Re: Gay Marriages.

Gay or lesbian vicars - what do they think?
And what has it got to do with the government anyway?

Re: Gay Marriages.

All things on this planet are there to reproduce and that can not be done with species of the same sex so IMO it is only sick people who want to marry a person of the same sex as nothing can come of it to help the planet survive. There is nothing wrong with same sex people living together but to marry! For what reason, commitment! surely this can be done without marriage.
Marriage is a very sacred thing to us and should not be entered into unless you wish to fullfill the true meaning of marriage. For better for worse, in sickness and in health until DEATH do you part and to raise a family.
Call me old fashioned but imo people of the same sex sharing what is meant to reproduce is only for those who are not a full shilling. I truely think that in todays society some people are only saying that they homosexual to be fashionable.

Re: Gay Marriages.

Your post has made me quite angry AB and disappointed that a person who purports to be so compassionate and caring for all living things could be so bigotted.
All things are not "put" on this planet as you say - we are here at this period in history by the grace of evolution and are supposed to be the highest form of intelligence. Because of that supposed gift of higher intelligence it is facile and naive to simply state that all we are here for is to reproduce and those who do not reproduce (and there are many reasons why some people do not reproduce) are short of a shilling. What is said tells me that there is a sad lack of understanding of the subject. It is ridiculous and simply unthnking to say that unless a person reproduces they do nothing to help the planet survive. There are strong arguments that say if we humans did not reproduce so readily the planet would have a better chance of surviving. Unfortunately I think there is still much intolerance and ignorance surrounding same sex relationships - it is not simply a matter sex and reproduction.

Re: Gay Marriages.

No, I can't see what the fuss is about either, in my opinion the reproduction argument is a red herring - there is no discernible shortage of human beings on the planet and you could probably mount a good argument that currently homosexuality would actually be good for the planet at least in the short term. However there is far more to marriage than mere reproduction it is also for things like security and continuity. Homosexuality is merely being recognised as a lifestyle it is not being made compulsory.

I am glad that the UK government is going down this path and am embarrassed that Gillard has refused to support either the Green's or Stephen Jones' bill before the current parliament. The Labor conscience vote unless embraced by the Mad Monk (big NO there) and the Liberals will ensure the bills fail.

Personally, if I had my time again I probably would not marry and certainly not twice definitely a triumph of optimism over experience.

Re: Gay Marriages.

Many heterosexual people marry but have no wish to reproduce. My youngest sister never wanted kids, neither did her husband.

Re: Gay Marriages.

what next,,brothers marry sisters? for companion ship,

Re: Gay Marriages.

Is there any group anywhere advocating this? A non argument, totally irrelevant to this debate.

Re: Gay Marriages.

Well I got married in a church and never had any intention of having children and I don't recall the minister mentioning it. On that basis same sex marriages should be allowed to take place as far as I am concerned but then I am an atheist and only got married in church to please my mother. No religeon has or ever will mean anything to me. More people not having children would be good IMO as the world is over populated.

Re: Gay Marriages.

Antibrown - this is a forum for open discussion, so I am going to tackle your points one by one in the spirit of open discussion. Please feel free to challenge any of the points that I make or anyone else makes, because I don't want you to be able to resort to the old chestnut that you were held back by the PC brigade from saying what you really thought. While I try to keep the forum an enjoyable and pleasant place for everyone, and while that sometimes requires the lesser evil of post removal or poster suspension, I think often it's more productive to let (what I consider to be) bigoted views to be aired in the daylight, where they can be read and challenged by everyone.

Most things on the planet DO reproduce. However that's different to saying that most things on the planet are there TO reproduce. Statement 1 is an observation. Statement 2 (the one you made) is mere speculation about a grand purpose - something quite different. With no evidence to back it up, the speculation most certainly doesn't automatically follow from the observation. We might, for instance, observe that most things on this planet defecate. That doesn't mean that all things on this planet are there to defecate. When it comes to the concept of purpose and meaning, I'm afraid we're all equally in-the-dark. We can admire the very fact of reproduction and we can marvel at the sheer majesty of life, but we're over-reaching if we try to speak about purpose using the same kind of definitive language that we use to speak about observational fact.

Three key problems here...

1) With a vastly overpopulated planet, it's heterosexual procreation, not homosexual sex, that presents the greater threat to the planet's survival. Even if the problem of overpopulation in Africa was successfully addressed, the global population would still continue to increase. In the absence of us finding another hospitable planet in time (a very long shot) one thing is certain: life on earth is not going to survive our exponential breeding! In other words, not only is procreation NOT helping life on earth, it's actively contributing to its destruction. If so-called 'Mother Nature' is going to have to step in and correct this imbalance for us (through global pandemic or whatever), that rather fatally weakens your argument for opposing same-sex marriage. After all, if we follow your line of reasoning, it would appear to be married/procreating couples that are sick (not that I personally believe that, because I don't buy your argument in the first place!)

2) Second, when you go from saying (and I paraphrase) "no children can come from same sex marriage" to "people who want to marry a person of the same sex are sick", there's a missing logical path between your premise and your conclusion. How exactly does the one suggest the other? You talk about how nothing that can help the planet survive can possibly come from a same-sex marriage/union, yet there are lots of things that don't directly contribute to the survival of the planet - from hoovering your lounge, to buying a car - that we don't dismiss as sick because of it. You're implying that something is sick because it doesn't help the planet survive - yet you fail to explain why specifically that's the case, you just assert that it is.

3) Thirdly, there are lots of ways to help the planet survive that aren't reliant on procreation. (In fact as I've mentioned above, it's perhaps better if they aren't). Indeed it's perfectly possible for a gay person to have done things far more significant for the planet's survival and the betterment of humanity than a thousand pro-creating straight couples, assuming the latter's contribution is limited to pumping out 2.4 kids and not much else (not that I'm saying they are). So, forgive me, but again your argument strikes me as exceptionally weak, or at best, highly selective.

Absolutely - as can heterosexual commitment.

I presume you're aware that it's only relatively recently that Christianity attempted to take control of marriage in countries like England? (Indeed the very basis of the establishment of the CofE was so that the Henry VIII could get a divorce!) For a much longer period of time, marriage has meant something quite different to what people assume it does today. Many of the leading figures of Christianity have actively denounced it at one time or another. St Ambrose called it "a crime against God", St Augustine was quite unambiguous about it: "a sin", Tertullian called it a "moral crime". Few people realise that in England, marriage was mostly by common law until the 1700's. Of course you're welcome to define marriage however you like for yourself - but let's not pretend it applies to everyone in the same way, or has always been viewed that way. Much like mid-winter festival and Easter, marriage is one more thing the Christian church hijacked over the centuries, and turned to its advantage.

To be honest, I think you do a disservice to people with old-fashioned views by hiding behind that label. A recently deceased and much-loved member of this forum was "old fashioned" in the very best sense of the word - she was decent, kind, polite, generous - and yet by your description, Antibrown, she was "not a full shilling". How kind-hearted of you. Can I suggest that perhaps it's the mean-spirited and ungenerous in life who are 'not the full shilling', and those who define their very identity by something they hate. And that's to say nothing of those who believe in imaginary gods.

And you "truely" think this based on what, exactly? If sexual orientation is a choice, did you have to consciously choose to be heterosexual despite possessing feelings in the other direction? And what of all the gay people in those primitive, backwards parts of the world where homosexuality is punishable by death? Are they just choosing to be fashionable? Or at times in our own history when similar attitudes prevailed, such as when Alan Turing was arrested for homosexual acts in 1952? Was he just "trying to be fashionable"?

Perhaps at this point you'll abandon the "being fashionable" argument and retreat to the other one about gay people being merely "sick"? In Turing's case, the sickness only began thanks to the British government of 1952 offering him oestrogen injections to neutralise his libido and "cure" him of his homosexuality. I wonder who's side you would have been on during that shameful episode?

Incidentally, on the subject of Alan Turing, I'd suggest he did far far more for the future of humanity and the planet than any number of respectable middle-class procreating "traditional families" will ever do. A man who, with the Turing machine, not only kickstarted the field of computer science leading to, among other things, the computer you are currently reading this on, but perhaps more significantly played a vital role in deciphering messages encrypted by the Enigma machine, something which I'm sure I don't have to tell you was pivotal to Britain defeating the Germans in WW2.

Sorry I've picked on your post here, but I don't have time to tackle everyone's, and you made the most points in the most explicit way. I'm always open to being persuaded by a sound argument, but I'm afraid I've seen absolutely no logical argument against gay marriage to date. I say "logical argument" - obviously I can't argue with a religious argument, because at a fundamental level it's void of logic - ie. it's always going to be constrained by received dogma rather than reasoned argument, and the tell-tale sign is all the contorted arguments and logical fallacies that such people employ to justify their pre-existing belief. But outside of the world of man-made myths, I have yet to read a convincing argument against gay marriage, and I'm afraid to say you've yet to provide one, Antibrown.

One final point…

Those who say "marriage is this" or "marriage is that" often forget that marriage is not a fixed natural phenonemon like gravity or heat. It's an entirely man-made institution, which means we - humans - can change it however and whenever we see fit. We can broaden it, narrow it, or redefine it as our societies change and as attitudes change and become more enlightened. To the (small-c) conservative mindset, change like this can feel very disorientating, I accept that. But there was a time, very recently in fact, when people felt much the same way about interracial marriage. I would bet money on gay marriage becoming as 'normal' as mixed-race marriage in a decade or two. I think we just need to give both the conservative and religious elements of society a bit of time to catch up. But it will happen, mark my words. And when it does, we'll wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.

But by that time, of course, I suspect we'll have bigger problems to deal with. (Overpopulation, for one!)

Re: Gay Marriages.

Wow, Azz, that's a brilliant post! Very well written and supported,and excellent points. Thanks for entering the discussion!