Gay Marriage

[sydboy007]

I would be quite happy just to have a vote, with advertising campaigns banned or not publicly financed anyway.

Most people have decided one way or the other on this issue, we just want it resolved quickly whatever the result.

Were there "homophobic actions" in Ireland ? Why should they happen here ?

Why do we have an issue with Alcohol? I don't see the same problems when I'm overseas.

I'd hope the loony Christian right wouldn't go tea party negative campaign style, but it wouldn't surprise me. Some elements from the far right in the USA have already been trying to sneak their way into the local debate.

 

[overhang]

I will be amazed if having a few get married will change the figure one iota.
The problems are caused by other factors. Some of which are caused by the fact they are gay, especially among men.

Reading New Scientist recently, it appears science is showing that is a lot more than genetic factors that affect people's sexuality.

I doubt it will be a catalyst to lower that rate significantly however it will act as a contributing factor to making that community feel more equal in our society when most have gone through life thinking they're not. I would imagine it mostly boils down to the feeling of shame and denial because society has long viewed them as outcasts. I guess the same can be argued when blacks weren't allowed to drink out of the same water fountain, they had their water fountain so why wasn't that sufficient? Why did they need to drink out of the whites? It's not like allowing them to drink out of the same water fountain would instantly solve racial discrimination but it was a step in the right direction and that's what marriage equality would achieve too.

Perhaps it might go someway to stopping those horrible stories where marriages are ended because of one partner finally coming out after all these years due to their social rejection and feeling of the need to lie about their sexuality, in those cases you end up with emotionally distraught partners and children.

Do you have a link to that new science article? I would be interested to read it.

 

[sydboy007]

Just some history, since Syd keeps talking about polygamy --

Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ic-Church-to-Western-civilization.html?pg=all

I will answer your post shortly, overhang, but I disagree.

So now you're saying that what the Bible prescribes is no longer relevant, and that is what the recent Church leaders say that is now to be followed?

What else do we then disregard from the bible? Once you start cutting parts out from the old testament, the new testament sort of becomes irrelevant then, as much of the prophesy it relies on to be true comes from the old testament.

So are you not in fact advocating change to law, since you now recognise that the laws in the bible are not really applied any more.

 

[McLovin]

Calling gay marriage a battle for free speech is certainly one of the more bizarre arguments, even by the standard of this woeful thread.

 

[sydboy007]

I think you are completely ignorant on Christianity sydboy, which is OK, but you are wrong on all points.
And on some, it is actually stated the direct opposite. Not sure what you are getting this from? Getting mixed up with the Jewish religion?

Ah, does not the Catholic church, and most major protestant religions, base their beliefs on the bible - should that be bibles since there doesn't see to be any agreement on a standard version.

What are Christian beliefs? Christianity is a general term denoting the historic community deriving from the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth and the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community. I suppose you could argue the gentile version of Christianity won out, but then why hold on the bible? Probably because it's been a handy weapon for centuries used by the Church to give itself some legitimacy over the control of people's lives. Much of the way most Churches function is similar to how the Jewish synagogues were run.

One could argue that the early Christian Church was explicitly claiming not to be a new religion, and by conceiving itself the fulfilment of the promises in the Bible (the "Old Testament") as expressed in the covenant with the patriarchs and in the message of the prophets, the Church placed itself squarely on a Jewish foundation: it was the consummation of the biblical promise. Jesus was not just a divinely chosen saviour, but the promised Son of David, the Lord's Anointed (Mashi'aḥ ben David), and hence the Christian community, i.e., the Church, was the "true Israel" of God.

That's a carton of eggs in the omelette.

I think the concept of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a bit, well self centred. Why would you know how another person wants to be treated? Better to be a bit more open minded and treat others as they would have you treat them. Sort of fits perfectly into this debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Better to be a bit more open minded and treat others as they would have you treat them.

Doesn't always work. A lot of people would like to win Lotto, but James Packer doesn't agree.

 

[Value Collector]

If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".

.

that's like saying when we finally decided to recognise Aboriginals as citizens, that we would need some new word to mean "true citizen" do distinguish the real Aussies from the aboriginals. It's just silly to think that way.

The fact is aboriginals are true citizens, and same sex marriages would be true marriages.

 

[Tisme]

What else do we then disregard from the bible?

You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This is what they teach you in Sunday School.

 

[Value Collector]

You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This is what they teach you in Sunday School.

The problem with that is that Jesus himself said he didn't come to change the laws and none of the existing laws would change until heaven and earth disappear. (Matthew 5:17 from memory, in the Serman on the mount, a speech Christians normally take very seriously)

he also said slaves obey your master, and slavery is condoned in the New Testament, so if you are against slavery, you should probably forget trying to use the bible to justify your opinions.

 

[sydboy007]

You disregard those parts of the "OLD" (Judaism) testament that are at odds with the "New" ( Christian) Testament. This is what they teach you in Sunday School.

Classic cherry picking by Christians. Anything a bit tricky is to be disregarded, but still used on occasion if it helps to stir up some righteous anger against various minorities.

Christians have used the bible to stir up all kinds of mischief. From trying to block an end to slavery to blocking the right of women to vote to racial equality.

The same ad hominem arguments trundle out each time society wants to progress. The west would look far too similar to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait if the church had been able to maintain its power.

 

[Knobby22]

The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd

That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers" I could go and refute every point but I couldn't be bothered. Unfortunately it is the human mindset to form "tribes" and use that tribe to condone behaviour like slavery, wars etc. even if pointed to the clause in the New Testament saying it is bad. Such is life.

 

[sydboy007]

The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd

That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers"

To true. I just get sick of the cherry picking. Of wet don't like that boy on the old testament. That sounds bad. But you're a filthy homosexual and wet know what good food to the sodomites.

I just count myself lucky my indoctrination via the uniting church was fairly benign compared to what sine have gone through.

 

[Value Collector]

The point is that it does refute what you said,Syd

That does not mean that people who call themselves Christian bloody do any of it. Look at George Bush or Tony Abbott, supposedly devout Christians getting into wars. What about the line "Blessed be the Peacemakers" I could go and refute every point but I couldn't be bothered. Unfortunately it is the human mindset to form "tribes" and use that tribe to condone behaviour like slavery, wars etc. even if pointed to the clause in the New Testament saying it is bad. Such is life.

I am not aware of a verse in the New Testament that bans slavery, can you point us towards one?

 

[Tisme]

The problem with that is that Jesus himself said he didn't come to change the laws and none of the existing laws would change until heaven and earth disappear. (Matthew 5:17 from memory, in the Serman on the mount, a speech Christians normally take very seriously)

he also said slaves obey your master, and slavery is condoned in the New Testament, so if you are against slavery, you should probably forget trying to use the bible to justify your opinions.

I'm not too sure of your argument, but prima facie I do recall he apparently maintained he wanted to fulfill it rather than destroy it (one for the theologians), but simply put the new testament is the new covenant between god and man and like any revised contract some clauses are disposed of or watered down or reinforced. Jesus is also quoted as saying if "you love me you will keep my commandments" and then set about putting command barriers up to restrict access to the old instruction set...e.g. love each and one another as Jesus loved us, good trounces Sabbath, truth beats everything, because God is truth, etc.

The main argument about the blood lust is somewhat fallacious. Jesus explained that Mosaic Law was spiritual not literal and things like dragging your kid out bush to have his throat slit, while actually being punked, were tests of character and trust .. the goats, rams, lambs and things have been replaced these days by apples and oranges as the idiom props.

 

[Tisme]

I am not aware of a verse in the New Testament that bans slavery, can you point us towards one?

I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".

Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.

 

[Value Collector]

I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".

Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.

Nope, it wasn't indentured servitude, that's just some thing apologists say to cover up the immorality in their own texts.

Unless the person was a Jew it was ownership of a person for life, if the person was a Jew you had to release them after 7 years, but you would still own their wife and children, if they wanted to stay with their wife and kids, they had to give them selves to you for life, and you had to mark their ear by hammering a spike through it.

Non Jewish slaves had no realease clause, they were slaves for life, they could be whipped or beaten provided them didn't lose an eye or die within 1 day of the beating. Female slaves could be used for sex.

Jesus didn't say anything against this stuff.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not too sure of your argument, but prima facie I do recall he apparently maintained he wanted to fulfill it rather than destroy it (one for the theologians), but simply put the new testament is the new covenant between god and man and like any revised contract some clauses are disposed of or watered down or reinforced. Jesus is also quoted as saying if "you love me you will keep my commandments" and then set about putting command barriers up to restrict access to the old instruction set...e.g. love each and one another as Jesus loved us, good trounces Sabbath, truth beats everything, because God is truth, etc.

The main argument about the blood lust is somewhat fallacious. Jesus explained that Mosaic Law was spiritual not literal and things like dragging your kid out bush to have his throat slit, while actually being punked, were tests of character and trust .. the goats, rams, lambs and things have been replaced these days by apples and oranges as the idiom props.

the old, "I know it clearly says this, but what it really means is this" arrguement.

you are just cherry picking Jesus here, you are ignoring the part where he clearly says non of the laws will change until heaven and earth disappear, so far the earth hasn't disappeared.

And you are cherry picking the " love thy neighbour" but ignoring the "hate your family" things he said.

I am not interested in bible study, I am glad Christians have slowly moved away from the terrible parts and cherry pick the good, but they need to speed it up, and stop the rest of their bigotry, or atleast don't use their religion as a facade, unless they follow the rest of the stuff them selves.

 

[sydboy007]

I think slavery in old language was more to do with paid servitude. When Moses asked the boss to let his people go, he was asking for the labour contracts to be be terminated after a breakdown in the EBA. That custom of servile workers lasted well into the 19th century in first world countries like UK until the union movement got up and said "let my people go FFS!".

Forced slavery like that found in USA still has its foothold in Islam and various black belts in Africa. ISIS uses it to great effect.

Wow. You really haven't read the bible. When the Jewish conquered they'd usually kill everything including the animals, or they might keep the virgin girls.

There was two grades of slavery. One for the Jewish where after 7 years you were released, the other for gentiles which was just as bad as the slave trade of recent history.

Bit then human ingenuity came into play and smart Jewish masters would let you find a slave wife and then have you by the short and curlies to either leave the wife and children behind or sign up to slavery for life.

It's these kinds of moral family values that is the basis of Christianity.

 

[awg]

I know where Tink is coming from.

If we change the definition of marriage, debase the word if you will, which we had been doing even before the gay marriage debate, then we need a new word to mean "true marriage".

The original definition was a union for life, for good times or bad, with respect, between a man or woman, with procreation one of the main aims. That is the Christian definition which everyone said whether it was a Church wedding or not.

That definition probably changed around the 1970s with the pill. Now it is often just lets get together till I get sick of you or times get bad and swap you for a different model.

That summarises a previous valid objection I used to have and many would still share

My previous view was a civil union was a distinction that would be preferred

But it ends up being such a flimsy distinction, if they have the same rights,
why bother, whats in a name?..let there be love

Homosexuality was illegal when I grew up in the '70s in most, if not all states
They changed the law on that

Strictly speaking, the discussion is about gay marriage, not children, or religion,
although I agree they are related issues, and I am guilty as anyone on that point.

One interesting side issue, not commonly known, aprox 0.1% ie 1 in 1000 of births, sex cannot be fully determined, I know at least one such person, a very sad thing for them, if that what is behind some comments regarding State insisting on no sex recognition

 

[SirRumpole]

But it ends up being such a flimsy distinction, if they have the same rights,
why bother, whats in a name?..let there be love

Why bother with either marriage or civil unions as even defacto relationships are recognised for property rights etc ?