Gay marriages bill approved

[jarr]

i'm afraid i can't agree with this bill. marriage for me is a union between a man and a woman (i mean, take a look at your 'equipment', guys and gals, it just makes sense )

it's not that i don't accept gay people, just not their 'preferences'. i'll accept you as a person, but unfortunately can't condone your 'actions', in other words. i hope that won't be seen as being judgemental or intolerant, because i'd like to believe that i'm not, but there it is...

 

[bwana]

These days marriage can be seen as little more than a business arrangement - a binding contract between two people. With the separation between church and state there's no reason not to allow same sex marriages.

 

[LabAnimal]

i'm afraid i can't agree with this bill. marriage for me is a union between a man and a woman (i mean, take a look at your 'equipment', guys and gals, it just makes sense )

it's not that i don't accept gay people, just not their 'preferences'. i'll accept you as a person, but unfortunately can't condone your 'actions', in other words. i hope that won't be seen as being judgemental or intolerant, because i'd like to believe that i'm not, but there it is...

So what you're saying is that you do not accept guys to be with guys just because you say so... not that you have a problem with a gay guy... if he was single and still a virgin then you'll accept him - right ? How narrowminded of you!

you know, i typed this long thing lightly flaming you and desided to delete it because if you believe what you believe, you're not going to change your mind as change takes time. just... stop fantasizing about looking at our equipment, and how we use it - because that's my job as a gay man, you fantasize about your favourite fishcake flavour, and hopefully you will become friends with some guy, and somewhere along the line you will find out he's got a boyfriend - if you're going to reject his friendship on that basis and what he does in bed - then you're truly a Jarr head!.

 

[Claymore]

I for one have had my say, and once again, I have nothing against gay people. It's the activists behind it all IMO that are simply using a minority to get what they want - as usual. With that, I beg your leave. I'm going on my weekend now - I've been married for 10 years, and my wife and I intend to enjoy it.

It doesn't affect you personally in any way, nor change your marriage - so why deny other people the right to have their love recognised?

i'm afraid i can't agree with this bill. marriage for me is a union between a man and a woman (i mean, take a look at your 'equipment', guys and gals, it just makes sense )

it's not that i don't accept gay people, just not their 'preferences'. i'll accept you as a person, but unfortunately can't condone your 'actions', in other words. i hope that won't be seen as being judgemental or intolerant, because i'd like to believe that i'm not, but there it is...

Everyone has their own preferences, that's fine - but do you really want to impose *your* preferences on someone else, especially when it's doing no harm to you?

As for being born that way - there is more and more evidence that it is indeed genetic - but as you say, not a proven fact just yet, but enough to prove you wrong IMO.

Not so sure about genetic, per se; from what I've read, a lot may be due to hormonal changes in the womb. Either way, though, it's pretty certainly not the choice of the person as to which sex they find more attractive.

 

[Claymore]

They crumpled within 2-300 years of the decline in social values. I wasn't talking about the total reign of the empires. Oh, and none will ever come close to them.

"Decline in social values"? That a bit arbitrary, isn't it? Who defines what good and bad social values are? And does that imply causation? I suspect it may have more to do with many, many other reasons, like lead poisoning, pressure from other areas, etc.

 

[Claymore]

No, I agree that slavery was bad. However, the slaves had not chosen it. That is a basic right. Same sex marriage - is that a basic right? We've already established that there is no proof either way that people are born gay...

We have? Not that I've noticed. In fact, literature seems pretty inclined toward gay people being born that way.

 

[ajak]

Reading thru this thread I have come to the conclusion that most [not all] of you would like it if a guy makes eyes at you.

 

[ajax]

would be interesting to see if the law will force churges to adopt this stance - and if the churges refuse, which queen will squeek first and file for discrimination! - it will happen!

Reminds me of the law currently on the table, or was it turned down last week, of forcing doctors to do abortions. So it wouldn't surprise me.

Next on the gay agenda is to introduce sex education books in the schools, one of the books will describe a family with 2 mommy's or 2 daddy's. Basically brainwashing kids into thinking it's a normal thing to have a gay relationship.
You wait and watch, see if it does'nt happen.

Ditto, neio

Divorce - huge step forward. Children no longer growing up in homes where parents hate each other and fight constantly. Better one parent than living in a war zone with two...
...Good riddance to the days when children were harassed because they were born to an unmarried mother.

Treating the symptoms but not looking at the root cause. As for the kids harrassing point, same goes. Slap those people silly doing that - you don't make another wrong to try and fix the first one.

The root cause is marriage is becoming easy-come, easy-go. If divorce isn't an option, you would think longer and more carefully before marrying someone. You would also work harder at your marriage. People seem to think you marry to see what you can GET of out it. If that's the mentality, well divorce is next on the road for you. I am not saying divorce is a no-no in ALL circumstances, but it is unfortunate when spouses keep that in the back of their minds all the time.

The institution of marriage is not being respected, and we are seeing the impact on society.

 

[noxibox]

"Decline in social values"?

Some Romans were lured into the Christianity cult. Perhaps this caused the downfall of Rome?

 

[noxibox]

eventually put one bully severely on his place, and all of them backed off

Bullies are basically cowards. Inflict some pain and they back off quickly.

 

[kilo39]

The institution of marriage is not being respected, and we are seeing the impact on society.

No - what you are seeing is children brought up under the institution of marriage who have no respect due to their upbringing - they/we have no clue of an institution that requires long term unhappiness or dissatisfaction. Where do you think the value system comes from if not the parents, ie, self worth, self esteem, and self satisfaction/fulfillment.

Further - the institution of marriage is being widened - how then is it being not respected (if thereby more people and their value systems are being brought into the institution?)

A paper institution is only worth the value of that paper; a heavily imposed state or church institution (thy shalt not divorce) can bring equal happiness and unhappiness - in the case of unhappiness the rights of the individual have to be respected otherwise greater dysfunction is the result.

The march of the human race is towards more individual freedom and rights (more happiness); the prerogative of marriage should be given all members of society - whatever their orientation - unless of course you would like to start locking up gay people - and anybody else who doesn't fit your mantra -.

Your idea of marriage is lost in the annals of the history books from whence it sprung.

 

[kilps]

Some Romans were lured into the Christianity cult. Perhaps this caused the downfall of Rome?

Quick point there ... the head of state of the UK (the queen) is the head of the Church of England and even the Houses of Parliment have clergy sitting in the House of Lords ... if a nation can be built on this and it can be said that the sun never sets on it's empire then I don't think you can blame Christianity...

 

[LabAnimal]

You know - knowing the gay community as i do (and no, i don't agree with this) This whole marriage thing is going to get blown right out of proportion, and turned into circus weddings - ultra over the top!. Enough makeup on their faces to blind a camel!.

Its like the Gay pride around the world - what's so proud about tramping down a road with a bunch of drag queens pretending they are one big happy family when you have the biggest congregation of B1tches out to outdress the next!...

 

[Nick333]

Quick point there ... the head of state of the UK (the queen) is the head of the Church of England and even the Houses of Parliment have clergy sitting in the House of Lords ... if a nation can be built on this and it can be said that the sun never sets on it's empire then I don't think you can blame Christianity...

The sun set on the British Empire quite some time ago. The reason the british monarch was made head of the church in the UK was in fact to remove the Churches abillity to meddle in matters of state (the catholic church at the time).
The head of state being made the head of religion in the UK actually eventually led to a far more secular government.

Actually I must admit though that christianity was not the cause of the decline of the Roman empire, but rather a very succesfull attempt to retain power as the inevitable decline of Roman millitary might set in. The Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Empire incarnate and the Pope is the direct inheritor of the Roman throne.

Think what you like about the RCC but all forms of protestism are off shoots of it. In other words your church is just a sect of a religion that owes its existence to the emperor Constantines need to unify and control the different tribes and people who made up the Roman Empire. Christianity, as we know it ,is primarily a control mechanism. So any laws that dismantle 2000 years of inhumane and immoral mind control, including the ones that freed the slaves and gave woman civil rights is more than welcome.
Civilised laws that stop socially sanctioned discrimination and oppression give me hope that the human race might actually become a more compassionate species and that the socio political changes that are needed to ensure our survival as a species are at least possible if unlikely.

 

[kilps]

The sun set on the British Empire quite some time ago. The reason the british monarch was made head of the church in the UK was in fact to remove the Churches abillity to meddle in matters of state (the catholic church at the time).
The head of state being made the head of religion in the UK actually eventually led to a far more secular government.

Actually I must admit though that christianity was not the cause of the decline of the Roman empire, but rather a very succesfull attempt to retain power as the inevitable decline of Roman millitary might set in. The Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Empire incarnate and the Pope is the direct inheritor of the Roman throne.

Think what you like about the RCC but all forms of protestism are off shoots of it. In other words your church is just a sect of a religion that owes its existence to the emperor Constantines need to unify and control the different tribes and people who made up the Roman Empire. Christianity, as we know it ,is primarily a control mechanism. So any laws that dismantle 2000 years of inhumane and immoral mind control, including the ones that freed the slaves and gave woman civil rights is more than welcome.
Civilised laws that stop socially sanctioned discrimination and oppression give me hope that the human race might actually become a more compassionate species and that the socio political changes that are needed to ensure our survival as a species are at least possible if unlikely.

Sure thing ... all that I am trying to say is that it is not the religion itself which is were the problem might lie

secondaly if my memory serves me correctly the Church of England was formed because the king at the time didn't want to gave to answer to another man (the pope ...) - but what it did mean is that religion and state have pretty much stayed intertwined .... to a point at least ...

And about Constantines - I don't believe everything that the powers that be say ... besides, it is all based on events before his time

 

[Claymore]

Quick point there ... the head of state of the UK (the queen) is the head of the Church of England and even the Houses of Parliment have clergy sitting in the House of Lords ... if a nation can be built on this and it can be said that the sun never sets on it's empire then I don't think you can blame Christianity...

Ooh, I'm not sure that Britain is a good example. Anyway, I think the UK is less religious than just about any other European country.

 

[kilps]

Ooh, I'm not sure that Britain is a good example. Anyway, I think the UK is less religious than just about any other European country.

Not really the point though .... but I get the feeling just now we are all going to realise that we are agreeing with each other ...

 

[kilo39]

secondaly if my memory serves me correctly the Church of England was formed because the king at the time didn't want to gave to answer to another man (the pope ...) - but what it did mean is that religion and state have pretty much stayed intertwined .... to a point at least ...

Divorce was invented by the English - it's what caused the split in the catholic church and the subsequent formation of the "Protestant" religion - with the monarchy as head of the church.

Because x king wanted to marry his latest squeeze, was tired of chopping off previous wives heads - hence wanted legislation to get rid of latest wife... hence divorce... (surely must be on wikipedia)

Further - all this has really nothing to do with the "institution of marriage" in traditional terms (ajak terms) ie, nothing will change with the catholic church for instance.

English Reformation
Henry was a devout Catholic, who in 1521 had defended the Papacy from Martin Luther's accusations of heresy in a book he wrote called The Defence of the Seven Sacraments. For this he was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) by Pope Leo X.

By the late 1520s, however, Henry wanted to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon. She had not produced a male heir who survived into adulthood and Henry wanted a son so the Tudor dynasty would be secure. Before Henry's father Henry VII attained the throne, England had been marred by civil warfare over rival claims to the English crown and Henry wanted to avoid the uncertainty over the succession likely to be caused by lack of a clear male heir. Catherine's only surviving child was the Princess Mary.

Henry stated that this lack of an heir was because his marriage was "blighted in the eyes of God".[1] Catherine had been his late brother's wife, and it was therefore against Biblical teachings for Henry to have married her. In 1527 Henry asked Pope Clement VII to annull the marriage, but the Pope refused on legal principle. (According to Canon Law the Pope can not annul a marriage on the basis of a canonical impediment previously dispensed). Earlier in that year the Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine's nephew, had sacked Rome and kept the Pope prisoner, so there was little hope of him granting this divorce.

 

[Lord Anubis]

Are threesome's now legal ? e.g. One guy and two chicks? Can we all marry and just get along or what ?

 

[LabAnimal]

Are threesome's now legal ? e.g. One guy and two chicks? Can we all marry and just get along or what ?

lol