Marriage discussion

[meridian2]

It was a question about whether you thought gay marriage led into the Doomsday scenario you outlined.

I've shown no reluctance to debate anyone whose adversarial skills reach higher than cat-calling. As I said on another thread, the fact that a few thousand same sex couples (or people who have no intention of rearing a family, or making a lifetime commitment, or want a big day in a blancmange bridezilla outfit) imagine they are undertaking traditional marriage, is a sideshow. They can wave whatever certificates they want, their only claim is a legal one, and they're most welcome to it.

If it's of any relevance at all, it's as another nail in coffin of the family, the erosion of which goes back much further than homosexual weddings. Some people think the family is a thoroughly bad idea that's passed its sell by date, and perhaps they'd like to elaborate why?

 

[meridian2]

Nonsense. The concept pre-dates Christianity, just as many other traditions do.

We're talking Christian marriage of the kind that's gone on in this country for a millennium. Other varieties are on offer.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No it isn't, you can't have read the wedding vows.

Which wedding vows are you referring to?

In a civil wedding ceremony, you vow that there's no legal impediment to marrying. You then vow that you take your spouse to be your lawfully wedded husband or wife. You then make various promises, the standard ones are these:

I promise that I will respect you as an individual, support you through difficult times, rejoice with you through happy times, be loyal to you always and, above all, love you as my wife/husband and friend.
I promise to care for you above all others, to give you my love and friendship, support and comfort, and to respect and cherish you throughout our lives together.
I give you this ring as a token of my love and friendship.
I give you this ring as a token of our love and marriage, as a symbol of all that we share and in recognition of our life together.
I promise to love and respect you. Helping our love grow, always being there to listen, comfort and support you, whatever our lives may bring.
I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage, and as a symbol of our love. I promise to care for you, to respect and cherish you, throughout our lives together.
I give you this ring as a sign of our love, trust and marriage. I promise to care for you above all others, to give you my love, friendship and support, and to respect and cherish you throughout our life together.
I give you this ring as a symbol of my love and affection, wear it with happiness and pride – now and always.

Nothing about vowing to make lots of babies. I vowed to look after my wife, not get her up the duff.

Of course I don't think religious organisations who are opposed to gay people marrying should be forced to allow gay marriage ceremonies. But the civil marriage ceremony is specifically not religious: religious texts are not permitted in it.

If you want to vow that you'll get your wife preggers, or you want to marry in a church that disapproves of gay people, then that's your free choice. But why should a gay person's free choice to marry the person whom they love be restricted by you? What gives you the right to decide what is an appropriate loving relationship between consenting adults, and what isn't? Who made you boss?

And not all religious organisations are opposed to gay people marrying, either. The Metropolitan Community Church, for instance, is a Christian church which specifically welcomes people who are gay. My lesbian friend is married to a vicar in that church.

http://mccchurch.org/

 

[AlterEgo]

I've shown no reluctance to debate anyone whose adversarial skills reach higher than cat-calling. As I said on another thread, the fact that a few thousand same sex couples (or people who have no intention of rearing a family, or making a lifetime commitment, or want a big day in a blancmange bridezilla outfit) imagine they are undertaking traditional marriage, is a sideshow. They can wave whatever certificates they want, their only claim is a legal one, and they're most welcome to it.

If it's of any relevance at all, it's as another nail in coffin of the family, the erosion of which goes back much further than homosexual weddings. Some people think the family is a thoroughly bad idea that's passed its sell by date, and perhaps they'd like to elaborate why?

You're welcome to your belief of what a marriage constitutes and I recognise that I am not going to be able to change that. However it does remain that - your belief, and not a fact.

I'm pleased church attendance is declining.

 

[najaB]

We're talking Christian marriage of the kind that's gone on in this country for a millennium.

That does make it a bit of a tautology though - "Christian marriage is a Christian ceremony that..."

 

[EM2]

If you don't like gay marriage, then the simple solution is not to marry someone who is gay.

 

[meridian2]

If you don't like gay marriage, then the simple solution is not to marry someone who is gay.

My wife claims to be a gay man trapped in the body of a woman, but I think that's just her disco gene working its way out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That does make it a bit of a tautology though - "Christian marriage is a Christian ceremony that..."

And irrelevant. Civil marriage ceremonies are specifically and explicitly not Christian. Or Islamic, or Hindu, or Sikh, or Pastafarian...

If you don't like gay marriage, then the simple solution is not to marry someone who is gay.

Spot on.

I'd never say a religious organisation should be forced to create a marriage for a relationship they disapprove of. The Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to marry gay people just as much as it shouldn't be forced to marry divorced people.

But that doesn't mean they should get a say in what happens in a civil marriage ceremony that has nothing to do with them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If it's of any relevance at all, it's as another nail in coffin of the family

Care to actually explain why?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Marriage as we know it is a Christian ceremony.

But it really isn't.

I don't give a flying fig either way about same sex marriage - if people want to get married, good on them. What I struggle to understand sometimes is why people want to get their relationship sanctified by or even be a part of an organisation that rejects the validity of that relationship.

If a Church wants to perform same-sex ceremonies, good on them. But forcing them to perform them goes against the idea of freedom of religious expression. If they want to be bigoted, let them be bigoted. Shine a light on their bigotry. Hopefully they'll change, but if not: [expletive] 'em.

At least in the people I know, the desire for gay marriage isn't about religion or the church at all. It is about having the option of the same legal status as straight couples have the option of having, whilst also having equality with that (so none of this separate but equal rubbish).

 

[meridian2]

Care to actually explain why?

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families. Clearly this is not a reflection on the remaining carer or the children of such broken homes, most of whom make a heroic fist of the remnants on limited means, but on people who see marriage not as a permanent thick and thin commitment, but a kind of romantic interlude.

Family life could be supported in various ways, not least through tougher divorce law and tax breaks, but it has become unfashionable to see married families as a central plank of British life, and in some cases the institution is under attack for political reasons from people who see it as part of a defunct hierarchy.
Until the family again becomes the core unit, and permanent marriage is central to child rearing, social problems are inevitable.

 

[najaB]

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families.

The nuclear family has existed as a concept for less than 1% of the time that Homo Sapiens has existed as a distinct species.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families.

Care to show your working out on this one?

 

[Tetchytyke]

people who see marriage not as a permanent thick and thin commitment, but a kind of romantic interlude

Care to explain how this is relevant to gay people?

 

[meridian2]

The nuclear family has existed as a concept for less than 1% of the time that Homo Sapiens has existed as a distinct species.

Can you give me a source for that claim? I suspect a nuclear family caring for elderly and young members, as part of a wider group, is as old as man.

 

[meridian2]

Care to explain how this is relevant to gay people?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean gay people who intend to produce offspring?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families. Clearly this is not a reflection on the remaining carer or the children of such broken homes, most of whom make a heroic fist of the remnants on limited means, but on people who see marriage not as a permanent thick and thin commitment, but a kind of romantic interlude.

Family life could be supported in various ways, not least through tougher divorce law and tax breaks, but it has become unfashionable to see married families as a central plank of British life, and in some cases the institution is under attack for political reasons from people who see it as part of a defunct hierarchy.
Until the family again becomes the core unit, and permanent marriage is central to child rearing, social problems are inevitable.

So I'll counter that with a few points:

1 - Even if you accept all that as truth (which I don't), how on earth does that have anything at all to do with gay marriage? Are you suggesting gay marriage is causing parents to split up?

2 - Growing up not in a two parent family is not the end of the world. Certainly it is better than growing up in a two parent family when one or both parents are abusive or neglectful.

3 - You talk about tougher divorce laws. It can already be way too difficult for domestic abuse victims to leave an abusive marriage.

4 - In what cases is marriage under attack?

 

[meridian2]

Care to show your working out on this one?

I gave up running errands when I finished a paper round, but I'm sure the crime statistics from broken and deprived homes are readily available.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean gay people who intend to produce offspring?

Your point was that gay marriage is "another nail in coffin of the family" and when challenged on that point came up with a rant about single parent families and nothing that has anything at all to do with gay marriage.

So Arctic Troll is simply asking what any of what you said has to do with gay marriage.

I gave up running errands when I finished a paper round, but I'm sure the crime statistics from broken and deprived homes are readily available.

I've bolded the important word there. The issues you are describing happen are more related to poverty than single parents. It just so happens that often single parents end up struggling with money because of their status. I am sure if you look at rich single parents you won't see the same issues, and if you looked at two parent families in poverty you would see the issues.

 

[najaB]

Can you give me a source for that claim? I suspect a nuclear family caring for elderly and young members, as part of a wider group, is as old as man.

Even organisations which are pro 'traditional' family values such as the Institute for Family Values struggle to find evidence for the nuclear family being commonplace prior to the 1300's: The real roots of the nuclear family

 

[DarloRich]

I've bolded the important word there. The issues you are describing happen are more related to poverty than single parents. It just so happens that often single parents end up struggling with money because of their status. I am sure if you look at rich single parents you won't see the same issues, and if you looked at two parent families in poverty you would see the issues.

but of course - It is is easier to demonise sections of society, especially those just slightly poorer than you, rather than admit there are problems in society brought about, mainly, because of their policies!

The "Thatcherite" destruction of solid working class communities, the well paying and skilled jobs those communities survived on, the working class institutions within those communities and removal of the solid, hard working role models they created are the root cause of many of our problems today.

The jobs in those communities have never been adequately replaced or if they have been replaced they have been replaced by less secure, less well paying and less skilled jobs. That isn't a lack of "aspiration" but a lack of opportunity. However it is much easier to blame someone in that situation than admit fault and try and change it.

 

[DarloRich]

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families. Clearly this is not a reflection on the remaining carer or the children of such broken homes, most of whom make a heroic fist of the remnants on limited means, but on people who see marriage not as a permanent thick and thin commitment, but a kind of romantic interlude.

Family life could be supported in various ways, not least through tougher divorce law and tax breaks, but it has become unfashionable to see married families as a central plank of British life, and in some cases the institution is under attack for political reasons from people who see it as part of a defunct hierarchy.
Until the family again becomes the core unit, and permanent marriage is central to child rearing, social problems are inevitable.

Utter bull. You have little or no idea what you are talking about. Typical Tory clap trap.

 

[meridian2]

So I'll counter that with a few points:

1 - Even if you accept all that as truth (which I don't), how on earth does that have anything at all to do with gay marriage? Are you suggesting gay marriage is causing parents to split up?

2 - Growing up not in a two parent family is not the end of the world. Certainly it is better than growing up in a two parent family when one or both parents are abusive or neglectful.

3 - You talk about tougher divorce laws. It can already be way too difficult for domestic abuse victims to leave an abusive marriage.

4 - In what cases is marriage under attack?

I can only repeat that homosexual partnerships are a red herring (sic) to the main problem of stable family relationships. I shouldn't have to prove my right-on credentials to express a view on what has served the nation well until recent decades. I am not anti-homosexual, I am pro permanent and stable families. If people could put aside their rights and fulfil their responsibilities, most of the issue disappears.

I'm simply promoting the idea the beliefs surrounding Christian marriage are still viable. If that paints me as a member of the fun police, or an old square, perhaps people haven't been directly or indirectly effected by its consequences. Most of these discussions aren't about the topic - the social problems are incontrovertible - they're peer pressure and fear of seeming uncool. As I'm not interested in coolness or liberalism I'm happy to call it as I see it.

 

[meridian2]

but of course - It is is easier to demonise sections of society, especially those just slightly poorer than you, rather than admit there are problems in society brought about, mainly, because of their policies!

The "Thatcherite" destruction of solid working class communities, the well paying and skilled jobs those communities survived on, the working class institutions within those communities and removal of the solid, hard working role models they created are the root cause of many of our problems today.

The jobs in those communities have never been adequately replaced or if they have been replaced they have been replaced by less secure, less well paying and less skilled jobs. That isn't a lack of "aspiration" but a lack of opportunity. However it is much easier to blame someone in that situation than admit fault and try and change it.

You're looking at the wrong bloke. I'm an umpteen generation lower working class tribal Labour voter. That doesn't mean I can't see what Labour has become, and fighting marginal issues as if they threatened the future of civilisation will see them in permanent opposition. I'll go further and suggest some people are happier in the sidelines having politically correct p****** contests than talking issues that effect everybody, especially the working classes. Why do you think UKIP's bunch are ne'er do wells are setting the agenda?

Edit: this is in danger of spilling over into the labour party discussion. I thought the issues were seamless but as mods think otherwise it's difficult to put ones point in isolation.

 

[DarloRich]

You're looking at the wrong bloke. I'm an umpteen generation lower working class tribal Labour voter. That doesn't mean I can't see what Labour has become, and fighting marginal issues as if they threatened the future of civilisation will see them in permanent opposition. I'll go further and suggest some people are happier in the sidelines having politically correct p****** contests than talking issues that effect everybody, especially the working classes. Why do you think UKIP's bunch are ne'er do wells are setting the agenda?

yet terribly decent Christian marriage will save the day will it? :roll:

UKIP are doing well by using the age old tactic of telling lies and trying, like Conservatives, to split the "working class" apart by using divide and conquor tactics.

 

[meridian2]

yet terribly decent Christian marriage will save the day will it? :roll:

UKIP are doing well by using the age old tactic of telling lies and trying, like Conservatives, to split the "working class" apart by using divide and conquor tactics.

I take it you believe support for the Labour Party is synonymous with Marxism?

 

[EM2]

I'm simply promoting the idea the beliefs surrounding Christian marriage are still viable.

Those beliefs are certainly still viable but so are many others.

 

[EM2]

Certainly. One of the key problems to the breakdown of society, that leads to petty and serious crime, is the breakup of two parent families.

My parents divorced, neither my brother and I have ever been arrested.
My wife's first two marriages ended in divorce. None of my stepchildren have ever been arrested.
Two of my stepchildren's marriages have ended in divorce. None of their children have ever been arrested.
My stepdaughter's husband's first marriage ended in divorce. Neither of his children have ever been arrested.
All of my aunts and uncles have been divorced at least once. None of their children have ever been arrested.
I have four cousins that are single parents. None of their children have been arrested.

 

[najaB]

My parents divorced, neither my brother and I have ever been arrested...

Because the causes of crime are, naturally, multi-faceted and complex. It's way too simplistic to lay the blame at any one door.

 

[meridian2]

My parents divorced, neither my brother and I have ever been arrested.
My wife's first two marriages ended in divorce. None of my stepchildren have ever been arrested.
Two of my stepchildren's marriages have ended in divorce. None of their children have ever been arrested.
My stepdaughter's husband's first marriage ended in divorce. Neither of his children have ever been arrested.
All of my aunts and uncles have been divorced at least once. None of their children have ever been arrested.
I have four cousins that are single parents. None of their children have been arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies