President Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

DAIR · 10 May 2012 at 13:52

Thanks for the edit lol

These religious laws are too grey....

wildman · 10 May 2012 at 13:55

Tyron said:
Your poll didn't even have a link, it is dated in 2004, this is 2012, the poll is backed up by nothing.

I have provided hard evidence, you have provided cheap laughs.

Close the door on the way out.

Actually I think you will find that this entire forum is waiting for you to post hard evidence rather than anecdotal trash like you always do. If you could provide hard statistic and empirical data I think your position would be a lot stronger. Currently you simply come across as a ranting maniac.

My personal view is I really couldn't care one way or the other. I don't really know any homosexuals, have never really mixed with them, so that doesn't place me in a position where I can object for any reasons other than joining the usual gay bashing brigade, or approve,as either way there is no bearing on my circumstances if they get married or not.

LLBDTiberio · 10 May 2012 at 13:58

spudbynight said:
Just a small point of clarification but in this country there is no right to abortion.

Last time I checked, the abortion act of 1967 does allow abortion :confused:

steve-h · 10 May 2012 at 14:01

spudbynight said:
Well having those thoughts is wrong as well.

LOL, of course.

I think the best way to debate religious people is to assume Zeus or Horus as your god and just plow through their bible nonsense with contradictions from your god, since we so often get to the bible nonsense without a scrap of evidence being put forward for it actually being the word of a god...

I mean, how far do we usually look into people's unfounded conclusions that aren't associated with religion? We don't and shouldn't.

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:03

LLBDTiberio said:
Last time I checked, the abortion act of 1967 does allow abortion

Yes, I am aware of that. It does not recognise it as a right though.

There is a very big difference.

What the law actually sets out are the circumstances under which an abortion practitioner will not be in breach of the Offences against the Person Act.

Nobody has a right to an abortion in this country but there are specific conditions which if met will not mean a crime is committed.

Unfortunately, in my view, too many people in society today are concerned with their "rights" and not concerned enough with their "responsibilities"

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 14:05

Tyron said:
+1

This is what I have been saying all along just the ignorant liberals looking for fights no matter what you tell them.

But for the 1000th time. NO ONE IS FORCING CHURCHES TO CARRY OUT OR RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE.

So what actually is your point?

Tyron · 10 May 2012 at 14:05

LLBDTiberio said:
I'd argue it's highly relevant as it shows that if we allow the church to dictate policy we wouldn't have the right to abortion or even divorce.

But they're not dictating policy because abortion is an ethical debate not a religious one.

LLBDTiberio said:
You seem to forget that the church isn't the only religious institution around, many other religions have no problem with gay marriage

Please list them.

LLBDTiberio said:
why should the Christian religion be held higher than them and be allowed to dictate their religious doctrine to non-members?

This is a Christian nation.

LLBDTiberio said:
we are NOT ASKING that the church be forced to marry us if they don't want to but we are asking the government to legalise it so we can enjoy the same rights as you and marry in a church/mosque/temple if the priest agrees.

You are asking two different things here. Again why do you want to be married in a place where their religion doesn't like homosexuals?

LLBDTiberio said:
There are many priests within the church that do want to marry gay couples, let the priests decide.

Then should be excommunicated because they're going against the church, unless the Pope himself declares homosexuals can be married in churches they should follow the institution.

LLBDTiberio said:
Or we could have course just disband the idea of marriage all together and make all have civil partnerships.

I hope that was sarcasm.

LLBDTiberio said:
I'm backing out of this thread, everyone should have the right to a happy life without being discriminated against, and I will gladly invite Tyron to my wedding .

I am not discriminating you, read the thread again, cya.

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:10

LLBDTiberio - a question for you as a gay man.

How would you feel if civil partnerships were opened to all and marriage was only permitted in religious ceremonies between a man and a woman.

In essence there would be non religious marriages (civil partnerships) which were available to all and religious marriages (marriage)

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 14:11

spudbynight said:
I can only speak for the Catholic Church really but it doesn't teach that being Gay is a sin.

It does teach that acting upon those urges and engaging in homosexual activities is sinful.

Yes well the Catholic Church recently had to apologise for it's part in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, Injustice towards women (half the human race), the forced conversions of indigenous people especially from South America, the African slave trade and for falling silent during the holocaust.

So given it's horrific history, I wouldn't place too much weight on what the Catholic Church says on anything. If it was wrong on all of the above, how can you trust it's views on homosexuality now?

krooton · 10 May 2012 at 14:14

estebanrey said:
Yes well the Catholic Church recently had to apologise for it's part in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, Injustice towards women (half the human race), the forced conversions of indigenous people especially from South America, the African slave trade and for falling silent during the holocaust.

So given it's horrific history, I wouldn't place too much weight on what the Catholic Church says on anything. If it was wrong on all of the above, how can you trust it's views on homosexuality now?

The Catholic Church has been way more detrimental to the world than homosexuals for sure.

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:14

estebanrey said:
But for the 1000th time. NO ONE IS FORCING CHURCHES TO CARRY OUT OR RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE.

So what actually is your point?

Well on this topic alone the fear that many have is that should this law be passed then cases of discrimination would be raised in the ECHR. I have already read of gay people keen to push for this the second "gay marriage" is introduced.

I personally believe it is naive to believe that should "gay marriage" be introduced the gay lobby would stop at that point. I have heard Peter Tatchell himself state that this would be the next step.

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:14

krooton said:
The Catholic Church has been way more detrimental to the world than homosexuals for sure.

Empirical evidence or is that just your opinion?

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 14:15

Tyron said:
But they're not dictating policy because abortion is an ethical debate not a religious one.

Marriage isn't a religious matter either and I don't know why you keep peddling this myth.

steve-h · 10 May 2012 at 14:15

spudbynight said:
In essence there would be non religious marriages (civil partnerships) which were available to all and religious marriages (marriage)

You know, I actually think this is an amazing idea... as long as churches could offer them, assuming they would. Else it's a bad idea in my opinion.

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 14:16

spudbynight said:
Empirical evidence or is that just your opinion?

It's demonstrably true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH6DI37bK6I

Answers the homosexuality question brilliantly too.

realBabelfish · 10 May 2012 at 14:18

https://twitter.com/#!/barryjohnharper/status/200540607507206145/photo/1

sums it up nicely. nice one Obama

Scotty123 · 10 May 2012 at 14:18

LLBDTiberio said:
I
Or we could have course just disband the idea of marriage all together and make all have civil partnerships.
.

I don't want a marriage. I don't want a civil partnership in fact. I'd just like the recognition of legal rights of cohabitation or whatever.

I'd like to sign a form and send it off. No events or drama.

I don't believe in marriage and agree with what Drunkenmaster said a few pages back.

That is what 'marriage' means to me, in other words, nothing. I accept and respect that to other people it can mean more and in some cases 'a relationship before god'. Not religious at all, as I keep saying

.

Everyone has a different interpretation of marriage, 'doesn't matter if between man and woman or man and man', 'man and woman only' etc. Marriage means what it means to you, never you mind about what it means to other people. Leave them to it.

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:20

estebanrey said:
Yes well the Catholic Church recently had to apologise for it's part in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, Injustice towards women (half the human race), the forced conversions of indigenous people especially from South America, the African slave trade and for falling silent during the holocaust.

So given it's horrific history, I wouldn't place too much weight on what the Catholic Church says on anything. If it was wrong on all of the above, how can you trust it's views on homosexuality now?

I don't trust the views of the Catholic Church - I trust in the word of God as revealed to man. The Catholic Church has made many mistakes over the years and certainly does not claim to be infallible. It does however stress that God is.

Archbishop Chaput said:
Heinrich Himmler, the chief of Adolph Hitler’s security services during the Nazi era in Germany, once threatened the Archbishop of Berlin, Cardinal Konrad Graf, with plans to crush the Catholic Church. Cardinal Graf listened politely and then responded: "Well, good luck. We’ve been trying to do that for 2,000 years, and [the Church is] still here."

Evelyn Waugh said:
the Church must be divine because no purely human institution run with such knavish imbecility would last a fortnight.

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 14:20

spudbynight said:
Well on this topic alone the fear that many have is that should this law be passed then cases of discrimination would be raised in the ECHR. I have already read of gay people keen to push for this the second "gay marriage" is introduced.

But what's stopping the ECHR doing that now? I don't understand how the law not currently existing stops the ECHR from forcing Churches to marry gay people and why introducing gay marriage would make them act????

spudbynight said:
I personally believe it is naive to believe that should "gay marriage" be introduced the gay lobby would stop at that point. I have heard Peter Tatchell himself state that this would be the next step.

Peter Tatchell is militant gay man whom I mostly disagree with, are you saying he speaks on behalf of all gay people?

spudbynight · 10 May 2012 at 14:22

estebanrey said:
It's demonstrably true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH6DI37bK6I

Answers the homosexuality question brilliantly too.

No, that is a debate not empirical evidence.

A good debater can argue either side. I think that Hitchens was a wonderfully skilled debater - it doesn't make him right. I personally believe that had Fry and Hitchens argued the opposite side they would also have won.