Quote:
Are you talking about physical or psychological differences?
I think the point they are raising is that on a genetic and physical level we are all the same,
and our differences are strictly social.
Quote:
Perhaps, but breaking down of old loyalties is enevitable. We wouldnt have the old loyalties you speak of if we didnt break others down before hand.

I dont see what the oppression of our state has to do with it tho?

... wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:40am:



What a load of trolls dung. The church has been selling out it's core beliefs for years now, lowering it's standards. This sort of attack on liberalism particularly as the faithful to liberalism are generally christians anyway is a cynical and sad defence. Becoming educated and realising you were told a fairy tale does not mean you go find another faith, that is reserved for the rebells of ignorance.

It appears not all Churches are homophobic and stuck in the 19th century like the Roman Catholics who defend child molesters!!!

Clergy call for marriage equality

A letter from 20 multi-faith clergy from around the country is calling on Australians to show their support for marriage equality by making submissions to the Senate inquiry and the House Representatives inquiry into same-sex marriage.

Today is the last day to make a submission to the Senate inquiry. You can do so here.

It comes as six Victorian Catholic Bishops wrote to parishioners at the weekend asking them to oppose equality for same-sex couples.

The supportive clergy come from Uniting, Baptist, Anglican, Jewish, and other faith groups and their letter was sent to 60,000 supporters.

“As clergy from various different faiths and denominations in Australia, we believe marriage is a fundamental institution in our society,” the letter read.

“It fosters greater commitment between partners, provides children with a sense of security and stability, and strengthens ties with families and communities.

“Marriage is a blessing to be shared, so we encourage people of faith who support marriage equality to voice their support for the reform by sending a submission to the Senate and Lower House inquiries on same-sex marriage today.”

Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Alex Greenwich said the clergy were sending a clear message to decision-makers in Canberra.

“These clergy value the security and recognition that comes with marriage, and are calling for this important right to be extended to loving and committed same-sex couples,” he said.

Greenwich said the letter was a sign of the growing momentum towards marriage equality.

“Some of the clergy were once opposed to marriage equality, but have gone on the same journey of acceptance that a majority of Australians have,” he said.

“Despite the moves of the Victorian Catholic Church, same-sex couples and our families can be confident we now have strong support from religious leaders across the country.”

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/australia-news/new-south-wales-news/2012/04/...

olde.sault wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 12:51pm:


many people find it a turn off when the elderly demonstrate their fondness in public ... does that mean we should treat them differently or take away their rights? what a load of rubbish

A letter from 20 multi-faith clergy from around the country


WOW, a whole twenty!!!!

There are 3,000 Catholic Priests. My conservative  guess is there would be 6,000 Priest/ministers in total when you combine C of E  and the fringe groups.

So buzz gets himself all whipped up because .3% write a letter.

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 12:16pm:



If you don't believe what they believe, it shouldn't matter to you what they say.  They can say I'm going to hell all they like - it doesn't matter because I don't believe in hell.

I have no problem with religion in itself. Religious people tend to be very nice, very law-abiding people by and large. What I have a problem with is church interfering with state and trying to pretend that it isn't - it's protecting its own institution - and prejudiced people trying to back up their argument with religion. Well, the bible also tells people to not suffer a woman to teach etc, I'm not sure why the situation is different here. That's of course not a good argument, because it's a comparison, not a direct link, so how about…

Marriage existed before Christianity. Same-sex marriages have also existed in past history. Modern Australia isn't a Christian nation, just the same way that it isn't an Islamic nation, or a Buddhist nation etc. I do hope no one brings up the fact that the 'founders' of Australia were Christian, because then we'd have to go into the fact that its citizens are not all Christian, nor are we 'one nation under god', nor are we 'a god fearing nation'. Marriage is not a Christian invention, and the word certainly doesn't mean 'Christian marriage'. Priests should be allowed to refuse marrying gay couples, they are the head of a religion against gay marriage, it'd be almost perverse to see them forced to do so. However, priests should not be allowed to refuse other people the right to marry gay couples, or to prevent gay couples from 'marriage'.

Barring someone a human right to love and form a lasting partnership that is recognised as such is simple discrimination. Yes, you're a bigot, yes you're allowed to be, but don't hide behind 'but my church says…' If you're homophobic, you're homophobic, if you're threatened by two men or two girls getting married (as if it somehow makes your marriage invalid or something), that's your problem, not theirs, or your religion's. Admit to it and get off that high horse of 'my religion said so, therefore it must be pure'. It just gives Christianity a bad name.

On a lighter note:

Quote:


While I agree the above is not a sound argument, below is more hilarious.

PZ547 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 11:44am:


Actually, atheists aren't paid to preach to atheists about atheism, priests are paid by the church which is in turn paid by the faithful as well as rent from property they buy/own, as well as investments made (and not taxed). Given that we're arguing about 'paid for pushing', I'd say if the church can use money to  lobby for political action, then it should be paying taxes as any resulting 'action' would have cost taxpayer money (including reviews and changes).

Quote:


"I know what you are, but what am I", after an reacting to an obviously unsound/over-simplified argument you respond with more of the same?

Quote:


You're attacking a straw man, the poster never said they believed in what you describe - something of a mix between Lemarkian evolution and UFO conspiracy theory mixed with a good dose of Scientology. My guess is that the poster believes in evolution. The idea that some animal came into existence than swam, then slowly crawled out of the mud and into a tree is a primary school cartoon representation of evolution. Time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

Evolution is an ongoing science, while the bible's version is unproven, untested, accepted at face value because there is no other finished explanation (except that the Norse had one earlier, and primitive tribes had their own before that, with equal evidence as the bible's version). Of course there is still debate about it, but it offers a better explanation with better proof than the bible would give us.

Quote:


Cherry picking the most outlandish of the ideas proposed is like someone asking you "so you believe some human-shaped spirit created the world in 6 days, then took a nap on the 7th?" The page I linked to has a fairly easy to read explanation of most of the current theories and research, including the one you picked (which has little research basis expressed while the rest has many).

Quote:


Straw man, poster never said there was no source, poster is probably a believer in evolution (see above). As far as I'm concerned (not sure about the original poster), you need to read up some more about physics and biology before making these wild accusations. It's not even a matter of 'believing', it's a matter of thinking about it and making a judgement. It's somewhat different from blind faith.

I also loved the quote about how on the Census a majority of Australians said they were religious. So are we talking Wiccan, Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, etc etc), Asatru, Buddhism, Islamic, Spiritualist, or what? Saying Australians are mostly religious is waiting for the reader to think "therefore we should respect the wishes of the loudest Christians on gay marriage" without any reason to do so.