Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…1516182021…218

Comments

  • #512
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Can you provide me with a statement that every single person agrees with?

    "You need oxygen to live."


  • #513
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    "You need oxygen to live."
    Good point. But.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading


  • #514
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Good point. But.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

    There's also "You can't commit suicide by holding your breath", "It's humanly impossible to swim across the Pacific ocean without resting."

    Bann is right in her statements. It's off when someone says "As a Christian..." because it's a nonsense statement. You can't claim everything comes down to Christian opinion, because not all of Christianity agrees on everything, including homosexuality.

    The accurate statement would be more along the lines "In my opinion or understanding, homosexuality is just fine/wrong in Christianity."


  • #515
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That may well be. But it does not address the point of my post. If some people out there want to imbue a certain word with a certain meaning then that is just fine. But it shouldn't come as a shock people who don't agree with this other meaning object. I'd be making the same point if we talked about any other word.

    words evolve and change their meaning all the time fanny -it is no big deal. A classic example is the word ''gay''. What do you think it means to most people now ?

    Do you think the lyrics of Deck the halls with Boughs of holly and the line ''don we now our gay apparel'' mean the same thing then as now ?
    I see some schools in the USA have changed the line as the kids could'nt stop giggling.

    Are ye so afraid the the word marriage will go the same way as the word gay:)

    I don't think so - religion is more robust that that. The real issue is that churches don't want gays getting their hands on kids and this is the natural consequence of recognising gay marriage.

    So much for ''what is best for the kids'' mantra- most of those that oppose gay marriage ,if they were given the choice of letting a kid be adopted by a gay couple or rot in an foster home/institution would choose the institution.


  • #516
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    There's also "You can't commit suicide by holding your breath", "It's humanly impossible to swim across the Pacific ocean without resting."

    All very well and good until you meet a solipsist or a person who thinks we are all simulations existing inside a supercomputer. But these are trivial examples, no? It might well be that we can find some statement that we think all people will accept. Though actually testing this is another matter.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Bann is right in her statements. It's off when someone says "As a Christian..." because it's a nonsense statement. You can't claim everything comes down to Christian opinion, because not all of Christianity agrees on everything, including homosexuality.

    The accurate statement would be more along the lines "In my opinion or understanding, homosexuality is just fine/wrong in Christianity."

    I don't think that is fair. We aren't supposing to speak for every Christian that has ever existed. The statement "Newcastle supporters are loyal supporters" doesn't speak for all Newcastle fans and it doesn't pretend to.

    It might be slightly different in terms of what Christianity says about marriage because we can appeal to Scripture and what traditions have upheld throughout the ages. Now you don't have to believe any of this stuff to understand why people have a particular definition marriage. That you can find a particular denomination who might hold a heterodox view of marriage doesn't then make the orthodox view inadmissible.

    I don't understand the argument that says "because every single (not my emphasis) one of you doesn't agree on the same thing that means something".


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Bann is right in her statements. It's off when someone says "As a Christian..." because it's a nonsense statement. You can't claim everything comes down to Christian opinion, because not all of Christianity agrees on everything, including homosexuality.

    So, I'll ask you the question that others won't answer: When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?


  • #518
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    words evolve and change their meaning all the time fanny -it is no big deal. A classic example is the word ''gay''. What do you think it means to most people now ?

    I think you should read what I've said before.

    I don't object to gay unions being called marriages. OK?

    What I have said is that I understand exactly why people who think that marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman might have difficulty accept this other definition.

    That is all I've said.


  • #519
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    So, I'll ask you the question that others won't answer: When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?

    I don't recall saying that, what I did say is that it's an incredibly wide scoping statement to make.

    Another example is "As a Christian, I believe the Lord made the world in 7 days and the Earth is 6,000 years old" is a terrible statement, because quite simply, not all of Christianity believes this to be true, a proper statement to be accurate would be more like "My belief of Christianity is that the Lord made the world in 7 days and the Earth is 6,000 years old."

    Do you wish to argue more semantics, or will you just accept that not all Christians think and believe the same way?


  • #520
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    PDN wrote: »
    As for atheists, don't get me started! In this Forum we've had atheists give many different definitions. Apparently, you can believe in spirits and 'life-forces' but still be an atheist if you don't believe in the Christian God!

    Christianity is quite simple : Either you believe Jesus, The Son of God, died on the cross for all humanity or you do not.

    Theism is more complex and atheism is even more complicated again (partly because it's a stupid term.). But, anyway, that's not the issue here, the issue here is that what defines whether a person is a Christian and that is a ridiculously simple concept.


  • #521
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Do you wish to argue more semantics, or will you just accept that not all Christians think and believe the same way?

    This is truly bizarre. I've never claimed otherwise. It was another poster who ia making an issue out of this. :confused:

    I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, "As an X I believe ...." where one's identity as an X has been a factor in shaping one's beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    IT-Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 514 ✭✭✭IT-Guy


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That may well be. But it does not address the point of my post. If some people out there want to imbue a certain word with a certain meaning then that is just fine. But it shouldn't come as a shock people who don't agree with this other meaning object. I'd be making the same point if we talked about any other word.

    In general I would have no problem with a semantics-based objection even if I do find it a waste of time as the meaning of words evolves as a society does. Change is the only constant in the universe and all that :) However, given the forum we're in and the fact that most objections to gay marriage here have their roots in religious teaching, I believe that arguing the semantics of marriage is just a masked attempt by homophobes at distancing themselves from the LGBT community. I don't get the objection to broadening the term 'marriage' to include same-sex couples or any form of consenting adult relationship for that matter, anything else is seeking to create an unnecessary arbitrary distinction between groups of married people.


  • #523
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    IT-Guy wrote: »
    However, given the forum we're in and the fact that most objections to gay marriage here have their roots in religious teaching, I believe that arguing the semantics of marriage is just a masked attempt by homophobes at distancing themselves from the LGBT community.

    That is an offensive slur without a shred of evidence to support it.


  • #524
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    IT-Guy wrote: »
    In general I would have no problem with a semantics-based objection even if I do find it a waste of time as the meaning of words evolves as a society does. Change is the only constant in the universe and all that :) However, given the forum we're in and the fact that most objections to gay marriage here have their roots in religious teaching, I believe that arguing the semantics of marriage is just a masked attempt by homophobes at distancing themselves from the LGBT community. I don't get the objection to broadening the term 'marriage' to include same-sex couples or any form of consenting adult relationship for that matter, anything else is seeking to create an unnecessary arbitrary distinction between groups of married people.

    Your thought that "any form of consenting adult relationship" is a marriage needs a little more work. Because such a bizarre definition means that every relationship I've ever been in is apparently a marriage.

    But this aside, I shudder at the implication that anyone who dares think differently to you, even if it's over the definition of a word or an institution, is a secret homophobe with some underhanded agenda against the LGBT community. By using such emotive trigger-words you are shutting down any chance of reasoned conversation with people who might otherwise be supportive of gay unions/ marriage.

    You have accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you on this matter - apparently every single one of them - of something you have no evidence for. And why? Because they differ with you! If you are worried about such people becoming distanced from the LGBT community then I suggest you aren't helping. In fact, you have gone about it arseways, IT Guy. No pun intended.


  • #525
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    The thread is about homosexuality and Christianity. And in the first page there is a post which, without mentioning marriage at all, says "Let's remember the Bible in this discussion". It then goes on to draw a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality as an orientation, which would rather indicate that marriage is not being referred to, wouldn't it?

    Based on that one post, it's possible that the poster only objects to homosexual acts, and has no objection to civil marriage rights being extended to same sex couples. It's highly improbable, but it is certainly possible.

    However, grrgprgua's later posts make it clear that that is not the case: here and here. Snappy Smurf agrees here. Philogos also states this belief here.

    There may be other posts, but I thought examples from the first 5 pages would be enough to show that there have been Christians in this thread that stated they believe that civil marriage should not be extended to same sex couples because of the Bible's teachings.

    Snappy, Philogos, and grrgprgua: If you feel I have misunderstood or misrepresented their comments, I am happy to be corrected. In case you're wondering, this is the post that kicked off this particular conversation.

    All that said, I'm at a loss to understand why I needed to provide these examples. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that some Christians wish to deny same sex civil marriage rights because of the Bible's teachings. Even if nobody had previously made that assertion in this thread, it was still right to ask my question, as it relates to homosexuality in a Christian context, and this is the only thread on the Christian forum in which that topic can be discussed.


  • #526
    IT-Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 514 ✭✭✭IT-Guy


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Your thought that "any form of consenting adult relationship" is a marriage needs a little more work. Because such a bizarre definition means that every relationship I've ever been in is apparently a marriage.

    But this aside, I shudder at the implication that anyone who dares think differently to you, even if it's over the definition of a word or an institution, is a secret homophobe with some underhanded agenda against the LGBT community. By using such emotive trigger-words you are shutting down any chance of reasoned conversation with people who might otherwise be supportive of gay unions/ marriage.

    You have accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you on this matter - apparently every single one of them - of something you have no evidence for. And why? Because they differ with you! If you are worried about such people becoming distanced from the LGBT community then I suggest you aren't helping. In fact, you have gone about it arseways, IT Guy. No pun intended.

    Apologies for the lack of clarification on "consenting adult relationship", it would imply I've been married several times myself! Should have read "any consenting adult couples".

    I stand by my other remarks, those I know who support gay marriage do so unequivocally, without reserve and generally accepting that gay marriage will have no negative impact on society. However when I read that certain posters here would like to distinguish heterosexual marriage from gay marriage I was intrigued as I don't see why it's necessary? When it came down to an issue of semantics I thought it the most petty reason for any distinction to be made. As I've said in a previous post, I do find it disgusting that any distinction be made between groups of married people based solely on their sexuality, as long as they're happy that's all that counts. I cannot see how a semantics based reason for this distinction looks any different to a homophobic based reason. If some find that an offensive slur then so be it but it's illogical to be tolerant of intolerance.

    Shudder away m'dear, I haven't accused anyone who doesn't agree with me of being a homophobe, just those who would advocate using a word other than marriage to describe their marriage simply because it now encompasses same sex marriage or marriages between any consenting adults. Do we have a different term for marriage between any other groups?


  • #527
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Can you provide me with a statement that every single person agrees with?

    Taxes are unavoidable :D.


  • #528
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    This is truly bizarre. I've never claimed otherwise. It was another poster who ia making an issue out of this. :confused:

    Is that a reference to me?

    I didn't start this whole semantics shin-dig, nor did I start making an issue about the precise meaning of words until a MOD lead the way. Oh, PDN I humbly submit I just followed where you lead - granted arguing the points with you every step of the way.

    I have already stated I have no investment in the word marriage and that I do understand that people do have an investment in it. Personally I don't care what they call any legislation as long as it contains the exact same rights and responsibilities as extended to heterosexuals under current marriage legislation. I do admit I think having two identical bits of legislation would be silly, wasteful of resources and a bureaucratic bit of hair-splitting worthy of Kafka.

    All I did was respond to people - not just you, other posters as well- who are trying to impose a definitive Christian meaning on the word 'marriage' that as there appears to be no such thing as a definitive Christian perspective on this topic it's hard to understand how there could be a definitive Christian definition of the word 'marriage'.

    T'would appear I ruffled a few feathers with this simple observation.

    My Bad.


  • #529
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Is that a reference to me?

    I didn't start this whole semantics shin-dig, nor did I start making an issue about the precise meaning of words until a MOD lead the way. Oh, PDN I humbly submit I just followed where you lead - granted arguing the points with you every step of the way.

    I have already stated I have no investment in the word marriage and that I do understand that people do have an investment in it. Personally I don't care what they call any legislation as long as it contains the exact same rights and responsibilities as extended to heterosexuals under current marriage legislation. I do admit I think having two identical bits of legislation would be silly, wasteful of resources and a bureaucratic bit of hair-splitting worthy of Kafka.

    All I did was respond to people - not just you, other posters as well- who are trying to impose a definitive Christian meaning on the word 'marriage' that as there appears to be no such thing as a definitive Christian perspective on this topic it's hard to understand how there could be a definitive Christian definition of the word 'marriage'.

    T'would appear I ruffled a few feathers with this simple observation.

    My Bad.

    Will you answer the question that no-one else will?

    When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?


  • #530
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Will you answer the question that no-one else will?

    When people say, "As an X, I believe ..." Then you think they are claiming that every X agrees on everything. Are you really wanting to go there?

    Really depends what 'X' is. If X = Megalomaniac can't see all the other Megalomaniac's agreeing.


  • #531
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Really depends what 'X' is. If X = Megalomaniac can't see all the other Megalomaniac's agreeing.

    I see. Just if the X stands for Christians.

    Hmm, between you and IT-guy , the haloes of those who claim to be the most tolerant are slipping very rapidly.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    I see. Just if the X stands for Christians.

    Hmm, between you and IT-guy , the haloes of those who claim to be the most tolerant are slipping very rapidly.

    Where, in this thread, did they make the claim to be the most tolerant? Or to have haloes for that matter.


  • #533
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    I see. Just if the X stands for Christians.

    Hmm, between you and IT-guy , the haloes of those who claim to be the most tolerant are slipping very rapidly.

    Well, as Christians don't share a perspective on everything it would depend on the rest of the sentence.

    If that sentence were 'As a Christian I believe Jesus died for my sins' - then I believe all Christians would agree.

    If, for example, qrrgprgua were to state 'as a Christian I believe the Pope is infallible' I seriously doubt all Christians would agree.

    Were either you or qrrgprgua to state 'as a Christian I believe the word marriage should apply only to opposite genders' - many other Christians would disagree. For example Anders Wejryd, Archbishop of Uppsala.

    My halo isn't slipping, I'm just wearing it at a jaunty angle.


  • #534
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.

    But surely that is what happens, no?

    If a child is put up for adoption, suitable couples are evaluated and the couple deemed to be the best choice to raise that child gets to adopt it.

    Same-sex couples have to go through the exact same process as hetero couples. They are put through the same evaluations, examinations and tests. So if a same-sex couple is given the chance the adopt a child, it's because they were deemed to be the best parents. And the fact they are a same-sex couple would obviously have been taken into account.

    So any same-sex couple who adopt a child were the best parents in that instance.

    Claims that hetero couples are better suited to adopt than same-sex couples instantly go out the window because it's not that simple. Each set of potential parents, whether they're same-sex or hetero, have to be judged on their own merits. If a hetero couple get a child ahead of a same-sex couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents. If a same sex couple get a child ahead of a hetero couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents.

    And as for the redefinition of marriage, is that more important than equality? Is redefining a word, even though it wouldn't affect anyone in any real tangible way negatively, more important than equality?

    Read the post - the context marienbad was arguing was whether the RCC should keep adoption in their religion. My answer is no.

    Why she brought it up here? God only knows.

    Please read the original post.

    The redefinition of marriage isn't about equality it is about changing the meaning of the word. It's about changing marriage to be something completely different.


  • #535
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    The redefinition of marriage isn't about equality it is about changing the meaning of the word. It's about changing marriage to be something completely different.
    I don't see why you're separating those two things, as if they are opposing sentiments.

    The meaning of marriage is changing (which I don't think it is but never mind) to allow equality.

    Why else do you think people are demanding change, if not for equality?


  • #536
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Based on that one post, it's possible that the poster only objects to homosexual acts, and has no objection to civil marriage rights being extended to same sex couples. It's highly improbable, but it is certainly possible.

    However, grrgprgua's later posts make it clear that that is not the case: here and here. Snappy Smurf agrees here. Philogos also states this belief here.

    There may be other posts, but I thought examples from the first 5 pages would be enough to show that there have been Christians in this thread that stated they believe that civil marriage should not be extended to same sex couples because of the Bible's teachings.

    Snappy, Philogos, and grrgprgua: If you feel I have misunderstood or misrepresented their comments, I am happy to be corrected. In case you're wondering, this is the post that kicked off this particular conversation.

    All that said, I'm at a loss to understand why I needed to provide these examples. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that some Christians wish to deny same sex civil marriage rights because of the Bible's teachings. Even if nobody had previously made that assertion in this thread, it was still right to ask my question, as it relates to homosexuality in a Christian context, and this is the only thread on the Christian forum in which that topic can be discussed.

    I'm confused as to what you've managed to fish out of my post to be honest with you. Some clarification would be very welcome.

    There are two discussions going on here:
    1) Whether or not homosexual acts are ethical
    2) Whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalised.

    I think civil partnership and marriage should be separate because they are fundamentally different in terms of the family structure they can offer. Mother, father child is different than mother mother child or father father child. Children who are raised with their biological parents fare best, and children are affected differently by both mothers and fathers. This makes me question whether or not a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

    See back earlier in this thread for cited studies.


  • #537
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm confused as to what you've managed to fish out of my post to be honest with you. Some clarification would be very welcome.

    There are two discussions going on here:
    1) Whether or not homosexual acts are ethical
    2) Whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalised.

    I think civil partnership and marriage should be separate because they are fundamentally different in terms of the family structure they can offer. Mother, father child is different than mother mother child or father father child. Children who are raised with their biological parents fare best, and children are affected differently by both mothers and fathers. This makes me question whether or not a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

    See back earlier in this thread for cited studies.

    So do you think a Husband + Wife no children marriage is different and shouldn't be termed a marriage?


  • #538
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    philologos wrote: »
    The redefinition of marriage isn't about equality it is about changing the meaning of the word. It's about changing marriage to be something completely different.

    No, it's about redefining the word for the purposes of equality, to afford homosexuals the same right to marriage that other people have, outside of religious restrictions.

    And it's barely even a redefinition, certainly not one which would change the word into something completely different. Firstly, words can have more than one meaning. The existing meaning can remain, then add in a new definition for same sex marriages. Existing marriages... will not change. It will have no effect on existing or future male/female marriages. This "redefinition" does not cause any measurable negative effect to anyones marriage, it is solely to afford the same right to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

    How is that a bad thing? I've asked and I've asked, yet no one seems to be able to answer it. Why is "redefining a word" (something which happens regularly) being held up as being more important than the equality redefining the word would give?


  • #539
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What cannot be denied is the some Christians have acted in a way that is the antithesis of the conventional meaning of 'love' while still using the word as justification for their actions. A bizarre Jesus Loves Me so I hate Fags philosophy.

    I'm a Christian, and I don't hate homosexuals, in fact I'm called to love them authentically. That doesn't mean twisting and distorting the Bible to make it agree with sin. If I truly loved others, and if I truly knew that people had sinned before God and that they needed to repent, telling them that sin was OK would be a disturbing and a dangerous lie that would lead them to condemnation.

    The same is true for any sin.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Were either you or qrrgprgua to state 'as a Christian I believe the word marriage should apply only to opposite genders' - many other Christians would disagree. For example Anders Wejryd, Archbishop of Uppsala.

    If the Bible is clear on the issue, then people like the Archbishop of Uppsala irrespective of their title are mistaken. If someone is claiming to be a Christian and twisting the Gospel to applaud sin, then that's something dangerous.

    Jesus said to watch out for false teachers. There are many in the world of varying kinds. It is by focusing on the Bible, and it is by truly seeking after God's wisdom with all our hearts that we can truly seek out the truth. People don't just twist the Bible on this issue, they twist it on many issues, that's why we need to be vigilant and to truly defend the Gospel.

    The more and more churches applaud sin, and the more and more churches become more like society around them and less about defending the principles that Jesus stood for, we see them die. Churches that defend and teach from Scripture, are growing. I've seen this on quite a few occasions. Many churches within Anglicanism have rejected Biblical principles and like the Church of Sweden have twisted Scripture to applaud what is clearly sinful. Interestingly, at the same time ordinations within the Church of England are growing, even when church attendance is declining. What is interesting about these figures is that over 60% of the new ordinands are evangelicals. This means that the liberal Christianity that was popularised from the 60's through to the 90's will be dying out in the next few decades at least in England which can only be a good thing.

    If the churches are just like society, why would I bother? They aren't telling me anything different, and they aren't telling me anything that is radically different from what the world says. If churches are radically different and teach Biblical truth, that changes things.

    Ultimately, when push comes to shove Biblical belief points to the conclusion that irrespective of what people think, it comes down to God not to man. I don't think the Gospel is something for us to play with to suit personal beliefs, rather we are called to be transformed by God to live and speak for Him in a world that largely rejects Him.


  • #540
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn wrote: »
    No, it's about redefining the word for the purposes of equality, to afford homosexuals the same right to marriage that other people have, outside of religious restrictions.

    And it's barely even a redefinition, certainly not one which would change the word into something completely different. Firstly, words can have more than one meaning. The existing meaning can remain, then add in a new definition for same sex marriages. Existing marriages... will not change. It will have no effect on existing or future male/female marriages. This "redefinition" does not cause any measurable negative effect to anyones marriage, it is solely to afford the same right to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

    How is that a bad thing? I've asked and I've asked, yet no one seems to be able to answer it. Why is "redefining a word" (something which happens regularly) being held up as being more important than the equality redefining the word would give?

    It is a redefinition.

    I have no issue with people formalising their relationships, and I'm not objecting to civil partnership. However, when people start to say that a union between a man and a woman and two of the same gender are exactly the same, that's when I'm in disagreement.

    Why? Because that's a lie, and it isn't true. The former can provide a child with a mother and a father. The latter can't.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So do you think a Husband + Wife no children marriage is different and shouldn't be termed a marriage?

    Not at all. A husband and a wife can provide a child with a mother and a father. It's not necessary that they do in order to have their relationship formalised. Much in the same way as it isn't necessary for a LGBT couple to adopt to have their relationship formalised.

    I have no issue with formalising a relationship. What I do have an issue with is claiming that a marriage and a civil partnership are the same thing. As I said already, that's a lie, and it's not true.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    philologos wrote: »
    It is a redefinition.

    I have no issue with people formalising their relationships, and I'm not objecting to civil partnership. However, when people start to say that a union between a man and a woman and two of the same gender are exactly the same, that's when I'm in disagreement.

    Why? Because that's a lie, and it isn't true. The former can provide a child with a mother and a father. The latter can't.

    I agree it's a redefinition, just not a significant one which as you said changes it into "something completely different." It doesn't. If they redefined marriage to mean "The act of taking a bra off by cutting the straps with scissors", that would be a significant redefinition which changed the word into something completely different.

    And I agree that a union between a man and woman is different, and will always be different to a union between people of the same sex. The former has a man and woman, the latter has two people of the same sex. However, the purposes of the union are the same. Is the purpose of marriage solely to have children? No. It's an expression of love and commitment. And as has been pointed out, what if the male/female couple can't have children? What if they're 80, can't biologically have children and are too old to adopt?

    I ask again, why is redefining the word more important than affording people the same rights?


Advertisement