Should gays be allowed to legally marry?

[nifan]

It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.

People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.

Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun

[nrico2006]

  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman. 

[deiseach]

So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?

While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.

[Hound]

  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.

Are you not missing the whole point? Where you were growing up marriage was seen as between man and woman because it couldnt possible be seen as anything else - gay marriage was illegal.

But now there are moves to legalise it so it will be seen more,  and I think the rationale is there is no logical or other reason why it should be illegal.

Likewise there's no rationale reason in my view why gay marriage is unchristian. If you get married and are faithful to your partner, I don't see how there can be any objection on religious grounds.

[Hound]

So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?

While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.

I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?

[theskull1]

I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong

I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"

I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall.  The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do.  Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"

I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.

I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?

You'd think the jury is still out on whether scumbags do or do not have a detrimental impact on the lives of their children or indeed whether they should be allowed to adopt or not (your argument not mine btw but I'm going with it)

[deiseach]

I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?

They wouldn't accept it because it's against their beliefs as to what a marriage is. Let's look at what the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says is the priority in a marriage:

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.

It seems pretty clear that marriage is between a woman and a man. There's nothing stopping them changing that. But it shouldn't be forced upon them.

[Main Street]

So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?

While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.

Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?

The issue at hand was gays  and civil marriage, a social upgrade from civil partnership, removing a perceived social stigma.
The opposition to this comes from (in the main) religious afflicted ideologues.
Part of their argument was that if we allows gays to have a civil marriage, then what next? church weddings will be forced upon us?
You appear to be trying to apply a factual basis for this fear.
This fear has no factual basis. It is simply used to whip up  the fear complex of religious ideologues to oppose the civil marriage recognition.
I can't think of one similar opposition campaign by religious ideologues which did not involve such nonsense, when part of their dogma was being de- legalised.

[nifan]

Are churches currently force to marry any hetero couple that asks since the marriage is legal?

[Hound]

I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?

They wouldn't accept it because it's against their beliefs as to what a marriage is. Let's look at what the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says is the priority in a marriage:

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.

It seems pretty clear that marriage is between a woman and a man. There's nothing stopping them changing that. But it shouldn't be forced upon them.

Don't think there has been any suggestion of forcing it on them. Just that the debate should be had as to "why not?"

Marriage for the "procreation of children" is clearly a nonsense as it would rule out anyone with fertility problems.

You can find any number of links stating marriage is between man and woman, but that's just because of how being gay used to be seen as an abomination. I don't see any reason why all those can't be changed to one person marrying another person.

[tommysmith]

It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.

People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.

Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun

Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.

[deiseach]

Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?

It's based on the idea that if you are going to provide a service sanctioned by the state then you cannot discriminate about to whom you offer the service. When legislation was introduced in Britain to prevent guest houses discriminating on the basis of race, colour or sexual orientation, there was a lot of talk about how no-one would be forced to do anything that conflicted with their religious beliefs. And that's what it was - talk. When push came to shove, anti-discrimination laws trumped freedom of expression. And maybe that's fair enough. But let's be honest about the way it is heading rather than dismissing anyone who points it out as a scaremonger.

[johnneycool]

So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?

While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.

I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?

Good question, is being gay itself not a sin, but its the sexual act that is a sin?

[qubdub]

For the record I am totally in favour of LGBT rights, but some of these arguments are ridiculous. The nature argument can work both ways

And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.

So has zebras mating with horses and lions mating with tigers. Should humans now be permitted to shag bonobos? (Queue the Tyrone posters getting excited)

[EC Unique]

So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?

While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.

I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?

Good question, is being gay itself not a sin, but its the sexual act that is a sin?

As far as I know the thought itself is as much of a sin as the act. The church sees homosexuality as a sin in any shape or form.

I would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?

My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.