CJ

Why is wanting a Christian Church Sanctioned Union small minded?

Why is supporting Christian Churchs' desires to maintain and express their rather unique morality small-minded?

Why is it small minded to encourage ones children to uphold Christian morality and expression of it's traditions?

I'm at a loss CJ? ... Please explain.

I'm sorry Kieth, I think you missed the point. There are some gay christian men who would welcome a Christian Church Sanctioned Union. Why are the churches so selective in theis teachings? When was the last time you smote your neighbour for working on the Sabbeth?

The christian churches idea of morality is small minded. There are hundreds of prohibitions in both the new and old testaments to which they no longer adhere (eg Womens heads should be covered in church) but conveniently ignore.

Just because a person is homosexual does not mean they do not uphold Christian traditions or values. If I had children they would be brought up as Christian children. Being gay does not mean you are devoid of morals or spirituality. As previously stated elsewhere in these discussions, there are many long standing gay relationships as there are hetero relationships.

The author of the original article might be a radical. Most of us are not. We live in our communities and support them. Thankfully, most of my community support both my partner and me. I continue to attend church, and no one has thrown me out to date despite my open lifestyle. I live at peace with my partner and it would be truly wonderful if we could have our union blessed (and I belive it already is) in the presense of our friends and family.

Our household is not much different to anyone elses. We have our pets and animals, we go to work, share our thoughts at the end of the day and enjoy our evening meal together. At bedtime we thank God for all our blessings.

keith - Sparkyq has demonstrated, clearly from personal experience, why your approach to gay marriage is small-minded. As for this:

<< I'll be leading the charge to have those Christian Church Sanctioned Unions legally recognised by Government >>

You must be unaware that they already are, which is the point actually. In fact, I bet if the various "Christian Churches" were to Sanction Gay Unions then the government would suddenly no longer have a problem with according them the same legal status as Heterosexual Unions.

Boy oh boy

Are you both barking up the wrong tree. As usual the politically correct are trying to impose their definitions onto the rest of us.

You see my problem with gay unions becoming marriages isn't anything at all to do with morality ... as you both assume and assign incorrectly to my view. I in fact support same sex unions and accept the need for equality in all the usual social, financial and emotional aspects.

But I must add Sparyq that when you say 'Just because a person is homosexual does not mean they do not uphold Christian traditions or values' ... in regard to marriage this is dead wrong ... and really is the often unrecognised, un acknowledged or ignored crux of the debate.

You see with the pronouncements the Council of Trent in 1563 it is generally accepted that a new role was assigned to marriage, that of procreation. And the definition of procreation involves both a woman and a man.

So my position is that activists are not just demanding equality by demanding that the traditional marriage be applicable but that they are in fact attempting to re-define marriage into a much narrowerly defined institution. Thus is accomplished by excluding that part of the traditional Christian Church definition that cannot possibly apply in a union between two men or two women.

I have no problem with the re-defining of marriage if that's what our society wants and accepts, but I'd simply prefer another term that recognises the additional role of possible procreation within a union between a man and a woman.

Oh I don't think I missed any point Sparkq, and in light of my having to explain my simple reasoning I think you'd have to agree.

Of course I don't expect an apology form either of you... but it would be nice and is decent behaviour.

Why is that important, keith? Or even relevant?

Are you concerned that people might mistakenly get the wrong marriage if there isn't a specific title for male/female procreative relationships?

"Oh, no, Roger! I meant to marry a WOMAN! If only the government had told me there was a difference!"

And what about heterosexual couples that don't procreate? Do we need a special marriage category for them too?

Foxy,
<<I think that if we believe in equality
for all - we should allow people to make
their own choices in their human relationships.

Finding the right partner is difficult enough
in the best of times. Finding one you want to
spend the rest of your life with - is next to
impossible. And having found that partner>>
whether they be your mother, father, sister,
brother, son, daughter -
<<who is to tell us - you can't marry because
you've made the wrong choice? They've got to
meet the following criteria ...
(Because that's what our religion tells us?)

Laws are made for all people - not merely for
some. If marriage is to be a legal institution
between two people in this country - then it
should be available to all people>>
including incestuous couples.
<<Not just a select few.>>

Simplistic really.