Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Ed Sheeran on Amazon Music Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Gay Marriage

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 11 Dec 2012, 13:21:25 GMT
p shilling says:
An M.P. announced that thousands of 'normal' people will be offended if gay marriage goes ahead. Wonder if Jesus were alive today, would he really be offended.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012, 13:27:57 GMT
Spin says:
p: If one is offended (How, I cannot imagine) by gay marriage, one is not "normal".

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2012, 13:31:58 GMT
p shilling says:
Indeed.. I nearly spat my cornflakes out as he said it

Posted on 11 Dec 2012, 20:09:12 GMT
1) Thousands is hardly a majority of the population. In fact, it's not even approaching not even nearly close to a majority!

2) Even if the majority were offended by it, should they have the right to outlaw such a thing simply because they find it offensive, particularly if no-one is actually being directly harmed by gay people marrying? Any rational person would, I hope, say NO!

Posted on 11 Dec 2012, 22:22:54 GMT
R. Kroell says:
I always thought that People marry (today) because they love each other.
If you take the bible, for instance, there you will find hardly any marriage made out of love, most of them are forced marriages.

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 00:12:28 GMT
Tom M says:
Peoples' senibilities have some relevance, but the case against homosexual 'marriage' is of course that marriage is an institution primarily founded in natural relationships and their natural outcomes. Marriage and its special societal provisions simply recognize the community need for constant renewal, babies.

Sex outside of the continuum of life , e.g. masturbation, fornication, rape, homosexual immitative 'sex' either do not involve the sexes and are not propery sexual , or abuse others in pursuit of the pleasure spasms. Interfering with naturally good processes is rather like inducing vomiting while eating to continue the pleasure of eating, or blocking a persons windpipe, or tying legs together, are inherently wrong. Natural processes have their natural end and goodness. We all recognize this in every other element of human life where our objectives are usually to restore and enhance normal function , not impede, interfere or frustrate it.

Along the same lines, there is no natural right to attempt imitative sexual acts with people of ones' same sex. It's so obvious, that argument will hardly convince anyone whose own intellect is so blotted out as not to see this, but for those who do not suffer such astounding impediments that any child sees instantly, we are simply not at all suited for sexual relations within the same sex, and ignoring this has led to the deaths of more than three quarters of a million young men.

The sphincter is designed to retain feces. The interior tissue is easily torn. To engage in such acts , disgusting enough to contemplate for most human beings as one would naturally expect, is to be grossly irresponsible concerning the well being of one's fellow man.

The very word 'marriage' as in carpentry or in all usages, until this ever so clever age, means to join parts that fit together seamlessly. It is not an accident that males produce sperm with immunosuppressants, and that vaginas seem wonderfully and pleasantly accomodating of same , whle also adding a womb.

Once more, if the level of insanity , and this is purest insanity is such that a person literally cannot see the most obvious and salient facts of human beings, no rational argument will succeed, for indeed insanity is just that.

We also find that homosexual attraction and behavior is not a chosen state significantly for most, and is correlated with parental divorce, death of a parent, sexual abuse by an older male in early adolescence, parental alienation, and a host of pathological or unhealthy family instances.

We also note that children who grow up in homosexual households do significantly worse generally than children raised in the homes of their biological parents., as if this could be any possible surprise to anyone.

We also have the clearest of evidence that a person's sense of their sexual 'identity' is in fact fluid and maleable, particularly when younger.

We as a society must reject that now entirely discredited , 'just born that way' phrase that everyone has heard for decades repeated as a mantra and which has led to societal tragedies including the ongoing terrible and horrifically wasteful HIV infection rates where less than 2% of the population contracts (US) 61% of HIV infections as a similar situation reigns in the UK.

We must have the strength of character and integrity to actually look at the facts of how these terribly disordered states of affairs comes to exist and help the new generation of victims before they to are sacrificed to the legion of difficulties that homosexually active people suffer.

They have a God given right to our help and support and it is criminal that dogmatists are burying another generation of children day after day.

The evidence is all in. The picture is clear.

We must help the children along with the victims we have already created.

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 00:54:11 GMT
Ford Prefect says:
"We must help the children along with the victims we have already created."

What is your proposed solution to this problem?

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 01:35:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Dec 2012, 01:36:37 GMT
Tom M says:
We must of course help the existing victims of HIV infections.

A much more serious problem is that young homosexually active young men obviously are engaging in a tremendous amount of terribly high risk activity that is infecting them at a terrible rate.

I doubt after 30 years or so of 'sex education' mcuh can be done other than continue to pay the $618, 000 per person (some 86,000 people ) in the UK.

It is a clear matter of fact however that people with significant homosexual lives and attractions can often achieve a natural heterosexual balance and attraction, though the process I gather can be difficult. It is certainly possible for people who want to choose it , and a large number do.

There is very little evidence of any harm coming to anyone as studies have shown.

More than a few people who have been "told that they were gay" and 'just born that way' were very, very happy to learn otherwise. Often the homosexual path is a path of rejection and isolation that ends in the homosexual 'community' a group of equally suffering individuals who as Dr Satinover states, have suffered plenty enough for one lifetime and who have a God given right to our love and support.

From what I know of these circumstances from friends and people I have known, its a very , very rough road. One of the reasons why the wild sexual abandon that has killed so many occurs is because of the great tension release that sexual orgasm provides for a short while. It sets up an addictive pattern as is , again, well recognized.

The homosexual person is not in the slightest any differerent from any of us who all have our own wounds and failings. It seems particularly the case that these poor souls carry a terrible psychological , social and spiritual burden. I hope many avail themselves, and indeed know some who regularly receive the sacraments of the mass and confession , as is exactly right for all of us sinners. They are no different from any of us, except perhaps for having, like Christ, suffered more.

We should certainly educate the public as to the actual causes and dynamics of homosexual development in all its complexity and start helping the kids who are most likely to have problems in this area. The best solution is of course stable natural families. And this is a much wider issue with the whole society being at fault and responsible for the wellbeing of the weakest.

How many familes bust up after someone loses their job? What kinds of retraining and benefit packages are there for laid off workers. To what extent has globalization which has done a lot of good in the world in many ways, now become something that is starting to undermine the very civilizations that gave rise to it, and often just for greater corporate margins.

Family stability and support is necessary.

It seems pretty strongly corroborated that family pathology played , being as the authors say, a determining influence, that failing support for the institution and commitments of people to each other and their children, psychological support and social integration and acceptance must be nurtured.

As to the traits or biological elements like natural sensitivity and something different from the common and often enough deficient roughness of guys, these traits, can trigger rejections from others and we have to do a better job of encouraging appreciation of everyone. Some girls are clearly more masculine and some young men more readily associated with feminine modalities.

From these circumstances often emerge the peer and parental rejections that lead down lonely paths and finding sexual expression in a community of people with similar paths behind them should hardly be surprising. Priests can have real difficulties with celibacy and young sexually developing kids have not taken vows of , or recieved the graces for celibacy.

But the fact is that these are not 'homosexual kids', but rather they are just kids. They need us to pay attention and make up the deficits they suffer. A lot is known.

In short, love them all effectively according to their individual circumstances. Above all , simply discover what there is to discover, whether its the false right wing religious view that it's all a matter of "choice" which it patently is not for most people, or whether its the other big lie, "that you're just born that way.". A sports friend of mine, who is a very attractive and fit young man who is terrific at tennis, and who had been caught up in the gay thing for decades, was absolutely thrilled to learn that there really is no such thing as a 'homosexual'.

A couple of years later, he let me know, from where he was living in Asia, that he had a girlfriend. I don't know if he ever took any conselling. I doubt it. I should write him and see how he's doing.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 07:10:45 GMT
Drew Jones says:
TL;DR version: I don't like it so stop it.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 09:41:27 GMT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

"marriage is an institution primarily founded in natural relationships and their natural outcomes. Marriage and its special societal provisions simply recognize the community need for constant renewal, babies. "

Just as a matter of interest what do you think is the optimum human population for the Earth?

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 12:04:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Dec 2012, 12:17:37 GMT
TheFoe says:
Tom, in your last 2 posts you spout 'facts' and 'figures' regarding homosexual activity and behaviour, but fail to produce any evidence. Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing links to some proof, otherwise your posts will be regarded as homophobic propoganda which I suspect they are.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 12:11:23 GMT
Dan Fante says:
What absolute twaddle.

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 16:05:46 GMT
Simon Basso says:
What an idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 16:16:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Dec 2012, 16:17:36 GMT
Spin says:
Tom: You are correct in only one sense: the word "homosexual" is meaningless. There is no such thing as "Homosexuality". A person is attracted to a member of the same sex not because of a "condition" called "homosexuality" but because that is who they are and have every right to be.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 16:24:21 GMT
X_the_Shadow says:
Uh, Tom, organised religion is a scam, you know? And it could also be described as a disease -- one which your mind has, unfortunately, been infected with. You are not well. But with such a level of indoctrination, it seems that you will never be free from the heavy chains of religion. It really is a great shame.

You speak as though not one gay person lives a happy, contented and healthy life, which is very far from the truth. But, of course, that doesn't fit with your parochial and unlearned view, so I strongly suspect that you won't change your mind, even in the face of overwhelming evidence!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 17:36:40 GMT
Ian says:
If it offends Tom, that's reason enough for me.

Posted on 12 Dec 2012, 17:42:30 GMT
Spin says:
It was only when judaic christianity took over the civilised world that "Homosexuality" came into existence. Prior to christianities power-fest, homosexuality was a "noble" attribute, Emporors and conquerors were gay but their people still followed them...In our "modern" times, a vast majority of our scientists and philosophers were gay. If it were not for a homosexual you would not be enjoying this conversation on a computer..

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 18:06:42 GMT
"If it were not for a homosexual you would not be enjoying this conversation on a computer.."

Well said.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 19:43:36 GMT
X_the_Shadow says:
Yeah. Alan Turing for the win! Not only was he a great scientist, he was rather cute, too!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 23:04:46 GMT
Spin says:
Indeed, but what you call "Homosexuality" extends far beyond your romanised, christianised view of the world. Homosexuality Vs Heterosexuality. Gender, not Gods rights is the concern of the religioius...I love me and those that please me. But if you love someone I do not, And gain sexual pleasure from activities I have not tried..You are damned..

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 23:26:30 GMT
X_the_Shadow says:
Excuse me, but MY Romanised, Christianised view of the world?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Dec 2012, 23:54:39 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 13 Dec 2012, 06:55:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012, 06:56:32 GMT
athanasius says:
One of the main problems in the so called re definition of marriage....how does one define consumation in a gay "marriage"?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012, 08:11:04 GMT
The definition will be left to case law. That is how the standard definition was developed, going back to a precedent set in 1967.

As an objection to same-sex marriage this is not a problem, and neither is a definition of adultery.

Posted on 13 Dec 2012, 10:23:44 GMT
athanasius says:
Believe me it is...watch this space and the can of worms it will open.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 115 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  90
Total posts:  2856
Initial post:  11 Dec 2012
Latest post:  22 Jan 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers