![]() |
They should make two new words, one which is the wedding/marriage of two men and one which is th wedding/marriage of two women.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Marriage was designed for pro-creation purposes - to provide stability for children! As it is unlikely that a gay couple will have children - why the need to get married in this day and age when most couples, gay or otherwise, just live together!
It seems to me that some people make a big thing about it - just because they want to make an issue of the equality thing - not because they really want to get married! You can't force all religions to just change their views, right or not - and if marriage is so important, why not just have a civil ceremony! |
I'm appaled at some of the heterophobic comments in this thread.:crazy::crazy::crazy:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't consider marriage that desirable anyway, it's just a social norm really. That aside, everyone should have a right.
|
Nobody should have a right to a ceremony in a religion that they themselves don't ascribe to. Gay or striaght.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
how ridiculous a 'marrage' between 2 people of the same sex!! some people live on a different planet..... And I'm Ron Burgundy. Go **** yourself, San Diego
|
Quote:
|
Admin deleted
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1)You say "The Church", which church do you refer to? 2) So why is it so important for gay people to have their union blessed by some geezer in a frock 3) They arent, they do not enforce anything on anyone, people arent kept tethered to a particular religion, if you dont like one particualr religion go and find another one that suits you, if you need a religion. 4) Thats a traditional role in the Upper House, they dont actually carry a lot of power and have to abstain in certain debates and votes. 5) I hope as a humanist you hold the same values for everyone, does that include someone who believes in a particular religion and lives his life by those rules but hasnt forced his beliefs on anyone, nor criticised others for their lifestyles or beliefs? |
i am not a fan of either the catholic church or the gay community
people can pray as much as they want and have sex as much as they want no skin off my nose but if someone wants to get married in a catholic church they have to respect the beliefs of that church just as they should respect gay community and their lifestyle nothing wrong with being gay and wanting to get married but you cant force your views on other people and say they are wrong that they believe it to be a sin strict catholics and other religions believe it is a sin gay people obviously do not point is that the church is for the catholics its their rules its upto them |
Quote:
2) Link this to 5 also. There are some Gay Christians who would want their union to be blessed by their Church. 3) Spiritual organisations do indeed weild a considerable amount of influence within society. They also receive many benefits not due to other secular organisations. The British culture is essentially a christian one, even though very few people nowadays are active christians; most cultural and societal norms have christiani values as their source, Christian leaders exert an undue influence over how we should think and act. Whether one likes or dislikes any particular belief is irrelevant. We are still expected to behave in a manner that is intrisincly christian in nature. 4) Here's one example, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, all Anglican Bishops voted against it. I'd call that unrepresentative and undue influence. 5) As a Humanist, my views are my own. I'm willing to discuss those with anyone. I do not have the right to insist others should accept them, no more than any folower of superstition has the right to force their views on others. Sadly, most established superstitious organisations do not subscribe to this excellent approach. if a christian, for instance wants to discuss with me about any matter, I shall give appropriate respect to their views but this also means I don't have to buy into any specious nonsense about so called spiritual or established beliefs that offend and insult others. |
Quote:
2. Yes there are Christians who are gay and would wish for their union to be performed in a church. Personally it wouldnt bother me if they did allow gay marriages. However the hierarchy of numerous branches of the christian religion would have to be persuaded. And that is where the real homophobia is entrenched, not in a dullard minister at the lower end of his particular religious food chain. 3. So Christian values are bad? Which particular values would you like to replace them with? Lets face it Western Society has got to where it is now because of said values. Our laws and society in general is based on a christian viewpoint. It may be time to move on from them to a higher level, but at the moment they hold sway. 4. Yeah I can see 26 (Lords Spiritual - Anglican Bishops in the Upper House) people holding a lot of influence over a house of just over 700 (pre the latets round of Honours). They represent the total christian population in the UK. But yeah I sort of agree with your point, The whole of the house of Lords need overhauling. 5. Yeah i see you do offer them respect of their beliefs that is why you call their beliefs 'superstition'. Couldnt that be considered offensive and insulting? |
Quote:
2) We are almost in agreement here. It's the dullards who get their authority from their superstitious organisations. If people are striving to change the mindset of such organisations, for the better; then I wish them well. Perhaps Gay marriage would then be as accepted as heterosexual marriage. 3) Exactly where did I say all christian values are bad. What I am arguing about is the perverse values which are "bad". Especially those which demand obedience to adhere to them. I do want want to see some white haired old geezer who has special bishopric responsibility blathering in the media, extohling to us all how we should live and act. As an example, in scotland when the Government wanted to repeal "section 28", the church leaders fought tooth and nail to retain this offensive legislation. 4) 27 people hold a lot of influence, especially with their other crusty cronies. What they generally do not do however, properly represent the interests of Britains anglicans, let alone all the other variants of those who follow supuerstitious beliefs. I do agree to apoint with you though about the House of Lords, though I think it needs replacing with an elected second house. 5) Respect goes both ways, I perceive followers of intangible beliefs as just that, superstitious people. There is no evidence of the existence of supposed spiritual deities ever been found. I respect people who claim they are satanists, wiccans, druids, followers of asgard, judeo/christians, buddhists, sikhs, believers in fairies, followers of Crowley, omens, fate and luck etc. What I do not believe is the legitimacy of their superstitious beliefs. You may believe this to be disrespect, I cannot demand how how you interperet my statements, equally do not try and score points by seeking to interperet mine. |
I think Dave is 100% entitled to his opinion and to be able to follow his own belief, I don't particularly agree with everything he says but good on him for sticking to what he believes in.
Personally, I haven't warmed to the man at all, he is probably my least favourite housemate in there atm along with Shabby, yet I don't feel using this whole "he doesn't agree with gay marriage" malarky a valid reason for nomination. |
Quote:
2. No disagreement at all. 3. Dont we get that in real life and its not always religious leaders. As for section 28 and its repeal, thats a full debate in itself. 4. Those 27 people dont really hold that much influence, they are meant to represent the views of all adherents to any faith(amusing that isnt it, yet no mullahs presently sit in the upper house, how long before that is changed. A senate type thing would be nice but the British Public aint as perverse as the US in voting. 5. Aint tried to score points off you, I dont do try. But calling someone superstitious because they hold to a faith is not exactly respectful. Has any religious person shown disrespect to you on this site? You dont need to demand intepretation either the person understands, or they dont and you have to explain, if you want to. As for evidence, you would have to address an aderent of a particular religion to see what evidence they could supply. But even if they couldnt supply satisfactory evidence isnt that what they call faith? Yeah I know I hate that argument as well. Thing is Dave hasnt been hypocritical,unlike a majority of the housemates. He has stood by the tenets of his faith. Incidentally he isnt a Catholic, thats just a general note not addressed to you in particular. |
Really at the end of the day it's just a body - flesh, bones and pus. So does it really matter if that body you love and cherish is a Man or a Woman. We humans have a right to find happiness with whom ever and if you are committed to one partner, then I do not see any difference between a same sex marriage and a gay one.
As with Dave he was pressured by Josie to give an answer and being "a man of god" his precepts would never have allowed him to preform gay marriages, Josie should of known this without having to ask and it was obvious that she wanted to make him seem a bad person. In this respects I do feel sorry for Dave, but really he should of known going into the house and expelling his beliefs, as he does, you are always going to be ridiculed. |
errrrrrrr you said 'pus'
|
If there is a god he created gays n lesbians too!
and as for Dave, he's just a cult leading nutjob - http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpr.../dave-vaughan/ |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.