same sex marriages?

[steve56]

its all the rage in the us at the moment.

[Bronson Lee]

LOL ..... cheers Stevie its posts like this that really make my day .......

I cant wait for

"RICE"

people in China love it !

or

"Sidcup"

Its in Kent !

anyway do you mean Marriages where people just use doggy style ?
or Gay people getting wed ?

[jj]

A marriage is (or was) a quasi-religious contract between male and female with the primary aim of providing a stable liaison for the raising of children.
How many of the individuals referred to above fall into that category?
By all means legally sanction same-sex relationships in the secular milieu, affording partners equal property rights, etc, but if their chosen religion proscribes homosexuality I think it'd be more logical if they founded their own church.
Why do these people join a club, then immediately want to start changing the rules? If they didn't like them in the first place, why join?
But, no, I don't much care.........there are far more pressing concerns than whether two people can survive without a piece of paper.

[jj]

Points taken- and the strength of the Pink Dollar is another worthy consideration as far as US electoral machines are concerned.
What worries me more is the legislative mess they end up with, trying to please everybody............

[davewells]

Why are they always called practicing homosexuals ? Doesn't practice ever make perfect for them ?
I myself have been a confirmed lesbian for years !

[steve56]

same here but only if theres a r in the month,lol.

[jj]

magoo wrote:
> Oh dear. Once again JJ reinforces the false assumption that
> members of any particular religion "join a club". He singularly
> fails to acknowledge that some people feel an affinity to the
> religion the were BORN into.
Indoctrination, you mean? I don't think babies are born, seeking salvation.
> Many members of for example, the Catholic religion, feel they can still be
> true to their God and at the same time practice contraception and birth
> control.
How is that consonant with an acceptance of Papal Infallibilty and His role as God's direct Emissary on Earth?
> Why should someone have to give up their religious beliefs because of certain rules made by men in Rome (not God).
Aren't ALL religious rules (and indeed religions) made by men, not God (assuming for the monent, he, she or it exists)?
> You call it "cherry picking......."
I didn't, but it's certainly apposite.
> ..........but I disagree - surely its people taking more notice
> of the teachings of Christ than the preachings of numpties in
> frocks? The comedy Father Ted made this point very clear -
> although I expect at the time you were watching crap like Futurama
I taped Fr Ted and watched it later.
> A person who pours scorn on all religion has no right to comment.
Oh, yeah? Tough shit for you, then. Anyway, I don't- I take the 'isn't it enough to see that a garden is lovely, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it'? approach. People who have faith of any sort have my admiration and envy- if it helps then get through the day, great- it's just that what I vaingloriously call my intellectual honesty won't allow me to posit something that I can't see any valid reason for the existence of, or evidence of. I am incapable of the act of religious faith- my loss, possibly, but there it is.
> the Bible is a good "design for life"
I've never argued that it isn't- just that it was hardly Jesus' original creation- 'laws for living' have been around since we first had to learn to all rub along together.
> lambasted by arseholes who have no better alternative philosophy to put > forward.
Can't be me you mean, then- I didn't, and don't. My argument is with all the unnecessary trappings. If the C of E or others are having trouble with much of their dogma that is derived from the OT, then the answer is simple- dump the OT.