Same sex marriage bill

Elegran

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.

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

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

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)

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!

PS I'm really enjoying this thread!

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

No procreation in register office preamble

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 Absent the vows are to forsake all others as long as you both shall live et cetc but very few people take that seriously!!

celeb Wwhat is you opinion on IVF surely that is not natural?

DC said before the election that he was not intending to do anything about same-sex marriage. Now he is urgently pushing it through and as janthea and celebran say there are more urgent matters for the coalition to deal with. I think he's lost his marbles way. [scowl]

snap Bluebell!! and the R.C priest who married us was horrid, he told my DH NOT to hold my hand!! and said you are not married yet, if only he had known!!

It is now being said that Teachers face problems if they are in any way biased towards and try to promote heterosexual relationships, hmmm that is way to far the other way imo.

This is being denied by Gove but feel things getting bit out of hand.

I don't think anyone makes vows about procreating in a church wedding. "For the procreation of children" is part of the preamble.

I got married in a register office, I didn't make any vows about procreating - didn't need to, was already pregnant!!!

Marriage as a legal entity was almost certainly designed to control what happened to property. Obviously procreation doesn't take a legal contract. Marriage, however, was a way for a man to ensure that his children really were his and that property and titles, for that matter, passed down a bloodline.

Religious marriages work in different ways in different religions at different time throughout history but still serve the same purpose – the preservation of property within the family. That even applies to legal polygamous marriages.

bluebell it is all connected, normalising same sex partnerships and bringing up children in that enviornment with 2 Dads or 2 Mums is totally relevant.

janthea I could not agree more, ie both my hospital appts have been put back a month!!
sort the n h s out David, forget this gay marriage lark!!

riverwalk that is the religious aspect of Marriage, the commitment of one man to one woman for the procreation of children.

some things are timeless.

People should not have to change their views like their fashions, good manners, behaviour and morals are unchanging imo.

The debate in Parliament rages on - fascinating to hear it all.

I don't have a problem with civil marriages for gay people. There again I can't see the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage, but if that's what they want, then I can't see the harm in it.

As for what is normal, what we consider normal now is probably very different to what people considered, say, 200years, 500 years or a 1000 years ago.

However, I do think the government is spending an inordinate amount of time on the subject, when there are more important things that need sorting out.

Celeb marriage is not only designed for procreation - what about elderly people who marry, is that not a real marriage? Or couples who marry knowing that, for medical reasons, they will be unable to have children?

The word 'marriage' has to change with the times, in my opinion.

Bringing Elton John into this I don't find helpful - I think there is a really interesting discussion to have about surrogacy but not in this context. If two people love each other and want to be married as opposed to being civilly partnered, why not? It remains a choice - no church will be forced to hold such marriages. As for what is normal - up until the mid 19th century, married women lost all their property on marriage and it was only very recently that rape in marriage became illegal. We move on and change - thank goodness. Normality changes over time - just look at Deuteronomy for how the bible talks about marriage and rejoice that we do change

The laws of marriage were made by man and can be changed by man. They are not set in stone and in other ages and other parts of the world they have varied considerably.
Just because something is unusual or different it does not become abnormal.