tommy2bad wrote: » I wasn't the one who brought it up in the context of homosexuality, I was the one who pointed out that the language used was for a propose rather than an incitement to hatred. Just to be clear.
tommy2bad wrote: » Voddie Bauckham's article is basically "It's always been this way and we don't want it to change" The underlying message is it's this way because homosexuality is a threat to the family and socity. If he had quoted scripture it would be more honest. If he has evidence of the damage he fears, show it, just being concerned isn't enough evidence. As to claiming that all marriage is between men and women so what? Thats just its always been this way again. I can understand how he dislikes the comparison to the civil rights movement, I think it's a week one but his claim that the definition of marriage is at stake is wrong, whats at stake is his definition (ok held by a lot of people but not a majority any more). No one is saying that his marriage is any less a marriage because of this change exept him.
"It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."
SoulandForm wrote: » Why do you think that the Bible is so strongly opposed to homosexuality?
NuMarvel wrote: » Why do you think the Bible's stance on the issue should have an impact on civil and legal matters?
SoulandForm wrote: » I dont. I dont think people who are sexually perverted should be physically attacked unless in self defense or imprisoned either just in case you think I do.
philologos wrote: » I agree. You weren't. I was talking to both of you. To claim that Paul was inciting hatred is ridiculous given that he mentions all kinds of sin in Romans 1, and his purpose is to ultimately show that if we repent of that sin, turn away from it and believe in Jesus as Lord and as the Saviour who stood on the cross for mankind, you can be forgiven. That's anybody. Clearly, it is a gospel of love that Paul is preaching rather than a gospel of hate. The language was used to show us the desperate position we are in, but also to show us how incredible it is that Jesus who was utterly blameless came into this world to stand on the cross for us while we were yet sinners. Thats my point well expressed No, it honestly isn't. Did you actually read it? He explains that there are a number of difficulties between comparing race to sexuality and why it is illogical to compare definining marriage as being between a man and a woman to laws banning miscegenation.I agree with that. Moreover using legal statements for example even the documents that passed same sex marriage in Iowa - that it is not discrimination to define marriage as being between a man and a woman: This subject isn't about discrimination but about redefinition of marriage, no matter how much any LGBT activist might like to claim that it isn't. I supported civil partnerships in 2009 when they were passed in the Republic, but I drew my line there, and I'm going to stick by that.
28064212 wrote: » You just think it should be socially unacceptable for someone to engage in homosexual activity. Despite having no evidence that it causes any problems. In fact, you produced evidence that shows that homosexual activity being socially unacceptable is what causes problems.
Democide wrote: » I dont care for religious cults of any size but I do think that the state needs to provide some more tax relief for couples with kids versus couples without kids (you know their the future and all). So i think same sex marriage can work if we give the tax benefit only to married couples with kids.
SoulandForm wrote: » The fact is that if someone was to come out and state clearly that homosexuality goes hand in hand with all these problems because of what it is their acedemic career would be in serious trouble. The fact also is that homosexuality is increasingly socially acceptable and so-called "homophobia" increasingly socially unacceptable while these problems with the homosexual community are increasing. There were not so many homosexuals being so self-destructive before "liberation".
SoulandForm wrote: » Fair enough as long as agree that Churches or Mosques or whatever should not be forced to marry homosexuals.
SoulandForm wrote: » The fact is that if someone was to come out and state clearly that homosexuality goes hand in hand with all these problems because of what it is their acedemic career would be in serious trouble.
SoulandForm wrote: » The fact also is that homosexuality is increasingly socially acceptable and so-called "homophobia" increasingly socially unacceptable while these problems with the homosexual community are increasing. There were not so many homosexuals being so self-destructive before "liberation".
tommy2bad wrote: » Well it a good thing we have you to tell us what they really meant then isn't it. For you any evidence of homosexuality is evidence of it's evil. You read stuff into things that isn't their and when called on it claim that they would have said "......" if it wasn't for the gay pressure groups and their evil all powerful campaign to corrupt the world. Cop on and stop putting words in the mouths of others and admit that it's your opinion and only your opinion.
SoulandForm wrote: » Fact homosexuals have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, STDs and on and on- and this pattern is getting worse while homosexuality is becoming more and more respectable and so-called homophobia is becoming completely unrespectable (whatever a lot of people still instinctively feel). Gay Pressure Groups on their own are not responsible for this- they wouldnt have been capable of the sea change in attitude. Its part of a larger plan to break down family and community, to turn people into atomized consumers who are much easier to control. We see this not only in the promotion of sexual degeneracy but with the whole so-called post-Fordist revolution in the work place. The whole thing is extremely sinister.
28064212 wrote: » Facts: Irish people have high rates of alcoholism and suicide rates. Men are far more likely to commit suicide and abuse drugs. Adolescent females have higher STD rates. Once again, I have to ask: Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? None of your posts so far have demonstrated that you have any understanding that they are separate concepts
Democide wrote: » As said i dont care for religious cults but i do care for liberty of the common against the tyrannical corporate takeover. So they can have rules but if homosexuals members of said cult want marriage they should set up there own tax haven cult. I am off to listen to some alex jones before sleep. It's mad that lables,registers and paper forms drives and divides so many in circular arguments.
SoulandForm wrote: » Does Alex Jones help you sleep?
Democide wrote: » I always liked boring stuff for sleep! nha it better to listen to him than rte real msm news gives me nightmares
SoulandForm wrote: » Im not sure that Irish people have high rates of alcoholism, at least when compared to other Northern European countries. I also very much doubt that adolescent females have higher STD rates than homosexuals. The high suicide rates in Ireland is down largely to the void created by the destruction of Christianity in Ireland - partly created by corrupt Church Hierarchies and partly by elite social engineering and society and culture that naturally grows out of the type of capitalism that we have. Its nice to see though that for the Gay Community either all their problems are done to hetrosexuals or else that they are no big deal.
28064212 wrote: » Once again, do you have any evidence that homosexual activity causes mental health problems, drug use or promiscuity?
Itzy wrote: » Drug use and Alcohol in the LGBT community and mental health issues can be linked to lack of acceptance or disdain from relatives and friends. In Trans people, it can be shown that transitioning to a new gender reduces mental health problems.
Itzy wrote: » Homophobia is less acceptable as it should be, much like racism.
tommy2bad wrote: » Marriage lite isn't equality. The thing is that marriage as defined by the legal strictures you want to keep is a legal institute nothing more, it makes no requirement for love, it's a setup to maintain property rights (originally inheritance rights) not relationships. If a Christian marriage is some reflection of the relationship between God and His church then property rights are not the defining characteristic. Love is. It's not being redefined by extending marriage to same sex couples, it being refined.
philologos wrote: » A marriage in a Christian sense is meant to reflect the union between Christ and the church as it's bride. It's not a good argument for churches changing God's word. Civil partnership in Britain at least is regarded as identical in court in terms of rights. The difference is that a civil partnership is a separate type of union. Of course the Tories (or at least Cameron's supporters) are trying to redefine marriage. They claim that it won't affect the rights of churches to disagree but on legal analysis from Aidan O'Neill QC there are a number of grounds on which the Church of England would be liable to legal challenge if the law goes ahead. In so far as those challenges to freedom of religion exist I'll be opposed and will probably be in touch with my MP in the next few days. I don't particularly mind if the Commons want to pass this legislation as long as it doesn't affect the right of faith groups to disagree. At present it doesn't and as a result I'll let my views be known on a political level as well as a church level. Unfortunately the point where I can expect the Government to support freedom of religion has gone and I can't really trust them on this.
