Should gay marrige be allowed?

esuhl

TheSaint wrote: »

I can share my belief - and you can share yours. Its fine! Muslims tell me I am an infidel and will burn too. It doesn't offend me, I quite like to learn of others beliefs.

But the beliefs of others are immoral if those views unjustly affect other people. If everyone was in favour of (or indifferent towards) gay marriage, then it would very quickly be legalised. If you are against homosexual marriage, then you aren't going to lobby your MP to support it (and may do the opposite). If you "broadcast" your views in any way (by posting on a web forum, for example) then you are giving the impression that homosexuals do not have widespread support. That can affect legislation changes.

Simply by holding your anti-gay beliefs, you can (to a small extent) detrimentally affect the lives of other people, quite unfairly and unjustly.

TheSaint wrote: »

Spiritual death - yes. But then I can believe what I like - as I have previously said. I will not force that on you or anyone else.

Being homosexual results in spiritual death?! What on earth do you mean by that? I'm quite sure that I don't have a spirit, so would it be okay if I were homosexual? Is it your place to have an opinion on the rights of others to kill their own spirit, anyway?

youropinioncounts wrote: »

Procreation is linked to a normal marrige hence why it was in the other post.

So someone who is infertile should be banned from getting married? And couples that don't want children should be forced to remain unmarried? And you presumably think that contraception is immoral as it isn't "normal" and prevents procreation...?

In a "normal" marriage, the groom isn't allergic to peanuts. If he was, would you say that the marriage couldn't go ahead? Why do you think you get a say in someone else's life anyway?

youropinioncounts wrote: »

My main point is marrige is an act between a man and woman.

That's begging the question! If we change the law so that marriage can be an "act" between a man and woman or two people of the same sex, then we instantly solve that problem!

youropinioncounts wrote: »

{P}eople have gut instincts and mine is marrige is between a man and woman.

A "gut instict" is the last resource of someone who's beliefs are fundamentally indefensible. It's another way of saying, "I have no reasons to believe this whatsoever, yet I still refuse to change my mind".

esuhl

MamaMoo wrote: »

{A}s a bisexual, should I have swung t'other way and married a woman, I know my priest would not (were it legal) have conducted the ceremony, and it was for this reason that I got married with no religious elements, because I didn't feel comfortable getting married in a church that could so very easily have turned against me if I'd followed a different part of my life.

I find it so hard to understand why you say that you are bisexual and could've "swung t'other way" and been cast out of your church. Presumably, if you don't have a problem with bi/homo-sexuality, then you are supporting a church that would gladly, in your opinion, ostracise people unjustly.

How can you support a church that won't accept you for who you are and would unfairly "turn against you" had things turned out differently?

MamaMoo_2

esuhl wrote: »

I find it so hard to understand why you say that you are bisexual and could've "swung t'other way" and been cast out of your church. Presumably, if you don't have a problem with bi/homo-sexuality, then you are supporting a church that would gladly, in your opinion, ostracise people unjustly.

How can you support a church that won't accept you for who you are and would unfairly "turn against you" had things turned out differently?

I have my reasons, none of which I intend to share on an Internet forum. Suffice to say, I believe in God and have no intention or need to justify myself to anyone but that God.

poet123

fluffnutter wrote: »

I think you're suggesting that the majority of Christians are homophobic. This is (thankfully) not my experience.

I am certainly not suggesting thhat at all. I am saying that whilst privately many Christians have no issues with gay people, they do not see why the traditions of their church should be obliged to be changed to suit others.

fluffnutter

poet123 wrote: »

I am certainly not suggesting thhat at all. I am saying that whilst privately many Christians have no issues with gay people, they do not see why the traditions of their church should be obliged to be changed to suit others.

Huh? Really? So a Christian who feels completely comfortable with homosexuality, who doesn't think it's a sin wants the less tolerant and accepting members of the church to carry on condemning gay people to burn in hell so that the 'traditions' of their church aren't changed?

What a load of bull! Honestly, that's the biggest load of crap I've read so far. The Christians I know who are accepting of gay people feel absolutely saddened and ashamed that others are still stuck in the 19th century!

Church doctrines move with the times! Being progressive is a good thing! :rotfl:

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

This is a forum, diverse opinion is allowed.

Not when it is clearly wrong. If you think about this hard enough, your beliefs on this are immoral and utterly attrocious to be honest.

Who exactly do you think you are to say that a civil partnership is "enough" for a gay couple???

passatrider

I don't think any person gay or straight has the right to tell others how to live their lives to be honest. If two people want to marry then let them. End of.

johnnyboyrebel

redped wrote: »

You've deflected away from answering my question about your "religious nut" comment. Twice I've asked you whether you find "homosexual nut" to be an insult, and twice you've ignored the question. Therefore I can only assume that you do find it to be an insult, yet you don't find "religious nut" to be an insult. That makes you a hypocrite.

I've followed this thread with interest to see the arguments from both sides. As you now have lowered yourself to insulting people and swearing to get your point across, it clearly shows that you are incapable of calm, rational debate.

?? After hearing your beliefs, the majority of people will be viewing this thread and assuming this is a wind up on your part or cannot actually believe that such biggotry still exists in 2011.

"homosexual nut" means nothing to me, why would it be insulting? Religious nut suggests someone is brainwashed into some madcap view on life so I'm not sure how this can possibly relate to "homosexual nut". I didn't comment on it as it meant nothing to me.

redped

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

?? After hearing your beliefs, the majority of people will be viewing this thread and assuming this is a wind up on your part or cannot actually believe that such biggotry still exists in 2011.

You must have bionic hearing if you think you heard what my beliefs are. If you actually read my posts, you'll find I never once stated what my beliefs or views are - you have absolutely no idea whether or not I'm religious, or whether or not I believe that gay marriage should be allowed. In post #238 I said "I've followed this thread with interest to see the arguments from both sides.", but I haven't given my views ... and yet you call me a bigot!

If you can find one of my posts where I do state my beliefs/views then please point it out to us all. If you had any decency you'd apologise for calling me a bigot, but having read your previous posts you'll most likely either ignore this post, or just start swearing again.

The only thing you will find by reading my posts is that I pulled you up on the hypocrisy of your statement:

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

There are no insults.

just several posts after you threw the insult:

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Spoken like a true religious nut.

johnnyboyrebel

MamaMoo wrote: »

I have my reasons, none of which I intend to share on an Internet forum.

No reasons or valid answer then.

if you were to fall in a love with a male your church would have kicked you out on your !!!. You didn't and you still are part of that church.