Home office taking public comments on gay marriage in UK

[PaulMB]

Hi Ian,
I think I see what you mean.
I have no objection to priests, and high-ranking Vatican officials, or anyone else for that matter, having homosexual inclinations. Or having sex with trees, gorillas or whatever turns them on. What I do object to is the hypocrisy of victimising those who would live their homosexuality openly and legally consolidate a relationship in marriage.
And what I object to even more is that not satisfied by banning gay RELIGIOUS marriage, they see it as their god-given right and duty to extend this ban to CIVIL MARRIAGE, between people who accept no obedience to Catholic teaching, wherever Catholic political influence is strong enough to do so.
Do you realise that in Italy civil divorce only became legal around 1973? But that before that the church was issuing "Annulments" of marriage, usually to people who either had connections and influence in the Vatican or could afford to make donations in the right places? And that, always in Italy, the Pill was illegal until about 1970? Even condoms were sold, only in pharmacies, as "profylactics," the implication being that they were to be used to prevent infection, not to prevent pregnancy.

Come to think of it, its funny how religious powers, not only Catholic, are obsessed with sex.

[Darth Vader]

Corinthians 7 - Principles Regarding Marriage and Singleness.

'Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband'.

Gay marriage will at first ban the use those two words 'wife' and 'husband' and eventually they may become unlawful........

As ever good intentions but badly thought through leads to unexpected consequences e.g. the Human Rights Act.

Cheers,

DV

[PaulMB]

OK Darth! You asked for it! No prisoners, and I'm going to hit you with Deuteronomy:

Deut. 23


18. There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog (????), into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

[guey]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

Corinthians 7 - Principles Regarding Marriage and Singleness.

'Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband'.

Gay marriage will at first ban the use those two words 'wife' and 'husband' and eventually they may become unlawful........

As ever good intentions but badly thought through leads to unexpected consequences e.g. the Human Rights Act.

Cheers,

DV

Point One: Marriage is a civil, not religious matter, so I'll not be bound by superstition tyvm - particularly not by the words of book mistranslated down the ages for the purposes of those in power at the time. Not forgetting the separation of church and state enshrined in law.

Point two: Why do you think that the words husband and wife will be banned? When we get hitched, my partner and I will refer to each other as "my husband" (amongst other things )

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

Gay marriage will at first ban the use those two words 'wife' and 'husband' and eventually they may become unlawful........

I think what you mean to say is "It's political correctness gorne mad".

If we are going to cite the Bible as a guide to modern life I hope you never eat Shellfish - almost as bad as homosexuality.

Lev 11:10
[KJV] And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Nor is approaching the altar of god permitted if one has dodgy eyesight. Counts me out immediately.

Lev 21:20
[KJV] Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken
[NIV] or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.

More Biblical lunacy for your edification.


I wouldn't be as childish as to say if it annoys the Catholic Church it has to be a good thing, but I do wish some clergy would stop meddling in other people's lives.

[Basil]

Originally Posted by PaulMB

OK Darth! You asked for it! No prisoners, and I'm going to hit you with Deuteronomy:

Deut. 23


18. There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog (????), into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

The price of a dog?

Anyone?


Oh, and Leviticus is always good for a laugh...

[Darth Vader]

Originally Posted by guey

Point One: Marriage is a civil, not religious matter, so I'll not be bound by superstition tyvm - particularly not by the words of book mistranslated down the ages for the purposes of those in power at the time. Not forgetting the separation of church and state enshrined in law.

Point two: Why do you think that the words husband and wife will be banned? When we get hitched, my partner and I will refer to each other as "my husband" (amongst other things )

See here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...51.html?ref=uk

Cheers,

DV

[Basil]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

See here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...51.html?ref=uk

Cheers,

DV

I bet you £200 it doesn't.


Bloody homophobes need to get a frickin' life of their own and stop concerning themselves with stuff that's none of their business!

[Darth Vader]

Originally Posted by Basil

The price of a dog?

Anyone?


Oh, and Leviticus is always good for a laugh...

I think in Hebrew a 'dog' is a male prostitute which then makes more sense of the passage.

17 says 'There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. The two verses are clearly talking about sexual sins.

Cheers,

DV

[deanf]

Marriage is for one man one woman, for life. Civil partnerships are fine but if same sex couples want to hook up it should not be Marriage.

Then we should be celebrating peoples differences and being creative, not fading into a blandness where everyone's the same.

[Basil]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

I think in Hebrew a 'dog' is a male prostitute which then makes more sense of the passage.

Cheers,

DV

Lots of ugly male prostitutes in Israel?

Good to know.

[Basil]

Originally Posted by deanf

Marriage is for one man one woman, for life. Civil partnerships are fine but if same sex couples want to hook up it should not be Marriage.

Then we should be celebrating peoples differences and being creative, not fading into a blandness where everyone's the same.

So treating people with respect is 'fading into a blandness where everyone's the same.'

Bollocks!


Hmmmm, nope can't think of a better reply...

[Darth Vader]

Originally Posted by Basil

I bet you £200 it doesn't.


Bloody homophobes need to get a frickin' life of their own and stop concerning themselves with stuff that's none of their business!

I only bet on a certainty. So with politics and newspapers anything is possible.

Our laws are so complex that what may start out as a small change can lead to profound changes. Like the HRA. We now can't deport preachers of hate nor a criminal because he had a pet.

Cheers,

DV

[guey]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

See here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...51.html?ref=uk

Cheers,

DV

Third paragraph in that article "possible changes".
I'll wait until the consultation's over before commenting further on it.

[Still]

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

We now can't deport preachers of hate nor a criminal because he had a pet.

You are repeating a myth perpetrated by hate mongers such as EDL, & Theresa May: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/r...at-theresa-may