Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
So why the big uproar about them not getting married. They claim they are being discriminated against. It reminds me of the story of the lesbian who felt discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to be a sperm donor.
That is a very compelling story Calliope.. Lesbian not allowed to be a sperm donor.. Who would have guessed.
Would you like to share the source of that particular gem with us ?
As Nomore pointed they have the same rights as any other couple.
I have already said what I think in here numerous times
Bellenuit that is so wrong.
Religion hates no one.
Every child has a right to be with their mother AND father.
That should be what marraige is about.
What we teach our children.
It certainly makes it easier to spout absolute certainty when you don't have to let reality get in the way.
from Nomore.Except they can't get married if they choose too
I have no idea what "the vibe thing" is.Its just the vibe thing in my view Julia,
True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs? Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage? No artificial contraception?What I don't get is why religion seems to think it has some sort of ownership over marriage. It's not like it didn't exist before Christianity or that it doesn't exist outside of the Abrahamic religions.
Totally reasonable. I don't care either, but don't particularly want to see those to whom religious faith matters getting trampled too much in the process.As far as I'm concerned, I could care less what two consenting adults want to do with or to eachother. If no one is getting hurt then its none of my business. If they want to express their commitment to eachother through marriage then I can see no reason why they should be stopped.
I agree entirely. But you're not going to get religious people to accept that. And surely they're as entitled to their beliefs as any of the rest of us?Christianity is nothing more then excuse for people to enforce their beliefs on others, again you only have to look through the history of the Church to see to how far the church will take that if given the chance. The church has a strong history of being a corrupt and sometimes vile organisation, and I for one am glad it doesn't wield the power it used to in our society - even if I think it still has too much influence.
There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above. But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.
True, of course, but isn't marriage for many people tied up with their religious beliefs? Doesn't the Catholic Church still suggest people should not have sex outside of marriage? No artificial contraception?
There's no way I can find religion defensible personally, especially nonsense like the above. But it's an important feature of some people's existence and I don't quite see why their attitudes shouldn't be respected as much as those of homosexual people.
I can just envisage the next step being that churches will face allegations of discrimination if they don't agree to marry gay couples.
Then, if people who choose to have multiple partners at the same time decide they also should have the right to marry, are we going to agree with that also? Wouldn't that also be 'marriage equality'?
Ditto incestuous relationships?
The gay community say that because they love each other that should be the only reason necessary for allowing them to get married. So why wouldn't the same criteria apply to multiple partners and incestuous relationships?
No. It's quiet straight forward really.Rubbish, care to elaborate on that?
You do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.Marriage is just a word and means a union.
And anyway, who cares. I am heterosexual and could not care less.
Only concern I have is gay couples in particular men raising kids more concerned the abuse the kids will get at school etc but the kids most likely will come from a better home than 90% of straight couples.
As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.
Quite, even.No. It's quiet straight forward really.
This discussion has reached new heights.As long as it is not compulsory to be gay they can do what they like.
Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do?How someone interprets what marriage should be is not for me to judge. The issue is when a group decides that they own marriage and should be able to dictate who can and can't get married.
100% agree.After everything we know about the RCC and the systemic abuse of children, which it at best turned a blind eye to and at worse condoned, it's amazing that it is paid any attention whatsoever. Their pre-Cupernican views on contraception have done a wonderful job at spreading HIV through Africa.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.I think the key difference is people are born gay, whereas people chose religion.
That's quite wrong. Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.At various times, Christianity has accepted polygamy. Some cultures still do, notably the Mormons.
Why not? The participants avow their love for each other. According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.Incest is a different kettle of fish, IMO and I don't believe it belongs in the same boat as gay marriage or even polygamy.
Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.Although, the Bible is pretty open minded about it. If Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman and they had multiple sons and daughters who all got married...Who exactly were they marrying if not their brother or sister?
I've never actually worked out if it's just the word 'marriage' that they want to use or the legal entitlements that come with it?
If it's just the word, then why can't they just appropriate another perfectly good word, like the way they 'disinfected' the word 'homosexual' with 'gay', and use it for the legal union between 2 homosexuals or lesbians?
but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?
Isn't this what the gay community is attempting to do?
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Many people are so indoctrinated with religion that it isn't really a conscious choice.
Where do you place bisexual people? Are they 'born bisexual' or are they just people who like to experiment with sex?
That's quite wrong. Polygamy is only practised in very isolated small groups of Mormons and is entirely discredited by the Mormon Church as part of their doctrine.
Why not? The participants avow their love for each other. According to the gay lobby, this is the only reason they are seeking what they term 'marriage equality'.
Please don't let's indulge in rubbishing religion on the one hand and then quoting that book of silly fairy tales.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?