Should gay marrige be allowed?

fluffnutter

steekyjim wrote: »

It's irresponsible for the media to be pushing homosexuality as if it is normal/acceptable. It's actually very dangerous.

HIV didn't turn out to be an apocalyptic threat to 'decent society' after all. Didn't you get the memo? Wake up; it's not the 1980s any more.

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

What transparent rubbish:T What had I said in earlier posts that lead you to assume that I was confused as to what being gay entailed? Do tell....quotes please.

Very erudite!

As you wanted here are the posts that lead me to the conclusion you are a little confused on what being gay actually is. They're not in order but here they are:

poet123 wrote: »

The churches don't condemn the person they condemn the act or practice. Those who wish to preserve the traditions of the church and the accepted tenets of the faith are fully entitled to do so. If someone wants to join any private institution they abide by the rules or go elsewhere. That is the same for all, straight or gay. I was married in the RC church, and if my husband to be had not agreed to bring up any children in that faith we could not have been married there, likewise had he been divorced. We would have to have accepted that and sought a civil alternative or found a church which would marry us.

I don't feel any church should be made to undertake soething they have strong religious objections to. Fortunately the govt appear to think the same way.

I disagree. My stance has nothing to do with gay or straight, but rather that there are rules we all have to follow if we choose to belong to a church. No one forces anyone to go to church it is a choice, and if you make that choice you have to abide by the rules.

Civil marriage has to be enough for many who do not fit the criteria for a church wedding. If you actually read my posts rather than engage in rant mode;) you will see I don't have any strong feeling about a change in law to allow gay marriage, so long as churches are not forced to undertake them against their will and are protected in law from legal challenge.

poet123 wrote: »

I am aware of the make up of chromosomes,;) my point was in regard to the findings re the make up of those of gay men.

Where is the study which shows that particularly?

poet123 wrote: »

It would be illegal (quite rightly) but a) gay practise is a choice not an innate characteristic like gender or colour is and b) Religious organisations are exempt from the discrimination laws.

I have no objections to civil marriage. Nor do I believe the church has a monopoly on marriage, just on marriages which contain a religious element, which by extrapolation require adherence to certain rules.

poet123 wrote: »

I am ambivalent about the concept of gay marriage, if someone could explain the practical differences between that and the current civil partnership then maybe I could see why it needs to have a name change.

With regard to their God, if their religion allows it (and some do) there is no issue, but others which don't should not be forced to bend to what is still a minority view within many religions. You don't join a club and change the rules the majority want and abide by.

poet123

23n1th wrote: »

As you wanted here are the posts that lead me to the conclusion you are a little confused on what being gay actually is. They're not in order but here they are:

Yes, those are my posts,;)(not hard to find some on here) but you will have to be specific about which ones, and specifically which parts of the posts lead you to the conclusion that I am confused about what being gay is.

In order to be put in context you need to include the posts I am responding to. Otherwise, you have just put an unrelated set of my posts up here which do not show what you contend they show.:D

Over to you.

23n1th

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, those are my posts,;)(not hard to find some on here) but you will have to be specific about which ones, and specifically which parts of the posts lead you to the conclusion that I am confused about what being gay is.

I thought by posting the specific posts I was referring to I was being specific enough. Go figure:rotfl::doh:

In order to be put in context you need to include the posts I am responding to. Otherwise, you have just put an unrelated set of my posts up here which do not show what you contend they show.:D

Over to you.

And no I don't. You asked for quotes I gave you them, anyone wanting context can find the original posts for themselves, I'm wasting no more of my time trying to jumping through more of your hoops. You have what you originally asked for.

essex1990

wow that same 'poet' person is still going on for about 10 pages now on his opinion that few people share.

my view is that the law should be changed so that all religions are CAPABLE of marrying people, whether they choose to marry them or not are upto them. If the priest wants to marry 2 gay people he should be allowed to marry them. I would like to think that Love is a concept invented by God and if 2 people have found it in each other then why can they not be married in a ceremony invented by the God who invented their love, surely that is what God would want rather then be married by the state which played no part in creating their love.