LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut non-religious people can get "married" in a registry office. That has nothing to do with the church. Are you against that? If not, what difference is the sex of the people getting "married"?Originally Posted by Slick
But non-religious people can get "married" in a registry office. That has nothing to do with the church. Are you against that? If not, what difference is the sex of the people getting "married"?
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
what makes people heterosexual???
heterosexuality isn't normal it is just common.
"The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." Karl Marx
Well I wouldn't be against same sex people getting married in a registry office, I just see it as a bit disrespectful if it was in a church.
I just think it's funny to resort to tabling a constitutional amendment for something so trivial. There have only been 27 in the past few centuries for gods sake.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
lol ok well my reasoning for them being banned was because it's a religious ceremony. Just as I'm not a muslim and don't share their beliefs, I wouldn't go and get married in a mosque as other muslims would find it offensive, especially if the ceremony was based around something their religion disagrees with. I suggested a civil partnership which would have the same legal rights as a marriage but if they want to get married in a registry office which isn't a religious place, I wouldn't be opposed to that.
I'm not going to post my comments on heterosexuality coz I'll get another earfull, but whatever they are one person does not have the right to tell two people they can't get married in any situation, be it in a church (which would be against the bible anyway, but there are gay priests - which totally goes against the religion they believe in!) or a registry office.
The issue of homosexuality is mentioned about 14 times in the bible and the section in leviticus you're refering to says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them " (Leviticus 20:13) I would say that's considered as a greater sin than wearing 1% lycra.
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means homophobic. If going by what the bible says I prefer the Jesus attitude of love everyone. However you can't deny that the bible is against it and therefore would be disrespectful to ignore it.
I concur.
I'm Catholic, not the greatest participating Catholic in the world, but I try.
I have nothing against homosexual people, but I don’t agree with homosexual activity. Its what I believe in.
Why?
What worries me is the prospect of Kerry getting in - now he is a REAL nobrainer!!
I doubt he would be bad enough for anyone to set up a website like this about him.
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/
Seems the only true democrat in the race was Howard Dean..
Now that is funny
I agree that Dean is probably the only true democrat, but he shot himslef in the foot with THAT speech.
The trouble with Kerry is that he is another Clinton, i.e. popularist, but without any of the political savvy (tho that was mostly Hillary) or economic sense. The US will just go down the pan for 4/5 years, mired in special interest lobbying
It could hardly be worse than the special interests of the current administration. Like the website says, Bush/Cheney would invade the moon if Halliburton were lobbying to 'rebuild it'Now that is funny
I agree that Dean is probably the only true democrat, but he shot himslef in the foot with THAT speech.
The trouble with Kerry is that he is another Clinton, i.e. popularist, but without any of the political savvy (tho that was mostly Hillary) or economic sense. The US will just go down the pan for 4/5 years, mired in special interest lobbying
I'm happy to jump on the "anyone but Bush" bandwagon if it gets rid of repressive policies like the above.
As I do not, nor never intend to live in the US I'm not that bothered what they get up to from a social perspective. As long as their economy keeps growing so we don't have another world slump.
I know it's not very ethical from a 'brotherhood of man' perspective, but I'm taking the long term view that they can always overturn any 'daft' laws in 5 years time quite easily. Rebuilding an economy is a far more difficult prospect.....
hmm how can u disagree with two people engaging in consenual acts???? as for catholcism that is a religion that is obessesed with sex! i have no respect for anyone who supports the catholic church it has engaged in some of the worst injustices in human history.. from the raping of latin america, the inquisition , its links to fascism (franco in spain) its silence over the holocaust, the covering up of child abuse and the abuse and stigma it placed on single mothers!
some one who defends the catholic church has no right to lecture others on their activities especially when they are consenting!
"The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being." Karl Marx
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
