Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To not understand how gay marriage undermines marriage in general?

44 replies

toptramp · 11/03/2012 22:16

Just watched the news and heard the Churche's view. You could marry a horse for all I care. I think it is highly discriminatory not to let gay people marry.
I think that the stance of the church shows how out of date it really is and is doing it no favours.

OP posts:

Original poster

toptramp · 11/03/2012 22:19

sorry guys; i just saw the other thread on this. will read.

OP posts:

catsareevil · 11/03/2012 22:21

No idea, though I would have major difficulties with a person marrying a horse.

Original poster

toptramp · 11/03/2012 22:22

Well I would really; I would feel sorry for the horse! What I mean is each to their own to a point.

OP posts:

troisgarcons · 11/03/2012 22:24

I dunno, some bloke had to marry his goat

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4748292.stm

faeriefruitcake · 11/03/2012 22:26

If you're a religious bigot then of course it does, if you're a normal decent human being then no it doesn't.

Deflects nicely from dealing with peadophile priests though doesn't it?

NoDontLickThat · 11/03/2012 22:28

But how could you know for certain it was what the horse wanted and it wasn't being forced into it? It could hardly have its say could it?

Anniegetyourgun · 11/03/2012 22:31

Oh yes, it could have said

wait for it

"nay"

scarletforya · 11/03/2012 22:48

Deflects nicely from dealing with peadophile priests though doesn't it?

You've got it in one faeriefruitcake. The fucking cheek of it, makes me sick.

QuintessentialyHollow · 11/03/2012 22:50

The horse would only be able to say "neigh".

QuintessentialyHollow · 11/03/2012 22:50

x post!

CrockoDuck · 12/03/2012 01:28

I agree with you entirely.

Bigots Religious people like to tell us that a) the Bible says "one man, one woman" and b) that marriage is all about having babies.

Hmmm....

Well the Bible also says that we should stone unruly children to death and that slavery is perfectly fine - and, maybe, if marriage is all about having babies, people not planning them (or unable to) should be banned from getting married?

Grrrr. This subject makes me so fecking angry.

LulaBear · 12/03/2012 01:38

Well, it can get very complicated. I wasn't raised with religion but got very religious when I was in my teens, when my life was very complicated. Now I've sort of lost that but would class myself as agnostic.
I don't think that the church (or any religion) should be forced to accept same-sex marriages. They don't believe in that.
BUT same sex marriages should be given protection in law.
I just don't think that the goverment of a country should be able to tell a religion what they can and cannot do (within reason).

OlympicRelay · 12/03/2012 01:49

Same sex couples can have a civil ceremony, I don't see why they would be bothered with a church ceremony of marriage when the church follows the bible, which teaches man must not lie with man and the like. Divorced people can't be married in church, as they are still in the eyes of some religion still married in the eyes of God as far as they are concerned. Don't get involved with church marriage if you don't follow the religion.

OlympicRelay · 12/03/2012 01:51

By the way I couldn't care less who marries who. I think you have to within reason respect each religions values.

lesley33 · 12/03/2012 02:20

olympic - at the moment it is illegal for any religious organisation to marry gay people. Some religions such as quakers want to be able to do this. Why should some religions dictate what some other religions do in terms of marrying same sex couples? The proposal is just to give religious organisations the choice - not to force them.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 12/03/2012 02:37

Lula, do you think that religious people (of whatever variety) should be beyond the law?

AFAIK, the suggestion is that, where individual ministers/priests/vicars/imans/rabbis are Ok about marrying gay/lesbian couples in a church/synogogue/mosque, then that should be dead cool. And legal.

No-one is saying that if the person of the cloth, and their congregation, is/are vehemently opposed to gay/lesbian marriage, they have to do it anyway.

TheMerchantOfVenom · 12/03/2012 04:18

Gay marriage doesn't undermine marriage in general; it undermines bigoted, outdated views.

That is why certain people are against.

There is no other earthly reason to be against two people who love each other, wanting to stand up in front of their loved ones to commit to spending the rest of their lives together and to love and cherish each other for richer and poorer and through sickness and health.

Two people of the same sex committing to all these Good Things with the person they loves takes nothing away from my marriage, nor the marriage of any other heterosexual couple.

QuintessentialyHollow · 12/03/2012 08:52

It is not about being beyond the law, it is ridiculous to suggest that religious people don't follow the law like everybody else but follow only the Church. Those are different things.

I am religious, we had a registry office wedding. Our sons got to Catholic school. I am aware that in the eyes of the Church my husband and I are not actually married.

I fail to understand why people who are not religious need the right to have a ceremony performed inside a religion they dont follow, to be married in the eyes of God! They wont be! It is turning the marriage ceremony as it is into a sham for all!

They want to be respected for who they are, but disrespecting religion.

They have the right to be married in law, I dont see why they also need to marry in Church, if not just to take the piss to be honest.

noddyholder · 12/03/2012 08:53

It should be about the union of 2 people with shared values and wishes what they do in bed is irrelevant. Marriage does a good enough job of undermining itself

Bonsoir · 12/03/2012 08:56

I actually think the contrary, that gay marriage supports the institution of marriage as it should be: a private union of two people who commit to share their lives, which will be supported by a legal and economic structure.

QuintessentialyHollow · 12/03/2012 08:58

The law does that perfectly.

One does not need to married in the eyes of any deity, whether Zeus, Thor, or anybody to have that.

JennyPiccolo · 12/03/2012 08:59

I would go so far as to say that if religious institutions are prevented from acting within generally accepted legal boundaries, why give them the right to perform legal ceremonies? Maybe the legal and religious parts of marriage should be kept separate for everyone.

QuintessentialyHollow · 12/03/2012 09:02

Jenny, I think it is, dont you need to have a civil ceremony for the legal part first, before you marry in Church? By the time you get to your Church wedding, you are already married in the eyes of the law?

TheMerchantOfVenom · 12/03/2012 09:03

"I fail to understand why people who are not religious need the right to have a ceremony performed inside a religion they dont follow"

But what if they are religious? There are gay Catholics, Jews and probably even a few gay Muslims, you know.

noddyholder · 12/03/2012 09:04

I have long thought that the legals should be vaialble in a solicitors office without the 'ceremony' part. If you want to have a trad wedding then thats all well and good but its not for everyone.2 people wanting legal security etc should be able to access it. The wedding as such makes me cringe

Flip

1 2