Same Sex Marriages.

[Eric]

Come to think of it, this whole "Bible" thing is a bit silly. I think most of us can agree that the Bible is not the "word of God". If God has a Bible, he probably has it in the "humour" section of his library. Christians ... I'm talkin' the born again kind ... tend to be selective in their readings. Many US Christians support capital punishment, a convenient ignoring of one of those commandment thingies. And many muslims conveniently forget the warm and fuzzy parts of the Koran ... and there are lots of them.

But I do think that spirtuality is important for many folks, much more important than, say, Papal infalibility, which is a fairly recent idea, or the Biblical injunctions against masturbation ... mmm, that would put the number of sinners in the world at around 7 billion, give or take a few. And if two people want to add a spiritual dimension to their relationship, I can't see why anyone would want to put road blocks in their way.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Eric, I have no qualms about homosexuals being christians, or adding any kind of spiritual dimension to their lives......no-one is trying to ban them from the church, or from other services permitted by the church...it is just that marriage is a sacrament that joins a man and a woman...for the purpose of procreation(and now you are going to say what about those who cannot have children - the elderly brides, well the marriage service is different for them). That is the primary aim of marriage....to give a foundation on which to bring up families.

This government are promising that people who invoke a conscience clause will not be persecuted(or prosecuted) for not marrying homosexuals....but this guarantee is worthless, because a couple who feel they have been 'wronged' by a celebrant refusing to marry them, will, no doubt take this to the Court in Strasbourg....and any laws we have, will be over-ridden by them....we are going to be criminalising people for exercising their beliefs.
Teachers who have firm christian/traditional views will be dismissed if they do not teach about homosexual marriage.
so the views of the few are going to be foisted onto the majority.....and those dissenters will be labelled homophobic, or bigot....with the prime purpose of stifling any discussion of the subject.
People will still think what they want to think,but they just won't vocalise it(for fear of being labelled)...and that cannot be right.

I will say again.........I have nothing at all against anyone who is in a homosexual relationship but I do not agree with the redefining of marriage for same sex couples.....and never will, as long as I live.

I have nothing more to say on this, so this will be the last post to this thread.

[Less]

Originally Posted by gynn

Murdering children:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

And there are probably other quotes.

A 'profligate and a drunkard', are hardly the description of a child.
There must be better quotes than that.
Please however, don't bother looking, You may as well be quoting the odd bits from 'Lord Of The Rings' or 'HHGG', just as truthful as the ancient book of fantasies.

Originally Posted by gynn

Just shows what an insult to the intelligence the argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality actually is!

Not quite sure whether you mean it's an insult because the bible does or whether it's an insult because it doesn't?

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Less

Not quite sure whether you mean it's an insult because the bible does or whether it's an insult because it doesn't?

It´s an insult to our intelligence when someone takes selective texts from the bible to justify a moral stand, when the bible is riddled with justifications for actions that they would find totally immoral.

So the argument ´homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man´ is a complete non argument. If you argue for any one phrase from the bible, you have to argue for them all. It´s the ´Good Book´. Not the ´Good Book in parts´

[Less]

Originally Posted by gynn

It´s an insult to our intelligence when someone takes selective texts from the bible to justify a moral stand,

Yes, I know what you mean:-

Originally Posted by gynn

Slavery:

Titus 2:9
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them"

1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Col 3:22
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Murdering children:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

And there are probably other quotes.

Just shows what an insult to the intelligence the argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality actually is!

[gynn]

For goodness sake. Grow up!

[Less]

Originally Posted by gynn

For goodness sake. Grow up!

Why would you say that?

Is it because you're devoutly religious and you're not making yourself clear?

OR

Is it because you're an atheist and not making yourself clear?

Either way, no need to get upset.

[MargaretR]

The law is now passed
Gay marriage vote: Same-sex weddings will 'make society stronger' claims David Cameron | Mail Online

[DaveinGermany]

Looks like something out of "My big fat Gypo whatever" to me, not pretty, well, pretty awful maybe.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Looks like something out of "My big fat Gypo whatever" to me, not pretty, well, pretty awful maybe.

Yup does look like a poster for "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Or a warning not to drink too much when you are out prowling for a significant overnite relationship.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Less

Why would you say that?

Is it because you're devoutly religious and you're not making yourself clear?

OR

Is it because you're an atheist and not making yourself clear?

Either way, no need to get upset.

I've calmed down now. I just felt that you were deliberately misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

It annoys me when some Christians say a thing is wrong because it says so in the bible. My point was that the bible says a lot of things that are totally ridiculous, and in answer to a question I gave a number of examples.

I didn't quote selectively to prove a moral point of view. I quoted selectively to show that you can't use bible quotes to prove a moral point.

Is that clearer?


Probably not !

[Less]

Originally Posted by gynn

Probably not !

Not as calm as you claim or there would have been no need for the above tag.

[MargaretR]

If you have a gay marriage it looks as though you might not be able to get divorced, because divorce laws aren't being changed to accommodate it.

Gay marriage: divorces over adultery face legal challenge - Telegraph

" Gay partners who have an affair with someone of the same sex will not be able to use adultery as grounds for divorce because the legal definition involves intercourse between a man and a woman.

Under the government’s plans, same-sex couples will also be unable to annul their marriages on the basis of non-consummation, for similar reasons.

However, heterosexual married couples will continue to be able to use adultery and non-consummation as grounds for divorce, a discrepancy which lawyers said amounted to “clear discrimination”.

The Government has suggested that creating an equivalent of adultery and non-consummation for same-sex relationships would change the law “unnecessarily”. "

[Less]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

The Government has suggested that creating an equivalent of adultery and non-consummation for same-sex relationships would change the law “unnecessarily”. "[/I]

So is it a cock up if you do or a cock up if you don't?

Also if one of the gay partners has sex with a member of any other sex than their own, can they then be divorced on the grounds of 'adultery'?


Like they used to say on this comedy, Confused? You will be!

[gynn]

Interesting that a US Republican senator, previously vehemently opposed to same sex marriage, has now changed his tune because his son is gay.

BBC News - US Republican Senator Rob Portman favours gay unions

Maybe a law should be introduced whereby the only people able to pontificate in public about the evils of same sex marriage should be those who can provide written proof that one of their offspring is gay, and STILL they think same sex marriage is wrong.