Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

Former Archbishop goes a bit over the top

90 posts in this topic

A marriage is merely a contract, probably one of the earliest forms of contract.

For some reason some people think that the marriage contract is different to any other business contract, that's all it is, and therefore can only be a contract between opposite sexes.

The original idea, I believe, was not a contract between individuals but between families ( to stop feuds ), the male female side just made the contract far more binding when both sides had an investment in any children produced. Same sex contracts would not have the same result so would probably not be considered a good as an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on ...

Take a look at different regions of the world and their attitudes to sexuality if religion disappeared tomorrow it would have little impact on homophobia. Religions have at worst been disinterested in homosexuality let alone have strong views on it enough to force legislation through. Even in Europe during the late dark age and early medieval period attitudes to sexuality were fairly liberal and the age of reason had no great impact on open acceptance of homosexuality.

Take a look at the countries which are the most open to homosexuality and look at the countires at the other end of the scale. There seems little relation between how religious a country is and their acceptance to opposition to homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religions have at worst been disinterested in homosexuality let alone have strong views on it enough to force legislation through.

Try telling that to former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, whose ridiculous outburst on the subject prompted me to start the thread. To say that religions have been disinterested in the subject is a momentous distortion of reality. Many seem utterly obsessed by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Maximus Decimus. Makes it easy as he/she has put it far better than I ever could.

I'm not a he/she thank you very much.

Not that I'd be bothered of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A marriage is merely a contract, probably one of the earliest forms of contract.

For some reason some people think that the marriage contract is different to any other business contract, that's all it is, and therefore can only be a contract between opposite sexes.

The original idea, I believe, was not a contract between individuals but between families ( to stop feuds ), the male female side just made the contract far more binding when both sides had an investment in any children produced. Same sex contracts would not have the same result so would probably not be considered a good as an idea.

No to mention that Ancient culture were usually extremely hostile to homosexuality (though not always).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relationship isn't a legal term hence it doesn't matter what definition appears in the dictionary.

If you are atheist then the concept of "God" doesn't make sense.

Now who's being the pedant, I'm obviously talking from the perspective of Christians, the group that seems to form the majority of the opposition to gay marriage.

Can legal terms not be updated? Like they have been in other countries?

Muslims don't pray to a different God.

Homosexuals can do what they like, the debate revolves around the term the state should use.

Do you not think the term that the states use holds any importance whatsoever, especially when there is no real logic behind a different term other than the appeasement of groups that class their way of life as perverted.

It's debatable whether Muslims pray to the same God. They certainly don't pray to the God as defined by Christians, the God whose thoughts and desires they believe that they know. Therefore, my original point stands.

They don't. They can call it what they like.

Just not legally, just like the French Rugby League could have informally called themselves Rugby. Why be so bothered about legally changing the term?

You seem to be setting this up as a pointless debate, as if it is merely about a technicality. I disagree with this on grounds of equality but I also think that it has become more about the opposition themselves and the homophobia that still exists in society. The argument is about much more than just a technical term, it is about preventing bigots from forcing people that they don't like to live in ways that they like.

After all, let's face it. Without a Christian opposition, it would have been legal long ago and it would have been caused marriage from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now who's being the pedant, I'm obviously talking from the perspective of Christians, the group that seems to form the majority of the opposition to gay marriage.

Can legal terms not be updated? Like they have been in other countries?

If you were talking from the perspective of a Christian then you wouldn't question the nature of God.

Legal terms can be updated but I'm pointing out that there is no analogy between the terms "marriage" and "relationship". You can't argue that because one isn't restricted to heterosexuals then the other one shouldn't be either/

Do you not think the term that the states use holds any importance whatsoever, especially when there is no real logic behind a different term other than the appeasement of groups that class their way of life as perverted.

If the term isn't important then why the need to change it?

Homosexual and heterosexual marriages are different enough that people see them as different. There is unlikely to be the consensus necessary to change this whilst they are seen as different, especially as most people don't care that much about what is a technicality, even lots of gay people don't care about this issue.

It's debatable whether Muslims pray to the same God. They certainly don't pray to the God as defined by Christians, the God whose thoughts and desires they believe that they know. Therefore, my original point stands.

They do most definitely, even Mohammed was clear on the subject. The early Christians saw Muslims as just another Christian sect.

Just not legally, just like the French Rugby League could have informally called themselves Rugby. Why be so bothered about legally changing the term?

Again this is not true, you can legally say that you are married even if you are not, telling lies isn't illegal.

You seem to be setting this up as a pointless debate, as if it is merely about a technicality. I disagree with this on grounds of equality but I also think that it has become more about the opposition themselves and the homophobia that still exists in society. The argument is about much more than just a technical term, it is about preventing bigots from forcing people that they don't like to live in ways that they like.

Yet changing the legal name won't make a jot of difference to anyone's lifestyle or legal rights. Homosexuals can already live their lives without worrying what various religions think.

After all, let's face it. Without a Christian opposition, it would have been legal long ago and it would have been caused marriage from the start.

I disagree, society in general was homophobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexual and heterosexual marriages are different enough that people see them as different.

I don't.

Am I not people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't argue that because one isn't restricted to heterosexuals then the other one shouldn't be either/

I can and I do.

If one status is afforded to all partnerships so should the other. Look up equality in the dictionary if you need a hint.

If the term isn't important then why the need to change it?

Because it is important to some people, if it's not important to you then why not change it. If it is important to you then perhaps you could come up with a coherent and non-discriminatory reason why it is. By the way, saintslass being unable to ###### up a wall does not count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexual and heterosexual marriages are different enough that people see them as different.

Are they that different? I certainly don't see them as different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can and I do.

If one status is afforded to all partnerships so should the other. Look up equality in the dictionary if you need a hint.

An equivalent status is equality, there is no legal difference between civil partnership and marriage so it's not an equality issue.

Because it is important to some people, if it's not important to you then why not change it. If it is important to you then perhaps you could come up with a coherent and non-discriminatory reason why it is. By the way, saintslass being unable to ###### up a wall does not count.

There is no discrimination angle because an equivalent status has been offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't.

Am I not people?

You are one person. There are 60 million or so in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are one person. There are 60 million or so in the UK.

So you speak for the other 60 odd million do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you speak for the other 60 odd million do you?

No.

I merely said that there isn't a consensus that homosexual marriages and heterosexual ones are more or less the same. A small number of people might feel strongly that they are; a small number might feel very strongly that they are not and most people don't care all that much. That's why the issue will lie dormant for a decade or so, perhaps another generation might feel like doing something about it but then again maybe they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017