[Copacetic]

I had an infuriating conversation with my SIL yesterday about this topic and I'm just hoping that some EBers can help me understand her point of view.

Her view was that a marriage was something between a man and a woman, before god, who could then go on and make babies. That therefore meant that same sex couples could not marry because the church would not recognise it, and they couldn't naturally make a baby.

I said, then in that case, according to her view of what marriage was, I wasn't properly married, because god never even entered into it for me. I was married in a park, with a celebrant. Follow on with some rubbish about that not being right, because she believes in god, and he is everywhere, therefor if she was at my wedding then so was he.

I then said that same sex couples had fertility options available to them much in the same way that man/woman couples do, so that takes away the problem of being unable to have children and she then decided that SS couples could have and agreement but they couldn't have a marriage because a marriage is unique. Cue me even more frustrated, saying that actually, a SS couple is far more unique than a traditional man/woman couple. She doesn't see the problem with just calling it a partnership, but that just seems so 2 dimensional to me. Like a business arrangement or something.

I know that most here will agree with SS marriage, but those that don't, please help me see her side of this? I just don't understand the problem.

[Sweet like a lem...]

Her view was that a marriage was something between a man and a woman, before god, who could then go on and make babies. That therefore meant that same sex couples could not marry because the church would not recognise it, and they couldn't naturally make a baby.

And yet so many hetrosexual couples do not marry in a Church, so many beliefs besides Christianity, so many married couples struggling to conceive and if she is into biblical type marriages then surely she does not object to her husband taking another wife or two and a few concubines...

Sorry, can't help.

[bokchok]

yeah ditto to the PP...i get very frustrated at views like that as i disagree...its ridiculously black and white

frankly, no one should dictate who you marry so why dictate the gender. what is key is its for love and the right reasons, not about being of the opposite bloody sex.

she is narrow-minded and probably the kind who believes you sin away but you say forgive me and pray and you a-ok.

[Jane Jetson]

One argument I have seen a lot is that some people, including a lot of Christians, see men and women as having a particular role in a marriage. This is generally that the man is the dominant party and "lovingly" makes all the decisions and guides his wife, while his wife does all the submitting and doing as she's told.

A SS marriage therefore can't work, because with two men in a relationship how can one automatically be the head of the family simply because he has testicles?

It's certainly not an argument I believe in - and if SS marriage was to actually undermine this kind of marriage as constantly claimed I am all for it - but it's one I've heard posed.

[SophieBeagle]

My sister believes the same thing. I disagree wholeheartedly especially considering that many married couples choose never to have children too and married couples may have fertility issues.

I think the religion aspect of this argument is a cop out. Marriage is not about religion anymore and many different religions can marry. This isn't a solely Christian tradition.

I can't elaborate on her views as they aren't mine but the 'God and Children' view is a shared one which in my view is a opinion for when there is no other valid argument.

[JillyJellyBean]

In my opinion marriage has very little to do with religion. (Or why would an atheist bother?) I woulodnt even bother arguing the point with someone who has already amde up there mind. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions, but know that your not alone is being cross at this short sighted view point.

[Bart.]

One argument I have seen a lot is that some people, including a lot of Christians, see men and women as having a particular role in a marriage. This is generally that the man is the dominant party and "lovingly" makes all the decisions and guides his wife, while his wife does all the submitting and doing as she's told.

A SS marriage therefore can't work, because with two men in a relationship how can one automatically be the head of the family simply because he has testicles?

It's certainly not an argument I believe in - and if SS marriage was to actually undermine this kind of marriage as constantly claimed I am all for it - but it's one I've heard posed.

This is BS for the majority of Christians and I'm sad you've lumped all billion+ believers into one package. Some families may run like this, but certainly not all.

I am a Christian and I have no problem with SS marriage. I know, fall down in a swoon.

I think where your friend is coming from is that the institution of marriage, as a term and an entity, should be between a man and a woman. For those who are same-sex, perhaps there should be another form of unity? I had a gay friend tell me once that this is what he believed. I'm not saying I agree with his stance, but nonetheless, it may be an explanation?

(edited for grammar)

This post has been edited by Bartholomew: 02/01/2013, 07:40 AM

[Lucretia Borgia]

For the life of me I can't see why gay couples can't get married in a civil ceremony by a marriage celebrant (same as what my DH and I did)..... I guess it's up to the church to decide whether or not they will allow their priests or ministers to marry same sex couples, I imagine there are same sex couples who are religious and who would wish to be married in church..I think they have a battle on their hands but beyond that I have no further comment as I am not religious.....but as far as civil ceremonies go, god (or any other deity) simply should not come in to it.

[Jane Jetson]

This is BS for the majority of Christians and I'm sad you've lumped all billion+ believers into one package. Some families may run like this, but certainly not all.

I am a Christian and I have no problem with SS marriage. I know, fall down in a swoon.

So am I. If you actually read my post, you'll see that I've written

some people, including a lot of Christians

How you've managed to interpret this as "all billion+ believers" (including myself) I have no idea.

[KT1978]

It doesn't offend me, the reason I'm not married is that I see it as a religious ceremony with legal recognition. The word marriage is religious to me.

I'm not against gay marriage either but can see why some people think the distinction should be made between the religious and the legal. Call it r something that has no religious connotations for hetero and ss couples and leave religion to do whatever they believe in.

I don't think either side needs to agree to believed in the same thins for this to happen so I guess that's why those views aren't overly offensive to me.