marry?

 

There is a difference between someone's actions causing actual physical hurt,and causing moral offence.

Following your argument to the end,why do you continue to shoot,when you know that there are people out there that get very upset at the pain and suffering you cause to animals?