Same sex marriage bill

On a more serious note, what is wrong with having two mums or two dads? Better than some of the one mum and one dad families I'm aware of. What really matters is that the child is loved and wanted. As I said, there are issues about surrogacy and AI but they apply to hetro as well as same sex relationships. If we are more inclusive in our acceptance of differences, then why would children suffer from having two parents of one gender?

No procreation in register office preamble

Celeb - morals DO change - don't tell me that rape in marriage should have remained accetable - I know you won't!!

PS I'm really enjoying this thread!

Surely whether or not this debate is urgent does not change the rightness or otherwise of the proposed change - could we please stick to the subject of gay marriage, rather than a very generalised debate about politics. No diversionary tactics, please!

Agreed - the debate is happening now whatever we think of it as a legislative priority - I expect people said that about abortion and divorce reform - oh sorry Greatnan - diversion (but not a tactic)

If anybody was thinking of quoting the bible, the following might make them change their mind.


From Cape Town Lesbians

Ever get tired of people throwing Bible verses at you, and using religion as an excuse for condemning homosexuality? Well, this is something I came across many years ago, and I still laugh every time I read it.

On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

Deuteronomy says that a marriage isn't valid unless the woman is a virgin. Ooops

There are (were?) three purposes of marriage, according the anglican prayerbook. The procreation of children, the avoidance of fornication, and the mutual comfort that each partner provides for the other. If gay marriage is fulfilling two of these three, it is doing as well as a lot of traditional male/female marriages, and a lot better than many.

Elegran

My first - it wrked!

Oh, dear, my children, grandchildren and great gc are all illegitimate then - I don't think it will bother them!

>
> Washington State just passed two new laws - gay marriage and legalised
> marijuana.
> The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalised on the same day
> makes perfect biblical sense because
> Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."
>
> We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

ruthjean

Good one, ruthjean

And here is a good essay on The Incoherent Case Against Gay Marriage

greatnan Re the biblical law post.

Good essay Bags. I'll be glad to see the back of the hypocrisy that makes judgements about two committed people - adults - marrying each other, whilst colluding with the sexual abuse of children by priests who are required to be celibate, and who hear confessions of 'sins' during mass, but don't confess their own sins.

If there's going to be a debate and change of practice, it seems strange that they would start with law-abiding, consenting adults. Why not start with the sex offending church hierarchy?

Bit cheeky to suggest posters shouldn't get off the point! This is a political as well as an equalities issue.

O.K By all means discuss the political aspects of same sex marriage - I am afraid I can't add anything to that debate.
I suppose we could always have another thread under Politics.

I would still like to hear what it is about same sex marriage that appears to frighten people. I know some loony in America said it would result in men sleeping with animals, etc. but I don't think anybody on Gransnet would suggest anything so daft. If a person does not want to have a same sex marriage, they won't be forced to do so. Why should anybody want to interfere with something that would harm nobody and make some people very happy?
The relgious aspect is irrelevant as we are not talking about religious ceremonies. (At least I am not!)

Elegran Wise words, as always.

"Faith-based values" have stood in the way of every single piece of equalities legislation. #elephantintheroom

Someone on Twitter mentioned this. So true.

Good discussion. I am in favour of tolerance. I do not understand why those against want to ring fence the concept of "marriage" to mean "opposite sex lifelong partnership" . I understand that is the meaning they would like it to have. But it is just a word.
I think civil partnerships should be available to people who live together permanently in a non sexual relationship e.g. 2 siblings sharing a house, 2 celibate friends etc. This would give them some legal protection in certain circumstances.
And that a marriage is something more for those who want it.
A vow of sexual exclusivity. In France everyone has a civil ceremony and those who want it troop round to the church and have a religious one.
I do not agree with giving tax breaks to people who have gone through a ceremony.

I don't have a problem with same sex partnerships, but for things to be equal,straight couples should, be allowed to have a civil partnership, as some people do not wish to be MARRIED either in a register office or in a church,but at the moment this is only open to gay couples.I was pleased to read in the Times that the lib dems are proposing this.

JessM I think you've made a very valid point and I agree it would make much more sense to separate the legal registration of marriages from churches. Other religions have to have a civil marriage as well as the religious ceremony. The Churches don't want any change, however, and the complicated connections between the CoE and the state are a constitutional nightmare and would take too long to unravel. So they've gone for a quick fix and it will lead to trouble. One difficulty in having an in-depth discussion about all the implications of this legislation is that if anyone starts raising issues, they are likely to be accused of homophobia. I'm in favour of everyone, male/female, male/male or female/female who wants to celebrate their loving relationship marrying if that's what they want to do. I'm also a member of the CoE and I'm in favour of ministers of religion and other members of faith communities not being zapped if they refuse to carry out a religious ceremony. Don't say it wouldn't happen!

I am all for every couple being allowed to decide the terms of their legal commitment. And certainly friends and siblings should have the same rights as couples in a sexual partnership. Why not? My first thought in all such discussions is 'Who benefits, and who might get hurt?'