Same Sex Marriage

Speaking of holes i liked the fart thread better


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornet

I have no issue with religious organisations having a "right to refuse" to conduct gay ceremonies as long as they stop playing the discrimination card when (for example) businesses seek to enforce in house rules about overt religious symbols. If your private club is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of faith, any other club should likewise be allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they wish. Opens a huge can of worms, but there is no reason why faith should have elevated status in that regard.

---

OK - consider a no jewelery policy (air stewardesses for example, so drunken oiks can't grab hold of necklaces etc) and the poor little darling moans that as it is a cross on her necklace, the company is descriminating on religious grounds..........

This topic is like the kings new clothes. No-one dared to say what they really think. [apart from that innocent of course].

Even if the orthodox church will ever admit such marriages ( which is quite imposible since orthodox means to follow dogmatically ), the ceremony would be a farce since all the service is a long incantation about man and woman and a prayer for blessing them with the "fruits of the womb".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by In The Pits

This topic is like the kings new clothes. No-one dared to say what they really think. [apart from that innocent of course].

---

Well it shouldn't be. If somebody holds homophobic views then that's their lookout and I defend their right to discuss it, provided they engage in constructive conversation and not simply hurling insults. I'm always fascinated to hear other opinions and the reasoning behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Even if the orthodox church will ever admit such marriages ( which is quite imposible since orthodox means to follow dogmatically ), the ceremony would be a farce since all the service is a long incantation about man and woman and a prayer for blessing them with the "fruits of the womb".

---

Have you never seen the great epic classic Arnie film Twins? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Well it shouldn't be. If somebody holds homophobic views then that's their lookout and I defend their right to discuss it, provided they engage in constructive conversation and not simply hurling insults. I'm always fascinated to hear other opinions and the reasoning behind them.

---

That's because you have an open mind, and have no desire to be either inflexible or unsympathetic to others' opinions.

Sometimes, I get the impression that some on here are worse in their attempt at steamrollering their own opinion than the very folk they dissagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Have you never seen the great epic classic Arnie film Twins? ;)

---

I'm afraid I'll die before seeing an Arnie film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Some people choose to take parts of the bible literally to justify their homophobia, but get all vague and say it's open to interpretation when the text appears to forbid something they actually like doing - even shaving a beard is a no-no if you take it literally, and working on a Sunday should apparently result in death yet most of the staff at my local B&Q seem to be coping alright. Most of them...

---

Yes, the overt hypocrisy of the Church really frustrates me as well. Their stance on this is fundamentally flawed.

The main passage that Christians use to justify discrimination of Homosexuals is Leviticus. My God (pun intended), what a pile of crap that is. It was supposed to have been written by Moses but in reality, was written between the 1st and 5th Century with passages included from ancient scriptures. In it we have:

Animal sacrifices to God
'Blooding' of Aaron, a follower, by Moses
Murder of Aaron's sons by God
Apparently Hares are unclean because they eat grass and 4 legged Birds are an abomination
He doesn't like Bats either think these are unclean
Contrary to popular belief, insects only have 4 legs and not 6????
Lots of sexism:
. Baby girls are twice as dirty as boys
. Menstruating women are unclean
. You shouldn't look on a Menstruating woman
. If you have sex with a Slave girl, she should be soundly whipped afterwards, preferably with a multi thronged whip, and inflict severe Corporal Punishment
. Women with familiar spirits should be killed
. If a priest has an 'impure' daughter, she shall be burned to death (I suppose sons are OK?)
Don't wear garments of different fibres or materials
Don't shape your beard or head (hair)
Children who swear at their parents should be killed, so should adulterers (unless it's with a slave girl obviously) and Homosexuals
If you're handicapped, you're not allowed to approach the alter

So, in one book, we discriminate against homosexuals, females, animals and the handicapped; commit infanticide, torture and murder, set the basis for the mass genocide of tens of thousands of women during the Reformation and other 'witch' hunts and various other atrocities and statements of lunacy.

And this book is what the 'modern' Church uses today to justify its stance on same sex Marriage? I think the Church would be better advised to consign Old Testament nonsense like this to a regrettable history that is swept under the carpet in favour of the more relevant teachings of the New Testament that better relates to how people perceive it today. In particular, the word of Christ as recounted by St Paul states:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This seems quite enlightened to me and suggests everyone is equal within the Church and nobody should be treated differently. However, this doesn't fit in with the outdated, Conservative views of senior 'Christian' members of the Church so it's back to burning Witches, Torturing Slaves, Unclean Women and Murdering Children. Whoops, sorry, forgot about the Gays.

At the moment the Church is confused and I think ill-advised with its meandering direction. Perhaps this is why people are losing faith with the Christian Faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

. Menstruating women are unclean

---

That's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

That's true.

---

And moody.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

..... should be killed, so should adulterers

---

I think it's still a great idea......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

'Known' or 'renowned', not 'reknown'. You went to university — you ought to be able to know the difference.

I'm not sensitive about this — rather, I'm irritated by your stance on it, which (for the reasons I gave) I think is utterly ill-developed.

---

Referring to grammatical errors is fairly below the belt in forum etiquette fella. As is your university jibe. You sound really bitter about the world!

I really don't care whether my opinions are "ill-developed" in your eyes, my opinions are my own and I will not force anybody to agree with me, never have done.

I'm quite spontaneous and therefore don't have the time or desire to research anything before relaying my opinion. I'll take the risk of being shot down happily.

Quote:

---

You may think your question is 'uncomfortable', but in reality it's just pointless and juvenile. Again, I ask, why do you care?

---

Its not at all pointless and juvenile. The subject is usually covered in the media in this way, but I haven't approached in that way at all, and my feeling is that your outburst here is born from frustration at the casual references to it on TV etc - and you've tarred me with the same brush.

I appreciate the answers I've had from others so far. Speaking of juvenile, you keep repeating "why do you care?" - which is, ironically, coming across quite childish.

[youtube]MLVJm7QW3dA[/youtube]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

At the moment the Church is confused and I think ill-advised with its meandering direction. Perhaps this is why people are losing faith with the Christian Faith.

---

I think it's a natural reaction to progress, particularly scientific. There's not much religion in whatever form can do about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Referring to grammatical errors is fairly below the belt in forum etiquette fella. As is your university jibe. You sound really bitter about the world!

---

Not at all. Am I disappointed that someone should go through university and, afterwards, freely admit that they 'don't have the time or desire to research anything' before offering an opinion? Yes. Your studies strike me as having been of questionable value if they didn't leave you with a desire to look into things more deeply.

Anyway, in this instance, I still feel you're skirting around one issue in particular, one touched upon by others: that your view on the subject of same-sex marriage is probably based on an underlying homophobia. You seem to dress it up in religion, without apparently being especially religious yourself — why? What, exactly, is the basis of your view that same sex marriage is so desperately undesirable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think it's a natural reaction to progress, particularly scientific. There's not much religion in whatever form can do about that.

---

From a scientific point of view you're right.
From a moral point of view I can't see any progress.
(OK, might be because of my dioptres...)
Anyway at this moment I'm afraid science can do nothing for my tormented soul.

Otherwise it's interesting that in my country whenever they make a poll about the institutions people have trust in, church is always on pole position.

Maybe because we ( meaning eastern people ) are a bit different....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not at all. Am I disappointed that someone should go through university and, afterwards, freely admit that they 'don't have the time or desire to research anything' before offering an opinion? Yes. Your studies strike me as having been of questionable value if they didn't leave you with a desire to look into things more deeply.

Anyway, in this instance, I still feel you're skirting around one issue in particular, one touched upon by others: that your view on the subject of same-sex marriage is probably based on an underlying homophobia. You seem to dress it up in religion, without apparently being especially religious yourself — why? What, exactly, is the basis of your view that same sex marriage is so desperately undesirable?

---

Are you confusing opinion with facts?

What is the sole reason behind human existance? WHy was the act of copulation made to be so pleasurable - because no-one would bother and the species would not exist?

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

We've gathered all the evidence and made some conclusions and assumptions.

There are still divided opinions on this. Until the killer piece of evidence is found that explains where it all began, it's still a best guess.

Now then, same sex partnerships. Not really going to keep the human race going if we were all same sex couples. It's nice to be different and all that, but you'd summise that the purpose behind men and women, ultimately, is to reproduce, with a bit of life expeience in between.

Does this mean that men and women are the norm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

---

You're wrong. Some of our fellow forumers (pretend to) know, the others aren't interested

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Are you confusing opinion with facts?

What is the sole reason behind human existance? WHy was the act of copulation made to be so pleasurable - because no-one would bother and the species would not exist?

No-one actually knows the true answer to this. We don't actually, definately know how life begun.

We've gathered all the evidence and made some conclusions and assumptions.

There are still divided opinions on this. Until the killer piece of evidence is found that explains where it all began, it's still a best guess.

---

None of this has the slightest bearing on the subject in hand, surely? It doesn't matter. Why should same-sex marriages be allowed? Not because of any abstract notions regarding the point of human existence, but because there is no good, practical reason for denying same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Now then, same sex partnerships. Not really going to keep the human race going if we were all same sex couples. It's nice to be different and all that, but you'd summise that the purpose behind men and women, ultimately, is to reproduce, with a bit of life expeience in between.

---

An utterly specious and intellectually bankrupt argument, unsurprisingly. No-one is suggesting that same-sex couples will become the norm. It's an absurd notion. People are what they are.

Why not just say what you really think, rather than dressing your view up in ideas of same-sex couples harming the continuation of the human race?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Does this mean that men and women are the norm?

---

What does this question mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

You're wrong. Some of our fellow forumers (pretend to) know, the others aren't interested

---

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Speaking of juvenile, you keep repeating "why do you care?" - which is, ironically, coming across quite childish.

---

I wouldn't have to keep asking if you answered the question, because I genuinely don't understand the basis for your worry about same-sex marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

An utterly specious and intellectually bankrupt argument, unsurprisingly.

---

Intellectually bankrupt argument? One clearly that you cannot answer you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

---

Why so interested in the subject then? An opportunity to pretend to be superior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't pretend to know. I'm not interested, because it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how I live my life.

---

Good for you. A modern ( better said recent ) man without an existential anxiety. I envy you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Its a difficult one that because I have never met a gay person who has said given the choice, that they wouldn't be heterosexual. I think we have to accept that normal comes in many forms. There are certainly millions of gay people world wide so that gives the indication that homosexuality is a fairly common thing. I once saw a claim that there are more gay people on this planet than there are people with ginger/red hair. It just goes to show how a human being doesn't get a lot of choice in the matter and we should accept that not everyone is like us.

---

We've lost sight of the original post - same sex marriage.

Churches are unwilling to allow it as, to do so, they would be going against the fundamental teachings.

Should the bible be changed?

Besides, if the church is so out of touch, why would anyone want to get married there?

The fact that divorces are now so common, that the whole point of marriage, has been lost somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I think we have to accept that normal comes in many forms. There are certainly millions of gay people world wide so that gives the indication that homosexuality is a fairly common thing.

---

That's not a reason.
There are many common things and some of them are still unacceptable.
I can give some examples but I risk to be ( again! ) misunderstood.

To set the record straight before I go: I have no problem with homosexuals but I can't see why they should marry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Intellectually bankrupt argument? One clearly that you cannot answer you mean.

---

Rubbish. I answered it above by saying that there will be no sudden jump in the number of same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is legalised, since people are what they are, and can't help their sexuality. It's not a lifestyle choice.

Are you seriously saying that same-sex marriage should not be legalised because you believe it would lead to a jump in the number of same-sex couples, thus reducing childbirth? Do you think that this concern should override the small matters of love and personal choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Why so interested in the subject then? An opportunity to pretend to be superior?

---

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Rubbish. I answered it above by saying that there will be no sudden jump in the number of same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is legalised, since people are what they are, and can't help their sexuality. It's not a lifestyle choice.

Are you seriously saying that same-sex marriage should not be legalised because you believe it would lead to a jump in the number of same-sex couples, thus reducing childbirth? Do you think that this concern should override the small matters of love and personal choice?

---

Legalised or not, same sex couples will still exist. What exactly is the pre-occupation if civil ceremonies are available?

If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

---

It's called life. I didn't like getting the sh!t kicked out of me at school for wearing glasses or because my family was skint. Still have to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

---

I suppose it's the only right that is denied to you.
Otherwise everything goes well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because I am gay, and I am insulted by the way in which people such as yourself would seek to deny me the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage, merely on the grounds of what my sexuality happens to be.

---

And I find your attempts to belittle everyone who's opinions you don't like, but hey......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Legalised or not, same sex couples will still exist. What exactly is the pre-occupation if civil ceremonies are available?

---

Because same-sex couples want the same rights as everybody else! Is this really too hard a concept to grasp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

---

Because they might, just maybe, be decent human beings too.

With a question like that, you again mark yourself out as nothing but a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Churches are unwilling to allow it as, to do so, they would be going against the fundamental teachings.

Should the bible be changed?

---

As I've said before, some people seem intent of cherry-picking the parts of the bible which suit their agenda, while dismissing others as open to interpretation or not to be taken literally. Until we address that fundamental hypocrisy, I don't see the church making any progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

And I find your attempts to belittle everyone who's opinions you don't like, but hey......

---

I'm not belittling them — I'm saying why they are muddle-headed and asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because they might, just maybe, be decent human beings too.

With a question like that, you again mark yourself out as nothing but a troll.

---

Of course they are decent people. There are plenty of scumbag heterosexual couples that should never be allowed children, but that's that life thing again.

The fact is, two men or two women - together - cannot have children.

I am sorry you see me as trolling, I most certainly am not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I suppose it's the only right that is denied to you.
Otherwise everything goes well....

---

Yes, there aren't many other rights similarly denied — or any, come to think of it. It is somewhat infuriating that this particular right is denied on the basis of meaningless, semantic arguments relating to the Bible and suchlike, given that same-sex marriage would have no practical consequences whatsoever. As I said earlier, laws should only be made for practical reasons. This is not the case with the ban on same-sex marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

...If a same sex couple cannot naturally have children, what makes it acceptable to allow same sex couples to adopt?

---

Now that is a tricky question, as it’s an issue that introduces the welfare of the child into consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

The fact is, two men or two women - together - cannot have children.

---

Again, so what? I ask that not to be rude, but because I genuinely cannot understand why it matters, or what your point is. Should gay people, in your eyes, not be allowed to adopt or marry simply because people of the same sex cannot reproduce together? What is the end result of which you are so scared?

As I said, I find genuinely insulting the idea that I would not be suitable as a father simply on the grounds of my sexuality, or that my sexuality should disbar me from marrying if I so wish. It's like me saying that you are inherently a poor father, or should not marry, based on some spurious notion.