Should two people of the same sex, be allowed to marry?

[My_Wife_Camille]

Should marriage/civil union between two people of the same sex, be allowed?

[danhibees1875]

Of course. Fail to understand how anyone could think differently in 2017.

[Haymaker]

Yes.

[Scouse Hibee]

Of course. Fail to understand how anyone could think differently in 2017.

Do peoples opinions change over the years or is it just that people are afraid to express their true opinions any more for the fear of being labelled?

[Pretty Boy]

Yes.

2 people who love each other being married isn't going to cause the breakdown of society just because they both have the same genitals.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why the hell not?

Its nobody's business but their own. Its what liberalism means.

[danhibees1875]

Do peoples opinions change over the years or it is just that people are afraid to express tbeir true opinions any more for the fear of being labelled?

I think the former, but it could be either of course.

There has been a shift for the good in many areas from 100 years ago and people are generally less racist, sexist, homophobic, and bigoted (not that I was around 100 years ago, but that's the impression I've got).

Maybe perception is an issue and people don't want to say their beliefs as they'd be labelled one of the above these days - that would be hard to measure.

I'd be disappointed if this poll wasn't 100% yes though.

[Scouse Hibee]

I couldn't do the Poll on my phone but it's a yes from me too.

I have met and know some lovely couples in this situation and all that matters to me is that they have both found happiness with each other.

Two of tbe three couples I know personally also now have children and are fantastic parents.

[Speedy]

Civil definitely yes. Marriage I'm fine with but equally churches should have the right to say no if it is against their beliefs.

[RyeSloan]

Oddly the more pertinent question is maybe should two people of the opposite sex be allowed to have a civil partnership.

We seem to now be in the rather odd position in the UK where heterosexual couples have less options that those that are not.


Anyway I've always said each to their own so if same sex couples want to be married then that's fine by me.

[heretoday]

Civil definitely yes. Marriage I'm fine with but equally churches should have the right to say no if it is against their beliefs.

You're right.

I can't understand a same-sex couple wanting to get married in a church anyway.

[hibsbollah]

I think if you'd done this poll when I was at school 30 years ago you'd get 0-14 the other way. And possibly an offer to have a square go for even asking the question. Even five years ago I think you'd get a fair few folk saying how disgusting it is. Just shows how times have changed.

[easty]

Yes. Obviously.

I do like this guys take on it -

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/932472392567410689/video/1

[CropleyWasGod]

You're right.

I can't understand a same-sex couple wanting to get married in a church anyway.

Even in an Episcopalian church?

[Slavers]

Same sex marriage is fine with me I don't see any problems with it personally.

I think the next big decision humanity will need to make is whether people will be allowed to marry their robot. AI is going to make these sex dolls very life like and id wager that people want to marry them and argue AI has consciousness.

[easty]

I think the next big decision humanity will need to make is whether people will be allowed to marry their robot. AI is going to make these sex dolls very life like and id wager that people want to marry them and argue AI has consciousness.

Haha...

If someone wants to get freaky with a robot then that's up to them, but legally marry it? Naw, dinnae be silly.

[snooky]

Haha...

If someone wants to get freaky with a robot then that's up to them, but legally marry it? Naw, dinnae be silly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm1Lp5chpCo

Well, as long as they're happy .... however, there are strings attached.

[CropleyWasGod]

Haha...

If someone wants to get freaky with a robot then that's up to them, but legally marry it? Naw, dinnae be silly.

That's the same conversation people would have had about same-sex relationships in the 70s :cb

[Slavers]

That's the same conversation people would have had about same-sex relationships in the 70s :cb

Yep I would think in the future people with these views will be seen as being backward and ignorant.

[steakbake]

Of course they ****ing should.

[lyonhibs]

Yes

[stoneyburn hibs]

Can't do the poll on my phone but yes definitely it's 2017.

[hibsbollah]

Of course they ****ing should.

Im almost certain there are at least a handful of posters on here who disagree but are too scared to contribute to the thread:greengrin Go on Go on you know you want to.

[WeeRussell]

I think if you'd done this poll when I was at school 30 years ago you'd get 0-14 the other way. And possibly an offer to have a square go for even asking the question. Even five years ago I think you'd get a fair few folk saying how disgusting it is. Just shows how times have changed.

Yep and I'll admit I would have been one of them, and I was at school more recently than that.

Yet another YES vote for me though :greengrin

[snooky]

Im almost certain there are at least a handful of posters on here who disagree but are too scared to contribute to the thread:greengrin Go on Go on you know you want to.

Maybe they're scared of being persecuted the same way the subjects of this thread were years ago? The silent minority/majority (delete as applicable).

Personally, whatever makes people happy is fine by me and, if you find love (even if it's with a Stratocaster) then good for you. We have more than enough grief in the world to go around these days.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe they're scared of being persecuted the same way the subjects of this thread were years ago? The silent minority/majority (delete as applicable).

Personally, whatever makes people happy is fine by me and, if you find love (even if it's with a Stratocaster) then good for you. We have more than enough grief in the world to go around these days.

That would take some pluck.

[hibsbollah]

That would take some pluck.

A bridge too far, surely...

[snooky]

A bridge too far, surely...

Don't fret, you can always get by with pick ups. Especially if they're hum-buckers.

:hijack:

Back to the serious subject .......

[Mr White]

Maybe they're scared of being persecuted the same way the subjects of this thread were years ago? The silent minority/majority (delete as applicable).

Personally, whatever makes people happy is fine by me and, if you find love (even if it's with a Stratocaster) then good for you. We have more than enough grief in the world to go around these days.


All single coil and no humbucker? That's just not natural.

[My_Wife_Camille]

All single coil and no humbucker? That's just not natural.
If you're going to turn this into a ***** unfunny pun thread then at least read the other ***** unfunny puns so we don't end up with the same ***** unfunny pun twice.

[Mr White]

If you're going to turn this into a ***** unfunny pun thread then at least read the other ***** unfunny puns so we don't end up with the same ***** unfunny pun twice.

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next :cb

[stoneyburn hibs]

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next :cb

And to add to that , what are your thoughts on your op MWC ?

[My_Wife_Camille]

It was a simultaneous punning. While we're on the subject of ***** repetitive posts... what you got coming up for your next "controversial" offering?

You've covered offensive singing, racism, fraser fyvie and now same sex marriage in the last few days, contradicting yourself a couple of times.

My money is on religion getting the MWC treatment next :cb
Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?141915-Same-sex-marriage-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

[My_Wife_Camille]

And to add to that , what are your thoughts on your op MWC ?
I am one of the 100% so far that have voted yes

[Mr White]

Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?141915-Same-sex-marriage-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling

:duck:



So eh... carry on :greengrin

[My_Wife_Camille]

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling

:duck:



So eh... carry on :greengrin
Can't begin to think why you would have thought that!

[Mr White]

Can't begin to think why you would have thought that!

I'm clearly just a small minded bigot living in a small bigotted land :greengrin

Which is relevant to this thread actually as it annoys me on a daily basis that NI is the last remaining part of the British Isles still preserving marriage inequality despite MLA's voting in favour of change. Nice one DUP.

[snooky]

I'm clearly just a small minded bigot living in a small bigotted land :greengrin

Which is relevant to this thread actually as it annoys me on a daily basis that NI is the last remaining part of the British Isles still preserving marriage inequality despite MLA's voting in favour of change. Nice one DUP.

B.I. being DUPed again as it were?

(BTW, Mr Pedantic would like to point out the 'British Isles' actually include NI & Eire.)

[Mr White]

B.I. being DUPed again as it were?

(BTW, Mr Pedantic would like to point out the 'British Isles' actually include NI & Eire.)

That was deliberate. Eire legalised same sex marriage 2 years ago. NI is officially the most bigotted region within the British Isles :nerd:

[Smartie]

That was deliberate. Eire legalised same sex marriage 2 years ago. NI is officially the most bigotted region within the British Isles :nerd:

Where does the resistance to same sex marriage in Northern Ireland mainly lie? Is it within the harder line Unionist/ protestant christian communities? Is the position of the DUP representative of many people?

I wouldn't have thought that the harder line catholics would be much more in favour of same sex marriage than the protestants, and that this might be one of those (very many in my experience) situations where the opposite ends of the spectrum turn out to hold similar opinions.

Cheeks of the same erse and all that.

[Mr White]

Where does the resistance to same sex marriage in Northern Ireland mainly lie? Is it within the harder line Unionist/ protestant christian communities? Is the position of the DUP representative of many people?

I wouldn't have thought that the harder line catholics would be much more in favour of same sex marriage than the protestants, and that this might be one of those (very many in my experience) situations where the opposite ends of the spectrum turn out to hold similar opinions.

Cheeks of the same erse and all that.

I think that's broadly correct in that extremes on both sides would be against but the majority of ordinary folks are either in favour or don't care. ROI voted strongly in favour of allowing same sex marriage but that probably highlights a lessening of the catholic churches influence there in recent years perhaps?

Politically it's the DUP blocking it. Sinn Fein are in favour as are a lot of MLA's from smaller parties and independents. A vote was taken (about 18 months ago I think) at Stormont and it was passed in favour of changing the law. The DUP blocked it progressing by use of the "petition of concern" that was built into the assembly, ironically to protect the interests and rights of minorities.

Since losing their majority at Stormont the DUP can no longer use that mechanism to veto any future proposals to change the law. Of course Stormont isn't currently sitting and given their current role at Westminster I suspect the marriage issue is just one of the reasons the DUP are fairly happy with the current vacuum of governance within Northern Ireland. Absolute horrible creatures the lot of them IMO as they love blocking and twisting democratic process and the will of the people to suit their own narrow-minded bigotted agendas.

[Sir David Gray]

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

[Hugh Munro]

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - noyou been listening to nigel again

[Sir David Gray]

you been listening to nigel again

Yeah because I'm unable to make up my own mind of course. :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

you been listening to nigel again

Nigel Havers.

[hibsbollah]

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

What's your rationale?

[bigwheel]

Civil partnership - yes
Marriage - no

Oh aye.....DUP Hibs supporters are in town...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

What's your rationale?

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

[bigwheel]

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

Despite my DUP joke above - fair play for explaining your views...what definition in your view states that marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman - is this a Christian belief or definition ?

For me it is simply a legally accepted form of a relationship between two people ...

[-Jonesy-]

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

Why would only heterosexuals get the franchise of marriage?
Because of a verbal technicality?

[pontius pilate]

Yes they should I've been listening to Macklemore new album genisis and came across same love an older track pro gay rights and some lines jumped out at me for instance
And god loves all his children is somehow forgotten yet we paraphrase a book written 3500 years ago and another line is I may not be the same, But that's not important. No freedom till we're equal (. This could be used in a lot of things right now).
He may not be everyone's cup of tea he certainly wasn't mine but that is some powerful stuff and the new album is cracking

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ha, nice to know at least someone pays attention to my posts.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that could be seen as a contradiction would be my posts on the offensive singing thread that implied that I thought it was ok.

Just to be clear, that's not my opinion. Those posts were all actually copied and pasted from other people on the racism thread. Specifically from posters claiming that PC had gone mad and that people choose to be offended by certain things. It was my way of illustrating the hypocrisy in the collective thinking on here. I actually think both are unacceptable and I find it interesting that some seem to think that one is ok while the other isn't. I didn't think it needed spelling out but there you go. I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't realise Fraser Fyvie was a controversial topic. He's a good championship player going well for a championship team. Good luck to him.

As for this thread, I was interested to see how opinions had changed since the exact same thing had been posted nearly 9 years ago.


http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?141915-Same-sex-marriage-civil-unions

In 2009 it was split 66% - 34% in favour of yes. Today it's 100% - 0%.

The difference is striking. Good job society! I wonder if we'll see similar changes in the attitude towards things like blacking up in 9 years time.

For what its worth i agree with you about thd hypocrisy many people and posters and show on certain subjects.

I fall the other way though, and that both should be allowed. Being offended is the prixe we pay foe freedom of speech.

[hibsbollah]

I believe that marriage has a clear definition of being a union between a man and a woman.

I recognise that two people of the same sex can love one another and for those people who are in such a relationship, I have no issue with them formally recognising this in a formal ceremony which will subsequently give them similar rights, responsibilities and protection under the law which have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

I just don't think that such a union should be called marriage.

I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

[Scouse Hibee]

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

If you work in retail surely you have to accept that you provide a service to the public of which you will never know what or who tbe majority of them practice/believe or their sexual orientation.

[Just Alf]

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

totally agree with the majority of your post, its also why I think that men only clubs (e.g. Golf) and similarly women only one (fitness etc) should be allowed to exist AS LONG AS THERE IS SCOPE FOR (in the golf example) A WOMEN/men/other equivalent.

I'm really conflicted by the last bit though and see where Scouse is coming from regarding it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Is this even a question worth asking any more? so far as I can see that ship sailed long ago, at least everywhere in the UK apart from N Ireland and eventually that nut will crack as well, its only a matter of time.

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog or their favourite rose bush frae oot the garden. What I don't ever want to see is churches forced to carry out marriage ceremonies they don't agree with and stuff like for example baker shops run by people with strongly held religious values being forced to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples in direct contradiction of their beliefs.

By baking a wedding cake you are neither condoning nor condemning anything and unless your God explicitly stated "thou shalt not bake cakes for gays" then you're simply baking a cake. By refusing to bake a cake for certain groups in society you are discriminating against that group. Cake baking is not religious.

[Sergio sledge]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?141915-Same-sex-marriage-civil-unions

Ooft, I fairly went for it in that thread didn't I? :greengrin

I have to say that my views and thoughts on the matter have evolved since those posts were written and I now realise that denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry is discriminating against them. Letting same sex couples have civil unions but not marriages whilst at the same time saying that LGBT people shouldn’t be discriminated against was a hypocritical view to have.

My personal viewpoint was formed from the position of my faith and view of marriage as a Christian institution, created by God to be between one man and one woman. However, marriage in this country has moved so far away from that definition and has so many different forms that I can't justifiably hold back the right of marriage from one group of people based on a view which may be the "traditional" view but is not something which should be forced on people who do not agree with it.

For what it is worth, I still hold the belief that Christian marriage should be between one man and one woman, however I am well aware of the fact that other people and other Christians will not agree with this view, so I would support allowing churches to choose whether they will conduct same sex marriages or not. Given what I have said above I’m not sure whether this is still a hypocritical viewpoint or not, but in all fairness, I would wonder why a same sex couple would want to get married in a church which viewed their relationship as sinful.

I’m not sure if that makes sense, but that’s where I am just now. :greengrin

[SRHibs]

My apologies there's some pretty good observations there all of which went over my head I must admit. I've shown my deep seated prejudice by jumping to the conclusion you were trolling

:duck:



So eh... carry on :greengrin

Aye, the fact that it was quoted posts from the original argument went over my head too. It’s easy to be sceptical on the internet when there are trolls everywhere though.

[Colr]

Haha...

If someone wants to get freaky with a robot then that's up to them, but legally marry it? Naw, dinnae be silly.

Ghey have Scottish accents apparently!!

“Gies a shot at ye, big man!”

[lapsedhibee]

To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog .

Would certainly benefit the management of Harry Redknapp's tax affairs. :agree:

[Peevemor]

Following the result of the vote in Australia, they've just shown a home made video of the Australian ambassador to France proposing to his boyfriend.

It was quite funny to see how nervous he was - obviously scared of getting a KB as well as the 'public' aspect of the thing.

It had me welling up to be honest. COUGH COUGH (gruff voice) not that I'm gay or anything you understand...

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yes of course they should. Glad to see same sex marriage has just been legalised in Australia.

[WeeRussell]

I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.

Very well put :agree:

[snooky]

Ooft, I fairly went for it in that thread didn't I? :greengrin

I have to say that my views and thoughts on the matter have evolved since those posts were written and I now realise that denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry is discriminating against them. Letting same sex couples have civil unions but not marriages whilst at the same time saying that LGBT people shouldn’t be discriminated against was a hypocritical view to have.

My personal viewpoint was formed from the position of my faith and view of marriage as a Christian institution, created by God to be between one man and one woman. However, marriage in this country has moved so far away from that definition and has so many different forms that I can't justifiably hold back the right of marriage from one group of people based on a view which may be the "traditional" view but is not something which should be forced on people who do not agree with it.

For what it is worth, I still hold the belief that Christian marriage should be between one man and one woman, however I am well aware of the fact that other people and other Christians will not agree with this view, so I would support allowing churches to choose whether they will conduct same sex marriages or not. Given what I have said above I’m not sure whether this is still a hypocritical viewpoint or not, but in all fairness, I would wonder why a same sex couple would want to get married in a church which viewed their relationship as sinful.

I’m not sure if that makes sense, but that’s where I am just now. :greengrin

Just to put the cat among the pigeons, what about the hetrosexual couple who were recently not allowed to have a civil partnership ( by a legal ruling). No fair.
Yet again, the Law is an ass.

[Colr]

Just to put the cat among the pigeons, what about the hetrosexual couple who were recently not allowed to have a civil partnership ( by a legal ruling). No fair.
Yet again, the Law is an ass.

I read that the law is going to change on that. About time.

[calumhibee1]

I know time has moved on and the posters may have changed their viewpoint but I’m still not following from the previous thread why some posters specifically proclaimed they’re “against homosexual sex”. What on earth is there to be against, especially if as they claimed they’re not homophobic?

That’s not a go at the posters btw, genuinely interested as to how you can disagree with it.. I don’t even know what there is to disagree with? Obviously I’d disagree with it if I came home and two guys were in my bed blasting each other up the arse, but I’d disagree with that if it was a straight couple aswell.

My thoughts for this thread - I have absolutely no issues with people being gay and think they should have all the same rights as anyone else. That goes for any group infact whether that’s sexuality, race, gender etc.

I will say however that I cannot stand extremely camp folk though (at least nearly all the ones I’ve met, I may just be unlucky) which has had people accuse me of being homophobic before when I couldn’t be further from it. That’s purely based on their personality and if a straight guy acted like that I wouldn’t like them either.

[MyJo]

I know time has moved on and the posters may have changed their viewpoint but I’m still not following from the previous thread why some posters specifically proclaimed they’re “against homosexual sex”. What on earth is there to be against, especially if as they claimed they’re not homophobic?

That’s not a go at the posters btw, genuinely interested as to how you can disagree with it.. I don’t even know what there is to disagree with? Obviously I’d disagree with it if I came home and two guys were in my bed blasting each other up the arse, but I’d disagree with that if it was a straight couple aswell.

My thoughts for this thread - I have absolutely no issues with people being gay and think they should have all the same rights as anyone else. That goes for any group infact whether that’s sexuality, race, gender etc.

I will say however that I cannot stand extremely camp folk though (at least nearly all the ones I’ve met, I may just be unlucky) which has had people accuse me of being homophobic before when I couldn’t be further from it. That’s purely based on their personality and if a straight guy acted like that I wouldn’t like them either.

Engaging in homosexual sex is considered sinful and "against nature" by almost all religions with followers expected to live a life free of sin or to pay penance to be forgiven of thier sins, allowing them to go to whichever version of heaven they subscribe to.

People can be "against homosexual sex" because they believe the widespread acceptance and engagement in this and other sinful acts such as Blasphemy, Abortion, Sex out of wedlock, Divorce and Masturbation etc will result in devine retribution and punishment from god.

The biblical example of this is sodom and Gomorrah which were destroyed by God because of the lack of righteous people within the cities that were filled with unrepentant sinners.

In this case thier stance comes from a position of concern for the welfare of our world and that they may be caught up in gods wrath against the sinners despite being, themselves, righteous and faithful people.

Other people are simply homophobic and filled with hate but disguise it as a religious stance. These are the ones that discriminate, insult and demean anyone different from themselves and struggle to justify thier behaviour beyond "because god said so"

[bigwheel]

Engaging in homosexual sex is considered sinful and "against nature" by almost all religions with followers expected to live a life free of sin or to pay penance to be forgiven of thier sins, allowing them to go to whichever version of heaven they subscribe to.

People can be "against homosexual sex" because they believe the widespread acceptance and engagement in this and other sinful acts such as Blasphemy, Abortion, Sex out of wedlock, Divorce and Masturbation etc will result in devine retribution and punishment from god.

The biblical example of this is sodom and Gomorrah which were destroyed by God because of the lack of righteous people within the cities that were filled with unrepentant sinners.

Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely can’t be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
Much

by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I can’t get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now

[MyJo]

Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely can’t be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
Much

by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I can’t get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now

:agree:

[McD]

Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely can’t be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
Much

by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I can’t get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now

:agree:

A lot of stuff people claim is from the bible/Quran etc, is an interpretation, there’s nowhere in these texts that overtly states “homosexuality is wrong”. An interpretation based on one persons opinion of another persons opinion of another persons opinion, and so on.

Theres also a lot of things in these texts that people choose to ignore, as it’s something they wish to partake in, and so aren’t really following the texts they choose to refer to when criticising others.

two people in love with each other is a good thing. Regardless of what genitals each happens to have. It’s nobody else’s business, and all good to them for finding the person they want to be with.

[Colr]

Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely can’t be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
Much

by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I can’t get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now

Well, Epicurus is worth a look.

[--------]

TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.[/QUOTE]


The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.


The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.[/QUOTE]

Enjoyed reading that - a very rational and sound defence.

I have some synpathy for your view, ive always felt people try to impose things on others to often - religous practice and doctrine should be for those religions to decide upon - but insuppose onve it starts bumpinh up against tge law, it gets complicated.

I disagree with you completely as i am not religious at all, bit you stated your case very well.

[Firestarter]

I can't think of any reason why not.

[hibsbollah]

TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.


The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.[/QUOTE]

I think you've missed my point a little bit. I appreciate the use of nouns you describe, man, woman, wife etc in scripture that you've quoted. But can you also appreciate that these words are a reflection of the historical context they were written in? In simple terms, if homosexuality wasn't a 'thing' in the part of the world where they were written (mesopotamia, Palestine or wherever...you'd know better than me) then the author wouldn't appreciate that a man marrying a man could conceivably be a 'thing' either? If he did, he might have used different nouns to reflect the society he was living in. I appreciate in your case you are dealing with issues of personal faith here, not logic. But logically, you have to agree there's some ambiguity, no?