Same-Sex Marriage (1 Viewer)

[glycerine]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
in before glycerine realises what a civil union is, yo.

I realise what a civil union is, please don't patronise me, I don't take it well. but by separating the two institutions if that's what you want to call it, you're just breeding more inequality. hence why I believe homosexuals deserve the right to be legally recognised as 'married' above their right to be joined in a civil union. if all people who chose to marry outside the/a church were considered to have a civil union also then my opinion might change. however, as straight relationships generally have no taboo, that's not going to happen, and so I will not consider civil unions an acceptable alternative for homosexual couples.

 

[Snapwizard]

Originally posted by hipsta_jess
...coz iunny decided to start preaching the laws of god...

I just cant force myself to believe in God, I mean my grandparents are catholic and I went to a catholic school and did 2URE and I just cant figure out why I wont believe in God, If people can accept the fact that God pop up from nowhere why cant they accept the fact that humans poped up form nowhere - in the end were only just dust.

Back to the point politicans should represent the whole country not just themselfs when creating legislation

 

[Alexander]

The religious argument for it and against it is sooo hollow. Christians advocating homosexuality point out vague readings like "expresss yourself with god", ignoring the specific 'commandments' against it, while Christians against it say just that; the bible says no, and we do everything the bible says. But CNNNN pointed out it also says in leviticus 'you shall put to death any man who works on the sabbath', and the archbishop was speechless.

I think the whole issue is fundamentally not viable. It seems to just underline the decadence and hedonism of our society and is yet another divider of the community. Just what we need.

 

[Iunny]

Originally posted by Xayma
So not only are you refreeing to your lord as a he and giving them a gender, but you are saying that women are only here for men to have a companion so they should be thanking men for their existance and aim to please them in every way possible even if it means a lowering of their morals?

No, because Jesus came to right that women are equal to men.

 

[glycerine]

that's a big problem a lot of people have, they do not distinguish between the teachings of the old and new testament, ie, michael moore, cnnn, lots of people. I'm not saying that the bible isn't flawed, and doesn't have contradictions, but you can't use the old testament to prove things that are blatantly disproved in the new testament.

 

[Iunny]

exactly, i'll be back guys to answer the questions, i got assessments tomorrow.

BTW, i've noticed a lot of people tend to nit pick everything I say. I just want to say, yes you can do that, but keep in mind that I do not know everything from the Bible and I'm not God. I'm imperfect little human beings like every single one of you. So do not take everything i I say and define Christianity only on that because i'm only one of the Christianity population and I would hate because of what I'm saying, you are completely turned off by it.

After pointing that out, please feel free to nit pick, and I'll try to answer it in the light of my religion to the best of my ability.

 

[Xayma]

Oh one other thing why is the LORD refreed to as a he but he has a son in Jesus? Therefore there would be another being for him to mate with defeating the purpose of an all-powerful being or that "he" is a hermaphrodite (sp?)

Originally posted by Iunny
No, because Jesus came to right that women are equal to men.

Jesus never put pen to paper

 

[glycerine]

God is asexual, but He is referred to as male because that's the way language goes, frankly. they didn't have time to refer to God in the bible as 'He/She/It'

 

[Toodulu]

Originally posted by glycerine
that's a big problem a lot of people have, they do not distinguish between the teachings of the old and new testament

i know what you mean, my problem lies in why people should follow one part of the bible that says for example, homosexuality is bad. and then decide that another part of the bible should be disregarded. could it be, in this instance, that the bible is interpreted to one's gain? the whole idea of an omniscient god is what gives a lot of people security.. but why are people told that the bible is god's word, when it can be corrected? perhaps in the 2nd coming of the saviour the rules will be conveniently changed again.. and to make laws on such an inconsistent book and imposing it on everyone, including the significant percentage of the population that never followed the book anyway is what's iffy.

 

[glycerine]

well the thing is, jesus DID blatantly contradict many things that were taught in the old testament, and most christians who know what they're talking about will say that those are the teachings they believe they are meant to follow. i'm christian, (in a vague, very personal sense) but i don't believe i have the right to impose my beliefs upon others. i find some things that others do morally objectionable, and i will openly admit it, but i don't accept that such a fallible piece of doctrine has the right to determine the rights and responsibilites of an entire community/society. if we were all christians, every single one of us, and never faltered in faith, and followed the new testament down to the letter, then my opinion might change.

just a little food for thought though (re:interpretation of the bible, its infallibility etc... I just found it interesting considering a lot of people, me included, tend to cry "but it's all ambiguous!":

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:21 KJV
and in another version:
"Above all else, however,remember that none of us can explain by ourselves a prophecy in the scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the holy spirit as they spoke the message that came from God" 2 Peter 1:20-21 GNB

 

[SKA]

i think if people are that way inclined then let them have their freedom... some people are just selfish

 

[SKA]

oh i forgot to add that wen the issue of children comes into it ... then i dont agree with it.

it might be good for the couple but the kid will be affected badly by it

 

[glycerine]

please prove that somehow ska.

 

[SKA]

oh coz like... u know kids.. they go to skool.. n its the typical family of the mum and dad.. imagine going to skool n saying.. i dont have a mum n a dad.. i have two dads they are poofs. they will get paid out to the shithouse... not to mention... a child needs both their parents!

 

[hipsta_jess]

that is such a homophobic attitude, find me good solid scientific evidence of that.
theres no saying that a mum/dad is better than a mum/mum or dad/dad and in many cases a same-sex parenting relationship can be better than mum/dad; not to mention most kids have many other influences outside of their parents, aunts, uncles, parents friends, teachers, grandparents, and many more all provide role models

 

[Loz#1]

Not everyone grows up with both a mother and father. Conventional families aren't as common nor are they as risque.

 

[Alexander]

I...sadly agree with SKA. It undermines the family unit. To be mentally healthy a child needs Mumma and Papa, the ying and the yang. The mother is the nurturing influence, the father is the practical influence. It simply isnt fair to bring a human being into the world under that crap, maybe later on in their life, but not right at birth. Huge ethical question....not to mention the fact of one partner being unrelated to the child and the absence of the biological mother/father.
I havent really seen evidence to prove that homosexual couples fundementally base their relationships on anything but sexual desire.

 

[glycerine]

exactly, what about people with absent parental figures? or alcoholics or drug addicts? i'd much rather say my parents were 'poofs' (that is just the worst word) than crackwhores and drug dealers. if society didn't place such stigma upon it, people wouldn't have that ignorant fucking attitude.

 

[SKA]

yeh but fuck.. imagine going to skool saying i have lesbian parents ... like its just not proper
n bsides.. how the hell can they have a kid?

 

[Loz#1]

Originally posted by Alexander
I...sadly agree with SKA. It undermines the family unit. To be mentally healthy a child needs Mumma and Papa, the ying and the yang. The mother is the nurturing influence, the father is the practical influence. It simply isnt fair to bring a human being into the world under that crap, maybe later on in their life, but not right at birth. Huge ethical question....not to mention the fact of one partner being unrelated to the child and the absence of the biological mother/father.
I havent really seen evidence to prove that homosexual couples fundementally base their relationships on anything but sexual desire.

Under that crap? If the family is loving, what difference does it make? And the mother is nurturing and the father is practical? We're not living in the 1920's and what not.

And ska, if people are rude and narrow-minded enough to laugh at a child's family unit obviously the child can do without them.