It is not racist to be concerned about immigration.
Sure, the Church has the right to defend their institutions, but I just feel dogma will not win the day. Personally, I just don't see what the fascination is and why a Gay would want any involvement in the Church. It is an interesting state of affairs that's for sure.
Last edited by Rebirth; 10-03-2012 at 02:53 AM.
Depends on the majority. 85 % of the voters in my constituency voted for the 3 traitror parties in 2010, when they could've had me! So, yes, OK, fine. To say a man and woman can marry, but 2 women can't because you think if they do it will empower them to persuade you that you're actually gay, is mentally deranged.
Now, answer my question that you've been avoiding: "Who is my 'little but vociferous band of followers' from post #17?"
"The Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a severe sin.?" Leviticus states that most of these are punishable by death: Eating shellfish, gathering sticks (kindling) on Sunday, menstruation, getting raped (yes, that's right, getting raped is the sin, not being a rapist), talking back to your parents, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics... and on and on it goes. Oh, one feature of all the discussion on the Bible, Talmud etc. is that sexual activity between a man and his own daughter is not forbidden.
It might be your book, but I think it's nonsense on stilts, way, way past its sell-by date. The things that have been done by the religious establishments; should I mention Catholic priests and the church cover-up (you know, where it's male priests are required to live a chaste life and forbidden from marrying)?
Why I or any other sane and rational person should be expected to live by it is a mystery to me. It's 230 years or so since the Age of Enlightenment; can we act like it, please?
We live in a society which has been constructed in the Christian perspective. One element of the Christian perspective is the sanctity of the union between a man and a woman, which it defines as marriage. Christianity is not the only organised body of values that defines nuclear families as the essential building blocks of a cohesive society.
However, marriage, as defined above, ought to be able to exist without suppressing same sex couples right to live together in a loving relationship. The difficulties start when there is a movement to alter marriage itself. Many believe that marriage will continue to exist in name only, if its very structure is altered to include other than man and woman.
A government may decide to change the structure of marriage within its statutory purview, and legal definitions sometimes seem at odds with general language usage by the population at large. The fear is that once the legal definition of marriage has been widened, then the equality industry will, sooner or later, force religions to allow same sex unions in their places of worship.
With past punitive legal actions by homosexuals, against those with religious convictions, the fear seems justified. UK governments cannot be trusted, and no matter how fervent the promises of one government, that legislation will not interfere with religious conscience, that promise will be effectively worthless in respect of the future.
Common sense, not to mention societal cohesion, would seem to indicate that marriage should be allowed to co-exist with same sex partnerships, but nothing further.