Message boards :
Politics :
Same Gender Marriage
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Thomas Send message Joined: 9 Dec 11 Posts: 1499 Credit: 1,345,576 RAC: 0 |
Maybe Bernie spoke of having faith in each other and not necessarily in religion... |
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
Just let me ask one thing, does a Christian gay person have less rights than a heterosexual non Christian But a heterosexual non Christian CAN get married in a church. So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual no Christians from church marriages So let me re ask the question in a different way Does a gay Christian have less rights than a heterosexual Christian? |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Does a gay Christian have less rights than a heterosexual Christian? Different religious leaders will read the same text with differing views. I would say leave it up to the churches and then people can vote with their feet. Not all churches are X-tian. Not all use the same "books" in their bible. People have the right to define their own marriage (between consenting adults as with ANY binding legal agreement, marriage is in fact a partnership) and governments intruding on that in any way are over stepping their bounds. Anyone that is offended by it needs to be offended. Janice |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Chris, I would certainly say a church is relevent to the members. It should not matter in any way as far as our laws are concerned. In other words YOUR church is not relevent to ME. Nor mine to you. Janice |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30661 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Say you and your four wives are married at the mosque, are you married in a Catholic church? A Baptist church? A Mormon church? A Jewish temple? |
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
The reason for this thread was that Chris stated in another thread that he was against same sex marriages in Church! Simple and unambiguous. I then asked; Just let me ask one thing, does a Christian gay person have less rights than a heterosexual non Christian Chris replied No they both have the same rights. By that I mean that I don't think either should properly be married in a church. But still not answered this But a heterosexual non Christian CAN get married in a church. So would you also support a law to ban heterosexual non Christians from church marriages Which to me is the crux of the matter, how can you justify a heterosexual non christian couple being allowed to marry in church and yet a christian gay couple cannot! In this modern day and age that attitude is 100% discrimination. |
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
Why have marriage in the first place? If there is no marriage, then there can't be any discrimination. A wonderful insightful comment that brings nothing to the conversation. Why don't you start a thread on the reasons for and against marriage? |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Marriage has always been a business transaction, always been about property, possessions etc. That is why it was invented. The reason why it is so important to recognise the rights of gay people to marriage is because the awful situation where some people were left in when their long term partners died. I've known situations where on the death of a loved one, the deceased's family (who never approved of the relationship) moved in and took over the funeral arrangements and left the bereaved person unable to say good bye, attend the funeral, and not even have any rights of the possessions they shared together. They were given no say over the hospital care, and the estranged family were able to come in make decisions for the sick person when they don't even know what their wishes were. This is obviously wrong and heartbreaking. Imagine, spending your life with the person you love, at at the moment when you both need each other the most, being driven away and excluded as if you were nothing. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
But still not answered this The church used to consider woman property. Thankfully people have become a little more enlightened since then Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Marriage has always been a business transaction, always been about property, possessions etc. Now you are starting to understand a little why the feminist movement has fought so hard to change things. I am glad your shocked. It's a shameful part of our history. As a person whose gender identity is tied to his penis, I'm totally offended by this. Good. It is offensive. Marriage began as a way to ensure that property was passed down to ones male airs. The other side was to ensure that a man knew exactly who had fathered his children. Dowries were not phased out so long ago, and are still around in some cultures. When a man married a woman she became his property along with any property she possessed. That has only changed recently with women being allowed to vote and own property in their own right. Marriages were used to forge alliances between the ruling classes, and heaven help any woman who married against the families wishes. There are still remnants if this with tradition of the groom having to ask the brides father for permission. Remember, the woman was the property of the father until she was passed to the husband. Until the Victorian era, not everyone got married. The poor had common law marriage and didn't always feel the need to actually wed. Marriage is not an institution with a noble history...and your analogy of the prostitutes is a little off as women were considered little more than property. Prostitutes have a little more say in who they sell themselves to. Reality Internet Personality |
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
I knew I shouldn't have started this, I really should have known better .... Possibly, possibly not. It was your statement: "I'm also not happy with their support of gay marriage." In reference to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats support that made me question how I felt about it and found I agreed with them. If gay people are accepted in society and are allowed "civil" partnerships and all the rights associated with that, it seems strange that one organisation, the Church, can deny them those same rights. I actually know the reasons and I know that many people in the Church have a problem with women priests, let alone homosexuals. I do not suspect the Church will move in the 21st century in my lifetime. "Politics and Religion" two subjects destined to cause fierce arguments, as a close friend always reminds me!! |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
In for a penny in for a pound .... I thought it was a Christian church. Christ makes no comment on homosexuality. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Well I guess I had it all wrong then. Guess what, gays can do this. to work as a team to raise those offspring to be productive members of society that has order, They can do this to. and to fulfill natural human desires. Like love? Companionship? If you knew anything about biology you might be surprised to find that humans aren't the only species to be naturally gay. It's natural. Deal with it. If it's purely about gaining wealth, I went about it all wrong. Those are its foundations. Government can take care of raising the offspring as a result of unmarried breeders trying to fulfill their natual human desires. This sentence doesn't actually make any sense to me. You seemed to have briefly parted way with rational thought. Nobody needs anybody in their life to trust as long as government is always there for them. Again, you are just making random statements that have no connection with any of your assertions. This is confusing to the reader. And who are we to deny anything some people pursue as their natural human desires as long as it's done consentually and doesn't deny other's their rights and freedoms? Exactly "Same gender marriage" is an oxymoron. Do you know what oxymoron means? What about "interspecies marriage," or "objectum marriage," or "polygamy," or "polyandry?" I thought you said marriage should be consensual? How can an animal or an object consent? Polygamy and polyandry seems like hard work to me. It's not about marriage here or there, it's about the discrimination. Do away with marriage and you do away with discrimination. Meh. I don't care either way. Marry, not marry. Here in Canada I am protected by the law. I get all the rights of being married without some stupid expensive ceremony. I get the rights of the next of kin and I get a say of whether to turn off his life support or not if he ever gets into a nasty accident. The only reason I have to get married is because he has his little heart set on it. What you need to ask yourself Guy. Is why do you care so much what other people do. It has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. No one is going to force you to marry another man just because gay marriage is legal. Why on earth do you even care??? Reality Internet Personality |
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
I thought it was a Christian church. Christ makes no comment on homosexuality. Unfortunately the Bible does, or does it? The Bible refers to homosexuality several times, and has historically been interpreted as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate. Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, arguing any of several points: (i) that the passages yield different meanings if placed in historical context, for instance the historical interpretation of Sodom's sins as being other than homosexuality; (ii) there may be questions surrounding the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages that some interpret as referring to homosexuals; (iii) both the Old Testament and New Testament contain passages that describe same-sex relationships; and/or (iv) that loving and committed relationships are not condemned in the passages. All of these assertions are disputed by more conservative scholars, however. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.