Government to enact gay 'marriage' by 2015

[Catzsy]

Because marriage is based in religion, and the state has a 'right' to deny gay marriage based on the fact it denies many other things including incest marriage/marriage between objects and humans and so forth. I believe the state shouldn't have any right to define marriage, therefore I would remove it from marriage completely but I also reject its wish to define gay 'marriage' for me.

A religious insitution/an organisation has every right in a free society to deny you service.

Yes they do have the right to deny - but we are talking about 'biblical marriage' here. It is not lawful unless the register is signed and a certificate is issued and then it is a 'state' marriage. If you are basing your views on the bible don't forget that 'woman was made out of the rib of man'. Is this fact or fiction? For someone who believes in a free society you certainly support denying quite a large proportion of the population their rights, frequently. I do not believe many religious institutions will in fact perform gay weddings, but may do so if they want to, which will bring the people involved in line with the rights of all married couples. In the end it just means changing the words 'civil partnerhip' to 'marriage' As for allowing marriage between objects and animals I think you may have gone way over the top here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes they do have the right to deny

For how long? people such as yourself would love to take away our liberty in the name of equality (vast chunks have already gone).

but we are talking about 'biblical marriage' here. It is not lawful unless the register is signed and a certificate is issued and then it is a 'state' marriage. If you are basing your views on the bible don't forget that 'woman was made out of the rib of man'. Is this fact or fiction? For someone who believes in a free society you certainly support denying quite a large proportion of the population their rights, frequently. I do not believe many religious institutions will in fact perform gay weddings, but may do so if they want to, which will bring the people involved in line with the rights of all married couples. In the end it just means changing the words 'civil partnerhip' to 'marriage' As for allowing marriage between objects and animals I think you may have gone way over the top here.

You have just completely ignored my suggestion as to what we should do concerning marriage. I want the state out of marriage. This means that gays can sign a contract between themselves and call it marriage, blueberry pie or Dobbykins - as can hetrosexuals, those who are 'in love' with objects, incest couples - the lot. I'm not denying any rights at all, I think everybody should have the right to call their contract between themselves and the organisation performing the 'marriage' whatever they please without the state barring them/laying obstacles. But on the other hand, I oppose the state making this decision for me as to what I consider marriage (state gay marriage).

It would work both ways, its a libertarian solution - conservatives aren't having something forced upon them by the state, nor are the socialists. As a conservative I only view hetrosexual marriage in a Church as real marriage, you don't. As a socialist you believe in gay marriage being equal to hetrosexual religious marriage - I don't.

Under libertarianism, neither of us would be using the state to force the other to follow our way.

[Ardemax]

As far as Catholics go to ever carrying out a gay marriage, that's a no.

I think Protestants would be mostly against carrying it out, however there might be a few who see no problem in doing so.

[Technologic]

You know I really don't see the problem here....

[-:Undertaker:-]

You know I really don't see the problem here....

Because many people do not approve or accept of gay marriage and believe that it demeans the insitution of marriage, including myself.

[FlyingJesus]

Because many people do not approve or accept of gay marriage and believe that it demeans the insitution of marriage, including myself.

Yet you're suggesting that we instead remove all ties between marriage and any sort of authority which makes it an institution...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yet you're suggesting that we instead remove all ties between marriage and any sort of authority which makes it an institution...

No, it would remain with the organisations and not the state - I would only view religious ones between hetrosexuals as marriage though. I do agree however that even this weakens marriage to a degree, but not to the extent that state gay marriage does.

[FlyingJesus]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged

[Technologic]

But marriage is far older than the Church of England and in many advanced ancient cultures (Greece, China, and possibly Rome) gay marriages certainly were allowed if not actively encouraged

But they're foreign so they're obviously wrong.

[FlyingJesus]

Silly me forgetting that only the Victorians have ever had the right morals