154 2 mins 12 yrs

I see that one of the UK’s oldest Christian denominations – the Quakers – looks set to extend marriage services to same-sex couples at their yearly meeting later.

The church has already held religious blessings for same-sex couples who have had a civil partnership ceremony.

But agreeing to perform gay marriages, which are currently not allowed under civil law, could bring the Quakers into conflict with the government.

The issue of active homosexuality has bitterly divided other churches. But the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the Quakers had been more prepared than other churches to reinterpret the Bible in the light of contemporary life.

Sad to see the Quakers become so thoroughly apostate.  I suppose the main danger here is that if they become the first “Christian” Church to argue for actual “gay marriage” then this could be used to establish a legal precedent so that ALL churches could have an obligation under Human Rights legislation to perform this freak show.

There are three key points here;

1. The state of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. 

2. Accepting that homosexuals can marry each other undermines the sanctity of point one and is degenerate.

3. The trouble for the Quakers and all other liberal “Christians” is that the word of God is not up for reinterpretation. The Bible is clear that the act of homosexuality is sinful. By institutionalising this in a marriage service, the Quakers show themselves up to be whited sepulchres.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

154 thoughts on “GAY QUAKERS

  1. David seeing as you take your stance on homosexuality from the bible i was just wondering if you

    – support the death penalty for rebellious sons
    – support the death penalty for cursing ones parents
    – support the death penalty for disobeying a minister
    -support stoning people who plant different crops side by side
    – don’t wear clothes of mixed fabric
    – don’t cut your hair or shave
    – would stop people with flat noses, people who are blind or lame going before an altar of God
    – would kill anyone who suggests worshipping another God
    – would kill anyone with a different religion

    Or do you just pick and choose pieces of your Holy Book to justify bigotry?

    Just wondering.

  2. This taboo goes across nearly all cultuares, RS. in Asia, Africa, Europe, and in the religions that arose or thrived in those places.

    Yelling " bigotry " is name-calling and does not exactly help your position.

  3. He can speak for himself, but I don’t see this as prejudice against anyone. He’s presumably against polygamy, and I won’t accuse him of being anti heterosexual for that.

    I see this as disapproval of an official social sanctioning of a lifestyle that he, and many others across the world see as wrong

    Aren’t there things that are wrong anymore – separate apart from religion, even?

    Why shouldn’t he be allowed to say this without being called names?

    The BBC article refers to reinterpreting the Bible in accordance with " modern life ". But isn’t the idea of Christianity to reinterpret your life in accordance with the Bible?

  4. ‘but I don’t see this as prejudice against anyone.’

    (the mind boggles)

    ‘He’s presumably against polygamy, and I won’t accuse him of being anti heterosexual for that. ‘

    What a ridiculous comment. Are homosexuals incapable of having more than one spouse/partner?

    ‘I see this as disapproval of social sanctioning of a lifestyle that he, and many others across the world see as wrong ‘

    Thats a pretty pathetic way to dress up plain old bigotry.
    I suppose you could say the same for people opposed to interracial marriages, they view them as wrong too, don’t they?

    ‘Why shouldn’t he be allowed to say this without being called names?’

    I didn’t call him a name, merely stated that his attiude fits the bill of bigotry, which in any sane person’s book it does. But obviously your sychophantic slobbering of our host doesn’t allow you to see that.

    Are you against gay marriage?.

  5. There has never been a gay marriage. It is an impossibility, a mockery of a real institution.

    I am opposed only in the sense that I am opposed to pretending that something that never can be " is ". Recognizing faux marriage is like recognizing Caligula’s horse as a legitimate Roman senator.

    Ministers who truck engage in this charade mock the book and tradition that their faith is built upon, and mock the social structure of human society through the ages.

    It is noted that the famous Bud Light drinker President Obama says that he is opposeed to gay marriage. Unless of course he lied through his teeth for tactical reasons during an election.

  6. ‘It is an impossibility’

    Not if bigots stop their bigotry.

    ‘I am opposed only in the sense that I am opposed to pretending that something that never can be is.’

    So your opposed to world peace then too?

    ‘Priests / ministers who engage in this charade mock the book and tradition that their faith is built upon’

    Bigots who pretend to follow their holy book whilst ignoring certain ‘rules’ and adhereing to others which impact on others lives make a mockery of their book.

    Regarding Obama, wouldn’t be the first time a Prez has lied.

  7. if all the people of the world agree to have peace, it will exist.

    If all the people of the world agree that there is such a thing as gay marriage, it will still be Caligula’s horse.

  8. "There has never been a gay marriage. It is an impossibility"

    Excellent. No need to ban it then if it is impossible.

    Next question.

  9. I’m not particularly religious, and feel that religion may have served to codify the values of the society it emerged from.

    Some of these values were pretty fundamental ( ie don’t kill, or don;t kill without a sanction ) and some were silly ( don’t wear certain clothing )

  10. Phantom killing affects the basic right to life of someone, tell me what inalienable right gay marriage affects?

  11. It makes a mockery of the institution that it parodies.

    It sanctions the ludicrous.

  12. Phantom,

    "if all the people of the world agree to have peace, it will exist.

    If all the people of the world agree that there is such a thing as gay marriage, it will still be Caligula’s horse."

    Since civil marriage is little more than a property contract and legal agreements regarding guardianship of children (whether from that union or not), that claim is obviously nonsense.

    The religious can define for themselves what they mean by marriage, that’s a separate issue. But since they typically mean something involving ghosts and angels and other supernatural beings, they would appear to be more on Caligula’s wavelength. It is certainly ironic to claim that the religious meaning is the objective fact and the legal meaning is a fiction.

    Besides if people of the same sex marrying is so terrible then the simple solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely, and let make people make their own religious arrangements with standard contracts of their choosing.

  13. We’re all sinners David, not sure it’s our place to judge or drive a wedge between other sinners and their redemption. I do see your point though, so I’m not sure what the right answer on this one is, but generally I don’t think it’s our place to ‘throw stones’ as per Jesus’ teachings…

    Can anyone point to teachings by Jesus on homosexuality, by the way?

    The Old Testament can be fairly bizarre at times

    Genesis 19 seems to condone incest..

    The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN%2019;&version=31;

    Exodus 35:2

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2035:2;&version=31;

    Ezekiel 23:20
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23:20

    Ezekiel 23 (Full version)
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=23&version=31

  14. The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a sane fashion consistent with the norms of the society

    If you have to ask, you’ll never understand.

    Faux marriage is fraudulent on its face. People should not be compelled to recognize the fraudulent.

  15. ‘The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a same fashion’

    ??????

    Right to life…heard of that.
    Right to be treated equally…heard of that one.

    So your saying that the right ‘ to have a society organized in a same fashion’ is up there?

    Phantom, i get the feeling its your sycophantic shoulder standing with this sites host which has you coming out with such obvious claptrap and not any real conviction.

  16. It’s not claptrap and I’ve held those beliefs long before I heard of anyone here.

    And so do very many of your neighbors, and they’re not not bigots, either

    " Same " was a typo. It was meant to be " sane "

  17. Phantom equating this nonsense – ‘The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a same fashion’

    with the right to life or to be treated equally is utter, pure unadulterated, utter claptrap.

  18. No, it is traditional values, that the huge majority of the world’s population agrees with.

    I’d love to see this thing come to a vote in Ireland or even Britain, what’s left of it.. We’ll see who has the horseshite position and who upholds the common views of most of humanity.

  19. RS, one of the Rights set down by the United Nations is the right to Culture. If your Culture, and the Culture of the majority of the nation, includes beliefs such as Marriage only being between a Man and a Woman then an attempt to force Same Sex Marriage inteferes with the right to Culture. You could also see it as contavening a combination of Freedom of Experssion and Democracy, where the country must reflect the will of the people.

  20. Mack,

    Fully agree we are all sinners, me included. On this one I simply wanted to point out the apostasy of the Quakers as an alleged Christian institution. Not the place to go into theological debate on the OT but I do understand your point and thanks for making it.

  21. ‘that the huge majority of the world’s population agrees with.’

    have you questionairred them?

    ‘We’ll see who has the horseshite position and who upholds the common views of most of humanity.’

    Humanity thats an interesting word. i wish people would have the humanity to treat others equally.

    Seamus a right to culture is not a right to deny others. Gay marriage does not affect the rights of heterosexual people. End of. Again you link to religion, the fact people ignore stupid laws but adhere to this one reflects how stupid it is to let religion dictate anything in a civilized society.

    This is simple old bigotry, if not, stop shaving and wearing cotton and polyester shirts.

  22. Seamus,

    "one of the Rights set down by the United Nations is the right to Culture"

    No, it is the right to participate freely in the culture of their community. That isn’t a right to impose it on everyone. Same sex marriage doesn’t require anyone to get married and it doesn’t stop anyone from having a heterosexual marriage.

    Now one of the rights that IS laid down is the right to marry and found a family. Same sex marriage clearly doesn’t prevent that either, on the contrary it can be argued that banning same sex marriage interferes with this right for homosexuals, and that governments are therefore not entitled to the power to do so.

  23. Frank, a homosexual has a right to marry. Any homosexual man has a right to marry any woman what wants to marry him and start a family with her. Elton John, a homosexual, was married. Gays aren’t banned from getting married. I, as a heterosexual, can only marry a woman as well. Myself and all other heterosexuals have the same rights as all homosexuals in that we can all marry a willing person of the opposite sex. Noone is saying that Gays can’t marry.

  24. "Seamus a right to culture is not a right to deny others. Gay marriage does not affect the rights of heterosexual people."

    It can be deemed that allowing Homosexuals to marry eachother demeans the actual institution of marriage, thus attacking and demeaning the Culture of myself. A gay getting married to another gay is a direct attack on my culture and infringes my Human Rights.

  25. Phantom-

    ‘The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a same fashion…’

    Phantom, what was it you said about rights in one of the health-care threads earlier this week?

  26. Seamus,

    "Frank, a homosexual has a right to marry. Any homosexual man has a right to marry any woman "

    Yes just like any black used to have the right to marry another black.

    But nowadays we recognise people’s right to marry the person of their choosing, without limitation on race, nationality or religion. That was only formalised around the time of the UNDHR and in many places it took longer.

    Sexual orientation will be added to the list of preposterous reasons to deny people their rights, along with sex. In most cases it already has, there is simply the pretence that ‘civil union’ has a different legal meaning than ‘civil marriage’. It doesn’t – it’s just a way to treat homosexuals as second class.

  27. Alright, Frank, should there be any bar on the insitution of marriage. Maybe its discriminatory to ban Polygamous marriage. Is it discriminatory to ban marriage between a man and his horse? A man and a fluffy pillow, perhaps?

  28. ‘ demeans the actual institution of marriage, thus attacking and demeaning the Culture of myself.’

    Whats inhuman about homosexuals that they would demean anything?

    ‘A gay getting married to another gay is a direct attack on my culture and infringes my Human Rights.’

    How is it a direct attack on anything. Its an expression of love between two people. please elaborate how your human rights are affected.

    Also i’d like to know…..Do you only wear single fibre garments. Do you shave? Will you kill your child if he/she offends you?

  29. "Whats inhuman about homosexuals that they would demean anything?"

    It is my culture that the insitution of Marriage is the wedding of a man and a woman and only man and woman. Any attempt by anyone to do otherwise is an affront to my Culture, an attack on my culture and and an attack on my culture infringes on my Human Rights.

    "Do you only wear single fibre garments. Do you shave? Will you kill your child if he/she offends you?"

    Firstly, RS, you need to wise up and realise that not all people get their views from Religion. I don’t oppose things like Same Sex Marriage and Abortion because the Pope tells me to. Secondly, on the topic of Religion, Catholicism is the teachings of Jesus Christ, as interpreted by the Catholic Church. It is not lets all "read the Bible, its all there in black in white". The Bible is less important in Catholicism.

  30. ‘And dolphins are highly intelligent animals, mind you, far more intelligent than most who voted for Nancy Pelosi, lets say’

    Phantom, is this name-calling?

  31. The gay marriage fans think that all opposition to this fraud comes from religion.

    A very fundamental misunderstanding of human society and history.

  32. Pinky

    Guilty as charged!

    But more in praise of the highly intelligent and happily married fellow mammal than a slam at the dull witted voters of San Francisco.

  33. ‘A gay getting married to another gay is a direct attack on my culture and infringes my Human Rights.’

    Ah, Seamus, the Padraig Pearse rosary bead bible thumper. ( See Phantom- that is name-calling in style!!) Seamus, Will you be joining the Paisleyites at their annual anti-homosexual hate fest? You and wee Willie Mc Crea?

  34. Phantom,

    can you answer my 2.46?

    "Phantom-

    ‘The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a same fashion…’

    Phantom, what was it you said about rights in one of the health-care threads earlier this week?"

  35. I don’t hate homosexuals. What two men do in the privacy of their own home is not any of my business, nor is it something I really even want to be my business. Marriage is different. As I also explained to RS, I’m not a bible thumper, I do own a set of Rosary Beads but haven’t said a Decade in a probably too long. And you’d probably find that the Paisleyites, like aul singing Willie, hate me more than the gays.

  36. Seamus,

    You would fight to protect the rights of a murderer( a provo murderer of course), but deny the rights of a homosexual to marry.

    I don’t know whether that truth is worth a laugh or a cry, to be honest.

  37. Seamus,

    "and an attack on my culture infringes on my Human Rights."

    No it doesn’t. You have the right to participate freely in your culture and that’s it – furthermore, that doesn’t entitle you to deny anyone else’s rights (e.g if your culture includes human sacrifice, too bad).

    Someone else doing their own thing does not infringe your human rights.

    "Alright, Frank, should there be any bar on the insitution of marriage. "

    Certainly. It should not infringe on anyone’s rights.

    "Maybe its discriminatory to ban Polygamous marriage. Is it discriminatory to ban marriage between a man and his horse? A man and a fluffy pillow, perhaps?"

    Or maybe it isn’t. Hard to say when you provide no reasons.

  38. Pinky

    i said that there was no right of health care ( though I support government providing for a good scheme for it )

    i also say that there is no right of faux marriage. Society should organize itself as it sees fit on these matters.

    This sounds like a very good time to have a referendum in your respective countries on such matters. You may be astonished at the result

  39. If gay ducks want to get married then that is their business.

    Update: Oh wait it’s "Quakers" not "Quackers", silly me.

  40. "and an attack on my culture infringes on my Human Rights."

    Ah, the Orange season! Such wonderful lofty terminology all over. LOL

    So Seamus, by banning certain Orange parades are the human rights of the Orangemen being infringed upon?

  41. Thanks Phantom.

    So let me be clear on this. You state:

    1- The right of the majority of people in the world to have a society organized in a same fashion…
    2- there was no right of health care,
    3- there is no right of [faux ]marriage. Society should organize itself as it sees fit on these matters.

    So where does the right in #1 come from? Who is obliged to protect that right?

  42. " in a sane fashion "

    Societies have the fundamental right to organize themselves as they see fit, subject to universal norms.( of which noone should dare say parody marriage is one )

    The right is self evident, and the society itself has an obligation to protect its own rights.

  43. Phantom-

    "Societies have the fundamental right to organize themselves as they see fit, subject to universal norms.( of which noone should dare say parody marriage is one ) "

    Which universal norms do you refer to Phantom? ( Universal norms is a very strange phrase for a conservative such as you to be using- but I am really interested in what you consider to be a universal norm.)

  44. Phantom,

    "This sounds like a very good time to have a referendum in your respective countries on such matters."

    Question begging. If a society votes to deny human rights then it is claiming powers for its government that are not legitimate in the first place. Therefore you’re assuming your conclusion, which is that such a referendum would be legal.

    Maybe there is some society somewhere that would vote for apartheid or slavery. There certainly was in the past. That doesn’t legitimise their actions.

    Who gets to decide whether such a referendum would be legal? I’ll give you a clue: it’s not you.

  45. LOL David.

    As I said, a strange phrase to read coming from one of the conservatives on your site.

  46. Universal norms being to have some degree of human rights for the population. Which of course places like N Korea do not adhere to

  47. The Prop 8 referendum in California was found to be legal.

    It passed in what is now a very blue state, with very heavy yes percentages in black and other communities normally thought of as liberal.

    Opposition to faux marriage is not a conservative position. It is a common sense position.

    If people in other places choose to deny their citizens to the right to a coherent society, or to a voice in the matter, then that’s their problem. They can even pretend that their impositions have something to do with human rights. We can all pretend that this position makes sense.

  48. "The Prop 8 referendum in California was found to be legal. "

    In California – so by the way were the existing same sex marriages found legal, the ones you say are impossible.

    And the legal process is not yet concluded.

  49. The culture wars will never be concluded. The freaks will never let them end,. They do not want to live and let live.

    Which is why those described as " conservative " in these matters had better get up and start fighting.

    As the quote sort of goes, those who hold the worst positions imaginable are filled with certainty and fire, while the reflective defenders of coherent life are filled with doubt.

  50. Phantom,

    "those who hold the worst positions imaginable are filled with certainty and fire"

    Rightworld in a nutshell – living monuments to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    "the reflective defenders of coherent life are filled with doubt"

    Let me guess, you think that’s you? LOL!!

    Yes your comments are real agnostic here. You are clearly racked with doubt and cannot decide which way to come down on the gay marriage question.

  51. Frank

    You’re projecting. I know where I stand.

    I speak of a broader public which opposes the lunacy but who is afraid to speak out or who do not want to offend.

    LOL!!

  52. "I know where I stand. "

    Filled with certainty and fire?

    "I speak of a broader public which opposes the lunacy but who is afraid to speak out or who do not want to offend."

    Bless them. They want to interfere unnecessarily in the lives of others, and make them miserable for no good reason, but they are afraid to and don’t want to offend anyone. Yes I’m sure these people exist.

  53. It is you and your friends who are the aggressors here.

    One of several suicidal trends in Europe and following close behind, the US.

  54. Phantom-

    "The culture wars will never be concluded. The freaks will never let them end,. They do not want to live and let live.

    Which is why those described as " conservative " in these matters had better get up and start fighting."

    Did anyone else read those two sentences the way i did? Isn’t the first sentence directly contradicted in the second sentence?

    ( I am still trying to digest the news that Andrew Mc Cann reads the Republican News).

  55. Phantom-

    "I speak of a broader public which opposes the lunacy but who is afraid to speak out or who do not want to offend.

    LOL!!"

    You speak of the "Silent majority?"

  56. Phantom-

    "I speak of the sane people of this earth."

    Who are they? Where do they live? Sane by what measurement? Who certified this sanity?
    ad nauseum, clarifying the absurdity of your posts on this matter ….

  57. Seamus if your opposition to homosexuality doesn’t come from your religion, where does it come from?

  58. The Donacloney Donkeys?

    ( I meant to add…)

    πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ (In case David gives me the boot)…..

  59. ‘Seamus if your opposition to homosexuality doesn’t come from your religion…’

    His Provoism, Sinn Feinism……….

  60. A good place to start looking for sanity would be be in California, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah and other places, where, when presented with a choice, the citizenry voted this mockery down.

    RS

    i should think not

  61. Yesterday, I was reading that bestiality is not really frowned upon in Georgia, USA. Seriously, I was reading about 2 cops in Georgia who were suspended for doing a ‘back ground/criminal check’ on President Barak Obama, and found this story in the same newspaper. ( Cop story is here: http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/cops-suspended-for-obama-103821.html?cxtype=rss_news_81963)

    Bestiality story at —-http://www.ajc.com/news/clayton/sex-with-103906.html?imw=Y

    Ah the sanity of Georgia.
    Now I can probably do a similar true story on every state in Phantom’s list…..

  62. Especially California

    But they’re sane on this issue. You gotta give ’em that

  63. Phantom,

    "It is you and your friends who are the aggressors here. "

    You argue that people with guns should be sent to stop gay people getting married, and they are the aggressors? That’s like saying that kicking them hurts your foot, so they started it.

    "I speak of the sane people of this earth."

    Tsk, namecalling. Anyway, jokes over, where’s the real person that the ‘sane’ chose to speak for them? Locked in your basement?

  64. ‘His Provoism, Sinn Feinism……….’

    Well then he is a very confused boy, because plenty of shinners support gay marriage.

  65. –plenty of shinners support gay marriage.–

    Another reason why SF is unfit to govern

    –You argue that people with guns should be sent to–

    Projecting againFrank. I said nothing about guns.Do pay attention.

  66. ‘Another reason why SF is unfit to govern’

    So people who are in favour of equality for homosexuals are unfit for government??????!!!!!!

  67. Rs,

    Yes, I had always thought SF were a bit more progressive on issues such as Gay marriage.

  68. "A good place to start looking for sanity would be be in California"

    Now there’s a phrase you don’t see very often.

  69. It figures that those who like to blow stuff up might want to blow society up too. So very progressive.

  70. So equality for homosexuals will ‘blow society up’. Please elaborate Phantom…..

  71. Pinky

    No, but I will be happy to claim credit!

    RS

    False premise there. But you knew that!

  72. Phantom,

    "–You argue that people with guns should be sent to–

    Projecting againFrank"

    Oh? So now it is me who wants to send people with guns to stop gay weddings? You seem pretty confused. I have no objection to gay marriage at all and I might even be inclined to send a wedding present along to some of them.

    You still have time to edit your post, but I fear not enough time to make sense.

    "I said nothing about guns"

    So what does a ban on gay marriage mean to you? What should happen to someone performing a gay marriage, or someone who sends a wedding present to a gay couple? Nothing? What is the sanction you suggest and what happens if it is ignored?

    Surely it must be a very grave sanction indeed for a matter of such importance.

  73. ""A good place to start looking for sanity would be be in California…""

    Isn’t that where Nancy Pelosi got elected?

    ( And we have come full circle with Phantom!).

  74. Phantom,

    "Put a sock in it."

    No. Question too difficult?

    What should happen to someone who ignores your ban?

    The penalties for other kinds of illegal wedding are pretty clear, and they do involve people with guns. Is your ban somehow different? Tell us how it works.

  75. "Seamus if your opposition to homosexuality doesn’t come from your religion, where does it come from?"

    RS, where does your rampant pro-homosexuality come from? Bat for the other team? I am not opposed to homosexuality. I am opposed to the degregation of the institution of Marriage.

    "’His Provoism, Sinn Feinism……….’"

    As has probably been pointed out, Sinn FΓ©in are quite pro-Gay "rights". They haven’t come out in favour of things like Gay Marriage but have been very voacl in their support of the Gay "Rights" groups, especially after Iris Robinson’s remarks.

    Now, both of you are bastards. And if you are wondering why I am engaging in an Ad hominem against you it is this. Both of you have severly insulted me in the course of this debate. I hold my views because I hold those views, not because the Pope told me to, or Gerry Adams told me to, but because I sincerly belief in those views. Do you simply repeat the same views of other people, RS and Pinky? Cause I don’t.

  76. Frank

    You and your little diversions.

    You’d make a fine defense attorney up to a point. But then you’d go too far in your contortions, getting not just the defendant but yourself convicted!

    Guns are not part part of this discussion. Nor are men with guns, nor are penalties for those who send presents. But go ahead, knock yourself out with this line of argument.

  77. If we are saying that opposition to gay marriage isn’t based on biblical reasons, then can someone explain, in simple terms, what their opposition to it is based on?
    To say that it is defined as a contract between a man and woman is one argument, but if that is the argument, then what is to stop people from changing that contract?
    To say that if we allow this then who knows where it will stop is patently wrong – just because you allow one thing doesn’t mean you have to allow everything else. Each can be argued on its own merits.
    To say it denegrates existing marriages is not really saying very much – drive through marriage chapels and Britney’s 6 hour wedding, to say nothing of the terrible divorce rate – really show that the state of marriage is already in a pretty awful state.
    To claim that your rights are infringed by someone else getting married isn’t much of an argument. If couple A&B marry then in what way does the state of their marriage affect couples C&D? If A&B divorce does that affect couple C&D?
    So what is the opposition based on? I am at a loss to understand the opposition.

  78. Well, as Sinn Fein claim to be a rights-based party, why do you feel it is a suitable party for you?

    You have not addressed any of the issues put to you in the thread that you feel ‘severly insulted’ in?

    I believe that your politics are an insult to any right thinking person. You would defend murder but deny the right to marry for a significant portion of the population. That- I find insulting.

    RS you bastard, do you agree that Seamus seems to be repeating the views of the Catholic Church. ( Ask him about the Right to Choose, for the laugh!!!!).

  79. Phantom,

    I am afraid you tied yourself in knots in this discussion.

    ( I have been meaning to ask you all day- what do you think of Chris Matthews. I saw highlights of his show last evening).

  80. I am the epitome of magnanimity , I quite agree.

    Chris Mathews is OK. Some of the righties think that he’s way too left, but I don’t agree. He can make ’em all squirm when he’s at his best.

  81. "Well, as Sinn Fein claim to be a rights-based party, why do you feel it is a suitable party for you? "

    I’m not actually a member of Sinn FΓ©in, or any political party. I vote for Sinn FΓ©in because I agree with them on a large number of issues. I don’t agree with them on every issue, but I agree with them on many.

    "do you agree that Seamus seems to be repeating the views of the Catholic Church."

    I have similar views with the Catholic Church on many issues but I also disagree with the Catholic Church on many issues.

    "You would defend murder but deny the right to marry for a significant portion of the population."

    I don’t defend murder. I qualify certain actions and put them into a different context, such as some people think one action is murder yet another action a justifiable act of war. I simply don’t make distinctions between the two. Some people may take that as justifying murder, but I don’t. I have already said that Homosexuals are not denied the ability to marry. As I pointed out, Elton John, a Homosexual, was married to Renate Blauel. So there isn’t a ban on Homosexuals getting married, just a ban on them getting married to someone of the same sex, or an animal, or an inanimate object. They have the same rights as everyone else does.

  82. ‘RS, where does your rampant pro-homosexuality come from?’

    A little thing called respect for fellow man and a belief all humans are born equal.

    ‘I am not opposed to homosexuality. I am opposed to the degregation of the institution of Marriage.’

    But you said you don’t get your belief from your religion, so where else do you get such an irrational belief? What is so awful about homosexuals that they denigrate anything?

    ‘Now, both of you are bastards. ‘

    Afraid not Seamus, I know fine well who my father is and visit him regularly. He taught me manners, yours obviously didn’t.

    ‘I hold my views because I hold those views, not because the Pope told me to, or Gerry Adams told me to, but because I sincerly belief in those views. ‘

    if your holy book didn’t give you your irrational dislike of homosexuals where does your belief come from?

  83. Phantom,

    Stop copping out and answer the question.

    What does a ban on gay marriage actually mean to you? I know what a ban on bigamous marriage means – people go to prison for that. I saw a case on the Irish news just a few days ago, a woman was jailed for it.

    You say your ban doesn’t work like that, according to you there is no violence involved. Sounds unlikely to me – legal bans mean legal force, and that is backed up by folk with guns. So explain how this ban would be different.

  84. ‘RS you bastard, do you agree that Seamus seems to be repeating the views of the Catholic Church.’

    pinky you bitch πŸ˜‰ he does indeed seem to be, but he claims hes not, so one wonders where he gets this belief from????!!!

  85. ‘ I have already said that Homosexuals are not denied the ability to marry. As I pointed out, Elton John, a Homosexual, was married to Renate Blauel. So there isn’t a ban on Homosexuals getting married, just a ban on them getting married to someone of the same sex, or an animal, or an inanimate object. They have the same rights as everyone else does.’

    And the award for the most idiotically childish comment of the thread goes to……

  86. No one here is bashing gays that I’ve seen.

    But as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and basically all other religions ( apart from very recent, limited experiments in a degrade Christian and Jewish remnant ) have all condemned this behavior, those who propose to throw out the holy books and those who seek to change society radically should bear the burden of proof. The normal people can consider your arguments, such as they are.

  87. πŸ™‚

    ok the sun is out, must run along now.

    RS enjoy the weekends games- Tir Eoghain Abu.

  88. "I saw a case on the Irish news just a few days ago, a woman was jailed for it."

    She wasn’t jailed for it, she was given 2 years suspended. It can also be difficult to prove if a person is previously married or not. It isn’t difficult to prove if a person is male or female. If two fellas show up looking to be married they simply won’t be.

    "if your holy book didn’t give you your irrational dislike of homosexuals where does your belief come from?"

    I don’t have an irrational dislike of Homosexuals. I don’t have any form of dislike of Homosexuals. I just don’t believe they should be treated differently. I have my belief that Marriage is an institution, where a man and a woman are joined together, and thats it.

  89. Marriage is between a husband and a wife. If other groups want to certify their own types of institutions they should have the courage of their convictions and not try to hijack and redefine an existing one.

  90. "RS enjoy the weekends games- Tir Eoghain Abu."

    Aye, but it would be ironic that Geezer could comeback to lay the boot into Tyrone again. Also, how the fuck did Donegal get into to the Quarters. It just isn’t fair. The first bloody year that Antrim remember how to play football and we draw Kerry in the Qualifiers.

  91. "I have my belief that Marriage is an institution, where a man and a woman are joined together, and thats it."

    What type of institution is marraige? Can you clarify?

  92. Seamus,

    I believe that people who use bad language should be banished to Donacloney for the weekend.

    Also: yes I would like to have seen Antrim go a bit further, and I hope they’ll be back next year. They did themselves proud.

  93. ‘Tir Eoghain Abu.’

    Will you get to see it Pinky?

    ‘ I just don’t believe they should be treated differently’

    So why support a ban on them marrying?

    ‘I have my belief that Marriage is an institution, where a man and a woman are joined together, and thats it.’

    As you’ve stated, and you said it didn’t come from your religious conviction, so WHERE does it come from?

    Phantom

    ‘have all condemned this behavior’

    I direct you to my very first post, lots of things are prohibited by holy books but people choose to ignore them.

    ‘those who propose to throw out the holy books and those who seek to change society radically should bear the burden of proof.’

    the burdern of proof of what? Years ago interracial marriage was frowned upon, was a taboo, a no no, I suppose you would have opposed it too because of the upheaval it caused. i mean, the world nearly ended there didn’t it?

    ‘The normal people can consider your arguments, such as they are’

    So homosexuals are abnormal and their supporters are abnormal too. So far Phantom you have labelled homosexuals insane and abnormal…anything else to add?

  94. RS

    Are you being paid by the word?

    You guys used the word insane, not me. This behavior is by definition abnormal, as a small percentage of society practices it.

    As all religions / traditions proscribed it, perhaps you can ponder why that is so rather than purse your lips and shout " bigot "!

  95. RS,

    I hope to be able to watch on the internet. Depending on how fast Sentanta can catch up………. wink!
    Ok you bastard, bye. πŸ™‚

  96. ‘Marriage is between a husband and a wife. If other groups want to certify their own types of institutions ‘

    So you would allow two men and women to get like married and live together etc whitout using the term marriage? All your against is their use of a word?

    ‘they should have the courage of their convictions

    they do have the courage of their convictions which is why they want to affirm their love through the act of marriage.

    ‘and not try to hijack and redefine an existing one’

    They are not trying to hijack or redefine anything, they are merely trying to be included, to be treated equally.

  97. That’s your opinion, and you are using words like :" equality " out of context in order to do it.

    This is a circular argument, one of many

  98. ‘You guys used the word insane, not me.’

    You introduced the word sane into the debate, thus inferring insanity on the part of those who take the opposite view. Don’t you remember?

    ‘This behavior is by definition abnormal, as a small percentage of society practices it.’

    So if only a small percentage do something its abnormal? Phantom people can’t choose their sexual orientation, they are born normally. I suppose lefthanders must be abnormal too, or people with green eyes eh?

  99. Guess what – not all gays want to be male brides or female grooms. You don’t speak for everyone.

  100. Phantom-

    "You don’t speak for everyone."

    Yes RS, you bastard, you do not speak for a silent majority, like the Phantom does. πŸ™‚

  101. ‘Guess what – not all gays want to be male brides or female grooms. ‘

    Jesus wept Phantom, is that the level your sinking to now, inferring gay marriage means mean in white dresses???!!!

    you really are having a bad day !

    ‘You don’t speak for everyone.’

    And given your view of homosexuality, I doubt you’ve spoken to any, never mind have friends, who are gay.

    No doubt you’ll come back and claim you do πŸ˜‰

    pinky ya bitch, be careful, you have a kinda gay name πŸ˜‰ phantom might round up the villagers and head for the castle !

  102. I only observe how society has worked over thousands of years, and don’t automatically dismiss it all.

    You guys are the fashionable trendies. who never heard of this issue a few years ago, but who now think its the most pressing issue in all recorded history.

  103. ‘I only observe how society has worked over thousands of years’

    You must have started after ancient Greece eh πŸ˜‰

  104. Ancient Greece had some great things, some bad things, but they sure didn’t have this.

  105. Well, RS, if your are arguing for the ancient Greece approach, most Homosexuality was Pederasty. You probably wouldn’t want to advocate that.

  106. Yes the early antecedent of NAMBLA. in sunny Greece. But they were philosophers so it was OK

  107. Seamus,

    " If two fellas show up looking to be married they simply won’t be."

    If nobody will do it then why does it need to be banned?

    Why wouldn’t somebody marry them anyway? What would they be afraid of? Is it illegal or something?

    If it’s illegal then what should the penalty be? I asked phantom but he didn’t seem to know.

  108. Yes – its about time to see it again.

    But not as good as " Escape From New York " Best movie in the history of cinema.

  109. Funny you should say, bought the film poster with Snake Pliskin on it off ebay last week, although the darned royal mail left the tube in the rain at the front door, so a little water damage πŸ™

  110. Phantom

    "You guys are the fashionable trendies. who never heard of this issue a few years ago, but who now think its the most pressing issue in all recorded history."

    It isn’t? Haven’t you just spent the last couple of hours tellng us society will blow up if one more guy marries anoher guy? Didn’t you tell us that the sane people of the earth had sent you to here to warn us all that gay marriage is a threat to your coherency or something similar?

    I fear maybe we have arrived too late and the gays have already sent you round the twist.

  111. I’m a straight guy, and I greeted this with news with overwhelming sense of joy. Finally, finally! The reason i left the Catholic and then Anglican churches was of because the condemnatory, intolerant, homophobic attitude to same sex relationships. This is the 21st century, and high time we see that Leviticus got it WRONG- Christians ought to be ambassadors for Love, not outlawing it! please! For God’s sake. I became a member of the Quakers 2 years ago. The best thing i ever did. It’s a wonderful organisation- literally hundreds of years ahead of every other religious organisation I’ve ever been involved with..

  112. The state has no business legislating consenting adults personal relationships. Period.

    Religions have seen constant change through the ages on dogma and practice, this current shift within some segments of Christianity isn’t all that surprising in the grand scheme of things. I can understand and respect a personal opinion of repugnance and sinfulness towards gays, but those holding such views don’t get to dictate how other people choose to live their lives as long as those people aren’t impinging on or causing harm to others.

    I would say that widespread societal acceptance of divorce, single (never married) motherhood and the welfare state have been more detrimental to the underpinnings of society than a few thousand gays getting "married" could ever hope to manage.

    You don’t have to endorse or accept gay marriage, you don’t have to be their friends, live next door to them, work with them, hire them, etc. You’re free to change churches if you disagree with the position that yours holds regarding gay marriage. You’re free to hate gay people, gay marriage and gayness in general.

    You don’t have a right to demand that the state interferes with how two consenting adults choose to live their lives or insist that the state deem their status illegal, unlawful or unstatutory based on your personal beliefs or feelings of repugnance.

  113. Daphne

    A well reasoned argument, on an issue where reasonable persons can disagree.

    It is hereby noted that Sarah Palin disagrees with you on this, as do the voters in every US state that had a chance to voice their opinions. Including those of the great state of Texas.

  114. I was at the meeting today where we agreed the minute that we did.

    What made is possible, I think, among other things, was an affirmation of our understanding of marriage: We marry no one, it is the work of God, and we are just witnesses. We were led to understand that love between two people is sacred, regardless of their gender.

  115. Daphne,

    "You don’t have to endorse or accept gay marriage, you don’t have to be their friends, live next door to them, work with them, hire them, etc. "

    Actually they probably do have to hire them, at least they cannot reject a qualified individual simply because they are gay. A separate issue but related.

    Anyway, I believe you have hit on a major reason behind the urgency some feel for ‘gay marriage bans’ – some people are so insecure in their disapproval of homosexuality in general, they need the state to disapprove of it for them. They fear that if there is gay marriage homosexuality will be seen as OK. How do I know? Some of them have said so out loud.

    It is unreasonable to expect courts and states which are supposed to serve everyone to disapprove of people who have committed no crime. And I notice that those who support the ban are reluctant to call it a crime, and state what the penalty should be, as even they might see themselves as nuts if they did.

    ‘Hello? 911? I’d like to report a crime in progress. Someone is referring to a gay civil union as a marriage’

    In a jurisdiction that permits gay civil unions, what else can these bans mean.

  116. The only places where it has been implemented have pretty much been as the result of courts or the threat of courts. But thank god for the people of Texas and other rock-ribbed all American states who have spoken clearly and unerringly against a monstrous parody being imposed on them. Long live Texas!

  117. >>They want to interfere unnecessarily in the lives of others, and make them miserable for no good reason, but they are afraid to and don’t want to offend anyone. Yes I’m sure these people exist.
    <<

    LOL Classic!

  118. Ah, but you lot don’t speak up for the poor polygamists, or for the woman who married the dolphin, a fellow mammal like us, with full power to choose his relationships with the land dweller. You are the true " bigots, who should be hauled in front of a Human Rights Inquisition !!

    Confess!!

  119. Phantom, if you want to argue that dolphins have human rights, I fear you may lose your gig as spokesman for the ‘sane people of the earth’.

    (I’m still amazed that you got it – would they not have picked one of their own? πŸ™‚

  120. I’m of the live and let live variety, and I don’t see a major a swell change in societal norms by allowing a minority to partake of legislative protections provided to other sane adults. Who is the state to issue doctrines on personal relationships, Phantom? And I couldn’t give a rat’s if Palin agrees with me. I can like a person without agreeing lockstep with all of their positions.

    I’d like to legislate against the ranks of skanky sluts who pop out litters of illiterate children by a variety of daddies all supported by taxpayer welfare. I find these women repugnant, repulsive and in need of some severe social derision and court ordered tube tying. I think that would be a better frame of discussion since it involves taxpayer issues rather than moral/personal persuasions on sexual preferences.

  121. Thing is, given that homosexual couples can already live together and are currently already afforded all the same civil rights and equalities (such as tax status) as a "co-habiting couple" as married couples are, why are they being so insistent that the term "marriage" must apply to them also? Surely "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?"
    Oh no. Let’s be quite clear here, It’s the Christian definition and tradition of marriage that they object to, and nothing other than that. Their real and sole aim is to attempt to subvert Christianity by trying to force it to include them in a term from which they are, by very nature, excluded. That is their only goal here, it has absolutely nothing to do with any conception of legal "rights", as they already have them on a plate with extra side salad, courtesy of Labour.
    Strange, isn’t it, how, for example, if I don’t like Freemasonry, or communism, then OK, fine, I simply don’t join the communist party or seek to be white-balled by the Masons. I am happy to just leave them to to their own devices and get on with my life without them.
    As an analogy, If I was into football, but was deeply opposed to the FA’s offside rule, then there would be nothing to stop me organising and playing within my own self-appointed league, made up of teams with the same opinion. OK, I would be barred from playing FA matches because I didn’t accept their offside rule, but nothing in the law would prevent me from playing matches drawn up with rules agreed upon by other like-minded teams. Surely that would be enough to satisfy me??

    But, no, there seems to be something about Christianity in particular, which those vehemently opposed to it are not satisfied to simply exclude themselves from, oh no, they’ve got to try and crawl in on their own terms and attempt to launch a sort of fifth-columnist "coup" within its ranks. It’s not as if Christianity has this huge controlling influence upon society any more, like it did 50+ years ago. Gays can do what they like, there’s no social stigma attached to it these days. Yet STILL, something about Christianity offends then so much that they have to attack it. It must be something that cuts very, very deep.

  122. Frank, I don’t understand this fear of homosexuality. I get the repugnance, that’s cool, we all swing different ways and have different tolerances for tweaks in the curve. But I don’t get the fear or the fierce vehemence against acknowledging that a small segment of gay people want the same respectability I have with my husband. Granted, all of the gay couples I know are old "married folks" who own houses and businesses, they don’t march or run nude through the streets or agitate for gay textbooks in schools. They’re just normal, quiet people who would like to have their choices, like mine, affirmed by the state without jumping through extra legal hoops, that can be contravened by family, to insure that their partner of twenty plus years isn’t shut out when they die. Let them get married, civil unioned, whatever, it’s none of our business. They’re adults, they deserve to make their own choices.

  123. Tom, you’re wrong on this one. Since our church hasn’t changed it’s position, I fail to see your objections.

  124. Why is everybody so hung up on the word "marriage"?

    That’s a piece of low slung bastardization with a raft of no meanings.

  125. Actually no one is completely of the " live and let live " approach I don;t recall anyone here defending polygamy, an ancient social arrangement, practiced in many countries, and in every big city in the US and Britain. But all jump to support the fad cause du jour, which no one had heard of ten years ago. It’s complete bullshit and everyone reading this knows it.

    We all draw lines somewhere, some of us admit it.

  126. Polygamy wasn’t on the table. We can also sweep off bestiality, incest, pederasty or any other sexual degradations from the discussion. I have no interest in the cause de jour.

    You can draw your lines, Phantom, but that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to dictate consenting adults lawful behavior or marriage arrangements based on personal disgust.

    Maybe you should start drawing your lines of social outrage somewhere north, I would suggest casting an eye towards the recklessly huge numbers of unwed mothers raising litters of fatherless bastards on the government tit for a start. There seems to be a number of gross social ills needing attention rather than getting all bothered over a miniscule number of gay people who might be willing to take vows of personal commitment.

  127. In their millions, voters from a large number of blue and red states, including the massive Texas, Florida and California, have made their opinions clear. The only states where this thing have come in are where it was snuck in via a court order or the threat of a court order.

    The legislators in Massachusetts made damned sure that their own voters never got the chance to express their opinion. If they had been given the right, even that most liberal of the states would have joined Texas , Florida and California. As would the voters in my New York, another state where the voters will not be allowed to speak.

    We gently disagree. i may not be allowed to dictate on this matter, because I live in an antidemocracy. You, however, live in a state where the voters were allowed to speak, and where they have done so,. Texas made a stand here, and they spoke clearly. Even if the rest of the country goes to hell, I have a feeling that Texas policy on this will never change.

Comments are closed.