You people are complete Idiots, to me marriage isn't about god, Christianity or religion, marriage is about two people who want to be together and to love one another for life until death departs them.
What did religion give us hmm ask yourself this what did religion give us? it has given us nothing but misery, greed, deaths, wars and above all else hatred. sure I could go on and on what Christians did back then like the holy war.
My point is this, we're are living in this world where we can finally become equal with everyone from different colors to same genders and if you still think it's an abomination, then maybe Religion is one big retard that should be put down without mercy!
I was proud to hear the speeches of Lord Dannett and Lord Mawhinny yesterday. Particularly when Lord Dannett said that he had spent his carreer defending democracy and would not support this Bill,which undermined it, and when Lord Mawhinny complained how the 500000 votes on the C4M pettiton were counted as one vote, turning an 87% vote against SSM to one of 53% for it during the sham public consultation. This Bill is unpopular and unnecessary, and I pray that their Lordships kick it into touch, where it belongs.
It's not about Marraige but the moral 'institution' that supports society is about to change for the worse. The entire proposa (SSM)l is a Marxist doctrine to remove the 'nuclear family' which - in the main - is a small c 'conservative' grouping . Good parents may (ormay not) encourage religon (not just Christain) or/and a distinct family morality and sense of purpose (grandmothers, grandfathers included) the care of their wider family and biological children with their hope for their future. If you start to equate Marraige to a 'dog license' (or gay adoption rights) you loose the plot of faithfull co-existance and mutuality of our sexes to be more than the sum of our parts. It is not a question of equal rights (oft quoted) but mutual rights of biological parents (Married or not) to NOT be subjected to homosexual propaganda (distributed by the BBC and lobby groups in government for 20 years), that is is their 'right'. it never was a right for anyone and it is not compulsory to go to Church, have children or be overtly homosexual. it is a moral choice and a personal expectation of a future for our children that matters. Not fringe perversions by political lobby groups who have absolutly no interest in Marraige at all (or furthering Marraige spiritually), but want all the benefits 'as a right' as IF it should be part of the NHS and Social Services or employment rights. Trust and faith in your own existing family - not in the morality of those MP's (or indeed Lords) who seek a peculiar secular state of despair and isolation in old age and Euthanasia. Is life without the mutual and loving support of a partner worth living without? The hope of our children to not be influenced by the antics of a perverse and disturbed politcal activists are always the first to claim 'rights' to something that they have no intention of sharing. Marraige is in difficulty of collapsing when goverenments can no longer support Marraige through Tax, morality or Public Health. You may ask what happens to previous civilsations that abused Marraige. The results from history (Nero) are not good when you play with biology, faith and morality and ignore the consequences. The cost that the UK taxpayer will have to spend on the legal (parental) complications, the corruption of (gay) politics, the civil-service (including the BBC) bias, the politics of making children clones of the future state mentality. True Parents share Christain values (even if not Church goers) it is a shared common sense (and purpose) in society and education. Parents do not want their children indoctrinated in Marxist state mentality that all children 'belong to the state' and your only morality rests on the whims of your local MP's infidelity, divorce, seperation, or exposure in the news for (alledged) indecency. Marraige is worth more than a vocal secular minority, who's clear intention is to ridicule religon, wreck Marriage, abuse the faith in our children and damn our spirit of independence. Redefining will redefine all that. For what?
Just because Christianity doesn't 'own' marriage does not mean it (or any other religion or right thinking institution or person) can't defend it as an inherent good. Christianity defends Marriage because it is good for us, and it is good for us because it is based around procreating and raising children. To define it as something 'two people of the same sex who love each other' can do is to remove this essential part of its meaning, and is twisting a public good to suit a political agenda. Not every heterosexual married couple has to have children for this to be the case, any more than every footballer has to score a goal. To the argument that gay couples can adopt, is the response that this is the only way they can get their hands on children, and therefore requires the commodification of children, and the creation of a system whereby gay couples epitomise 'consumers', supplied by make sperm donors and female incubators. Donors and incubators are generally poor and wannabe gay 'families' rich. But this kind of procreative abuse was at the heart of slavery. The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery made no exception for owners who might have 'loved' their slaves, and there is no exception for those who want to commoditise children by offering them swanky homes at the best price. Gay marriage institutionalises a system of procreative abuse that is now seeing slave farms in India and Africa. There is nothing to celebrate in perverting marriage.
The suggestion that gay marriage 'dilutes' the veracity of heterosexual marriage is a strange one. Being considered equal does not inherently diminish those already afforded a right. The civil rights movement and universal suffrage did not diminish the rights of Whites & men, respectively. They took what was an immoral privilege, held by bigotry, and made it something right and fair. Marriage as a concept is not a finite resource. The vow itself is the most important part of such a covenant, the commitment between two people, not simply the mechanics of procreation and enhanced legal & financial benefits. Whilst I do not believe religious institutions should be forced to entertain such ceremonies (why any gay couple would want to marry in an Anglican or Catholic church is beyond me), it is entirely wrong for them to oppose this bill. The poorly disguised homophobia I have heard in the last few months has left me rather disappointed in our supposedly progressive, inclusive society. The idea of 'protecting the institution' strikes me a thin veil for this bigotry. Frankly, the idea that a moral value can be attributed to sexual orientation, straight or gay, is utterly unacceptable. It is something you are, not something you choose to be, and as relevant to the denial of legal equality as the colour of your hair or taste in music.
Marriage is not a Christian institution. so it doesn't matter.
There are buddhist, muslims, hindus, sikhs & jewish marriages as well as marriages in town halls up and down the country every day where no religion is referenced during their ceremonies at all. Marriage happens around the whole world from Nepal to Nicaragua, Bhutan to Barbados, whatever the faith or none. Christianity does not own the concept of marriage & therefore has no mandate over its definition. The fact the CoE won't accept that they don't own the concept merely demonstrates their innate belief of their superiority over other faiths around the rest of the world.
To Christians who believe their marriage is so fragile that complete strangers which you've never met (nor will ever meet) marrying each other can so much as weaken your marital life, might I politely suggest you just get a divorce. Because it seems to me the heart of your marriage isn't about love but one of ownership.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of your own sex.
The Marriage(Same-sex Couples)Bill if enacted would deny the right of a man and a woman to have a traditional marriage. Nor could they have a Civil Partnership. No doubt some alternatives would arise, perhaps involving the cooperation of foreign governments which remain opposed to 'gay marriage'. As it is, the Prime Minister and his diminishing supporters are convinced that they have the Nation bluffed: if the Bill is passed, people will have to accept the new state of affairs. In France, Hollande is facing strong opposition after legalising 'gay marriage'. He and David Cameron may join one another in exile to some remote island - St.Helena ?
The evidence clearly shows that gay marriage weakens society by destabilizing family life:
The A of C should be applauded. Better late than never.
Absolute rubbish that gay marriages diminish society. Christian marriages are a fraction of the marriages that go on today anyway. Christians need to realise that their whole position in the UK and the world is diminished as the population is waking up to the reality rather than fairy stories. Two people that love each other can never be treated as an instance of anything but their business and should they wish to make a statement of this love who are we to judge. We should celebrate it!