Sonics2k wrote: » The word 'marriage' is often the key problem here, because people are using it in different contexts. Ironically it's down to peoples interpretation. Those on the LGBT side aren't out to kidnap the word Marriage, they're simply looking for equality. Those who oppose it are claiming the word Marriage is being stolen, when it's really not. It doesn't even have to enter it really, because this is really about legal rights and matters. I, personally, use the word marriage often because it's simpler and quicker to say in a normal conversation. If I ask my mother if she wants to marry her partner, I'll say something like 'Do you want to marry her?" and not something like "Do you want to civil ceremony her?". It just sounds wrong and takes away from the moment. And just as a last point. Can we please remember that marriage itself is far older than Christianity and has been practiced around the world for centuries.
Sonics2k wrote: » The word 'marriage' is often the key problem here, because people are using it in different contexts. Ironically it's down to peoples interpretation.
The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married.
PDN wrote: » I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate. So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.
PDN wrote: » And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Good to see that you avoided muddying the waters by dragging in those old bug bears about incest, hinting at bestiality etc...oh wait....
IT-Guy wrote: That's either a very unfortunate juxtaposition or deliberately inflammatory. But that's the sort of ambiguity I've come to expect from the religious. (Just to be clear, that is deliberately inflammatory ).
Also in a changing world is broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples a bad thing?
Wow, what you seek to include with the first paragraph of your post you seek to exclude with this. Is this a tolerant attitude I have to ask? May I add I fully agree with the right to rename the ceremony of marriage to whatever the church wishes, however invoking it here in order to distance themselves from the LBGT community is quite frankly, disgusting.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I just love it when Christians trot out the intolerance argument.
PDN wrote: » I just love it when anti-Christians drop any attempt at reasoned discussion and resort to tired and lazy stereotypes and ad-hominem attacks.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Ad-hominem like implying someone is into bestiality for example?
We are discussing Gay marriage - you introduced the topic of incest and then accused me of attempting to derail the tread when I queried this.
To cap it all off you then accused both myself an IT-Guy of intolerance - yet you are a member of a religion that believes I, and many like me, will burn in Hell for all eternity because we do not believe in your God. Hardly a tolerant attitude now is it?
But to get back on topic - leaving aside such off topic subjects as incest, bestiality, polygamy etc - is it correct to say that you would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage' as you feel it has religious connotations?
PDN wrote: » I've said I would rather avoid the subject of bestiality as off-topic. You are the one who seems to keep raising it and reading it between the lines where it doesn't exist. Again, if you wish to discuss that subject I think there are other Fora that would be more suitable. It's hardly derailing the thread to say that I favour the idea of State giving the same legal status to all civil relationships between consensual adults. Your apparent issues with incest are not my concern. Maybe you should be more open minded? While you characterisation of my beliefs is an untrue misrepresentation (no surprises there) I think you are failing to understand tolerance. Tolerance does not mean unqualified approval of all philosophies. Nor does it mean that you believe there are no consequences to people's beliefs and actions. For example, you may believe that Christianity is a load of nonsense. I'm fine with that. Just so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of Christians to practice their faith, then you are still being tolerant. I believe that watching soap operas rots people's brains and produces a nation of educationally sub-normal morons who can't understand the English language. However, I support their right to watch soap operas, therefore I am still being tolerant. In fact, the most intolerant posts I have seen in this thread have come from those who would deny to religious people or institutions the right to voice their opinions on civic issues. You were right up to the last 7 words. Strike them out and you have accurately summed up my view. My objection to the campaign to redefine the word 'marriage' is primarily nothing to do with any religious connotations. But, if the word is redefined, it will have implications for revised Bible translations etc.
PDN wrote: » My objection to the campaign to redefine the word 'marriage' is primarily nothing to do with any religious connotations. But, if the word is redefined, it will have implications for revised Bible translations etc.
Bannasidhe wrote: » So - in an effort to remain firmly on topic which necessitates ignoring all of your post that does not deal directly with Gay marriage your position is: You would have no problem with heterosexual and homosexual adult couples being able to avail of the exact same rights when they enter into a formal and legally binding civil life-partnership and that your only issue is the use of the term 'marriage'?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
PDN wrote: » That is correct. I would have no problem with all forms of relationships between consensual adults having the same legal rights and standing. Unfortunately, our experience in this forum is that simple 'yes' or 'no' answers tend to be distorted and used for purposes of misrepresentation. Therefore, more often than not, you will find that regular Christian posters prefer to qualify their answers with a bit more verbiage.
PDN wrote: » That is correct. I would have no problem with all forms of relationships between consensual adults having the same legal rights and standing.
Sonics2k wrote: » Words are redefined all the time though, even the meaning of marriage has changed depending on the culture that uses it. Why the sudden objection to this word?
PDN wrote: » I don't think it's inflammatory to advocate tolerance. You need to be more open-minded.
PDN wrote: » That is an issue of semantics. I prefer to use 'marriage' in the way it has been understood for several hundred years. That is not, by the way, a religious viewpoint. I also dislike calling jumped up polytechnics 'universities' or referring to binmen as 'refuse disposal technicians'.
PDN wrote: » Ah, drop the fake outrage. Yes, it is a tolerant attitude. If the word 'marriage' is redefined to mean something different as that understood by most Christians, then it makes perfect sense for the churches to use a different term. That is perfect tolerance. Maybe you need to understand what tolerance is? It does not mean that we all have to clap our hands and gush about how wonderful all things are. It means that we live and let live.
PDN wrote: » I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate. So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships. And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.
qrrgprgua wrote: » What about the Couple being able to adopt? One thing is there relationship which is their life.. I also have no issues. The problem is the push to make Gay marriage equal in every respect to Normal Marriage. Proposing that a Gay couple is the same as a Heterosexual couple when it comes for looking for the ideal family to raise a child is a big question. If Gay marriage was just about getting the same rights as marriage couples for the purposes of legalities of Property/Inheritance/tax etc... is fine it protects that couple.
qrrgprgua wrote: » What about the Couple being able to adopt? One thing is their relationship which is their life.. I also have no issues. The problem is the push to make Gay marriage equal in every respect to Normal Marriage. Proposing that a Gay couple is the same as a Heterosexual couple when it comes for looking for the ideal family to raise a child is a big question. If Gay marriage was just about getting the same rights as marriage couples for the purposes of legalities of Property/Inheritance/tax etc... is fine it protects that couple.
PDN wrote: » I have no problem in principle with same-sex couples adopting - but I would want the evidence to be pretty cast-iron as concerns the welfare of the children. For example, are they more likely to be bullied?
PDN wrote: » I have no problem in principle with same-sex couples adopting - but I would want the evidence to be pretty cast-iron as concerns the welfare of the children. For example, are they more likely to be bullied? Adoption, in my opinion, should always be about the rights of the child rather than of the adoptive parents. No-one has a 'right' to adopt - but children should have the right to the best possible environment. But, if the evidence indicates that it would not be to the detriment of the child, then I don't see that same-sex couples adopting should be an issue of Christians. After all, we hardly advocate that Muslims should be prohibited from adopting, do we? So allowing people to adopt does not mean approving of their beliefs or lifestyle.
28064212 wrote: » Why are these criteria only applied to same-sex couples who want to adopt? Where's the cast-iron evidence that straight ginger people are the best for the welfare of the child? Are they more likely to be bullied? What about straight, Protestant couples? How about we have an adoption agency that decides the criteria, and places the child in the best possible home? Sometimes that will be a straight couple, and sometimes it will be a gay couple. Blanket bans on a particular group are incredibly stupid
Bannasidhe wrote: » I didn't read that as PDN saying strict criteria should only be applied to same-sex couples. PDN - would you clarify?
Morbert wrote: » evidence suggests homosexual couples are as suitable as heterosexual couples.
qrrgprgua wrote: » What evidence?
Bannasidhe wrote: » qrrgprgua You have been presented with copious, independent, studies in various fora which you do not wish to accept as they do not conform to what you believe to be true. Both sonics2k and bluewolf have describes the lack of a negative impact on their lives due to being raised by same-sex parents. Why are you now asking for evidence when there is none in existence you are prepared to accept unless it confirms what you already believe?
qrrgprgua wrote: » What evidence? So are be denying natures role? A Father and a Mother figure have a role to play in a Childs development. While in some families one or other may be missing and the child turns out perfectly well.. that does not mean the Ideal should be thrown away. In the 60's they said the best milk for a Child was formula.. Today its Natures way is best.. Well the natural family is Mother-Father children.
qrrgprgua wrote: » There are lots of studies that show that Breast Milk is best for a child. in the 80's I would say a very large proportion of Irish mothers did not breast feed, and it didn't have that much adverse effects. But today there is a big drive to give the Child the best start. A Child has a Father and a Mother. If it needs to be adopted is it not better to follow nature and look for a substitute Father and Mother? Studies on children adopted by Gay couples are very limited. Unless you are using the US democratic sponsored ones.. which have a bias. One this for a Boy is to be Raised by his mother,, if the father dies or leaves.. But to have no Father figure at all in the boys life does have negative impacts. Having a Father Figure is fundamental in a boys development.
NuMarvel wrote: » So in that vein, where are your studies that show that a child raised by opposite sex parents fares better than a child raised by same-sex parents?
Moves by legislators and homosexual activists to endorse same sex adoption are misguided. Their intentions may be good, but they are ignoring the rights of children and important social and psychological research into the homosexual lifestyle.
