Should gay marrige be allowed?

vyle

ceebeeby wrote: »

And in 2026 people will be fighting for the right to marry their goldfish, cat or dog?

IN MY OPINION: God made man. God made woman. Man + woman = marriage.

This "god" made people with legs, so why use vehicular transport?
"god" did not give man wings, yet he flies in planes.
"god" made some people deaf, so hearing aids should be banned.

If you're going to go the "god made" argument, at least live your life 100% according to the conditions "god" provided in the story, rather than pick and choose which bits you will follow.

Of course, in reality, there is no god, and evolution threw up various irregularities, biological conditions and unique circumstances that means that some people are hard wired to find others of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex attractive.

This concerns you, because you find a mystical floating head with absolute power more plausible.

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It's perfectly clear that this thread has gone way off the rails. I actually understand exactly the point poet123 is trying to state in that it should be down to the individual church whether they are comfortable in marrying a gay couple. The problem is poet is coming out with all sorts of pedantic statements just to wind folk up by the looks of it.

I am not actually, I was responding in that vein because that particular poster was himself being pedantic, and shifting the goalposts when replying.

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

The biggest problem here is that the religious clan cannot be dealt with as it is all 1 sided. They cannot hear anything other than their own views and never Will. They will debate until they are blue in the face so this thread may aswell be closed.

That is clearly not true, many of us simply want the choice for both "sides" to be enshrined in law. On the other hand it is ironic that those who want choice for gay people do not see the same issue for those who are religious as being important. The anti religious are more evangelical than those who are:rotfl:

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

The question is should gay people be allowed to be married and the answer overall is yes. Whether every church should have to marry them is another debate. Religion is fickle and as pathetic and outdated it can be it will always be there as long as people missing something in their lives insist on being a part of it rather than taking stock of their lives.

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Either that or until, sadly, something evil does happen in their lives which makes them think that maybe a bearded man in a robe doesn't exist as if he does and "sees all"he must be the devil himself to allow it. It's all hypocracy of the highest order but hey I'm sure the god squad will tell me my opinion means nothing.

MMmmm, equally I suspect there were not too many atheists in the twin towers or onboard those aircraft. As far as I am aware no one has said your opinion means nothing, you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you wish, so long as you accord others the same respect. Actually, I think it is you who tell others their opinions mean nothing. That is hypocrisy.

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Deep down we all know the real answer to the question, it just depends if certain are man enough to accept it.

Deep down we all know our own answer, no one should be forcing their answer on others.

johnnyboyrebel

antrobus wrote: »

It's a choice. I'm not sure that it makes any difference whether one option might be regarded as being more 'special' than the other; people (or at least hetrosexual people) are faced with the alternative.

My marriage was a civil ceremony, no mention of the other crap.

It was more special than any "church" wedding that I've been too. Everyone said so, even a lot of the christians that attended. It is a general consensus that civil weddings are more intimate, I guess its because it removes the intense religious section that is forced upon people.

Again, a general opinion from my exerience.

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

The anti religious are more evangelical than those who are:rotfl:

The reason for this is that religion is simply not true, never has been and never will be. Getting down to the nitty gritty, you do not seriously believe a guy called God died on the cross etc. etc. do you? This is the core question, if you do then you can understand 100% that this makes you look very crazy.

poet123 wrote: »

MMmmm, equally I suspect there were not too many atheists in the twin towers or onboard those aircraft. As far as I am aware no one has said your opinion means nothing, you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you wish, so long as you accord others the same respect. Actually, I think it is you who tell others their opinions mean nothing. That is hypocrisy.

Opinion is opinion, crazy talk is crazy talk. my views are normal, clearly religious views are not. This is not a debate on opinion, it is common sense.

fluffnutter

poet123 wrote: »

My issue is that the churches be protected against those who would force them to also marry gay people when it is outside their core beliefs.

Problem is how far do you take that stance? Is this dispensation from the law only to be applied to churches or can any group of people with a defined set of 'core beliefs' make their own rules up?

At the end of the day, even private organisations are subject to the law, and discrimination's illegal.

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

But if they are so silly why would others want to share them? Yet they do.....go figure.:rotfl:

I just saw this comment which doesn't really warrant any response however your argument of if the beliefs are so silly then why would other people believe it is so utterly blinkered it is unbelievable.

Its like there is no explanation left for believing christianity so it is down to, "well i cannot be that silly as other people believe the same." Other people are sheep and will believe anything when they are at the lowest in their lives cue religious cults etc.

This thread kind of reminds me of the Louis Theroux episode on the Westboro Baptist Church. Time and time again, the members made ludicrous statements like "fags should die" and they turned up at soliders funerals to rejoice as they thought when someone died (anyone) it was "God's will" so they should celebrate. Time and time again Louis pointed out how ridicuous this sounds however there is no talking to them. They believe what they believe and that is it, even though it is clearly bull. (they even claimed Barrack Obama actually is the devil) I'm sure this looks crazy to anyone including Christians so now you know how you look to non religious people. It is this lack of seeing how utterly ludicrous some of your statements are that means this thread is a no go as it will always be "us against you".

You state you have not actually shared your views so any reference to "you" is anyone with a religious belief, not you specifically. Although it is perfectly clear which way your bread is buttered so not sure how you can claim not to have shared your views.

Religion is very much like me stating !!!!!!!s are red' when clearly they aren't and when people point out they aren't I argue infinitely that they are. is this basic enough to understand our points???

johnnyboyrebel

What has this forum come to when my word of b-a-n-a-n-a was removed as if it was a swear word LOL

Jen_Jen1985

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

you do not seriously believe a guy called God died on the cross etc. etc. do you? This is the core question, if you do then you can understand 100% that this makes you look very crazy.

sorry couldnt resist the correction, it was Jesus that died on the cross, not God.

I not even going to get into the religous debate on this thread, Im fully awear that not everyone will share my views and no matter what I type, it will not change anyones mind.

esuhl

antrobus wrote: »

But there is.

Like I said... How is a civil marriage an alternative to marriage?

It's like saying that coffee is alternative to a hot drink.

If you drew a Venn diagram, one option would be wholly contained by the other; a sub-set if you like.

Get it?

poet123 wrote: »

{M}any of us simply want the choice for both "sides" to be enshrined in law. On the other hand it is ironic that those who want choice for gay people do not see the same issue for those who are religious as being important. The anti religious are more evangelical than those who are:rotfl:

How are the religious not being considered here? They can get married just like atheist heterosexuals. And if gay marriage were legalised, any church/temple/whatever that wanted to could marry a gay couple.

However, if the status quo remains, gay people would be unable to get married due to what appears to be religious bigotry. If religion weren't such an obstacle to fairness, I doubt most people would mind it.

Just a thought, but if religious people don't want the "same kind of arrangement" to be available for a gay couple as for them, maybe we ought to legalise gay marriage and ban religion from marriage ceremonies? Instead, we could introduce "religious partnerships" for couples that wanted to formalise their togetherness in front of a deity. A sort-of marriage in all but name... and legal status, of course... What objections could there possibly be?

poet123 wrote: »

Deep down we all know our own answer, no one should be forcing their answer on others.

I don't know how anyone can know anything "deep down". Knowledge comes from sense data and subsequent logical processing. But no one shouuld be forcing their opinions on others... which is exactly why gay marriage should be permitted. Permitting something does not force it on others; unjustifiably banning it on religious grounds does.

Whether you know anything "deep down", "in your gut" or by listening to God, unless you can justify your beliefs without supernatural explanations, then you cannot be justified in forcing your beliefs onto others.

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

The reason for this is that religion is simply not true, never has been and never will be. Getting down to the nitty gritty, you do not seriously believe a guy called God died on the cross etc. etc. do you? This is the core question, if you do then you can understand 100% that this makes you look very crazy.



Opinion is opinion, crazy talk is crazy talk. my views are normal, clearly religious views are not. This is not a debate on opinion, it is common sense.

These are really bigoted views, which, if expressed by someone religious about those who are not would be decried as unacceptable. Seems the reverse does not apply.