The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Doc Farrell

seminarian wrote: »

i am not a seminarian, its just a username,

ar u a doc?

Yes, I am a retired doctor of poker.
I trust you can understand my confusion when you speak on a religious subject from a position that is likely to cause offence and call yourself seminarian. It would be like someone calling themselves rabbi on a Jewish forum. However, if you don't think it offensive then there's not much to be done about it. Good luck with that.

Turtwig

Mod: May I remind folks this thread is about LGBT issues. NOT about a poster's username. Or the their personal life. So less queries about usernames and more discussion about thread related material.

Dubbug

Attempting to airbrush the sin of Sodom out of the statute books is a recipe for social self-destruction. The Muslims must be looking at the decadent West and chuckling away to themselves.

pauldla

Dubbug wrote: »

Attempting to airbrush the sin of Sodom out of the statute books is a recipe for social self-destruction. The Muslims must be looking at the decadent West and chuckling away to themselves.

The 'sin of Sodom' has been off the statute books for a number of years now, and society still manages to trundle on. How can this possibly be explained?

Dubbug

pauldla wrote: »

The 'sin of Sodom' has been off the statute books for a number of years now, and society still manages to trundle on. How can this possibly be explained?

What about the marriages that have been destroyed and childrens lives that have been ruined due to acting on homosexual urges?

Brush these realities under the carpet eh?

The number of divorces and children visiting daddy at weekends has skyrocketed. This is all due to 1960s feminist ideology.

Well, I can tell you that 1960s feminist Utopian ideals are now bearing deformed fruit and people are cottoning on to the nihilistic consequences of a Godless society.

Turtwig

Those hussies!

pauldla

Dubbug wrote: »

What about the marriages that have been destroyed and childrens lives that have been ruined due to acting on homosexual urges?

Brush these realities under the carpet eh?

The number of divorces and children visiting daddy at weekends has skyrocketed. This is all due to 1960s feminist ideology.

Well, I can tell you that 1960s feminist Utopian ideals are now bearing bad fruit and people are cottoning on to the nihilistic consequences of a Godless society.

I must admit myself swayed by the cogency of your argument. Back to the other forum to me, to lick my wounds and mutter dark words.

gaynorvader

Dubbug wrote: »

What about the marriages that have been destroyed and childrens lives that have been ruined due to acting on homosexual urges?

Brush these realities under the carpet eh?

The number of divorces and children visiting daddy at weekends has skyrocketed. This is all due to 1960s feminist ideology.

Well, I can tell you that 1960s feminist Utopian ideals are now bearing deformed fruit and people are cottoning on to the nihilistic consequences of a Godless society.

What about the marriages that have been enhanced and children's lives that have been bettered due to acting on homosexual urges?

Brush these realities under the rug, eh?

The number of divorces and children visiting daddy at weekends has skyrocketed. This is all due to 1990s hip hop.

Well, I can tell you that 1990s hip hop Utopian ideals are now bearing deformed fruit and people are cottoning on to the nihilistic consequences of a musicless society.

This is fun!

Turtwig

gaynorvader wrote: »

What about the marriages that have been enhanced and children's lives that have been bettered due to acting on homosexual urges?

Brush these realities under the rug, eh?

The number of divorces and children visiting daddy at weekends has skyrocketed. This is all due to 1990s hip hop.

Well, I can tell you that 1990s hip hop Utopian ideals are now bearing deformed fruit and people are cottoning on to the nihilistic consequences of a musicless society.

This is fun!

Our thespian sodomical session has been cancelled. Please do not expect a reply. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

KeanoIsALegend

As a catholic I can see no obstacle to granting Gays full civil marriage rights. For one thing it will shut them up bleating about it.

But I draw the line at any attempt to force any Church to host such a ceremony...

PopePalpatine

Very few on the pro-marriage equality side advocate forcing churches to host same-sex marriages.

KeanoIsALegend

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Very few on the pro-marriage equality side advocate forcing churches to host same-sex marriages.

But some do and that's a line that will not be crossed.

marienbad

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

But some do and that's a line that will not be crossed.

How many ? two ? Three ? This is just another red herring argument that has no basis in reality.

KeanoIsALegend

marienbad wrote: »

How many ? two ? Three ? This is just another red herring argument that has no basis in reality.

Have no doubt, liberal extremists will agitate for Gay marriage ceremonies in Churches.Ii'm merely drawing the line beyond which the Gay marriage train will not pass...:)

NuMarvel

If there is any campaign to let gay couples marry in the Catholic Church, it will be internal to the organisation. There's no legal requirement for the Church to marry anyone at all (in Ireland anyway), so they're free to pick and choose as they see fit. That won't change when the ban on same sex marriage is removed.

If the Church were to change their rules on marriage, I think they'd first allow divorced people to remarry. And I don't think that's coming anytime soon either.

marienbad

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

Have no doubt, liberal extremists will agitate for Gay marriage ceremonies in Churches.Ii'm merely drawing the line beyond which the Gay marriage train will not pass...:)

Talk about missing the wood for the trees

KeanoIsALegend

marienbad wrote: »

Talk about missing the wood for the trees

I'm crystal clear on this. They can have their civil marriage, just don't agitate to force Churches to host such ceremonies...

_Redzer_

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

I'm crystal clear on this. They can have their civil marriage, just don't agitate to force Churches to host such ceremonies...

That's completely reasonable. Their house their rules, like!

Now, it's another deal for the religious to keep their noses out of civil same-sex marriages which has fuck all to do with them.

If churches don't want gay marriages in their church that's fine, they have that right, but fair is fair and they can't vote against something like civil same-sex marriage that has nothing to do with them either if it's not in their church.

KeanoIsALegend

_Redzer_ wrote: »

That's completely reasonable. Their house their rules, like!

Now, it's another deal for the religious to keep their noses out of civil same-sex marriages which has fuck all to do with them.

If churches don't want gay marriages in their church that's fine, they have that right, but fair is fair and they can't vote against something like civil same-sex marriage that has nothing to do with them either if it's not in their church.

So people who disagree with your Utopian vision shouldn't vote in opposition..?

Nice. A brief glimpse at life in a Liberal wonderland...

_Redzer_

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

So people who disagree with your Utopian vision shouldn't vote in opposition..?

Nice. A brief glimpse at life in a Liberal wonderland...

So you want it both ways. Gay people aren't allowed to marry in a church and people have the right to vote against their marriage in any circumstance, even if it's not religiously based like a civil marriage. Why should that be?

It's not a liberal wonderland. It's voting on people's rights, it's a ridiculous concept akin to 'letting' black people or women vote, or 'letting' interracial marriages to exist.

KeanoIsALegend

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So you want it both ways. Gay people aren't allowed to marry in a church and people have the right to vote against their marriage in any circumstance, even if it's not religiously based like a civil marriage. Why should that be?

It's not a liberal wonderland. It's voting on people's rights, it's a ridiculous concept akin to 'letting' black people or women vote, or 'letting' interracial marriages to exist.

I'm all for Gays being allowed marry as I am all for peoples' right to vote for or against it in a referendum.

Gas. I'm made to look more liberal than the actual 'liberal'...:D

jill_valentine

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

I'm all for Gays being allowed marry as I am all for peoples' right to vote for or against it in a referendum.

Gas. I'm made to look more liberal than the actual 'liberal'...:D

Do you understand his post? I don't think you do, maybe give it another read.

KeanoIsALegend

jill_valentine wrote: »

Do you understand his post?

yep..:)

_Redzer_

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

I'm all for Gays being allowed marry as I am all for peoples' right to vote for or against it in a referendum.

Gas. I'm made to look more liberal than the actual 'liberal'...:D

I don't refer to myself as 'liberal', but why is that some derogatory term now? I'm more left-centre on the social side of things, tell me, is it better to be a conservative over a 'liberal'?
Sounds childish

KeanoIsALegend

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I don't refer to myself as 'liberal', but why is that some derogatory term now? I'm more left-centre on the social side of things, tell me, is it better to be a conservative over a 'liberal'?
Sounds childish

A apologise if the Liberal tag offends you.

I rate myself a Conservative on social issues but Socialist on economic matters. Go figure that one out...:D

StudentDad

To my mind the religious viewpoint on marriage no matter what the denomination is irrelevant in terms of the States definition of marriage.

As it stands, for the state to discriminate against any group in society on gender or grounds of sexual orientation is wrong. Marriage is marriage and should be recognised as such. Whether the couple involved is heterosexual or homosexual or lesbian is irrelevant. Marriage is a fundamental aspect of life and should be supported and recognised by the state.

Those individuals who choose to have a religious ceremony after they have been legally married is entirely their choice but it has no bearing whatsoever on the status of their marriage.

The sooner we have an absolute separation of church and state the better.

SD

tommy2bad

KeanoIsALegend wrote: »

I'm all for Gays being allowed marry as I am all for peoples' right to vote for or against it in a referendum.

Gas. I'm made to look more liberal than the actual 'liberal'...:D

Myself. I against people having the right to vote someones rights. Should we have voted for or against slavery?

StudentDad

tommy2bad wrote: »

Myself. I against people having the right to vote someones rights. Should we have voted for or against slavery?

Ah yes but if some genius hadn't defined marriage in such narrow terms and stuck it in the constitution ... we wouldn't have to vote on it!

SD

MrPudding

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah yes but if some genius hadn't defined marriage in such narrow terms and stuck it in the constitution ... we wouldn't have to vote on it!

SD

Not trying to defend whoever that might have been, but it is possible that the idea that marriage might be other than between a man and woman probably simply didn't occur to them.

MrP

tommy2bad

MrPudding wrote: »

Not trying to defend whoever that might have been, but it is possible that the idea that marriage might be other than between a man and woman probably simply didn't occur to them.

MrP

As I understand it marriage is not defined as between a man and woman.
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
It's been interpreted and assumed to mean but doesn't actually state any such definition.