Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

Enough about catholic priests already, this thread is about gay marriage!

SNAP!!!

New A&A Game - yipee!!!

Dades

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My flamboyant hetro sister enjoys it so much she did it twice.

Yes, but it was natural both times. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Yes, but it was natural both times. :pac:

Apparently not as the RCC officially annulled her first marriage....


Mind, she did have to move to the 'other' jurisdiction so HM Govt could do the legal part of taking asunder what we originally thought God had joined together but it turned out we were mistaken.

For her second marraige she also had to go 'over there' to do the legal bit as the Irish government was insisting she was still married, the RCC said she had never really been married and the registrar in Glasgow said 'sign here, here, and initial here. That will be £50 please.'

Flamboyant and expensive parties were held on both occasions.

Dades

Well the important thing is that the institution of marriage wasn't "cheapened".

IT-Guy

Dades wrote: »

Well the important thing is that the institution of marriage wasn't "cheapened".

I have to wonder if the same 'cheapens' argument was used in the divorce referendum? Because if it was then it would surely make a mockery of that argument?

Undergod

seamus wrote: »

I have an issue specifically with "disestablishing" marriage and having the state switch to "Civil Partnerships". And the issue is the loading of the word "Marriage". You remove the word "marriage" from state documentation, and religious groups will instantly claim the higher ground because they have the only places you can get "married".

****in let 'em, would be my opinion. If people feel the need to go to religion for that emotional validation, that's their business.

seamus wrote: »

It's only a word, but it has a lot of sentimental meaning for people. If you say there's no longer such thing as "marriage" in law, then a lot of people will feel like their state ceremony has been somehow cheapened or lessened.

That's fair enough, but I don't see what it has to do with the state. People in non-sexual or non-romantic relationships who live and spend their lives together for whatever reason should be able to get arrangements together too.

seamus wrote: »

I would be inclined to establish the word more firmly in law to clarify that you may only used "marriage" to describe a cermony/partnership which includes the legal contract.

Again, for the reasons I expressed above, I'd disagree with that. I'd agree with you in principle, were it not for non-romantic couples.

I can see how that would be contentious though; I'd probably support a motion to introduce what you suggest, on the basis of picking your battles and stepping in the right direction.


Relevant:

OldNotWIse

joseph brand wrote: »

Once the stigma is removed, it will improve the lives of a great many people. Good people. There are parents out there who cut all ties with their gay offspring. The church does nothing to mend these wounds. In fact, in a great many cases, it's because of the church's teachings that the family unit is broken.

Only ignorant people have a fear of 'The Gheys'. Do they think that because gay marriage is introduced, people will turn gay? All us men will go online and order the 'Will and Grace' boxset along with some fabulous, new cushion covers.

As one christian pastor so eloquently put it:
"The Bible's Agin It, God's Agin It, I'm Agin It, Too!"
My seven year old has a better grasp of the English language.

He also says: "I was disappointed bad". <

---

WTF is this?

I've also heard that only closeted people fear the "gays" lol

As for family, my partners parents are typical god freaks who care way too much about what their kids do between the sheets, and completely victimised two of their offspring for being gay - and then I have to watch the mother crying and wailing as she cant understand why her son doesnt call and her daughters live far away - does she not realise that she pushed them away?

Undergod

IT-Guy wrote: »

I have to wonder if the same 'cheapens' argument was used in the divorce referendum? Because if it was then it would surely make a mockery of that argument?

It may have been, but I don't think this is a strong argument.

aidan24326

Dades wrote: »

Of course it will come in - eventually.

And a couple of generations from now will look back and wonder why it was ever an issue and why catholic Grandpa and Grandma are a bit quiet about their role in the whole thing.

Thing is in a couple of generations there won't be very many catholic grandmas and grandpas around.


The legalization of gay marriage will happen here sooner or later so why not stop the pussyfooting around and just deal with it now? And lol at Ratzinger saying it's a threat to the future of humanity. Every time he opens his mouth these days he just sounds increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

It's actually quite sinister and a bit disturbing how they continue to be so fixated on the evils of homosexuality (and more than a bit ironic in an organisation that has long been a gay man's club).

Actor

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I've also heard that only closeted people fear the "gays" lol

Gay if you like men, gay if you don't like men... Phucked either way...

coffee_cake

Actor wrote: »

Gay if you like men, gay if you don't like men... Phucked either way...

that's the spirit!

Actor

robindch wrote: »

Please withdraw that remark. Not only is it demonstrably false, but you know quite well that there are a number of homosexuals taking part in this thread.

Separately, your points of view are so cliché'd, and your avoidance of just about every question you've been asked is so obvious, that it's starting to seem likely that you're just another troll.

Can you please (a) apologize and (b) start answering the questions you've been asked, and then perhaps the forum can enjoy a debate about this topic.

You're easily offended by people saying "bad things" on the internet.

The Christian position is this: both homosexuality and paedophilia are both wrong. For well-documented reasons. Now sodomy isn't as nearly bad as paedophilia (and masturbation isn't as sinful as sodomy), but they're all on the wrong side of the spectrum of sexual evils.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

You're easily offended by people saying "bad things" on the internet.

The Christian position is this: both homosexuality and paedophilia are both wrong. For well-documented reasons. Now sodomy isn't as nearly bad as paedophilia (and masturbation isn't as sinful as sodomy), but they're all on the wrong side of the spectrum of sexual evils.

I hope you've never worn linen and wool at the same time. A dangerous thing to do, it is. But I guess since you categorically define such things as homosexuality and sodomy as bad based soley on the teachings of the Bible, you wouldn't do something as evil as wear linen and wool together.

Actor

gvn wrote: »

I hope you've never worn linen and wool at the same time. A dangerous thing to do, it is. But I guess since you categorically define such things as homosexuality and sodomy as bad based soley on the teachings of the Bible, you wouldn't do something as evil as wear linen and wool together.

You do know what Sacred Tradition is, don't you? Sacred Scripture is one aspect of our understanding on the morality of homosexual behaviour. And besides, there are many references to homosexuality in the New Testament.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

You do know what Sacred Tradition is, don't you? Sacred Scripture is one aspect of our understanding on the morality of homosexual behaviour. And besides, there are many references to homosexuality in the New Testament.

Yes, I do.

Now, a serious question:

Are your objections to sodomy based exclusively on your religion, and what the Bible and your Church says? Or have you other, personal objections? If so, what are they?

Helix

Actor wrote: »

You do know what Sacred Tradition is, don't you? Sacred Scripture is one aspect of our understanding on the morality of homosexual behaviour. And besides, there are many references to homosexuality in the New Testament.

so you live your life exclusively by what's said in the bible? or do you pick and choose what bits you like and discard the rest?

genuine question, not an inflammatory one. i just find it weird that so many bible entries are trotted out about certain things, but when some of the most, shall we say, strange ones are used in rebuttal, they're complete disregarded

for example:

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 18:5-6
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.....

i assume that, given your strict adherence and belief of what's in the bible is exactly how it should be, that you actively avoid women who are menstruating? coz they're unclean like

IT-Guy

Actor wrote: »

Gay if you like men, gay if you don't like men... Phucked either way...

Ah you're back! Care to expound your view that sodomy is bad for society?

The Mad Hatter

IT-Guy wrote: »

Ah you're back! Care to expound your view that sodomy is bad for society?

Actor is demonstrating the power of belief. He believes that that question hasn't been asked.

ShooterSF

Actor wrote: »

You're easily offended by people saying "bad things" on the internet.

The Christian position is this: both homosexuality and paedophilia are both wrong. For well-documented reasons. Now sodomy isn't as nearly bad as paedophilia (and masturbation isn't as sinful as sodomy), but they're all on the wrong side of the spectrum of sexual evils.

So if I masturbated while watching a man sodomise a paedophile that would be like Armageddon?

Tell me, what's on the right side of "the spectrum of sexual evils"?

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

You do know what Sacred Tradition is, don't you? Sacred Scripture is one aspect of our understanding on the morality of homosexual behaviour. And besides, there are many references to homosexuality in the New Testament.

Four and theres none in any of the Gospels apparently.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

Zillah

Poster: I don't have anything against gay people but I think they should be treated differently and denied rights because of Reason A.
Us: *disproves reason A*
Poster: Reason B is why gay people should be discriminated against.
Us: *disproves reason B*
Poster: Reason C is why gay people should be discriminated against.
Us: *disproves reason C*
Poster: Gay people are weird deviants and I hate them.

Actor

Helix wrote: »

so you live your life exclusively by what's said in the bible? or do you pick and choose what bits you like and discard the rest?

genuine question, not an inflammatory one. i just find it weird that so many bible entries are trotted out about certain things, but when some of the most, shall we say, strange ones are used in rebuttal, they're complete disregarded

for example:

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 18:5-6
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.....

i assume that, given your strict adherence and belief of what's in the bible is exactly how it should be, that you actively avoid women who are menstruating? coz they're unclean like

You're really clutching at straws there when you have to quote Leviticus.

jill_valentine

Yeah, that's what we keep saying.

jill_valentine

Still, can we get that ruling on sodomy yet, Actor? It's... urgent.

Actor

jill_valentine wrote: »

Still, can we get that ruling on sodomy yet, Actor? It's... urgent.

Sodomy is, quite frankly, disgusting. I'd sooner put my micky in a blender than have my sexual organ covered in faeces. Sodomy is the essence of my point against gay "marriage". There are also biblical references to the behaviour, but seeing as this is the atheist forum; we're not allowed to discuss them...

And "oh, but heterosexuals do it too" is not an explanation for the behaviour.

Sierra 117

Actor wrote: »

You're really clutching at straws there when you have to quote Leviticus.

You've done nothing but clutch at straws.

The Mad Hatter

Actor wrote: »

Sodomy is, quite frankly, disgusting. I'd sooner put my micky in a blender than have my sexual organ covered in faeces. Sodomy is the essence of my point against gay "marriage". There are also biblical references to the behaviour, but seeing as this is the atheist forum; we're not allowed to discuss them...

You can discuss 'em all you want, but that doesn't make them good arguments.

Nor is "I think it's disgusting," fwiw.

Sticking your mickey in a blender wouldn't be damaging to society either btw. It might even be beneficial.

Helix

Actor wrote: »

You're really clutching at straws there when you have to quote Leviticus.

so you're discounting bits of the bible happily, while sticking firmly to others?

why?

NuMarvel

Zillah wrote: »

Poster: I don't have anything against gay people but I think they should be treated differently and denied rights because of Reason A.
Us: *disproves reason A*
Poster: Reason B is why gay people should be discriminated against.
Us: *disproves reason B*
Poster: Reason C is why gay people should be discriminated against.
Us: *disproves reason C*
Poster: Gay people are weird deviants and I hate them.

Us: *Uncovers poster's penchant for masturbating with Kermit the Frog hand puppets.*

Helix

Actor wrote: »

Sodomy is, quite frankly, disgusting. I'd sooner put my micky in a blender than have my sexual organ covered in faeces

you need to do some research on basic human biology. the only time there's faeces in the rectum is when you need to poop. otherwise there's none there, it's in the lower intestines