Australian Politics Forum - Gays and marriage

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #90 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #91 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:36pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:30pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?

Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that?

Stop answering questions with questions.

You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.

Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Yes or no, and explain.

There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly.

Just answer the question and stop avoiding. Especially if you wish to be taken seriously and not as a 12 year old who argues with parents and creates ultimatums to avoid eating your peas. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? YES or NO and EXPLAIN.

Thanks.

Okay, to answer your question, no.

Now, could you kindly return the favour and answer my question?

What part of YES or NO and EXPLAIN did you not understand?

Okay, as I have just outlined to gizmo in post 90, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

The act of homosexuality, and "marriage" that eventuates from that, is a disgrace and an abomination. Not homosexual people themselves, which incidentally, I should point out, is something with which Alan has never identitified.

Now, please answer my question.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #92 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

corporate_whitey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8896
Archivist

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #93 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:20am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

The Neanderthals would certainly have had life mating rituals like Marriage. Since Neanderthal forms a part of the makeup of European and central Asian people there is no reason why these rituals were not among those peoples or part of the structure of their village and tribal life. Neanderthal became absorbed by the transition to modern humans finally around 25,000 years ago. Thats not long ago in the scheme of things and the evidence is that they lived in complex social groupings. there is no reason to suppose Marriage is a religious mandate or that it must be defined by rigid socio economic ideologies. The rituals most likely arose out of clan based family groupings and were really quite diverse in nature and broad in definition...

Back to top

World Wide Working Class Struggle

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #94 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 5:56am

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Let them get married, who cares.

Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... Undecided

Indeed, very risky!

At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS.

Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water!

That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family.

What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools that cause all the problems in society today.

What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?

No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

True, noone tells me who to marry specifically, but you and I both know (though I bet you'll pretend not to) that it'd have to be someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's not a marriage.

The problem with gays is that they want their practices to be accepted as normal which is incorrect.

I live on a 5 acre farm. At one time my ex and I reared goats, Saanen, Toggenburgs.

Most goats are very friendly (too friendly) but a Toggenburg kid born was unapproachable. We thought the wild one was a doe but eventually discovered that it was a hermaphrodite.

A more-experienced goat breeder explained that this happened through inbreeding (for show purposes).

He said it didn't mean this very mating but that the kid could have been a throwback from earlier practices.

Anyway, these were his findings and he wasn't an idiot (although proclaimed himself a communist)

Back to top

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #95 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:27am

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Let them get married, who cares.

Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... Undecided

Indeed, very risky!

At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS.

Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water!

That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family.

What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools that cause all the problems in society today.

What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?

No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up.

Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten) brought up in a gay household.

As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school.

Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.

Many kids are living in gay households. My neighbors are lesbians they have three children that all go to my sons school they are not bullied because of their mothers sexuality. Bullying is a learned trait, only kids from a bigoted household, like yours, would do such crap.The problem is not with the gay parents, the problem is with the likes of YOU.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #96 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:38am

Its good to see the bigoted views of the extreme right here are way out of step with the overwhelming majority of Australians.

Quote:

ALMOST two thirds of voters support legalising same-sex marriage, indicating the public is more relaxed with the concept than politicians.

With Julia Gillard to recommend today that Labor change its policy position to that of a conscience vote, the latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows 62 per cent of voters support legalising same-sex marriage outright.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/voter-opinion-adds-weight-to-shift-in-marriage-policy-20111114-1nfkj.html#ixzz1diaG9nn4

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #97 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:50am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual marriage must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:44am by matty »

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #98 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:54am

matty wrote= Quote:

Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible

Do you ring Gloria and mock, scorn and vilify him? what you just advocated is illegal as well, you should/could be charged for it, and they could throw you in the big house where you could be fresh meat,assuming you were a real male, instead of a middle aged womens sock.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #99 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:01am

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:36pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own. I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo. A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it? That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You WISH they were irrelevant - they highlight how poor the justification to allow gay marriage is.

No, they highlight your bigoted thinking. If you want to be completely bloody-minded, the justification for those are rooted in the justification for marriage. Once marriage is justified then those same justifications can be used for anything.

Therefore, by your argument all marriages should be annulled because someone somewhere may want to marry a sheep. (How does the sheep even say "I do??")

Completely stupid.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. You haven't put forward a single good contra argument. Saying marriage is "between a man and a woman" is simply a statement of the current situation, it isn't an argument. The fact is that the majority of the people support changing that situation and so it will change. Better get used to the idea Wesley.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #100 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:11am

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing.

Rubbish matty...as many as half of the marriages carried out today have zero religious content...They have to met STATE standards (licensed celebrant etc) but not church or religious ones...

And bear in mind, humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and Christianity has only existed for about 2000 years......the 'marriage-like' ceremonies have been around a whole lot longer than the religious influence (or the 'influence' of God for that matter)

Besides, if you read the historical/mythological texts of almost any religion throughout human history, you'll find that deities generally don't give a tinker's cuss about the 'sanctity of marriage'...

The Greek Gods certainly didn't...witness Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus (who WAS married at the time) by a human woman...the Roman Gods were the same..

The Norse Gods used to descend to Earth for drunken orgies with their worshippers...
Look at how often the term 'demigod' comes up throughout the writtings of humanity (a demigod is half human and half god)

Even with the very basis of Christianity....the 'Virgin Birth'...one of two things happened there...Either God knocked up an unmarried virgin (and didn't marry her, which is against His own rules) OR He knocked up another man's wife....which is also a no no......

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #101 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:53am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing.

Rubbish matty...as many as half of the marriages carried out today have zero religious content...They have to met STATE standards (licensed celebrant etc) but not church or religious ones...

And bear in mind, humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and Christianity has only existed for about 2000 years......the 'marriage-like' ceremonies have been around a whole lot longer than the religious influence (or the 'influence' of God for that matter)

Besides, if you read the historical/mythological texts of almost any religion throughout human history, you'll find that deities generally don't give a tinker's cuss about the 'sanctity of marriage'...

The Greek Gods certainly didn't...witness Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus (who WAS married at the time) by a human woman...the Roman Gods were the same..

The Norse Gods used to descend to Earth for drunken orgies with their worshippers...
Look at how often the term 'demigod' comes up throughout the writtings of humanity (a demigod is half human and half god)

Even with the very basis of Christianity....the 'Virgin Birth'...one of two things happened there...Either God knocked up an unmarried virgin (and didn't marry her, which is against His own rules) OR He knocked up another man's wife....which is also a no no......

Well I totally disagree with you, gizmo. There is a difference between a general union, and the sacred bond and sacrament of marriage. I know what a demigod is, but the Greek gods didn't exist, they were pure fiction, and no one alive today follows that ancient religion anyway.

Your last is pure blasphemy, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for uttering such filth. God decided that He would send down His son to free us mortals from our sins. He decided that Mary would be the perfect option as Mother of His child. Mother Mary was a mere mortal like the rest of us, but she was an example for all of us to follow as well. The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she was to be the bearer of God's child, conceived through the means of Immaculate Conception.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11055 East Sydney Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #102 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:55am I would also like to make clear that, although I am totally against the act of homosexual marriage, my thoughts are not the same on homosexual people.
Back to top	BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!! IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #103 - Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:56am

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:53am: