Marraige and having children go hand in hand in the religious sense.
Pro life.
Thats the reason alot of churches are against marrying gays - I dont care what others say the reason is.
It has always been about families.
Whether you choose to have children or not is your choice.
I still think they should pick another word.
I was amazed at the emotion...i guess i had some preconceived idea that the way they loved each other was not the same...silly really.
I see, they had the hots for each other and wanted to get married so they could consummate their union by pretending this gave them some status.
No, not silly - ridiculous!
- No you didn't see, you weren't there....so you now base your loose opinion and decide...I see
and that they want to.....they had the hots for each other
pretend...
I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.
It took a long time for me to change my beliefs. I think it was more a issue of my maturity, self awareness and emotional intelligence than anything else.
CanOz
I think it was more a issue of ... emotional intelligence than anything else.
I don't fully understand how its possible for people of the same sex to love each other like husband and wife as i am not gay. I do however accept that they must feel the same as non-gay couples feel about each other, from a personal experience as i stated above and that its their business. In a free country i do believe they have the right to marry.
Since I was married and that was many decades ago, the institution of marriage has been continually degraded by divorce and de facto marriage, until it has become almost meaningless. While your heart goes out to gay lovers, mine goes out to people like Tink who cherish their marriages as a sacrament.
Now gay lobbyists want to further degrade the institution of marriage and turn it into a meaningless joke. My plea to you and Mc Lovin, is to to leave people, who value their state of matrimony, in peace.
Let them devise their own "marriage" instead of coveting what others have.
I may not agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death...for your right to express it.
There's a lot of truth in that. The Church, however, has provided plenty of reason for such dislike with its repeated covering up of sexual abuse.Exactly. Most people are sheep. Currently, the herd is moving in the direction of "pro homosexuality", so you better make sure you're on the bandwagon, ok? No alternate views allowed.
It's ok to hate, so long as the hate is directed at religious people!: A gay person who hates religious people would be ok in the current herd movement.
That won't be a problem for the fashionistas whose passion is easily adaptable.This may change however. If the herd moves to a pro-religious stance in 50 years time, just make sure you are "on board" that band wagon too.
Apparently the word 'marriage' has some magic attached to it. They already have the legal entitlements.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?
I share this dislike. "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated. What is the matter with saying homosexual? We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.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?
No idea. I do find it peculiar hearing a lesbian referring to "my wife" and a homosexual male to his 'husband'.And why is there always an effeminate partner and a butch partner - doesn't that defeat the purpose of being homosexual or lesbianie acting like hetero's??
This is my concern about the whole idea. Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.Howard brought in the 'civil union' under which they had the above. But they are pushing for marriage, which is fine as far as I am concerned as I don't have much of an opinion either way.
I'm not up to speed on the whole issue, but will the churches be forced to marry homosexuals or be charged with hate crimes if they don't?
Fair enough.I don't see them telling anyone else whether they can or cannot get married, they just want to be able to. Religion on the other hand seems to take the view that it should be allowed to decide who can and can't marry. While they are entitled to voice their opinion, we live in a secular society and the opinion of any religion is just that.
OK, accepted. But what we do not know is whether e.g. people in incestuous relationships may equally have no capacity to choose how they feel. I know the question of whether they should also be allowed to marry seems bizarre, but so would homosexuals marrying a couple of generations ago, or even less than that.From what I've read true bisexualism is actually very rare. It is true that society takes a very different view of female bisexuality than it does of male (there's a whole industry built on female bisexualism). The point I'm making though is that someone can still make the conscious decision to not be religious, but someone who is gay will always be gay whether they are in the closet or not.
I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin. I take your point, though.Question: If someone was convinced that the Sun went round the Earth, would you be as accomodating of their views?
Thanks, McLovin. Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.That's a fair question. One I don't have the answer to although I don't think the two are comparable. Let me think about it and get back to you.
I share this dislike. "Gay" was a great descriptive word until it was so appropriated. What is the matter with saying homosexual? We talk about heterosexuals, don't we.
Surely the next step after achieving 'marriage equality' will be an allegation of at least discrimination if a church refuses to marry them.
Perhaps. Alternatively, I think there will be that same cohort who just has to push boundaries who will want to push churches into holding marriage ceremonies for them.I agree that some will raise that as an issue, but I think the vast majority will be happy to have the right to marry in a civil union.
I don't think homosexuals, or women for that matter, should be able to use civil law to overturn such discriminatory practices.
I am thinking bellenuit meant the discriminatory practices that exist in some churches that prevent women becoming priests.
Julia said:I'm a bit confused by the above. Are you suggesting the word 'homosexual' only refers to males?
What do you mean by "or women for that matter"?
OK, thanks for explaining. Agree.Sorry if it was a bit ambiguous. I meant in relation to the two discriminatory issues I mentioned. Homosexuals shouldn't be able to use civil law to force the churches to allow them to marry in church endorsed marriages and women for that matter should not be able to use civil law to force churches to allow women priests.
I'm not sure that's really a valid analogy, McLovin. I take your point, though.
I'm thinking about perfectly genuine people like Tink on this forum whose religion obviously means a lot to her, and I just have some concerns about ignoring and dismissing views of such people as unimportant and irrelevant.
Such people have a strong sense of what constitutes a family and are genuinely disturbed at the idea that the sacrament of marriage (which it is to them) would be violated by homosexual marriage.
No one has yet been able to explain to me just what difference having a marriage ceremony would make.
If it were necessary to confer equal legal rights, then I'd totally get it. But that's not an issue.
Thanks, McLovin. Your thoughtful approach is appreciated.
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?