Gay marriage.... [Archive] - World Agenda Forum

Viv

03-23-2008, 01:03 PM

Well, I think it's time to open what can sometimes become a killer debate and find out where we all stand on this issue.

Do people think gay marriage should be legal and that gay people should have the same right to marry as heterosexuals?

IMO gay people are entitled to exactly the same rights as the rest of us. Gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Being gay harms no one. It is natural and not a deviancy.

To deprive a gay person of the right to marry a gay partner is cruel. It is discriminatory. It should be prosecuted in law as obstruction of basic human rights. It causes exclusion and leads to preventable suicide. It is an entirely outdated and old-fashioned concept that there is anything wrong with being gay.

Homophobia does not differ from racism. It is an ugly trait and should be erased from society.

Mature people should be tolerant and not only allow but encourage diverse lifestyles. Life is much more interesting that way for everyone.

miriya

03-23-2008, 02:31 PM

Viv

03-24-2008, 11:25 AM

No way gays should have the same rights as every one else who likes gays anyway.

anyway, it should be about love not who your with, I think there is to much about what sex your with insted of the person your with,

Lol....I don't think you're taking this seriously...:p

I agree completely it should be about love and not gender.

The argument usually raised at this point is does that mean...if it is only about love, should people then be allowed to marry whatever they like as well as whomever, for example if you love an animal, what is to say you cannot marry one?

miriya

03-24-2008, 11:37 AM

Lol....I don't think you're taking this seriously...:p

I agree completely it should be about love and not gender.

The argument usually raised at this point is does that mean...if it is only about love, should people then be allowed to marry whatever they like as well as whomever, for example if you love an animal, what is to say you cannot marry one?

I am:P but I aint discriminating, I dont think any men should be allowed to marry

why is it people allways jump race when one talks about homoseculal marrige.

One is two humans who both agre to a marrige, other is one human agreeing to marrige some thing

Gareth

03-25-2008, 12:30 PM

Phædrus

03-25-2008, 12:36 PM

Or you could simply cease to make marriage a government contract and make all marriages religious and make civil unions the norm.

By the way, my mom and step-dad were legally married, but not religiously married, for ten years because the Catholic church took that long to decide that her earlier divorce was valid under god. So you can have a civil marriage without the religious aspect, and no one but a bigot has any rational reason to oppose that, unless you have some practical aspect I've overlooked.

Viv

03-25-2008, 12:47 PM

Civil partnerships if anything. Marriage is the term for a man and a woman coming together under God.

If gay marriage was legalized the State would force religious institutions to carry out gay marriage ceremonies.

Why is the term marriage only descriptive of a male and female coming together under God?

I completely disagree, to me that is an outdated perception. Marriage is a declaration of commitment between two people. Not intertwined with religious belief and not gender related.

Not everyone even holds a religion or validates the concept of religion. Where are those people in that description?

I agree that religious institutions should carry out gay marriage. To refuse to do so is exclusive and impacts on basic equality within society. Everyone is entitled to be happy IMO. Preventing gay people from equality in access to marriage is exclusion, which should be addressed.

bay

03-25-2008, 01:02 PM

I like the civil union idea affording gay couples the same rights to benefits that married couples have. Not sure about the marriage part, if it is legalized, then where do you draw the line? In this country there are still areas of polygamy. If gay marriage is legalized, then could polygamists also argue that their style of relationships is valid? What about incestual relationships?

I'm not homophobic by any means. My favorite aunt was lesbian long before anyone ever came out of the closet about it. I was a grown woman before I realized that her friend Alice as more than just a 'friend". I've worked on grant making organizations that gave money to gay and lesbian rights groups.

I dunno, I see arguments both ways and for now, I guess it falls under the heading of none of my damn business.

Enver

03-25-2008, 01:23 PM

If gay marriage is legalized, then could polygamists also argue that their style of relationships is valid? What about incestual relationships?

That's a disgusting comparison and I'm afraid it is homophobic whether you think it is or not. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other; it's really as simple as that.

Enver

03-25-2008, 01:27 PM

Civil partnerships if anything. Marriage is the term for a man and a woman coming together under God.

If gay marriage was legalized the State would force religious institutions to carry out gay marriage ceremonies.

We're trying to have a serious discussion about an important social issue here, is there a need to introduce superstitious nonsense into the discussion? If God created everything then he also intended for there to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people too, right? Why wouldn't he welcome their marital unions as much as that of straight people?

bay

03-25-2008, 01:34 PM

Enver

03-25-2008, 01:42 PM

Enver, I just posed a question. does not make me homophobic. Look at all angles of a situation or question, give it due consideration and then make your personal choices. If you only knew me gf, you'd know I'm a lot of things but homophobic and racist, Im not. I did however grow up in salt lake city in mormon land, so this is something real to consider in this country.

I didn't really think you were either :D but it's often a tactic used by the far right to muddy the waters on this issue ("Next you'll be legalising bestiality and child molestation" and so on).

Gareth

03-25-2008, 01:58 PM

We're trying to have a serious discussion about an important social issue here, is there a need to introduce superstitious nonsense into the discussion? If God created everything then he also intended for there to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people too, right? Why wouldn't he welcome their marital unions as much as that of straight people?

If we are going to have a serious discussion about anything surely that should involve tolerance for the religious in this country. I for one see Christianity as a part of my identity. That really isn't any different for someone who regards their sexuality as part of their identity surely?

As for marital unions within churches, the Biblical stance is that God has intended for man and woman to become as one and that is the reason why He has intended for this to bear children.

There is nothing wrong with being attracted to one of the same gender in the light of my Church anyway, it is debatable to whether sexual relations between the same gender is acceptable in the light of the Church though. And surely the Church should be given independence by the state to run it's own affairs, otherwise religious freedom which is also ensured by the State is at stake. I don't think we should swap one freedom for another.

bay

03-25-2008, 02:36 PM

I didn't really think you were either but it's often a tactic used by the far right to muddy the waters on this issue ("Next you'll be legalising bestiality and child molestation" and so on
thank you enva. Yes. it's a far right argument, and I'm anything but that. I just play the devil's advocate at times to get people to stretch their thinking a bit.....

So many people want the world to be black and white, but I see a zillion shades of gray in between...

if we could sit down over a cup of organic coffee, I'm guessin we'd have far more in common than we have in difference!

Enver

03-25-2008, 03:32 PM

thank you enva. Yes. it's a far right argument, and I'm anything but that. I just play the devil's advocate at times to get people to stretch their thinking a bit.....

So many people want the world to be black and white, but I see a zillion shades of gray in between...

if we could sit down over a cup of organic coffee, I'm guessin we'd have far more in common than we have in difference!

For sure. :)

Enver

03-25-2008, 03:36 PM

If we are going to have a serious discussion about anything surely that should involve tolerance for the religious in this country. I for one see Christianity as a part of my identity. That really isn't any different for someone who regards their sexuality as part of their identity surely?

As for marital unions within churches, the Biblical stance is that God has intended for man and woman to become as one and that is the reason why He has intended for this to bear children.

There is nothing wrong with being attracted to one of the same gender in the light of my Church anyway, it is debatable to whether sexual relations between the same gender is acceptable in the light of the Church though. And surely the Church should be given independence by the state to run it's own affairs, otherwise religious freedom which is also ensured by the State is at stake. I don't think we should swap one freedom for another.

I believe in freedom of religious expression, but I'm not tolerant of superstitious beliefs and don't see why I should be. As such I shall continue to challenge theism for the foreseeable future. :)

I'm only concerned with civil partnerships or 'state marriages'. Religious institutions should be entitled to practice their traditions as they see fit (within reason of course).

miriya

03-25-2008, 04:18 PM

I am married under God and the state, it all a matter of what church you talk to if they will allow it

Gareth

03-25-2008, 04:29 PM

I am married under God and the state, it all a matter of what church you talk to if they will allow it

I'd raise questions on how valid it is. I'm really really not sure how Christians should respond to marriage, when the definition is given by Christ Himself. It will take people like us a long time to discuss this, I'm waiting for the verdict at the Lambeth Conference 2008, for Anglicanism.

But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female." For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let no one separate"

I'm only concerned with civil partnerships or 'state marriages'. Religious institutions should be entitled to practice their traditions as they see fit (within reason of course).

I think we should all be concerned about the "within reason". That could potentially mean anything.

As such I shall continue to challenge theism for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully not like the person you are named after.

Before we get into the definition of wife:
according to Princeton it's "a married woman; a man's partner in marriage"

Weedling around to find the most liberal church only does so much good.

bay

03-25-2008, 04:55 PM

for me personally, I'd just as soon have a civil union than a church marriage, and I'm very very hetero.

I've tried marriage 3x and either I find princes and turn them into frogs or they were frogs in prince suits all along......

so I'm pretty fookin scared of "i do". I've been alive long enough to learn not to say never, tho.

I don't need a piece of paper to tell me who I love and want to be with. I'd rather be in a loving relationship because it's what we both want, rather than be in it because we have to. that document does not insure fidelity, or love, or security. It only gives a last name to children and maybe some benefits such as survivorship.

and whether a couple is gay or straight, they have a right to choose how they define themselves as a couple.

If you choose a religious definition, then you live within the tenets of that religion. The state should stay out of religious matters.

Viv

03-25-2008, 05:20 PM

I'd raise questions on how valid it is. I'm really really not sure how Christians should respond to marriage, when the definition is given by Christ Himself. It will take people like us a long time to discuss this, I'm waiting for the verdict at the Lambeth Conference 2008, for Anglicanism.

But you are a believer, Gareth. You believe those texts were given by God or Christ...they were written by a fallible man only IMO.

Marriage is not just confined to the church, but if it is about religion, then surely religion should be inclusive. I feel they must come around to it in the end, if for no other reason than the decline in church attendance. They cannot afford to lose members over issues which are so blatantly unfair and cruel.

For me I could not care less for the opinion of others in most things, but I have read reports of gay suicide and there are gay people who do care for those opinion, who are devastated by it, who are devoted to religion and cannot live with the exclusion caused by this.

It is so unnecessary.

Gareth

03-25-2008, 05:56 PM

I don't see it as blatantly unfair and cruel. I just don't see how the definition of marriage is intended for those of the same sex. Civil partnerships are the way forward if anything.

As for the Gospels, they were written by the 12, with divine inspiration. As for the entire Bible it is divine revelation. Homosexuals can worship freely in the Church, and eventually they can follow what we have received by God, however we have no means to alter religious texts. We are not here to hate anyone due to having a different attraction than others.

Being attracted to another of the same sex is not what the issue is. The issue is sexual relations. However I am perfectly willing to let people decide this for themselves. However we must decide that if we were going to bless civil partnerships is the church also encouraging sexual relations between two of the same gender. Surely you see the theological issue we have to deal with.

miriya

03-25-2008, 05:58 PM

There are million diffrent kinds of christians, and then we have jews and muslims

Here the church will acccpet any marrige a prist makes, if it follows the law of the land. and given that my wifes familie have a tradition of being holy people,so finding a prist who would marrige us was easy, (hell it was a female priest) not that I really care, but my wife is very religius

Viv

03-25-2008, 06:08 PM

Gareth

03-25-2008, 06:16 PM

It is not an issue...people are entitled to the same respect regardless of orientation. The theology is centuries old and does not reflect society. It is medieval. What else in your life do you take advice on from a person you don't know who lived 2000 years ago?

I don't understand it...at all.

I don't believe in moral Zeitgeist, I believe what we were revealed from the prophets and Jesus Christ stands today just as much as 2,000 years ago. I'm not concerned for the liberal agenda, I'm concerned for the truth, and how we fall short of God's standards. We all fall short may I add.

I personally believe that sex was given to us as a means of reproducing with a man and a woman. By all means women may be attracted to women, and men can be attracted to men, and they may have a productive role in the Church if they recognize God's wishes. I'm not going to enforce this, nor do I have any means of enforcing this.

However I believe what we have received is for all time, after the coming of Jesus Christ. I have no reason to hate anyone, I welcome every person in the world regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, and their current creed to see what we have in store for them in Christianity.

As for it not being a theological issue, it is up for those who study scripture and the authorities in the church to research and if they find reason in the Scriptures to update their positions, they will gladly do so. We found reason to ordain women as priests, and to facilitate married priests because there are Scriptural reasons for allowing these things.

Here the church will acccpet any marrige a prist makes, if it follows the law of the land. and given that my wifes familie have a tradition of being holy people,so finding a prist who would marrige us was easy, (hell it was a female priest) not that I really care, but my wife is very religius

There is more for us to follow than the Law of the Land, we must also respect the commandments of God, that is why we are even looking into the situation.

An Céachta Dearg

03-25-2008, 06:19 PM

As for the Gospels, they were written by the 12, with divine inspiration. As for the entire Bible it is divine revelation. Homosexuals can worship freely in the Church, and eventually they can follow what we have received by God, however we have no means to alter religious texts. We are not here to hate anyone due to having a different attraction than others.

Relisious texts have been altered all troughout history Gareth. they have been translated from one langue to the next and their "Divine Message" can become warped and lost in translation to use a cliche. The fact is we cannot justify contemporary decisions on a text that is written by people from 2000 years ago who believed in God.

Being attracted to another of the same sex is not what the issue is. The issue is sexual relations. However I am perfectly willing to let people decide this for themselves. However we must decide that if we were going to bless civil partnerships is the church also encouraging sexual relations between two of the same gender. Surely you see the theological issue we have to deal with.

This is why we must keep Church and State completely and utterly seperate from one another. The church should have no bearing on the decisions of the populace in regards to issues of human rights here. As to the issue of sexual relations, you are either born gay or your not its no choice and on the basis of that argument you could argue that I should not be allowed have sxual relations with my girlfriend(Im male). I personally don't care for the church to be honest and couldn't car less if they do not change their stance, however in terms of civil partnerships gay people should have as much right as the rest of us to make that terrible mistake that is arriage lol.

Viv

03-25-2008, 06:24 PM

I don't believe in moral Zeitgeist, I believe what we were revealed from the prophets and Jesus Christ stands today just as much as 2,000 years ago. I'm not concerned for the liberal agenda, I'm concerned for the truth, and how we fall short of God's standards. We all fall short may I add.

I personally believe that sex was given to us as a means of reproducing with a man and a woman. By all means women may be attracted to women, and men can be attracted to men, and they may have a productive role in the Church if they recognize God's wishes. I'm not going to enforce this, nor do I have any means of enforcing this.

However I believe what we have received is for all time, after the coming of Jesus Christ. I have no reason to hate anyone, I welcome every person in the world regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, and their current creed to see what we have in store for them in Christianity.

As for it not being a theological issue, it is up for those who study scripture and the authorities in the church to research and if they find reason in the Scriptures to update their positions, they will gladly do so. We found reason to ordain women as priests, and to facilitate married priests because there are Scriptural reasons for allowing these things.

There is more for us to follow than the Law of the Land, we must also respect the commandments of God, that is why we are even looking into the situation.

As an atheist, your final comment has no relevance in my philosophy, but I accept some people do follow that premise.

Regarding the ordaining of women priests...so you research until you find something, lurking and previously irrelevant, to support your political will and then implement it. Is that not liberal?

Gareth

03-25-2008, 06:40 PM

Relisious texts have been altered all troughout history Gareth. they have been translated from one langue to the next and their "Divine Message" can become warped and lost in translation to use a cliche. The fact is we cannot justify contemporary decisions on a text that is written by people from 2000 years ago who believed in God.

I know the datings of the writings and how they were compiled. This is the simple list.

Torah - Moses 1500BC
Tanakh - Jewish Rabbis 450BC
(the argument that the Tanakh was altered was refuted after finding the Dead Sea Scrolls which dated 1st century AD and the Isaiah scroll was an exact match to the previous version used)
Pauls 1st Letter to the Corinthians and subsequent writings 55AD
Marks Gospel 70AD
Matthews Gospel 80AD
Lukes Gospel & the Acts of the Apostles - 60AD
Johns Gospel 90 - 100AD

Why do you think theologians study this?

This is why we must keep Church and State completely and utterly seperate from one another. The church should have no bearing on the decisions of the populace in regards to issues of human rights here.

This is impossible to ensure. People with faith will always run, and people with faith will always vote. I for one take my religious beliefs into account when I vote, talk on issues. Our faith is our guide, until you remove religion from the people this will never happen. Faith defines Christians, it's part of our identity. Faith defines other religious groups also.

As to the issue of sexual relations, you are either born gay or your not its no choice and on the basis of that argument you could argue that I should not be allowed have sxual relations with my girlfriend(Im male).

All science has done on this so far is experimenting with sheep with hormones, there has been nothing conclusive found as yet.

I personally don't care for the church to be honest and couldn't car less if they do not change their stance, however in terms of civil partnerships gay people should have as much right as the rest of us to make that terrible mistake that is arriage lol.

Yes, you are free to believe what you wish, as people of faith are free to believe what they want, and to vote according to those beliefs. It's the common system by which we live in a secular country at the moment.

Regarding the ordaining of women priests...so you research until you find something, lurking and previously irrelevant, to support your political will and then implement it. Is that not liberal?

Some would consider it liberal. I would consider it conservative and keeping true to the Bible. Moses' sister for example was a prophetess, and Mary Magdalene was an Apostle, the first to hear of Jesus Christ. Jesus also has a huge role with women in the New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles there are also women preachers. Any line of scripture is not irrelevant, it shapes our faith. No part of the Bible is irrelevant.

The Roman Catholic Church argue with us for this, and several Anglican priests left the Church of England in 1992 because of it.

Enver

03-25-2008, 07:23 PM

I think we should all be concerned about the "within reason". That could potentially mean anything.

It means anything that infringes on a person's rights cannot be tolerated.

Hopefully not like the person you are named after.

Indeed, but his repression was mainly targeted at the backward feudal system built up around the various religions in Albania. Priests, imams etc. cannot expect their religious duties to be considered an occupation and in an ideal world they wouldn't be able to sponge a living off the charity of others.

Gareth

03-25-2008, 07:43 PM

Indeed, but his repression was mainly targeted at the backward feudal system built up around the various religions in Albania. Priests, imams etc. cannot expect their religious duties to be considered an occupation and in an ideal world they wouldn't be able to sponge a living off the charity of others.

Priests can expect their duties to be considered an occupation in any civilized country, it's the way we've regarded them for centuries. They have been trained in their divine calling throughout a degree course like the rest of us.

miriya

03-25-2008, 08:05 PM

I am not a follower of God, if anything I am a follower of lilith, its lisa who is a vhristian, and as she points out a Christian, not a poulian

Enver

03-26-2008, 02:21 PM

Priests can expect their duties to be considered an occupation in any civilized country, it's the way we've regarded them for centuries. They have been trained in their divine calling throughout a degree course like the rest of us.

No they shouldn't.

A degree in superstition is as valid as a degree in science, is that what you're saying?

Gareth

03-26-2008, 02:57 PM

No they shouldn't.

A degree in superstition is as valid as a degree in science, is that what you're saying?

Yes they should.

And a degree in theology is not about "superstition" you should become acquainted with what people study in a theology course for a start. I'll quote you the list of modules from the Church of Ireland Theological College.

First Year:
TH1001 INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY
TH1003 [A] INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
TH1003 [B] INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
TH1004 INTRODUCTORY HEBREW
TH1005 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
TH1006 INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
TH1007 THE CHURCH FROM NEW TESTAMENT TO 1660
TH1008 INTRODUCTION TO LITURGY
TH1029 INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY
TH1026 PASTORAL CARE AND THE HUMAN PERSON
TH1027 VOCATION AND MINISTRY -SPIRITUALITY FOR MINISTRY
TH1028 INTRODUCTION TO LITURGICAL HOMILETICS AND EXEGESIS FOR PREACHING
TH1030 MINISTRY IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

Second Year:
TH2001 THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS
TH2001 CHRISTOLOGY
TH2002 SOTERIOLOGY
TH3003[A] PROPHECY IN ISRAEL
TH2003[B] THE DAVIDIC DYNASTY: MEMORY AND HOPE
TH2004 INTERMEDIATE HEBREW
TH2005 PAULINE LETTERS IN CONTEXT
TH2005 PAUL’S CONTRIBUTION TO EARLY CHRISTIANITY
TH2006 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
TH2007[a] THE CHURCH OF IRELAND 1660—DISESTABLISHMENT
TH2007[b] CHURCH HISTORY PART 2. REFORM IN THE CHURCH TO DISESTABLISHMENT 1800 - 1871
TH2007[c] THE SHAPING OF 19th CENTURY IRISH CATHOLICISM
TH2009 CHRISTIAN ETHICS
TH2021 MINISTRY FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION
TH2022 EXEGESIS FOR PREACHING
TH2024 COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY FOR PASTORAL MINISTRY
TH2026 PASTORAL PLACEMENT
TH2027 SPIRITUALITY FOR MINISTRY
TH3022* PASTORAL LITURGY

Third Year:
TH3001 ECCLESIOLOGY
TH3001 THEOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY
TH3003 PROPHECY IN ISRAEL
TH3003 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
TH3004 INTERMEDIATE HEBREW II
TH3005 LITERARY AND HISTORICAL APPROACHES TO THE GOSPELS
TH3005 THE JOHANINE WRITINGS
TH3006 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK III
TH3007 THE CHURCH OF IRELAND FROM 1870—PRESENT
TH3009 CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL PROBLEMS
TH3016[A] ANGLICAN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY AND FORMULARIES
TH3016[B] THE SHAPING OF 19th CENTURY IRISH CATHOLICISM
TH3016[C] THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION AND ECUMENISM
TH3021 THE PASTORAL CARE OF MARRIAGE
TH3022 EXEGESIS FOR PREACHING
TH3023 PASTORAL PLACEMENT PARTS A & B
TH3027 YOUTH MINISTRY
TH3028 EXEGESIS FOR PREACHING
TH3029 SPIRITUALITY FOR TODAY
PROJECT MAJOR INTEGRATED PROJECT

Now if you will look there is Theology and Cosmology (the role of Christianity and Science), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek, Counselling, History behind Catholicism and Anglicanism (interesting to see that Anglicans study Catholic history), study of the Historical Jesus (Christology).

It's a wide subject, and I don't believe you have the authority to criticize it. And that is only the BA course. In other universities particularly in the UK, they study Feminist Theology (looking at the Bible in respect of female identity), and Black Theology (looking at the Bible from respect of black identity).

Enver

03-26-2008, 04:10 PM

Yes they should.

And a degree in theology is not about "superstition" you should become acquainted with what people study in a theology course for a start. I'll quote you the list of modules from the Church of Ireland Theological College.

Now if you will look there is Theology and Cosmology (the role of Christianity and Science), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek, Counselling, History behind Catholicism and Anglicanism (interesting to see that Anglicans study Catholic history), study of the Historical Jesus (Christology).

It's a wide subject, and I don't believe you have the authority to criticize it. And that is only the BA course. In other universities particularly in the UK, they study Feminist Theology (looking at the Bible in respect of female identity), and Black Theology (looking at the Bible from respect of black identity).

I have no problem with religion being studied in a historical or sociological context, but I'm sorry; theology is not a real subject as it is based on the premise that there are supernatural reasons for our existence or there exists a supernatural creator. This, as far as we know, is not the case. Religious beliefs are a consolation for those who cannot cope with the insignificance of our species and this entire planet in the context of the multiverse.

Viv

03-26-2008, 04:35 PM

I have no problem with religion being studied in a historical or sociological context, but I'm sorry; theology is not a real subject as it is based on the premise that there are supernatural reasons for our existence or there exists a supernatural creator. This, as far as we know, is not the case. Religious beliefs are a consolation for those who cannot cope with the insignificance of our species and this entire planet in the context of the multiverse.

This is so close to how I think...I am gonna save this to plagiarise for future use, Enver...lol...

Enver

03-26-2008, 04:41 PM

This is so close to how I think...I am gonna save this to plagiarise for future use, Enver...lol...

:D:D:):)

LARKIN32

03-26-2008, 05:34 PM

I have no problem with religion being studied in a historical or sociological context, but I'm sorry; theology is not a real subject as it is based on the premise that there are supernatural reasons for our existence or there exists a supernatural creator. This, as far as we know, is not the case. Religious beliefs are a consolation for those who cannot cope with the insignificance of our species and this entire planet in the context of the multiverse.
ofcourse theology is real subject... why would it be studied... just as 21st century science is...
"as far as we know...."

Gareth

03-26-2008, 05:35 PM

I have no problem with religion being studied in a historical or sociological context, but I'm sorry; theology is not a real subject as it is based on the premise that there are supernatural reasons for our existence or there exists a supernatural creator. This, as far as we know, is not the case. Religious beliefs are a consolation for those who cannot cope with the insignificance of our species and this entire planet in the context of the multiverse.

If it was not a real subject it would not be studied at universities, irrespective of your opinion, or Hoxhas opinion :D

Enver

03-26-2008, 05:58 PM

I fail to see how the fact that it's studied in universities makes it any more or less true.

Gareth

03-26-2008, 06:07 PM

Theology is the study of the language and the study of what is written in the New Testament / Old Testament. How it was written. They learn the facts behind the Bible and maintain the skills to read it. Unless you see counselling skills, the necessary skills for legally performing marriage ceremonies, and learning Hebrew and Greek to be a waste of time that is.

Unfortunately you will have to kill religion in this country until this course is eradicated. That won't be happening any time soon according to the Economist (3/11/2007 issue, maybe get a back edition if you can) and other publications, despite what Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett may have up their sleeves. I think it's far easier to allow for religious tolerance or as was the case in Al-Andalus (condolencia).

flax

03-29-2008, 03:09 PM

As some have stated theres a few key issues.

How and when should States meddle in what churches do.
This is already done mind you.
The question here is that the statecan allways outlaw any practice
deemed unlawfull even if practiced by a church no question about that but what can it force a church to adopt as practice.

Then it might be harsh for someone who subscribes to a certian faith and wanting to get married to be denied that service.

On a humanistic standpoint i think it's very clear that two concenting adults shoulnt in anyway be denied the benefitsof marrige either its tax dedution or anything else just because they arent hetrosexual.

The vibes i get from ppl who oppose things like
gay marrige/evolution/female priests etc is that because they can find something in the scripture against it it somehow denies theism as a whole.

Just becase the guys writing it didnt get it right a few thousand years ago
doesnt in any way mean there is no God.
As humans we can never know that.

A few random ramblings from me.

flax

03-29-2008, 03:17 PM

If it was not a real subject it would not be studied at universities, irrespective of your opinion, or Hoxhas opinion :D

Religion has a TREMENDOUS impact on our culture ofcourse it would be studied regardless if its true or not.

Religion is one of the most prevaling memes there is.

flax

flax

03-29-2008, 03:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM&feature=user

Gareth

04-03-2008, 06:31 PM

flax: I see you have been reading Richard Dawkins :D

Religion as a virus, hm I'm most glad I caught it.

Then it might be harsh for someone who subscribes to a certian faith and wanting to get married to be denied that service.

I have heard cases of some heterosexual couples being denied marriage in a church due to a lack of interest in participating. The Church is a private entity that has rules of its own to operate by. Rightly so. If people want to ensure a marriage the registry office is always free.

flax

04-09-2008, 11:22 AM

flax: I see you have been reading Richard Dawkins :D

Religion as a virus, hm I'm most glad I caught it.

I have heard cases of some heterosexual couples being denied marriage in a church due to a lack of interest in participating. The Church is a private entity that has rules of its own to operate by. Rightly so. If people want to ensure a marriage the registry office is always free.

Well a short question in your oppinion should societry as a whole have any say about what goes on inside the church.

We do have that now churches have to be lawabiding, just recently there was that row in the "mormon" compound.
The offshot sect that kinda kept polygam, was that right or wrong for lawenforcement to enter that compound ?

Gareth

04-09-2008, 11:38 AM

Well a short question in your oppinion should societry as a whole have any say about what goes on inside the church.

We do have that now churches have to be lawabiding, just recently there was that row in the "mormon" compound.
The offshot sect that kinda kept polygam, was that right or wrong for lawenforcement to enter that compound ?

Christianity has always been subservient to the laws, however a Church has the right to refuse a couple for marriage if they do not fit their requirements. i.e if they do not practise or they have no interest in furthering their role within the Church. The Law of the Land doesn't say that Churches have to marry those who do not fit into these requirements.

flax

04-09-2008, 11:50 AM

Christianity has always been subservient to the laws, however a Church has the right to refuse a couple for marriage if they do not fit their requirements. i.e if they do not practise or they have no interest in furthering their role within the Church. The Law of the Land doesn't say that Churches have to marry those who do not fit into these requirements.

As a state you cant realy REQUIRE churches to do anything at all.
The thing is why should a church marrige in that case have ANY civic bearing what so ever?

Let the churches do what ceremonies they like but if you want to get legaly married you'd requier a civic marrige.

And that should be able to be between whatever gender you happen to love.

Flax