Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

MagicMarker

opinionated3 wrote: »

Frowned upon eh? But calling the Pope a Nazi or wanting to see him on a guillotine is acceptable?

Well he was a Nazi wasn't he? And a protector of paedophiles, can't forget that one!

AnonoBoy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well he was a Nazi wasn't he? And a protector of paedophiles, can't forget that one!

And, if my sources from inside the Vatican are to be believed, an absolutely terrible dancer.

MagicMarker

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And, if my sources from inside the Vatican are to be believed, an absolutely terrible dancer.

The worst crime of all.

aidan24326

Are almost all the guys in the church repressed homosexuals? Is that what it comes down to? Like the guy in American Beauty who rails against gays because deep down he is one himself? It seems that way to me, because their obsessive interest in what two guys do together in private is unnatural to say the least.

Logical Fallacy

aidan24326 wrote: »

Are almost all the guys in the church repressed homosexuals? Is that what it comes down to? Like the guy in American Beauty who rails against gays because deep down he is one himself? It seems that way to me, because their obsessive interest in what two guys do together in private is unnatural to say the least.

In fairness, they have an insane degree of interest in what everyone does at all times.

francois

Of course not, silly question-Ratz' opposition to condoms in places like africa though is a threat. A man in a dress out of touch with modern life

efb

opinionated3 wrote: »

Frowned upon eh? But calling the Pope a Nazi or wanting to see him on a guillotine is acceptable?

If you think it's unacceptable report it, but you can't back seat mod is the point I'm making

ConfusedGuy92

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing. I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is pretty clear cut on it's beliefs:-

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Now you can be nit picky and say "It just says lies" or "That only applies to men". We all know what it means. I'm not religious by any means, and I'm not not homophobic, but I just see that as being pretty straight forward. Adopting kids, civil partnership, whatever, just marridge itself was originally a religious thing, and I don't see why you must push to be allowed to marry if it is basically a meaningless title which has been created by people who don't condone you're sexuality.

Obviously not going to get the most amount of thanks in the world, but we're all cool with debates so someone reply to me if they disagree.

My name is URL

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well he was a Nazi wasn't he?

Whatever else about the horrible cnut, saying that he was a Nazi; or using it as a stick to beat him with is a bit lazy, not to mention unfair.

It's like somebody using the fact that you were born into a Catholic family to diminish any position you hold. He had about as much say in joining the Hitler Youth as you did about being baptised. And like yourself and Catholicism, he made the decision to desert the group that he had been forced into as a child. The Nazis murdered members of his family ffs, I doubt he viewed them in a good light.

Delirium

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing. I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is pretty clear cut on it's beliefs:-



Now you can be nit picky and say "It just says lies" or "That only applies to men". We all know what it means. I'm not religious by any means, and I'm not not homophobic, but I just see that as being pretty straight forward. Adopting kids, civil partnership, whatever, just marridge itself was originally a religious thing, and I don't see why you must push to be allowed to marry if it is basically a meaningless title which has been created by people who don't condone you're sexuality.

Obviously not going to get the most amount of thanks in the world, but we're all cool with debates so someone reply to me if they disagree.

Great, so Christians don't have to let gays marry. That has nothing to do with civil marriage.

hypersquirrel

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing.

Marriage pre-dates all major world religions.

nozzferrahhtoo

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Now you can be nit picky and say "It just says lies" or "That only applies to men".

I think I would be more likely to point out that it does not say NOT to lie with men. It just says HOW not to lie with men while you are doing it. To me it just says that if you are going to lie with men.... which is perfectly ok.... then do not do so in a fashion as to treat the other man like a woman. Treat him like a man, for that is what he is. Sounds like common sense to me really.

Especially when you read it in the context of the lines around it. I heartily suggest you go read the whole thing that it is from. When the lines around it do not want you to do something they are pretty damn clear about not doing it. None of this "do not do it like that" stuff. They really outright say don't do it. If they did not want you to lie with men at all, it would have likely outright said do not lie with men.

In short: It would do you well to learn the difference between saying "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that". The latter is not a prohibition against X.

None of which is my problem of course as there is no reason on offer to my knowledge to take the pronouncements of that book seriously on any level other than as an interesting look back on human moral history from the bronze ages.

However while that may be somewhat tongue in cheek, on a more serious level I think I would be more cautious than you on simply categorizing marriage as a religion thing. It is clearly a lot more than that; to a lot of people.

coffee_cake

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing. I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is pretty clear cut on it's beliefs:-
.

It sure was. Several pages about mildew, and one line about gays.

ixoy

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing. I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is pretty clear cut on it's beliefs:-

If you're going to quote Leviticus on this then I assume you're going to support all of Leviticus? Grand then - no issues with slavery?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You can't pick and choose moral arguments from this book...

ConfusedGuy92

To respond quickly to a few posts that I just read there.

Marridge I believe was first created as a religious thing. It was probably pieced together from native and cultural customs.

When the bible was written, slavery was completley permitted. Martin Luther King was a religious guy I believe and he never challenged this. I never even said I believed that it is 'detestable', as I don't believe that slavery is okay, but there is no religious occurance coinciding with that.

Nozz, you are the person splitting hairs with the exact wording. It means that you don't have sex with a guy like you would have sex with a woman. It doesn't mean "Don't stick you're dick in his non existing vagina". It means that a man would sleep with a woman, and you shouldnt sleep with a man. Obviously thats what it means. Read the chapters before it. It's just a "dont have sex with ____" section.

Koth, as my 'whatever' stated, I don't know much about that stuff. But a marridge put into the enviroment of religion just seems to be trying to fight. It seems to me like you're in someones house, and you tell them to make you a cup of tea.

I'm not saying I support what the bible says, I just think that as the church is built from the bible, and marridge is a product of it, then putting something that is 'detestable' in that enviroment seems unnessisery.

coffee_cake

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Marridge I believe was first created as a religious thing. It was probably pieced together from native and cultural customs.

I just think that as the church is built from the bible, and marridge is a product of it, then putting something that is 'detestable' in that enviroment seems unnessisery.

It doesn't really matter a damn what you believe, because you're wrong

hypersquirrel

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

When the bible was written, slavery was completley permitted. Martin Luther King was a religious guy I believe and he never challenged this. I never even said I believed that it is 'detestable', as I don't believe that slavery is okay, but there is no religious occurance coinciding with that.

Slavery was permitted then and not now so it is fine for the Bible to support it.

Gay marriage is slowly being legalised across the western world but the Bible disapproves so it is not ok.

Am I missing something?

You dismiss one part of the Bible because society has progressed yet turn around and say that further progression should not be encouraged.

Marriage has rarely been a religious affair. In the early modern period people didn't get married in the eyes of the lord in a nice ceremony. They had sex and in the eyes of the community that was the marriage. A man could "marry" a woman by raping her, a rapist generally would get no punishment provided they remained with the woman afterwards. The history of marriage extends far beyond the remit of any religious belief.

Delirium

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Koth, as my 'whatever' stated, I don't know much about that stuff. But a marridge put into the enviroment of religion just seems to be trying to fight. It seems to me like you're in someones house, and you tell them to make you a cup of tea.

If we're to follow that analogy, then it's the church that is demanding the state make the tea.

The RCC are against allowing civil marriage, something that falls under the remit of the government.

People are calling on the government to allow for same-sex civil marriages. I'm not aware of anyone demanding that the RCC must also all for same-sex marriage.

nozzferrahhtoo

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Marridge I believe was first created as a religious thing.

That is why I would say "I would be more cautious than you on simply categorizing marriage as a religion thing" as conflating the origins of a thing with what the thing now IS will lead you to error.

But to correct you more directly the history of marriage and the varying institutions around it pre-date any recorded history and what recorded history we do have shows many samples of where it was nothing to do with religion. Greece would be an interesting place for you to start your reading there.

So I would not be so quick therefore to brush it off as having religious origins. Many things that are religious now are things that were once important to people anyway and religion became associated with it directly, or indirectly, in order to benefit by proxy.

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Nozz, you are the person splitting hairs with the exact wording.

Clearly you decided to willfully ignore the part of my post where I mentioned how I was being tongue in cheek. I suggest a more careful read of peoples posts before you... how did you put it.... "respond quickly".

However as I pointed out there is a massive difference between saying "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that". Massive, much bigger than simply linguistic hair splitting. The two sentences have distinctly different meanings. Especially in a context of other lines which specifically do say "Do not do X" a lot which you will find if you read it. For example when a new soccer player is told "Do not touch the ball with your hands" he does not refrain from touching the ball at all! Football players... not all of which are that clever mentally.... can even tell the difference between "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that".

Oh and by the way.... (I do not usually correct spelling errors unless they are consistent).... it is "marriage" not "marridge". If you are going to pretend to know the history and origins of it... people might be more likely to fall for that and believe you if you can spell it.

ConfusedGuy92

Blue Wolf, I was just in belief that you were a swell guy aswell . Stfu and stop getting mad pussio.

If the anti-slave day was asked to be hosted inside a church, then it would be an issue. People being gay is fine. There is no issue there, just like slavery being abolished isn't an issue. It's the wanting to host the love inside a church which becomes the issue (although you get those funamentalists who just fight against the sexuality regardless, which is wrong).

Koth, I don't think marridge is actually a 'legal government' thing like people call it to get it on their side. I think it was once a religious thing, which was forced to become a legal binding relashionship, and now they are trying to cut out the original religious thing all together, and that's where I can understand them disagreeing with it (although a former nazi is just doing it out of crazy nazi-ist-ness.)

ConfusedGuy92

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is why I would say "I would be more cautious than you on simply categorizing marriage as a religion thing" as conflating the origins of a thing with what the thing now IS will lead you to error.

But to correct you more directly the history of marriage and the varying institutions around it pre-date any recorded history and what recorded history we do have shows many samples of where it was nothing to do with religion. Greece would be an interesting place for you to start your reading there.

So I would not be so quick therefore to brush it off as having religious origins. Many things that are religious now are things that were once important to people anyway and religion became associated with it directly, or indirectly, in order to benefit by proxy.



Clearly you decided to willfully ignore the part of my post where I mentioned how I was being tongue in cheek. I suggest a more careful read of peoples posts before you... how did you put it.... "respond quickly".

However as I pointed out there is a massive difference between saying "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that". Massive, much bigger than simply linguistic hair splitting. The two sentences have distinctly different meanings. Especially in a context of other lines which specifically do say "Do not do X" a lot which you will find if you read it. For example when a new soccer player is told "Do not touch the ball with your hands" he does not refrain from touching the ball at all! Football players... not all of which are that clever mentally.... can even tell the difference between "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that".

Oh and by the way.... (I do not usually correct spelling errors unless they are consistent).... it is "marriage" not "marridge". If you are going to pretend to know the history and origins of it... people might be more likely to fall for that and believe you if you can spell it.

In you're soccer analogy, then it would be "Do not touch the ball with your hands like you would in rugby". Make sense when you clear it up yeah?

And I don't care for spelling, and 'pretend to know the history'? Of course I don't know the history of something which has evolved since we lived in caves. And Greece is your example? Talk about biast. That place was more gay than dolphins.

coffee_cake

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Blue Wolf, I was just in belief that you were a swell guy aswell .

I'm not even a guy. You just keep being so wrong

btw i think "stfu" is someone who sounds mad, not me

and 'pretend to know the history'? Of course I don't know the history of something which has evolved since we lived in caves.

so you agree marriage has been around that long then
and we know christianity has not
so, marriage does not come from christianity
can we stop that nonsense now

ConfusedGuy92

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not even a guy. You just keep being so wrong

btw i think "stfu" is someone who sounds mad, not me


so you agree marriage has been around that long then
and we know christianity has not
so, marriage does not come from christianity
can we stop that nonsense now

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you posted several pictures of yourself and said several times that you were a woman. I hate being wrong like that.

Also, no one is convinced that by adding a nice little happy smiley face, that you are indeed nice and happy. Anyways, as I said, if you prefer to say "No one cares what you think" instead of having an intelectual debate about things, go bleed from your vagina elsewhere as the men have a conversation.

Also, I don't know if you are married, but if you were who was standing in front of you? Chances are, it was a priest/minister/rabbi etc. Those are the people that are against it, not me. If I was against it, I wouldnt be letting gays get married in my house, and I'm sure they share that sentiment.

hooradiation

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Blue Wolf, I was just in belief that you were a swell guy aswell . Stfu and stop getting mad pussio.

If the anti-slave day was asked to be hosted inside a church, then it would be an issue. People being gay is fine. There is no issue there, just like slavery being abolished isn't an issue. It's the wanting to host the love inside a church which becomes the issue (although you get those funamentalists who just fight against the sexuality regardless, which is wrong).

Koth, I don't think marridge is actually a 'legal government' thing like people call it to get it on their side. I think it was once a religious thing, which was forced to become a legal binding relashionship, and now they are trying to cut out the original religious thing all together, and that's where I can understand them disagreeing with it (although a former nazi is just doing it out of crazy nazi-ist-ness.)

Marriage is, and always has been, a civil issue. You're confusing it with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

It's a common mistake.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

ixoy

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

It's the wanting to host the love inside a church which becomes the issue (although you get those funamentalists who just fight against the sexuality regardless, which is wrong).

No. I've no desire to get married in a church - why would I? I've a desire to get married. Marriage doesn't have to be done in a Church.

I think it was once a religious thing, which was forced to become a legal binding relashionship, and now they are trying to cut out the original religious thing all together,

You can still have the religious sacrament of marriage - nobody has issues with that. The issue is with the church interfering with the state side of that in terms of legal rights, protections, benefits, etc. That's not how it should be.

Logical Fallacy

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Koth, as my 'whatever' stated, I don't know much about that stuff. But a marridge put into the enviroment of religion just seems to be trying to fight. It seems to me like you're in someones house, and you tell them to make you a cup of tea.

I'm not saying I support what the bible says, I just think that as the church is built from the bible, and marridge is a product of it, then putting something that is 'detestable' in that enviroment seems unnessisery.

I still don't see how that is relevant to civil marriages.

Supporting gay marriage does not mean you wish to force religions to partake in such.

Bannasidhe

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Blue Wolf, I was just in belief that you were a swell guy aswell . Stfu and stop getting mad pussio.

Well Bluewolf - that's you put back in your box and no mistake .

Now, be a swell gal, do as the man says - STFU and stop getting mad dickio. :rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

It's the wanting to host the love inside a church which becomes the issue (although you get those funamentalists who just fight against the sexuality regardless, which is wrong).

The gays are fighting for state recognition, not religious, whether the ceremony takes place in a church or otherwise is irrelevant.

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I think it was once a religious thing,

This is simply false, and can be demonstrated to be false. Even the first line of Wikipedia

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

The article goes on to say that it predates recorded history.

ConfusedGuy92

hooradiation wrote: »

Marriage is, and always has been, a civil issue. You're confusing it with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

It's a common mistake.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

Yeah maybe that's where I'm going. I just consider marriage to be a religious thing first, and I guess that when people want to get married against the religious beliefs, it seems like an oxymoron to me.

44leto

Marriage was always a societal sanctioned thing, it was alway the state regulated marriage. Before the separation of church and state with the rise of secularism, the church was very much part of the state and the regulated marriage according to "God or Gods law".

Our secular societies just carried on regulating marriage the way the church did, but the church still had influence. But now the church has little influence. The problem is our constitution which was written by dev and his cohorts and sanctioned by the church.

I don't understand why people would be against gay marriage, If they feel that strongly about it, don't enter a gay marriage.