shetlandpeat Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I think that the only (in)sane solution is to tear down every church Picking on the North West will not stop worship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think that the only (in)sane solution is to tear down every church, synagogue, mosque and every other place of worship you can find.No churches = no church weddings. Problem solved. Simpler solution which doesn't require demolition is for those who aren't allowed to worship without prejudice to open their own church. Wouldn't be the first time a church has been created to suit the flock who started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland_boys Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I saw this online, love it! Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Once again I am posting here as thing seem to have gone off track, and I don't understand what the core subject (legality of same-sex marriage, or any marriage come to that) has to do with the church. As I have said, I only know personally of one same-sex couple who were married at a registrars, all the rest have been church weddings, both christian and catholic. Right, to clarify : Currently, different sex couples can legally enter a civil partnership OR marriage. Same sex couples can only enter a civil partnership. This is a legal issue dealt with by the registrar, and therefore nothing whatsomever to do with the church, so why is the church constantly being brought up? Surely it is the courts and legal system that is discriminating, while the church, albeit up to individual ministers probably, is on the whole agreeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland_boys Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The reason i bring the Church into the topic is because all i seem to hear is how much they are against it. I listen to Gaydar radio regularly and hear plenty of views to make up my mind. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 ^I don't mind getting told off for going off topic but if discussing the church and their stance on same sex marriage (the thread topic) is wrong then this site is further down the swanny river than I thought. Way to alienate the few posters you've got left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 ^^^ Sorry, Spinner, but I think you are wrong. I'm busy eating me fish n chips and can't find quickly the Scottish one but the English Act states that you can't enter into a civil partnership if you aren't of the same sex; therefore, marriage is the only option to hetrosexuals.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/section/3?view=extent The church is getting discussed IMHO because some churches are against it. Whilst some legislation states they can opt out, others have argued that under other legislation it would be illegal for them to opt out (errr I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland_boys Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I made this thread so im happy for anyone to bring up any topic. To the people who voted no, i wouldnt mind hearing your views on the subject if you dont mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Shetland_boysTo the people who voted no, i wouldnt mind hearing your views on the subject if you dont mind.Bigots? As I've said, if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex; don't! What other folk choose to do is none of your effing business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The legal definition of "marriage" is still based upon the religious definition of marriage, albeit possibly a now outdated version of the religious definition as far as some faiths are concerned. Historically there were (still are) quite significant and influencial ties between state and church, consequently much long standing state statute when enacted was dictated/influenced by church teachings of the day, and the state being the state are extremely loathe (pig-headedly stubborn??) to make significant change, or make it faster than a snail's pace. Society has changed greatly since "marriage" was legally enshrined in statue, to the point that the foundations it was built on don't really exist any longer. The nation now is a multi faith one, and many are of no faith at all, a statute that was enacted in a time when the nation was almost exclusively christain, either by choice or if not, by force tactics, and has only been lightly tinkered with since is really virtually obsolete today. The answer really is quite simple, repeal the "marriage" statute as it stands, and enact a replacement where a "marriage" ceremony between consenting adult humans conducted by a licenced representative of any recognised religion or creed is enshrined in law, for those who wish to have the approval of their chosen faith for their union. And for those who do not have any wish to invoke any faith whatsoever in their union, allow the a "private contract of union" to exist. Whereby those involved can have a lawyer draw up a legally binding contract specific to the circumstances of those involved, and containing any clauses and conditions they want and are agreeable to. People can have legally binding business contracts drawn up specific to circumstances and requirements, why not private life contracts on the same basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Shetland_boys - I voted no. I don't see why gays should be able to have a civil partnership certificate or a marriage certificate; it should be one or another. Now if they abolished the civil partnership so you were left with marriage certificate, then I would probably vote yes, but as Ghostie has pointed out, it is the background re marriage that would be problematic. Take divorce. You have rights under a civil partnership on par with those under a marriage certificate. Now if you decide you want nothing from your ex, the Sheriff has the right to intervene and say "Tough, I think you should get so and so" - why? Why, as Ghostie pointed out, can't it be private between two people? What about poly couples (EDIT - or groups)? Why can't those people choose to marry more than one person? Are their rights lesser than those of gays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 ^I don't mind getting told off for going off topic If that was aimed at my post, I am sorry, it certainly wasn't mean to be telling anyone off, I am just curious about the topic question which is "Should same-sex marriage be made legal?" - which has, as far as I can see, zero to do with the church. Simply because as I said before I have been to same sex weddings which were church weddings and for all intents identical to my own apart from the extra groom. I now understand the difference to be in the paperwork, which frankly seems insane to me but probably due to someone behind a desk making more forms rather than using the existing ones as they tend to do. Now, I guess the question is : Is there much difference legally between a civil partnership and a marriage? What about poly couples (EDIT - or groups)? Why can't those people choose to marry more than one person? Are their rights lesser than those of gays? I think in that case its not so much a matter of rights as a lack of legislation in existence to cover the situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 unlinkedstudentI don't see why gays should be able to have a civil partnership certificate or a marriage certificate; it should be one or another.I agree, it should be the same for heterosexual couples (who at present don't have the choice of civil partnership) Take divorce. You have rights under a civil partnership on par with those under a marriage certificate.Some but not all.If I marry an American, I get an automatic green card and can live and work in the US, not so if I enter into a civil partnership with an American.What about poly couples (EDIT - or groups)? Why can't those people choose to marry more than one person? Are their rights lesser than those of gays?Straw man (none) argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 What about poly couples (EDIT - or groups)? Why can't those people choose to marry more than one person? Are their rights lesser than those of gays?Straw man (none) argument. Perhaps I should have worded it better. Say, polyfidelity, a group of people committed to each other or, another example, a woman or man wanting more than one partner. Why can't they be recognised in law as being devoted to each other? Or if you are saying straw man, are you saying it never occurs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland_boys Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Shetland_boys - I voted no. I don't see why gays should be able to have a civil partnership certificate or a marriage certificate; it should be one or another. Now if they abolished the civil partnership so you were left with marriage certificate, then I would probably vote yes, but as Ghostie has pointed out, it is the background re marriage that would be problematic. Take divorce. You have rights under a civil partnership on par with those under a marriage certificate. Now if you decide you want nothing from your ex, the Sheriff has the right to intervene and say "Tough, I think you should get so and so" - why? Why, as Ghostie pointed out, can't it be private between two people? What about poly couples (EDIT - or groups)? Why can't those people choose to marry more than one person? Are their rights lesser than those of gays? What harm would legalising same sex marriage do to you? Would it make any difference to your life? As for poly couples, the world is becoming more openminded and im sure there will be someone standing up for there rights one day. Nobody is lesser than anyone in this world, gay, poly couples or whatever. Everyone is equal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.