This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
explod said:
Gay people who want to marry each other are saints compared to those behind the institutions who's role it is to dupe the people and keep them under control. ie., the witch doctor working for the chief.
Click to expand...

Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?
 
explod said:
Pretty clear to me. Women are the servants/slaves of man. Remember as a child women had to wear a hat in church, men hung thier's on a hook in the porch.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the response.

But if it were that straight forward (it's not), why has the Corinthians passage been deliberately
snipped?

Another hint. The first passage is from a letter (epistle) that is in response to another letter. Fairly sure the letter it was in response to didn't survive. Does this not provide an interesting difficulty in deriving its context, and hence coming up with an interpretation?

Also note that Greek (or Latin as well) is not easily translatable to English in some cases. The 2:12 passage has a unique word when written in its original language. Hmmmm.

edit: Basically all I'm trying to say is the context that VC used the bible passages in, and the argument he tried to use them to make, seems like a fairly big leap of faith (lol).
 
Ves said:
Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?
Click to expand...

Its pretty clear to me that the versus are suggesting that a woman less freedom of speech than a man, and in certain cases has no right to speak.

Can you find me a verse that states women and men have equal rights to free speech?

I think it would take a lot of twisting to try convince a reasonable person that it means something else.

Ves said:
.

edit: Basically all I'm trying to say is the context that VC used the bible passages in, and the argument he tried to use them to make, seems like a fairly big leap of faith (lol).
Click to expand...

Really, if it isn't implying women have less right to speech, what does it mean?

This exact verse is one that tinks brand (catholic) and many of the other brands of Christianity have used for centuries to suppress women. Tinks wants a "Christian nation" then she has to be happy to be quite and not be heard.

The freedoms that tink enjoys have been granted by secular society, not biblical teachings.

----------------------------------------------------
 
Tisme said:
Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

but even if they were, how is that relevant?

Most child molestation is heterosexual men on under age girls. Does that mean marriage between straight people should be banned?

If you wanted to limit child molestation, you should ban single mums entering relationships with new men, because that is where marriage leads to child rape, how often do you hear that young girls are taken advantage of by step dads.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/step-children-sexually-abused-threatened-with-death-court-hears/7820400
 
Value Collector said:
Really, if it isn't implying women have less right to speech, what does it mean?
Click to expand...
Listen, I understand your point, and it's possible I agree with it (that's irrelevant) but I think you are providing biblical passages as evidence when they don't necessarily back up that line of thinking.

My main contention is that your interpretation of those two passages is that they are saying that women have less right to free speech in all cases.

The second half of the Corinthians passage that has been deliberately not included (whether by you or from wherever you copy/pasted it from) disproves that one at least. For instance, the King James translation of the bible, would indicate that they are not allowed to speak in Church, but they can ask questions of the Church content at home. See.... that's a big leap, isn't it?

The Timothy 2 12 passage includes the Greek word authentein (usually "to usurp authority"). The only place it is used in the whole Bible (apparently). But there's no context given in the passage as to where this control / authority is not supposed to be usurped from. The most common interpretative amongst scholars is that it is also in reference to the Church environment based on a reading of the epistles as a whole.

You're right Catholics (or other denominations) have interpreted passages like these in such ways to achieve their own disagreeable ends in the past.

But that doesn't mean their interpretation should be followed. I note that these amongst others have been debated endlessly in all kinds of circles in the past (and still are today) and are not always nearly as bad. Actually some of them might actually achieve good in the world.
 
Ves said:
You're right Catholics (or other denominations) have interpreted passages like these in such ways to achieve their own disagreeable ends in the past.

.
Click to expand...

And Tink is a big supporter of the catholic church, so am I wrong to say that when she wants the country to be more "Christian" that she might end up with less rights than she already has endowed by secular society?

would indicate that they are not allowed to speak in Church
Click to expand...

but men can, so even if you water it down, that's still a reduction in free speech for women.

But that doesn't mean their interpretation should be followed.
Click to expand...

Offcourse not, the bible should be ignored, but if tink wants a "Christian nation" whos interpretation would we follow?

I note that these amongst others have been debated endlessly
Click to expand...

to me that's evidence suggesting there is no god behind the bible, and really relying on your faith for interpretation is useless.

If there was a god, and the bible was his book, every reader would come away with the same interpretation, we wouldn't be sitting here splitting hairs over translations.
 
FWIW. I don't want to bring politics into the equation but I reckon MT and his mob has got this right.

Getting to have a say on SSM is very personal and emotive, an issue that should not be left to our govt. to decide for us. If it was, I'd feel it was rammed down my throat but if it is the will of the people, whether I agree or not, it will be so much the better to stomach and deal with.

Sure the proposed plebiscite may be seen as ineffective and a waste of money however, it allows not only myself but all of us to have our say on this very important, moral question and having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.
 
For starters there is a few cases in the Corinthians were Paul says who he thinks should and should not speak in certain circumstances... it's not just women.

... and there's numerous passages of discussion (or instructions) on how he thinks organised worship (Church) should be carried out.

But for some reason you keep focusing on the fact that he said women cannot speak in Church (maybe it's a more informal variation of the word that the English translation isn't picking up).

Added up all together, and it appears that as Christianity was still in its infancy at the time of writing, organised worship was an absolute rabble at the time (maybe it still is), it's possible the women sat up the back and spoke to each other all through the service and nobody could hear. Maybe he thought they were not taking it seriously? Maybe everyone kept interrupting the service? And without the gift of context, we've turned something trivial into something universal. Who knows?

My main point is you should be bloody careful when cherry picking biblical passages.
 
Craton said:
Getting to have a say on SSM is very personal and emotive,
Click to expand...

Aren't a lot of the issues? eg. Taxation, immigration, declarations of war

why is this issue different?

If it was, I'd feel it was rammed down my throat but if it is the will of the people, whether I agree or not, it will be so much the better to stomach and deal with.
Click to expand...

how would allowing a lesbian couple on the other side of your town get a marriage certificate be ramming anything down your throat?

These relationships already exist, its just about letting them get recognised, unless you happen to be trawling through government records, or notice a wedding ring, how would it even affect you?

having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.
Click to expand...

Why is it so important to you?

,
moral question.
Click to expand...

what exactly about the issue do you find immoral?
 

I would have thought if a man commits a homosexual act then he is being an homosexual. I don't understand how it can be anything else?

Sure the umbrella is child molestation ( a grossly perverted act IMO), but I don't know what hetrosexual stepdad grubs have to do with men sodomising boys?
 
Ves said:
for some reason you keep focusing on the fact that he said women cannot speak in Church .
Click to expand...

Because that's exactly what it says. which means women are specifically being denied the right to speak, unless they direct their question through their husband.


Maybe it was written by sexist men?

I am not interested in your bible study contortions and twisting to try and twist an old text written by sexist men at a sexist time, to try and fit modern standards.

If you believe that the view at the time was that women should have equal rights to be heard as men, and that the sexist bible verses are not really sexist, you are just wrong, but you have a right to be wrong, so I will leave your bible study to you.
 

You may not recall the moratorium protests of the 60 and 70's era? Back then the post war kids vented their splines
 
Tisme said:
I would have thought if a man commits a homosexual act then he is being an homosexual. I don't understand how it can be anything else?
Click to expand...

Does a homosexual man having sex with a women make him straight? no, there is a difference between the act and the sexuality.

A man might have sex with another man or boy for all sorts of reasons, he might even just be using the child as a rubbing block as he thinks about rooting that sexy red head girl that sits in the third row on sundays.

but I don't know what hetrosexual stepdad grubs have to do with men sodomising boys?
Click to expand...

and I don't know what any child molesting grubs has to do with consensual gay relationships between adults or marriage between gays.

as I said child molestation is a separate issue, that happens mostly between straight men and young girls.
 
Tisme said:
You may not recall the moratorium protests of the 60 and 70's era?
Click to expand...

No, I was still a couple of decades away from existing.

Back then the post war kids vented their splines
Click to expand...

Yeah, did they get a plebiscite? did they even want one, or just want the government to make the changes?
 
Tisme said:
Aren't those priests who sodomised young boys gays?
Click to expand...

Yes, but clinically they are pedophiles. Worked in a team once to clean this up around Flinders Street Melbourne some years back. The clinical psychologists working with us said that pedophiles are particularly predatory and infect those they prey on. People who are born gay are usually placid and very different to those who seek out children. Those who want to partner up in a marriage seek a normal committed relationship and this approach should be applauded by the community.
 
having a say about SSM, is extremely important to me.

Why is it so important to you?
Click to expand...

Because the issue is moral/social/ethical not political.

There is no "evidence" to be offered, weighed and sifted by "experts" , everyone in society is just as capable of making a decision as are the politicians, even more so because they don't have aggressive lobbyists like the churches or the Gay Collectives banging at their door.

A decision by Parliament alone is always going to be resented by one group or the other and could be changed later after lobbying, a strong plebiscite vote gives the legislation legitimacy and is more likely to last.
 
SirRumpole said:
Because the issue is moral/social/ethical not political.

.
Click to expand...

What makes this issue any more "moral/social/ethical" than any other issue we trust the government to deal with?

it seems easy to deal with to me.

does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.
 
Value Collector said:
What makes this issue any more "moral/social/ethical" than any other issue we trust the government to deal with?
Click to expand...

OK, it doesn't matter to me. The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?
 
SirRumpole said:
OK, it doesn't matter to me. The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?
Click to expand...

There has never been a conscious vote on the issue in parliament by all sides of politics so it's a bit redundant to suggest that it's been answered no by parliament. If that were the case then we would still have the carbon tax today as it was also voted no to.
 
SirRumpole said:
The government has dealt with it already (several times) and the answer was NO. So let's leave it at that shall we ?
Click to expand...

No, when you realise that people are unfairly being denied rights, you change it. eg slavery, womens rights, votes to aborignals etc etc.

the simple question is,

1, does the issue cause harm? if not legalise it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurf1976
The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
618
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...