Gay Rights

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by JPaul@23 September 2003 - 17:10
Personally my marriage in the eyes of God means more to me than my marriage in the eyes of the state. (Which I can take or leave). To me my marriage is an oath before God, not a contract.

Can I ask you, in what exact form is your god?

Do you believe in the "Old Man With a White Beard Living in Heaven" god?

I'm serious this time BTW.

[ilw]

Originally posted by protak@23 September 2003 - 05:09
Ohhh I get it know, when you change the law that is not special, that is equal....

This is what happens when cousins marry.

maybe you should try reading it {the bible}. No don't you'll probably disagree with all of it.

Well duh

[Biggles]

Protak

I am not interested in disputing your religious position. However, you do yourself no favours by disputing the antiquity of ancient texts by providing a link which is supposed to prove your own point and which (perfectly correctly) shows a timeline only going back to 500BC. You must be aware that there are many texts which pre-date this. Extracts from the Egyptian Book of the Dead written on tomb walls go back to 1500BC and beyond. The Zarathustrian texts are also from at least 600BC and some argue 1000BC. It is difficult to determine the age of the Vedic scripts but they are reckoned to be at least from 1500BC and may have origins which are much older. The teachings of Bhudda, Confucius, and Lao Tze all date from the 500BC - 600BC era too. In short, there are a lot of old texts out there.

It would appear you are gainsaying simply for the sake of it.

However, it does not matter whether the texts you use are the oldest or were written last week, if you subscribe to them and they forbid homosexual marriage then whatever religion you hold has the right to not sanction such a marriage in its church. The word church meaning community rather than building.

This issue of equal rights has nothing to do with religious disapproval. It is purely a legal matter. Many religious leaders of the 19th century disapproved of universal sufferage. The woman's place was in the home and consequently should not be troubled by wordly matters such as voting. However, popular argument won the day and the law was changed. You may deem this change to be special treatment (I am unclear as to what your precise argument is on this point). No one on here is arguing that same sex couple should have special case treatment just the same treatment under the law.

I like JPaul's position. It is right and proper that someone who has religious convictions should view their religious vows as more special than perfunctory legal requirements.

However, seeking to dictate the legal requirements on those who do not share specific religious convictions is not a good route to take. I think you would view it as a bad thing if you were told that you could no longer eat bacon in order to show due deference to the religious feelings of others. I certainly would be unimpressed by such a move. Nevertheless, if someone insisted that they had a right to set up a bacon butty stall in the local Mosque I would question their motives.

The debate regarding homosexuality within a religion is the provenance of those who hold genuine religious convictions appropriate to that faith and is no business of those outside that faith (imho). The results of such internal debates may determine who joins what subsequently but there should be no outside interference (unless it turns violent, litigacious or both).

[hobbes]

Biggles,

I enjoyed reading your post, but you are preaching (if I may use the term) to the choir with me.

I have no doubt your eloquence with be wasted on its intented target, which is why I have nothing further to say.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

I fear you may be right and as preaching is the last thing I want to do I will draw a line under this particular train of thought.

[gbfan]

I don't get this argument. What I do or don't do in MY life is none of YOUR business. Period end of argument. From a 25 year old married father of 2.

If you're worried about disease this is a just plain stupid point for more reasons than already posted.

And if you are worried about what your children will think education is the way. Not sheltered stupidity.

Sry I just don't get it

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@23 September 2003 - 21:29
Hobbes

I fear you may be right and as preaching is the last thing I want to do I will draw a line under this particular train of thought.

MTV Generation

Short Bursts.

Telegraph Thinking.

Bottom Line Arguments. Who cares, they are not hurting anyone. It's just a contract. Live and let live. Don't tell me what to do, I won't tell you.

I have rapidly come to the conclusion that this is the only form of language which is universally acceptable here. However every once in a while one likes to think, no. I have things to say and a way in which I would like to say them. So I will do. Those who chose to make the effort can benefit from the subtle nuances. The shades of expression. They can enjoy the post even if they disagree with the views expressed. Enjoy the art of it's creation, the picture in words.

Then reply with feck off arse head, who does you think you is.

[protak]

Originally posted by JPaul+23 September 2003 - 08:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 23 September 2003 - 08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@23 September 2003 - 05:27


Edit: A religious group that does not sanction gay-marriage doesn&#39;t have to fight anything in court. They just simply refuse to perform one.

I think I said something like that earlier, however in a more verbose way.

It is not a religious matter (see my earler). It is purely a legal contract as such I have no problem with whoever wants to marry.

Personally my marriage in the eyes of God means more to me than my marriage in the eyes of the state. (Which I can take or leave). To me my marriage is an oath before God, not a contract. [/b][/quote]
I hear ya&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Amen

[protak]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 September 2003 - 06:20
Here.

No Here

[MagicNakor]

You can&#39;t possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion.

The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...

The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

I&#39;m not certain where you&#39;re getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It&#39;s not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it&#39;ll remain impossible.