Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Could Britain ever legalise 2 women-1 man marriage?


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#41 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:37 PM

The procreation argument in particular is a nonsense. Lots of infertile couples marry, and lots of married people also choose not to have children.

 

As for the rest of it, Henry VIII made a very public mockery of the Christian concept of marriage hundreds of years ago. People got over it eventually.

 

The new law doesn't force any religious bodies to marry gay people. They can feel as upset as they want about it, it is a free country we live in, but our elected Parliament has voted overwhelmingly and across party divides to change the law on this matter and they'll just have to learn to live with that. This is not a theocracy.

On procreation, gay people are not biologically capable of procreating with their partner.  That isn't a moral judgement; it is a simple biological fact.  Choice and fertility are irrelevant as even if both gay partners are fertile and want children, they still cannot procreate with each other.  They need a third person.

 

Men and women have been making a mockery of marriage throughout its history so I am not sure what your point was?  Do you think Henry VIII was the first man in history to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself?

 

We are not a theocracy and I am glad about that.  Indeed, those who disagree with gay marriage for whatever reason will have to live with it.  That is the burden of living within a liberal democracy - all of us have to live with something we don't like.  Including you, because you don't appear to like religion very much!  However, on the point about not forcing religious bodies to enact gay marriage, I doubt very much that would stand a legal test but I am sure we will find out soon enough. 



#42 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,589 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:54 PM

On procreation, gay people are not biologically capable of procreating with their partner.  That isn't a moral judgement; it is a simple biological fact.  Choice and fertility are irrelevant as even if both gay partners are fertile and want children, they still cannot procreate with each other.  They need a third person.

 

Men and women have been making a mockery of marriage throughout its history so I am not sure what your point was?  Do you think Henry VIII was the first man in history to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself?

 

We are not a theocracy and I am glad about that.  Indeed, those who disagree with gay marriage for whatever reason will have to live with it.  That is the burden of living within a liberal democracy - all of us have to live with something we don't like.  Including you, because you don't appear to like religion very much!  However, on the point about not forcing religious bodies to enact gay marriage, I doubt very much that would stand a legal test but I am sure we will find out soon enough. 

 

Gay people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners. True, but irrelevant. Infertile people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners, but no one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because that would just be stupid.

 

Of course Henry VIII wasn't the first man to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself. But he did it in quite a high profile way. The world did not end. Nor will it end when gay people start marrying each other.

 

On the matter of religion, people can believe whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but they shouldn't be able to require anyone who does not share those beliefs to live their lives by them.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#43 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:10 PM

Gay people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners. True, but irrelevant. Infertile people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners, but no one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because that would just be stupid.

 

Of course Henry VIII wasn't the first man to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself. But he did it in quite a high profile way. The world did not end. Nor will it end when gay people start marrying each other.

 

On the matter of religion, people can believe whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but they shouldn't be able to require anyone who does not share those beliefs to live their lives by them.

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  Only heterosexual couples can procreate with each other.  However, since the definition of marriage is now to change, meaning that procreation becomes irrelevant to marriage, that opens the door for all sorts of arrangements and it would not surprise me to see polygamy making an entrance in the fullness of time.



#44 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,028 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:29 PM

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  

Not for much longer it's not

Does that change the argument?


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#45 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

Not for much longer it's not

Does that change the argument?

No.  Two women still don't have the right equipment to procreate with each other.  They still have to go to a third person (in this case, the scientist).

 

I don't like what science is proposing here.  Seemingly, nor does the Sheffield professor in your link. 

 

But then again, I didn't like the 'spare part' baby science either.

 

I think that westerners have become very 'me' centred.  So long as we all get what we want then pox on the consequences.  I think the potential consequences of playing with the genetic makeup of human beings in the way that is proposed is to risk creating a monster, if not in that generation then in future generations.  Makes my skin crawl.



#46 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:45 AM

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.

In an effort to avoid work I've been doing a bit of reading around this. It seems that the period in this country where marriage was entirely controlled by 'Christians' (in your terms) ran from 1753 to 1836. During that time if you weren't married in a Church of England church, a Quaker chapel or a Jewish synagogue then you weren't married.

Prior to this period the chances are that unless you were moneyed you weren't married, after this period civil marriage came into being.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#47 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:48 AM

In an effort to avoid work I've been doing a bit of reading around this. It seems that the period in this country where marriage was entirely controlled by 'Christians' (in your terms) ran from 1753 to 1836. During that time if you weren't married in a Church of England church, a Quaker chapel or a Jewish synagogue then you weren't married.

Prior to this period the chances are that unless you were moneyed you weren't married, after this period civil marriage came into being.

You need to go further back:

 

http://www2.hu-berli...in_western.html



#48 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:59 AM

You need to go further back:
 
http://www2.hu-berli...in_western.html

You've sent me a link which has nothing specific about England and which shows that marriage as a concept pre-dates Christianity.

You'll need to explain how this shows that we need to consider Christians when talking about English marriage laws.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#49 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,589 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:01 AM

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  Only heterosexual couples can procreate with each other.  However, since the definition of marriage is now to change, meaning that procreation becomes irrelevant to marriage, that opens the door for all sorts of arrangements and it would not surprise me to see polygamy making an entrance in the fullness of time.

 

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. It isn't a precondition ( 'thou shalt procreate!' ), never has been, never will be. Lots of married people don't have kids, for a multitude of reasons, some biological, some not. It doesn't make their marriages any less valid that people who do have children. Let's be honest here, it's just being used as a weak argument by people who don't really like the thought of gay people being married to each other.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#50 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:08 AM

You've sent me a link which has nothing specific about England and which shows that marriage as a concept pre-dates Christianity.

You'll need to explain how this shows that we need to consider Christians when talking about English marriage laws.

You clearly haven't read the article then if you think it has nothing specific about England in it, and clearly you have missed references to stuff like the reformation (which was a specifically Christian period) and how Christianity sought to change the Jewish traditions of marriage in place prior to Christianity (as you know, Christianity has its roots in Judaism).



#51 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:13 AM

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. .

Completely untrue.  It has been a fundamental aspect of marriage for centuries.  Since the reformation alone reference to procreation has been part of the marriage service.  Clearly you didn't watch the BBC's famous adaptation of Pride and Prejudice!  Had you done so you would have heard the marriage service read out from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
      First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
      Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
      Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

 

See here: http://www.eskimo.co...n/marriage.html


Edited by Saintslass, 23 May 2013 - 09:14 AM.


#52 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:16 AM

You clearly haven't read the article then if you think it has nothing specific about England in it, and clearly you have missed references to stuff like the reformation (which was a specifically Christian period) and how Christianity sought to change the Jewish traditions of marriage in place prior to Christianity (as you know, Christianity has its roots in Judaism).

Actually, I did miss a bit about England. The line which says that following the reformation Christians in England declared marriage to no longer be a sacrament and only a matter for the state.

Good stuff. Glad we don't need to consider them.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#53 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,965 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:11 AM

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?


No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#54 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:15 AM

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.
 
To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

The civil partnership for straights will happen at some point. This bill includes the provision for that to be done in the future.

I don't think gays are necessarily going to be rushing to the church to get married, and no church, mosque or temple is going to be forced to marry gays. Some do actually want to - including some in the Church of England who are going to be prevented from even thinking about it.

I do agree it's a minor thing though. Just change the wording. Absolutely no reason to get het up about it.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#55 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,844 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:44 AM

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. It isn't a precondition ( 'thou shalt procreate!' ), never has been, never will be. Lots of married people don't have kids, for a multitude of reasons, some biological, some not. It doesn't make their marriages any less valid that people who do have children. Let's be honest here, it's just being used as a weak argument by people who don't really like the thought of gay people being married to each other.

 

Spot on. 


Fides invicta triumphat

#56 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,844 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:53 AM

Haven't most of us moved on from believing in fairy tales? Women accused of witchcraft used to be burned at the stake because of religious doctrine. Times and attitudes change and marriage is no different. The argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is irrelevant, marriage as a definition is subject to change through more progressive cultural attitudes. If religious groups want to maintain the definition of marriage that they use then I am strongly support their right to do so. IMO religion should have no place in deciding the laws of the land. 


Fides invicta triumphat

#57 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,810 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:34 AM

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

presumably for the same reason that other couples want to get married in church


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#58 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:57 AM

Actually, I did miss a bit about England. The line which says that following the reformation Christians in England declared marriage to no longer be a sacrament and only a matter for the state.

Good stuff. Glad we don't need to consider them.

That needs to be put in the context of the reformation, which was a break away from the all-encompassing power of the Roman Catholic church in which the priest was the ultimate authority on all things spiritual.  It resulted in Church of England vicars being the only faith representatives to be licensed to conduct weddings.  State, non-religious marriages in the UK were only introduced in 1836 through the Marriage Act.

 

See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-17351133


Edited by Saintslass, 23 May 2013 - 11:58 AM.


#59 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,455 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:03 PM

Haven't most of us moved on from believing in fairy tales? Women accused of witchcraft used to be burned at the stake because of religious doctrine. Times and attitudes change and marriage is no different. The argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is irrelevant, marriage as a definition is subject to change through more progressive cultural attitudes. If religious groups want to maintain the definition of marriage that they use then I am strongly support their right to do so. IMO religion should have no place in deciding the laws of the land. 

I think this is a much more honest approach to take for those who support gay marriage than the one which tries to rewrite history by stating that the Christian church had nothing to do with the current marriage construct. 

 

I doubt very much that people will stop viewing marriage as between a man and a woman just because the state declares that gender is no longer relevant.  People don't stop thinking in certain ways just because governments declare they should now start thinking in new ways.  As with all things, the change will take a generation or so to filter through and it is quite possible that in a few decades' time people will wonder why there was ever a distinction, unless something goes horribly wrong of course (I can't think what but you never know).


Edited by Saintslass, 23 May 2013 - 12:04 PM.


#60 T Dub

T Dub
  • Coach
  • 961 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:08 PM

why?

Because rather than legislating to redefine something that already has a centuries old established definition, creating a new entity resolves the need to redefine it

Pretty simple really




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users