adam & steve

[dukkadukka]

by wednesday gays all over the uk will be able to get their relationships legally recognised. it's basically marriage in everything but the name, so that christian extremists wouldn't kick up the same fuss as they have done in america. i personally think it's a good idea, long overdue. what does everyone else think?

[mike-zim]

i dont really care. does it really matter? marriage is just about the legality now. just because someone is married it doesnt stop them cheating. look at how many people are getting divorced. how long till the first gay divorce

[Dan_Dare]

the legality is very important though as it establishes proper legal rights for gay couples that have been sorely lacking. I think it's an important step forwards this.

 

 

kudos on the partridge title btw.

[mario114]

Christain extremists?-lol

Being a christain my self, i have no problem with "gays" having the same legal laws as any other couples. I don't think i would kick up to much of a fuss if they called in marriage as such as it basically is but with a different name. Marriage arn't just chriatain, basically every relgion has the own type of marriage. I would only oppose the idea of "gay" marriage within a christain church.

[1UP]

I don't like it, i totally disagree thats it's a step forward.

[Pestneb]

Dan Dare:

When the term "step forward" is used, I always find myself wondering what that step is towards. Everything is a step forward, the question isn't whether movement is being made - We all know that movement has been made. The real question is what direction is that step in?

 

really what I'm interested isn't the step its self, but the direction its heading in. the step its self is the rights of homosexuals, but as in all things that step can have wide reaching consequences.

 

After some brief thought of possible ramifications of this legislation personally I've come to my conclusion, and I'm comfortable with that conclusion.

 

be interesting to see where this step goes

[dukkadukka]

pestneb - care to enlighten us what that conclusion is?

[Jon]

I am not a fan of this, i believe it to be totally wrong. Now this is just my view, so none of you start with the you hate gay people crap.

[dabookerman]

why did u have to use my name...

[Owario]

It doesn't directly affect me in any way so I don't see how I could be against it. To those who are apposed to it, perhaps you could give reasons why?

[Eenuh]

Hmmm, I thought they were able to marry in the UK for quite some time now already... apparently I was wrong? Anyway, I'm all for it really. Gay people have been able to marry over here for a couple of years already (my uncle married his boyfriend back then). I really don't see why they shouldn't be able to marry and have the same rights heterosexual couples have.

 

Also, recently gay adoption was accepted by the government here, meaning that gay people should also be able to adopt children.

[dukkadukka]

yeah, gay people have been allowed to adopt for a few years already over here. so until today they'd be allowed to raise a child together but still their relationship wouldn't be recognised by law lol.

[The3rdChildren]

I don't see why it should be a problem. I think modern society has evolved to the point where two homosexual men should be allowed everything a hetereosexual relationship has, sans vagina. Same with women, sans wang.

 

If anyone disagrees... then why? They aren't hurting you.

[Mr_Odwin]

I'm alright with it. I think that whether or not I agree with the choices of individuals they should still have legal rights so that when their partners die, or their are disputes over separations it can be sorted out.

But I saw something on The Wright Stuff a couple of weeks ago where they were debating whether homosexuals should have the right to be married/made partners in a church. I'm quite firm in my belief that there shouldn't be legislation over that. Churches should be free to marry who they want not be told they have to marry a couple by the government.

[mike-zim]

but the government can legislate against religiouse festivals (refering to the politically correct thread that got locked because 1 idiot can only throw racist chants around).

 

back on topic i agree there should be no legislation for "marrage" but a legal binding of partners is ok.

[Haver]

I'm alright with it. I think that whether or not I agree with the choices of individuals they should still have legal rights so that when their partners die, or their are disputes over separations it can be sorted out.

But I saw something on The Wright Stuff a couple of weeks ago where they were debating whether homosexuals should have the right to be married/made partners in a church. I'm quite firm in my belief that there shouldn't be legislation over that. Churches should be free to marry who they want not be told they have to marry a couple by the government.

 

Surely, though - if the Church is to survive in this country - it's going to have to modernise and leave the pragmatism behind.

 

Christain extremists?-lol

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/3/newsid_4274000/4274496.stm

 

Edit by Fierce_LiNk: don't double post, please.

[mike-zim]

Surely, though - if the Church is to survive in this country - it's going to have to modernise and leave the pragmatism behind.

 

correct me if i am wrong but i thought the church was built on a religion? a set of morales that have been present for hundreds of years? it is like saying if they want to survive they should accept that there is more than 1 god and we should worship them all.

 

they can not change these are the principles upon which their religion has been based for hundreds of years. Just because homosexuality is generally accepted doesn't mean that they must now re-write the bible.

[dukkadukka]

mike-zim, i don't think that's what he's saying. no one is forcing the church to change, they have a choice to modernise or not. if they don't, however, their numbers will keep on dwindling. if the church wants to remain relevant it has to change.

[Haver]

Well, I'm not a scholar or anything of the sort, but from what I have inferred - it is reasonable to conclude that religion is about interpretation. There are liberal Christians who believe in gay marriage and there are more pragmatic, traditionalist Christians who don't - and that belief is the conclusion inferred by the individual from the texts of the Bible. A modern, liberal interpretation of the Bible is infinitely more appealing to the modern, liberal human being.

[Mr_Odwin]

The decreasing numbers of the Church of England (that becomes more and more liberal as time goes on), compared to say, the increasing number of followers of Islam indicates that won't work.

[Haver]

But don't the same rules apply to Islam, too? Extremism is a sect among many. A modern Christian Church that promotes principle as opposed to saturating our doorsteps with what I will call lightly 'Jesus-propaganda', I feel, would have a greater appeal. I think the large take-up of Islam is the result of an individual cause - namely their disappreciation of Western Society - something which the British Church doesn't have access too.

[Mr_Odwin]

Mormons are on the rise too. But anyway ... I think we're getting away from the main point of the thread here, however interesting I find it to chat around it.

[faz99]

Seeing it from the other side of the river to most of you, i think it's great. We now can get married. But some viewpoints on here are so narrow, it's unreal.

 

just because someone is married it doesnt stop them cheating. look at how many people are getting divorced. how long till the first gay divorce

 

Just like DanDare said, it's alot more than showing that you love someone. Gay couples have been missing out on certain rights and were unable to become officially recognised as a couple by the state.

Imagine you were the minority, and it was uncommon say to have a girlfriend, and if you walked down the street holding hands, you would get shouted at and you had to deal on a day to day basis with this shit that withholds itself within society. I think this also helps gay people become more recognised and accepted by society, although i do believe we are pretty much there already, depending on where you live.

 

I have no time to type more because i have to work now. Meh.

[BlueStar]

I can't help but smile when I hear "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" soundbite. I don't really think the Garden of Eden is a place to look to for relationship advice, bearing in mind their children presumably had sex with their sisters in order to populate the planet.

 

As for Christian Extremists, I think the Westborough Baptist Church, along with those who bomb abortion clinics would all come under that term.

[mike-zim]

Seeing it from the other side of the river to most of you, i think it's great. We now can get married. But some viewpoints on here are so narrow, it's unreal.

 

 

 

Just like DanDare said, it's alot more than showing that you love someone. Gay couples have been missing out on certain rights and were unable to become officially recognised as a couple by the state.

Imagine you were the minority, and it was uncommon say to have a girlfriend, and if you walked down the street holding hands, you would get shouted at and you had to deal on a day to day basis with this shit that withholds itself within society. I think this also helps gay people become more recognised and accepted by society, although i do believe we are pretty much there already, depending on where you live.

 

I have no time to type more because i have to work now. Meh.

 

 

if you had read my post properly you would notice i wasn't being narrow minded. what i was saying is that i dont see the point of marrage pull stop. be it gay or straight. it is for the legality that marrage is around these days.

 

yeah if gay people want to be married for the legal reasons go ahead i have no problem. but if you tell me that gay people have to be married to be accepted then i think you are the one who is being narrow minded.