Should gay marrige be allowed?

johnnyboyrebel

jamespir wrote: »

are you talking to yourself ?

May aswell be mate :beer:

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

No, it is just your opinion, really, it is. For you to keep saying otherwise just makes you look rather foolish.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You do understand that concept?

As stated, back to the topic.

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

As stated, back to the topic.

That will be a "no" then?

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

That will be a "no" then?

As said, I apologised to anyone who would be offended and we are leaving it there. It's become a very boring discussion.

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

As said, I apologised to anyone who would be offended and we are leaving it there. It's become a very boring discussion.

Oh, are we!:T you do have a high opinion of yourself don't you? Remember, this is a forum, others can respond without your permission.;)

The boring part was listening to you try to define an opinion as fact (only your opinion though, obviously). The entertaining part was prodding you with a stick and watching you dig deeper, oh, and your lack of understanding of a universally accepted concept.

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

Oh, are we!:T you do have a high opinion of yourself don't you?

Not really. I'm leaving it there.

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

Not really. I'm leaving it there.

Better, you're finally getting the hang of this forum thing.;)

sweetstudent

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.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but you say that "God Made Man" Where is your proof?

But if God did make man, then God also made gay men/women!

23n1th

Wow a lot of posts since I've been away. I can't reply to all the nonense here but will my favourite nonsense.

poet123 wrote: »

Where did I say any of the above? I am not outlining my views on being gay or gay practice, but those of the church. I am defending their right to differentiate according to their beliefs between the gay person (with whom they have no issue) and the gay person who engages in gay sexual practices by choice, an act the churches do not agree with. You may not agree with that view but they are entitled to hold it.

The church changes when it wants to or when forced to, limbo for un-baptised children come to mind. Accepting the earth is not the centre of the universe or flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth etc etc etc etc. The list could go on. Why is it unwilling to change now? Because its bigoted and it doesn't suit it to.

No, you asked me to clarify what gay practice was so I told you, and my answer was clear and correct for the question asked. You then went onto say that was I was confused when it was apparent that you were not referring to the same question but another which you had not actually posed.

I didn't want to get into the debate with you I didn't see the point. And after that I didn't get much of a chance. You kept going on and on and on about my definition of "gay practice", how would you know I was talking about being gay as a whole?

No, people choose to believe or not when they are old enough to do so prior to that their parents choose a faith or none for them as with every other parental duty. Many do leave the churches, so how can they be indoctrinated? if that was the case no one would leave.

No you're wrong. Some lucky people do but a lot can't because they are feared to or riddled with guilt (something the catholic church excels at!)

Choice brings with it onus, you choose to do xyz you cannot do abc.

But with homosexual marriage we're talking freedom.

It is a fact that the required state of a catholic priest is celibacy, the fact that some are not does not alter that requirement. The point was being made to the poster who stated no healthy adult goes without sex.

But you didn't make that point you simply stated the cathlic preists are celibate. Which by your own standards (which you used to refute someone elses facts) is not a fact. And you accuse me of altering the goal posts!:rotfl:

No one is entitled, they meet the criteria or they don't meet the criteria.

No one said religions own marriage but they are entitled to have and express a view on how they conduct them and between whom.

Well thats your opinion, mine is they should be able to discriminate.

Or you could simply do as others do and go elsewhere to have your needs met if you cannot/don't want to adhere to the rules.

The point being homosexuals can't go elsewhere can they.

Gender is innate, sexual practice is not.

Gender is not innate. You should ask a transsexual that.

They can choose to accept the restrictions the church places on them re sexual contact, or they can join a church which does not have those restrictions, just as divorcees or those who don't want any children brought up in the faith have to do.

Again all about choice.

Thats what the church is all about though isn't it? Do as we say and not as we do.

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.

In my opinion man being stupid and unable to explain the world around him created “God” the smarter men thought “hhhmmm, this is a good form of control” and the rest is history.

poet123 wrote: »

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

I love this post! It should win the the most inaccurate post in history!

poet123 wrote: »

It is the content and language used which evidences bigotry, not the underlying opinion.

No bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it. But for some reason put it in a frock with a silly hat and bigotry is acceptable and protected.

poet123 wrote: »

In that it has not been proven or dis-proven, which strangely is why it is called "faith". It is akin to the gay gene then, as it has not been proven or dis proven that being gay is innate, yet I supect you believe (as I actually do;)) that it is. How does that differ?...


The fact is that no one, not you, not the cleverest scientists (many of whom are, incidentally, Christians or of another faith) can prove or disprove the existence of God, and for you to keep banging on about your opinion being fact is quite frankly laughable ...

You made a classic mistake. Don't worry many religious people do. You can proven a negative dear. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise be its name) doesn't exist and we both know who has the biggest balls and therefore the best make-believe being;).

There is as much proof for the "gay gene" as there is with the "heterosexual gene".

poet123 wrote: »

I am not sure how the definition of "religious groups" is applied under the current discrimination laws (from which they are exempt) but I think that seems to suit the majority. I suspect it is defined as a recognised mainstream religion with a reasonable following.

I don't understand why they are exempt.

poet123 wrote: »

... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You do understand that concept?

Do you????! One minute you're going on about how the “gay gene” hasn't been proven and therefore no one can say it exists, then the next saying its fine to believe is something that has no evidence such as gods. Contradicting yourself a little. The “gay gene” has a little more efvidence than “god”.

There is no evidence of Thor, Odin, Zeus, (add thousands of other "gods"), does that mean they also exist? How do you know you have the right god?

MamaMoo wrote: »

Strictly speaking, yes, but thanks to the Romans (I think) the Sabbath became Sunday, and is now (by most Christians, anyhow) celebrated on a Sunday....

So basically you're saying that religion can and does change when it wants to, is forced to and when it suits religion. Interesting that it doesn't want to change now, when it obviously can.

Dave101t wrote: »

the issue here is that being gay isnt natural. no other animal decides to have a relationship with another male.
thats because all animals work on instinct.
humans have a choice.
this possibly leads to the conclusion that gay is a choice, that would make an interesting science documentary.

Wrong. Do some research and stop making things up. Silly silly Dave:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

MamaMoo_2

Actually, Christianity has never really made a big issue out of what day is the day of rest. There are a few Bible quotes stating that it doesn't matter as long as once a week a day of rest is observed.