I understand where you're coming from. But I'm sure you can appreciate the inverse. If a religious text really is from God, then it shouldn't be subject to reinterpretation. God is by nature, eternal. Thought experiment; There is a Muslim/Christian who truly does believe that the Bible/Quran is divine remit, and who conducts himself as such. They justify hatred of jews/non-believers/women/gays as such. How can you, as a fellow believer, convince them otherwise?

why do women need to be more comfortable? are you suggesting they are different to men?

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same, raised a catholic, went to a catholic school, was taught about evolution and condoms and I was even an altar boy when I was 12.

But if you don't believe all of the faith, its hard to believe even some of it. For example:

Did Jesus really believe he was the son of God, or was he lying, or was he just experiencing a schizophrenic delusion?

Or did he never exist the first place?

Or….. did he exist, was just some good guy who helped people, and then someone made up the whole part about God and miracles to make it more credible to the people of the time.

It all seems so silly. If people were just compassionate to minorities like this jesus character was, whether real or not, we wouldn't have all the stupid bad shit that comes from religion.

:lol: oh no we're really doing this.

I'm suggesting it is a preference to have these types of gyms. As in, they don't want roid freak perverts like the ones that attend my gym staring at them all day.

How is it discriminatory if there are other options for men?

Are you suggesting that if gay people have a problem with not being able to marry members of the same sex that they should enter an empty hetro marriage and be unhappy if they desire marriage?

unsurprising the majority of card carrying atheists are former catholics, which is a sect designed to destroy christianity

Fair enough, but I disagree about the Bible being the divine word of God, I was always taught that it is a collection of works from religious scholars many of which is open to individual interpretation. To put it into context we were taught to think of it as a library with many different genres, which is true considering you've got chapters on history right through to fiction like the parables. I mean an obvious example would be the walking on water story which isn't meant to be viewed as an actual account of events but rather a story to illustrate the strength of faith, no different to the sort of shit you see in childrens stories like Aesops Fables.

yes, i feel unhappy and empty at gyms that contain no females
it should be my human right to attend gyms populated with more women because it makes me feel happier and fulfills my desires

Yes, but you're not really the source of the problem. Christianity has been tempered by the historical experience of secularism, and anti-clericalism. Islam, is a different story altogether. Critical thinking is seen as an overt threat. And this stems from the faith mentality. Hence, many are inclined to the view that religious literalism has reared its ugly face again, and react accordingly.

:lol:

You're are actually quite funny sometimes, and I'm not even having a go.

Out of interest, what religion are you?

:lol: So basically you do not recognise the love between two men or two women?

You believe they do not love each other and are just lustful?

Good grief :lol: :lol: :lol:

i'm using the same words you used in your previous post
why are they interpreted differently when applied to my situation? i feel discriminated against

why is a gays happiness more important than mine?

You can't apply those situations to homosexual marriage. It's laughable :lol:

You also didn't answer my questions :)

what does marriage have to do with love anyway?
you can love someone and not be married
you can marry someone and not love them

argument is moot

That is not the point of this thread. It is about people who love each other and want their relationship recognised like straight people can.

(this thread had a point?)
they want their love blessed by the government?

No it's not. That's what you want it to be!
The whole issue here is that marriage isn't what people want it to be anymore, so they're trying to change it. Simple as that.

The Interracial marriage issue was to do with Jewish law :roll: please try and keep the points relevant.
If you're going to have a go at Christianity, at least come with your guns loaded and not just dribble on your chin.

Let me make this clear, I'm all for homosexual union because of my secular beliefs, however I don't see why marriage as an institution has to change as opposed to just providing a new opportunity to allow gay men and women to be unified.

Has the ability to get divorced been there since marriage began?

Well no we're becoming a more liberal society where we tolerate people more than what we did in the dark ages (in religious terms up to about 1990 :lol:). The issue is that homosexual couples want to be recognised the same way that straight couples are and I don't see a reasonable means of denying them that.

If i'm going to have a go at Christianity you'll know ;) Either way, the big 3 have a big influence on this issue.

I don't see why marriage has to change other than by relaxing the definition a little bit. What affect does it have on anyone? Is the world going to fall apart if homosexuals steal marriage away from the Abrahamic religions? :lol:

From what I've seen that's a compromise most will make. Essentially the end game is for all marriages to be equal. I don't see why that shouldn't happen then again i'm not a narrow minded c*nt with my nose in other peoples business :lol:

Is there any other reason why gay marriage would hurt society other than, its a really old tradition that people don't want to change and it'll cost taxpayers in government administrative costs?

Marriage is sanctioned by the government. As such, it becomes a civil matter. Discrimination in such cases is wrong. How difficult can it be?

If you want to preserve 'marriage', lobby the government to remove its self from the marriage question entirely. Leave marriage to the clergy and their flock.

I don't see the issue with Gay marriage. If they want to marry then let them. At the end of the day, make it a civil marriage if the religions refuse to consent to it being in their churches.

Our political leaders cannot claim to take a religious high ground on this issue, they are most of them atheists as it is.

Well said Zimbos

Zim that's the first step. When I worked at Subway years ago my manager was gay and his problem was that religion claimed ownership of the word marriage when it isn't really theirs to dictate.

While I think a civil union would work i'm not gay and thus probably don't understand the affect that not being considered a 'married' couple in a legislated sense has on a person.

Can you please sort out all religious institutions? You're far more reasonable than most religious people I've spoken to on this topic :)

Edited by benelsmore: 3/3/2014 04:17:10 PM

how many reasons why not do we need?

how about tell me some worthwhile reasons why? only a tiny minority of people will actually take advantage of it, why bother?

when did this become an issue all of a sudden? even gays didnt even care about this until recently...now all of a sudden they believe they're being discriminated against over something they cared little about until big non governmental organisation money got involved in promoting this agenda

and to what end?

what will be next? two gay men having the right to bring up a child?

surely no one can foresee any problems with allowing that to become law :roll:

Religions claim ownership of marriage because marraiges happen both in a religious context and a civil context. They both recognise or have to recognise the religion. Ill take my religion for example because I don't understand how the others do it, but Islam will have a religion by its laws and then also do the civil marriage. If you married by civil and not Islam, then Islam doesn't recognise your religion. So I think its similar in the other religions.

It's another issue of religion verse reason/logic if you will. I think its also fair to understand that marriage existed before democracy or politics, so the idea that it was never religions is a bit of a debatable point I guess.



I think the issue comes when people who are religious and gay want to have their marriage done religiously too. If religion is against homosexuality, then how can it condone such a marriage.

Haha, sort out religious institutions? I wish.

I must say, I know im going off on a tangent here, but of late I have been quite angry with Muslims, especially those where I live and in western first world countries. All they ever talk about is sad stuff, and disaster, and how they hate the west for this and that, and its all just terrible shit. We don't actually stop and think about what we have and how privileged we are. Perhaps living a life of joy, peace, and acceptance. It is all, "I hate that person, and this sucks, and oh my word, everybody fear the ending of the world." Its a whole other issue though, its just damn bloody annoying.



Also, on a side note to homosexuality. Since when did it become an event? Why does every time someone have to make an announcement that they gay? People don't go around proclaiming their sexuality in public. If someone is gay, then let them be gay. There is no need to glorify it or to make it a proclamation. You straight, then you straight. You gay, then you gay. It shouldn't have to be an event and it shouldn't have to be glorified. We live in 2014 for petes sake. If we still can't accept people for who they are then we have all failed Dr Seuss.

Edited by zimbos_05: 3/3/2014 04:49:15 PM

Tell us more man. Tell us more.

Including providing evidence, how children raised in same sex couples are adversely affected. Go on.

This ought to be good.

you dont have to be einstein to realise that pedos will take advantage of it

Plenty of pedophiles in heterosexual couples. Most children who are abused sexually are abused by a member of their own family.

In fact, I would argue that, gay couples who adopt are less likely to abuse children because sex offenders who are on a register would not be able to adopt children.

HAHAHAHAHA. That's just classic.


I must say though. I don't agree with homosexuality personally, but even as a religious person, im not going to sit here and believe silly excuses against gay marriage such as, "can you imagine what would happen if two gay men adopted a kid"