Even in the States you don't get (m)any people genuinely calling for women who have sex before marriage to be stoned to death outside their father's home do you?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Gay Marriage Bill
- Thread starter Baleforce
- Start date
Even in the States you don't get (m)any people genuinely calling for women who have sex before marriage to be stoned to death outside their father's home do you?
nelto
Andy Sinton
The Christians have been through it (America aside). I refer you to the Crusades.
Richie
Naybet
This is a conservative bill introduced by a conservative government. I don't understand why people are complaining about the Tory vote on this, sure plenty voted against it but the government was fully behind this.
If anything, this is showing that Cameron and a significant number of the Tory party are trying to move in to the 21st century, and should be applauded.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
No, but there are probably more people than the entire population of London, that believe evolution should be removed from US schools
But I'm referring to a strict adoption of behaviours and punishments that are referred to in the Bible; things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM
The kinds of things that some extremist Muslims do want / try to adopt from the Koran.
Last edited:
jts1882
Dean Richards
Yes, it should. The government brought up the bill and allowed a free vote. That is the way it should be for such issues. It would be better if more bills were subject to a free vote as then we might get better legislation. Most of the time bills are forced through on a partisan divide and point scoring is more important than improving the legislation.
On the gay marriage, I really don't understand why so many people care so strongly. For the gay community and their friends its obviously a big deal, but it doesn't affect other people so generally their opinions should be mildly for (if a believer in liberty) or mildly against (if conservatively religious). The bill sensibly doesn't force churches to preside over gay marriages (although why a gay couple would genuinely want to marry in a church that rejects them is a mystery), so conservative churches are protected. Many people gain and no one loses. How often can government action claim that.
All the sanctity of marriage and procreation arguments are ridiculous. They gave up on biblical marriage when they allowed divorce and there are no restrictions on the marriage of post-menopausal women, dirty old rich men, or the infertile. I think it was William Hague who recently stated that Conservatives believe that marriage is good for the stability of society so the more people who get married the better.
edgey-the-yid
Gheorge Popescu
I've gone over from Blue to Purple too. Tory party doesnt know whether its left, right, up or down. Its clearly split too... Never a good thing for a party. Plus UKIP speaking sense on EU situation, the only people who are.
As for the OP Im not sure if Im astounded that people would vote against. Whats the point of a vote if your not expecting opposition?
Im not opposed myself, nor am I opposed to gay couples adopting, but i dont think people who are opposed are evil or should be ashamed... Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs.
spursman17
Stephen Kelly
I'm against it. A wedding in a church is a religious ceremony. Civil partnerships are there for equal rights for same sex couples.
If you don't agree with the bible then don't follow the religion.
People see a wedding in a church as something 'expected to do' to announce their commitment while ignoring the facts and meaning behind the ceremony and the truth behind the tradition.
I wonder how many people want to get married in a church just because of the setting and beautiful buildings while taking little notice of the religious reasons behind it.
Similar to funerals. When someone dies they are 'expected' to be sent off in a place of worship when the true meaning behind say a catholic funeral is to bless the spirit/soul while it departs this World to be greeted in heaven by GHod the creator.
I have nothing against gay people but just because you are gay does not mean everyone and everything should bend the rules especially rules that have been around for thousands of years.
If you don't agree with the bible then don't follow the religion.
People see a wedding in a church as something 'expected to do' to announce their commitment while ignoring the facts and meaning behind the ceremony and the truth behind the tradition.
I wonder how many people want to get married in a church just because of the setting and beautiful buildings while taking little notice of the religious reasons behind it.
Similar to funerals. When someone dies they are 'expected' to be sent off in a place of worship when the true meaning behind say a catholic funeral is to bless the spirit/soul while it departs this World to be greeted in heaven by GHod the creator.
I have nothing against gay people but just because you are gay does not mean everyone and everything should bend the rules especially rules that have been around for thousands of years.
spursman17
Stephen Kelly
Much of Christianity focuses around the New Testament (530 BC and 70 CE). The Old Testament is not ignored but is not focused nearly as much as the new.
Having said that the phrases in question you speak of can be interpreted in many ways. This is similar to the fuelling of the hatred towards the Quran.
Examples in the Quran people who oppose it say verse: 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
They post the above verse while ignoring the verses before and after and never post the full story or setting in which the above phrase was said.
Qur'an (2:190) Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an (2:192 )But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Qur'an (2:193) and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. BUT IF THEY DESIST, THEN LET THERE BE NO HOSTILITY EXCEPT AGAINST WRONG-DOERS.
And before anyone asks no I'm not a religous freak but someone who takes interest of peoples views on religion and how they live their life based on their views.
Last edited:
I had a wedding, it wasn't in a church and neither was it a religious ceremony.
Why should I have more rights than a gay person? Replace the word gay with black or Irish, how does it sound then?
spursman17
Stephen Kelly
Black or Irish refers to race, religion refers to an optional belief.
I'm talking specifically about religious weddings and those held on religious places of worship since this is what is usually targeted by the media over this matter.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
Racist
Yup - our civil ceremony didn't allow any mention of godly stuff, so all the readings had to be vetted for mentions of angels or heaven or whatever. The music wasn't allowed to have religious connotations either.
yiddo2786
Steed Malbranque
Weddings don't have to be religious whatsoever. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds of years.
jts1882
Dean Richards
This would be fine if it applied to all people. Keep marriage for a religious ceremony in church/mosque/synagogue. Everything else would be a civil partnership.
But we don't have that. Atheists can get married in churches. The churches allow "tourist" marriages so why should gay people be excluded? We have recognised marriages performed outside churches for a long time. It would be far more controversial to declare all marriages outside churches as just civil partnerships.
P.S. The concept of a union of a man and woman predates christianity. But the word in the English language referred to the religious form as that was the practice when English became a language.
So if that religion stated that black people were some kind of underclass and unworthy in the eyes of their GHod would that be ok?
If not, why is it ok to discriminate against people for being gay?
Gordinho
Banned
I genuinely do not know the difference between a registry office wedding and a civil partnership. Or will civil partnerships become defunct and it will just be termed a registry office wedding from now on whether you're gay, straight or Australian?
Last edited:
I'm not sure there is much of a difference - I would be just as happy if all non-religious weddings were known as civil ceremonies. It's the differentiation and attempting not to allow one group based on an act of chance in genetics that bothers me so much.
Edit - partnerships not ceremonies. They're already called civil ceremonies.