|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 9:28:54 GMT
I have no problem with anyone who professes a faith, where that faith does not cut across the laws and mores we have built here over the last few centuries. I do, however, draw the line when those of faith somehow hold sway over those who profess none. Take end-of-life issues, for example; many of the reasons why assisted dying is outlawed in the UK are largely based around objections to it from the various religious lobbies here, the real disappointment being that this means the religious lobby has helped to enact Laws that affect the irreligious. This is fundamentally wrong. I agree. I recall the marriage equality vote in Australia and a lot of comment about how defining marriage as not being just between a man and a woman was inconflict with religious teachings. It made no sense to me why non religious people were expected to be bound by religious teachings in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Oct 4, 2023 10:43:10 GMT
It's because "marriage" is a religious thing, surely? Anything else is a civil partnership. It should make no difference really but, strictly speaking, it's a matter of semantics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 11:09:31 GMT
It's because "marriage" is a religious thing, surely? Anything else is a civil partnership. It should make no difference really but, strictly speaking, it's a matter of semantics. Marriage is definitely not solely a religious thing. There are religious marriages and non religious marriages. (Civil partnerships are another thing entirely but it’s factually inaccurate to state any marriage that does not involve religion is a civil partnership. Not under the law.) The marriage equality vote was exclusively discussing non religious marriage so why religious folk would expect us to be bound by their rules is mind boggling. Hugo Rifkind compared it to akin to the Chief Rabbi and various Jewish bodies trying to block his marriage to his wife because it would not be recognised within Judaism. Everybody would see that as bonkers but that’s exactly what religious groups were attempting with the Oz marriage equality vote. |
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,674
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Oct 4, 2023 11:25:56 GMT
I'm unclear on this.
Rather than marriage being a religious thing, I suspect that it has taken on a religious connotation rather than being a construct that sprang out of any formalised or codified religion. The joining of a man and a woman appears to have been borne out of tribal- and inter-tribal practicalities 2,500+ years before the Abrahamic religions came into existence.
Certainly, for example, Christians believe that the joining of a man and a woman in marriage reflects and signifies the union of God with his Church, but that is all it is - a token, an emblem if you will - and nothing more.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Oct 4, 2023 12:07:30 GMT
Don't forget, God shagged Jesus's mum. Although there's not much point in being God if you can't shag who you want.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Oct 4, 2023 13:26:27 GMT
It's weird that he'd only ever shag one woman once, then, isn't it? Did he not enjoy it? Is he secretly gay but ashamed to act on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Oct 4, 2023 13:47:13 GMT
It's because "marriage" is a religious thing, surely? Anything else is a civil partnership. It should make no difference really but, strictly speaking, it's a matter of semantics. Marriage is definitely not solely a religious thing. There are religious marriages and non religious marriages. (Civil partnerships are another thing entirely but it’s factually inaccurate to state any marriage that does not involve religion is a civil partnership. Not under the law.) The marriage equality vote was exclusively discussing non religious marriage so why religious folk would expect us to be bound by their rules is mind boggling. Hugo Rifkind compared it to akin to the Chief Rabbi and various Jewish bodies trying to block his marriage to his wife because it would not be recognised within Judaism. Everybody would see that as bonkers but that’s exactly what religious groups were attempting with the Oz marriage equality vote. You seem incapable of digesting anything in an sense other than the literal. I am quite aware of the existing, accepted definition of marriage. I am married. And not in church either. The churches are keen to make the distinction clear as, I assume, they don't want to muddy the waters and be obliged to "marry" people whose arrangement is that of a legal, civil (small C, small P) partnership. |
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,674
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Oct 4, 2023 13:55:45 GMT
Without the concept of marriage, certain parts of the Bible make little sense, so followers of it needs must add a religious dimension to it.
For example, the seventh of the Ten Commandments - "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - has little meaning to the confirmed bachelor (in either the literal or accepted senses).
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Oct 4, 2023 14:33:46 GMT
And, of course, it's contracting in future generations.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Oct 4, 2023 14:35:41 GMT
I'm unclear on this. Rather than marriage being a religious thing, I suspect that it has taken on a religious connotation rather than being a construct that sprang out of any formalised or codified religion. The joining of a man and a woman appears to have been borne out of tribal- and inter-tribal practicalities 2,500+ years before the Abrahamic religions came into existence. Certainly, for example, Christians believe that the joining of a man and a woman in marriage reflects and signifies the union of God with his Church, but that is all it is - a token, an emblem if you will - and nothing more. I think that marriage has taken on a secular meaning while the churches are keen to maintain both meanings. This is where the rub is. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,236
|
Post by voice on Oct 4, 2023 14:38:30 GMT
Religion may have had some roll in marriage for a while, but people got married before modern ones came along and many have secular marriages, not civil partnerships, so trying to say marriage should only ever be what a religion defines it yo be, and have a veto over anyone nit wanting their narrow version of a marriage is a great example of why religion should have no say over policy and governance
There is only one response really.
Religion- my religion says gay marriage is wrong
Me- well don't get gay married
Religon- my religion says gay marriage is wrong so no one can get gay married
Me - fcuk off
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 16:04:35 GMT
Marriage is definitely not solely a religious thing. There are religious marriages and non religious marriages. (Civil partnerships are another thing entirely but it’s factually inaccurate to state any marriage that does not involve religion is a civil partnership. Not under the law.) The marriage equality vote was exclusively discussing non religious marriage so why religious folk would expect us to be bound by their rules is mind boggling. Hugo Rifkind compared it to akin to the Chief Rabbi and various Jewish bodies trying to block his marriage to his wife because it would not be recognised within Judaism. Everybody would see that as bonkers but that’s exactly what religious groups were attempting with the Oz marriage equality vote. You seem incapable of digesting anything in an sense other than the literal. I am quite aware of the existing, accepted definition of marriage. I am married. And not in church either. The churches are keen to make the distinction clear as, I assume, they don't want to muddy the waters and be obliged to "marry" people whose arrangement is that of a legal, civil (small C, small P) partnership. This is all incorrect all of it. I am talking about the marriage equality vote in Australia and religious objections. It had nothing to do with churches not wanting to marry gay people (which is their right). It was religious bodies wanting to impose their religious beliefs on the non religious. (I believe the exact same was true in France as well.) They were not objecting to religious bodies having to marry gay people. That was not part of the discussion. I don’t know why you keep calling them “civil partnerships”. The term is just “marriage”. That’s it. And religious objections were to non religious marriages being extended to gay people. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 16:07:02 GMT
I'm unclear on this. Rather than marriage being a religious thing, I suspect that it has taken on a religious connotation rather than being a construct that sprang out of any formalised or codified religion. The joining of a man and a woman appears to have been borne out of tribal- and inter-tribal practicalities 2,500+ years before the Abrahamic religions came into existence. Certainly, for example, Christians believe that the joining of a man and a woman in marriage reflects and signifies the union of God with his Church, but that is all it is - a token, an emblem if you will - and nothing more. I think that marriage has taken on a secular meaning while the churches are keen to maintain both meanings. This is where the rub is. Well then the church should concern itself only with marriages it conducts over its believers and leave the rest of us out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 16:08:00 GMT
Religion may have had some roll in marriage for a while, but people got married before modern ones came along and many have secular marriages, not civil partnerships, so trying to say marriage should only ever be what a religion defines it yo be, and have a veto over anyone nit wanting their narrow version of a marriage is a great example of why religion should have no say over policy and governance There is only one response really. Religion- my religion says gay marriage is wrong Me- well don't get gay married Religon- my religion says gay marriage is wrong so no one can get gay married Me - fcuk off This. And it’s when they want the non religious to follow the rules of the religious - well that’s when the issues start. |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Oct 4, 2023 16:22:52 GMT
it was worth posting the articles just to see the things predictable total meltdown.  |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Oct 4, 2023 16:29:41 GMT
oh, goody! the thing is simplifying things for us! lol
|
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Oct 4, 2023 16:34:12 GMT
Don't forget, God shagged Jesus's mum. Although there's not much point in being God if you can't shag who you want. what? God didn't "shag" anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Oct 4, 2023 16:41:34 GMT
I think that marriage has taken on a secular meaning while the churches are keen to maintain both meanings. This is where the rub is. Well then the church should concern itself only with marriages it conducts over its believers and leave the rest of us out of it. I'm pretty sure that is what their position is and also that this is another bit of inversion, as it is those who fall outside the churches' definition of marriageable that are demanding the churches accommodate them. |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Oct 4, 2023 16:52:46 GMT
why are atheists so eager for oblivion? and the thing keeps bringing up science. there is no conflict between science and a belief in God, in my opinion. God gave us the ability to observe and study what He created. science doesn't automatically preclude God. thats nonsense. some of the most famous scientists in history had a strong belief in God. the amazing discoveries they made didn't make them atheists.
then again, humans have gigantic egos. homo sapiens like to believe they are the pinnacle of all there is or ever will be. they resent the thought of something superior. arrogance on steroids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Oct 4, 2023 17:01:02 GMT
Well then the church should concern itself only with marriages it conducts over its believers and leave the rest of us out of it. I'm pretty sure that is what their position is and also that this is another bit of inversion, as it is those who fall outside the churches' definition of marriageable that are demanding the churches accommodate them. What you are “pretty sure of” is incorrect. Certainly with regards the specific context and example I was referring to. And, within the specific context and example, I am referring to nobody was requesting churches accommodate them. As the topic was always non religious marriage. It was the religious wanting to impose themselves on the non-religious. Not the other way round. |
|
