Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Chesterfield Discussion => Topic started by: Fly on December 09, 2012, 11:18:51 PM
-
Don't have issues with civil cerenonies, not a big 'God' supporter.
We were married in a civil ceremony.
Why do people think they have a right to ne married in the eyes of god ?
Adam and Eve, not Brian and Steve !!
-
ne = be lol
Surely it's not normal under the bible ?
-
According to the church marriage ceremony we are married 'till death do us part'.
My ex wife is still alive.
I was offered the opportunity to be re-married in a church.
The Church basdically does whatever it suits at the time.
To be honest I think marriage is getting to be an out dated concept let alone same sex marriage.
-
Agree
-
I have no issue with civil ceremonies for gay couples. I do, however, fail to understand why they would want a Christian ceremony when the prime reason for marriage (according to the book of common prayer) is "for the procreation of children." erm ... how??
-
Churches have relaxed their rules e second marriages because if the amount of venues now offering weddings and receptions under one roof.
Why do couples, gay or straight, who are not church attenders want to get married in a church?
How does banning women bishops work with the equality laws of this country?
Quite like this comment on modernisation of the church:
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2z8278h.jpg)
-
I don't have a problem with this at all.
What I did have a problem with was when my daughter was Christened part of the service was to forgive me for my sins in having my baby --- why??? I don't consider I committed any sin.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
if they do have the right to
Now that sounds like my point. Only the gobby ones 'DEMAND' the right.
The 'Majority' don't care.
-
If they are gay & religious why shouldn't they have church wedding?
Wondered why MPs are debating this but church had the say in not allowing women bishops which goes against employment laws
-
but church had the say in not allowing women bishops which goes against employment laws
Quite simple.
It doesn't
-
Whats the point? You can get married virtually anywhere you want to nowadays.Lots of places hold licenses to perform wedding ceremonies gay or straight.
And I kind of understand the Church point of view for that particular reason. Why should they get involved? If they think its going to offend people - fair enough I suppose.
I could perhaps understand it if a gay couple who were extremely religious wanted to be "married" in a church, but then we get problems with what the bible says I suppose, and Vicars (gay or straight), have a duty to their faith.
I'm not particularly religious - so it would not bother me one way or the other. I have many gay colleagues at work, whom I get on greatly with, even to the point of joking about their sexuality without offending them, and it's normally good humoured.
If same sex folks want to get married, they'll find a way, and why not?
-
I don't think this should be a political issue, I think it should be sorted by the church and those that actually go to church.
Bunch of men in frocks...
-
Always strikes me as ironic in anything like this that institutions like the CofE are willing to accept gays into the church take their money off them in the form of collections/donations but then deny them access to all the 'benefits'.
-
Exactly JR!
The Church can be double sided when it wants to be, some often live a 'front public' life but what goes behind their own doors is another story. I speak from experience of the past!
I too have gay friends who I value for their friendship and wouldn't be without them as friends.
One of the reasons congresations have fallen off is because the Church has failed to move with the times - and please don't say they refuse because of what is in the Bible - as JR says they accept gays into the congregation - I know of one male gay who plays organ in the Church and runs a youth group.
Fornicated at times they are.
-
"“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? ”
— Jed Bartlet, The West Wing
We don't follow everything that the bible says because much of it is outdated. Examples above. Deciding to say that gay people can't get married due to some references in the bible about homosexuality being a sin is flat out discrimination. Imagine saying that only white people can get married, though black people can have civil ceremonies. It's ridiculous, and there's not really any way of sugar coating that.
Sure, the majority might not care, but it's still something that's representing them as less, or wrong compared to heterosexual people. "No, you can't get married as you are built wrong in a genetic fashion". Equality shouldn't be done in half measures.
Additionally, saying that gay marriage is wrong because it won't lead to the procreation of children; does this mean we should also strip the right to get married from people who are infertile and physically can't have children? Can we tell people who don't want to have children because of whatever reason they can't get married because they'll be missing the point?
As someone with gay friends who do support gay marriage, it's something I feel pretty strongly on haha.
-
May have already posted this elsewhere but according to Creationists we all descended from Adam & Eve.
Adam & Eve had 2 sons.
Hmmm
-
Adam & Eve had 2 sons.
Hmmm
Always thought the same myself :)
@Darax, nice quote ;)
As time progresses we let more and more once shunned upon 'practices' become more socially acceptable.
Henry the VIII had his wives beheaded and started the CofE so he could re-marry.
The core religion of this country is the CofE, isn't the queen part of it.
CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages in church. In the eyes of god.
They have made some changes over the years, gay vicars, female vicars etc.
If every minority group got everything they wanted in this country wouldn't the country be in chaos.
eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)
Would you be happy with this.
-
What makes you think there is a god?
-
Relating to Henry VIII point... http://24.media.tumblr.com/9c5d1259230fe9b3fad95f37b602bd6e/tumblr_mezh6rUFLI1r8whd0o1_1280.jpg (http://24.media.tumblr.com/9c5d1259230fe9b3fad95f37b602bd6e/tumblr_mezh6rUFLI1r8whd0o1_1280.jpg) ;)
Honestly I don't know enough about Sharia Law to comment fully on it, but let's use the quote from the first couple of paragraphs from the wikipedia definition.
"Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God"
And quoting yourself Fly
"CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages in church. In the eyes of god."
Do the two things not sound vaguely similar? Gay people can't get married because of what the Bible says. Sharia Law is the following of the moral code which is interpreted from the Quran.
It's essentially a more hardcore version of the Church not allowing people to get married.
I don't agree with it, seeing as it does have implications of it negatively effecting human rights because of very old religious doctrine. There is a difference between this and the case of homosexual people not being able to get married as a minority demanding rights, though.
Religion is, at the end of a day a choice. Beliefs can be changed to fit in with modern society; and they should be. Homosexuality isn't a choice. It's not something that people can opt out of, it's the way they were born. It's in their genetics.
If the happiness of two people being in love and being able to join together under the eyes of god causes the country to fall into chaos, then I think it's a pretty daft country that we live in.
-
Basically, would you like the law of this country to allow your Grandad to select your granddaughters future husband.
I don't think so !!
-
Basically, would you like the law of this country to allow your Grandad to select your granddaughters future husband.
I don't think so !!
"I don't agree with it, seeing as it does have implications of it negatively effecting human rights because of very old religious doctrine."
So no, I would not like that.
But the two things (being gay marriage and sharia law) are diametrically opposed liberal and ultra conservative political philosophies. If someone is arguing for the liberal side of things I think it's odd to somehow equate it to agreeing with the latter? Wanting an end to discrimination is nowhere near wanting a system passed that is even more prejudiced.
-
If we have a God and Jesus did exist - would either of them want gay people treated differently to others? It would go against everything they are supposed to stand for - Bible or no Bible
-
Hello, by definition:
Marriage is the formal union of a man and a woman - the oxford English dictionary.
If Adam & Steve wish to be united, that is good for them - good luck.
BUT it can NOT be labelled a marriage - it is not a man and a woman.
It HAS to be labelled something else. There is nothing wrong with same sex
unions. BUT the appropriate use of language MUST be used.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Re:Also when they bolt the chassis to the body on the jaguar xf production line, they call the process a "marriage".
>When an idiot speaks, people generally laugh
>the process is called a marriage, but you can call anything, anything U like
What IS accepted as the English labguage is defined by the oxford English dictionary - no mention of village idiots
-
>When an idiot speaks, people generally laugh
no mention of village idiots
Get the beer and popcorn everyone, this could be fun!!! >;
-
Well I'm
pissing myself here for one ;)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Mis spelt word - the process is called sarcasm - or did that go WHOOSH over your head
-
Sarcasm: the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way.
More commenly known as the lowest form of wit.
I fail to see where the mis-spelling of the word language passes the test of the above definition either in its correct or colloquial form.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten me?
-
Somebody has their pedantic hat on today, or do I mean pathetic ? !
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
In response to the question raised, I retort:
The sarcasm does not apply directly to the initial statement.
It is consistent with the definition of sarcasm because it applies to my earlier
response following the thread regarding correct use of language.
Are you on the same page - yet ?! lol
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Dude,
This other book that U R on - I hope it is a dictionary
Look up the terms were and we are - UR comment may make sense to people
who speak gobldy-gook
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
You two should consider a career on the stage... :))
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
I think U have the wrong phrase here:
....cool kids....
Should read:
...sad kids....
or
...nerds...
-
Now now gentlemen --- play nicely ;D
-
yes mom
-
That's
You
and
You are.
If you wish to post on here don't use text speak. We don't limit you to the number of characters.
Let's face it, if we did limit the number of characters we wouldn't have let you in here in the first place.
By the way I take Pedantic as a compliment.
-
I were not using text speak, I simply were writing phoneticly
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Phonetically is pronounced phoneticly phonetically.
I'll get me coat...
-
Indeed - I were in a hurry !!!
I just dropped a line - U understood
-
Now you're just playing up to the crowd. You weren't shooting for "phonetically" were you?
I'm hoping he was shooting for was!
-
Wow this is heavy !!!
This time saturday nite, sending you - back to the future !!!
-
NIGHT!!
I was hoping for a battle of wits but I refuse to fight an unarmed man.
-
Just let it blend JR.
Admin have him pinned LOL :))