Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Could Britain ever legalise 2 women-1 man marriage?


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#121 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,767 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:10 AM

There are some good stories in the bible actually, with a lot of them still relevant to today.

 

There's plenty of ridiculous things like, but there are actually some good stories.


No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#122 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:17 AM

Anyone who doesn't realise that their given religion is 60% moral guidance and 40% mythology is a bit lacking upstairs.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#123 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,003 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:33 AM

Anyone who doesn't realise that their given religion is 60% moral guidance and 40% mythology is a bit lacking upstairs.

 

But that equals 100% truth and certainty.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#124 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:27 AM

But that equals 100% truth and certainty.

 

 

It's where Paganism has the edge.

 

20% moral guidance

40% mythology

20% mucking about with poisonous plants

20% rampant sex with strangers at midnight on top of a hill.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#125 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:31 AM

It's where Paganism has the edge.

 

20% moral guidance

40% mythology

20% mucking about with poisonous plants

20% rampant sex with strangers at midnight on top of a hill.

I'm finding myself strangely drawn to your arguments  ;)


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#126 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,704 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:49 PM

There are some good stories in the bible actually, with a lot of them still relevant to today.

 

There's plenty of ridiculous things like, but there are actually some good stories.

 

As possibly the only person here who teaches those stories to children, I would actually have to agree. Since changing schools, I've certainly softened in my approach to the teachings of Christianity and the stories are often a really good way of getting across a point. The lessons also command a certain amount of respect that you don't get in other subjects. I think a lot of atheists/agnostics refuse to see any good in religion and put all their focus into the creationist and anti-homosexual brigades. I personally think that purely secular societies have yet to fill in some of the gaps of religion for instance strong community and charitable work. I'm not saying I agree with the motives for these things but if they disappeared completely our society might be the worse for it.  



#127 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:19 PM

As possibly the only person here who teaches those stories to children, I would actually have to agree. Since changing schools, I've certainly softened in my approach to the teachings of Christianity and the stories are often a really good way of getting across a point. The lessons also command a certain amount of respect that you don't get in other subjects. I think a lot of atheists/agnostics refuse to see any good in religion and put all their focus into the creationist and anti-homosexual brigades. I personally think that purely secular societies have yet to fill in some of the gaps of religion for instance strong community and charitable work. I'm not saying I agree with the motives for these things but if they disappeared completely our society might be the worse for it.


I see your point but simialar don't tar all atheists with the same brush. As an atheist I understand and believe religion has good point.

The way I look at belief/non belief is this analogy

The way that I relax and de-stress is through my dogs, whenever I need any sort of emotional cruch they supply it. However some people keep dogs and use them for aggression and some dogs kill innocent people. Now if there was a movement to ban all dogs, I would be very defensive of my point of view.

This analogy can be used (in my opinion) to religion, just replace dog with the word religion in the last paragraph and just let's live and let live

#128 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,704 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:00 PM

I see your point but simialar don't tar all atheists with the same brush. As an atheist I understand and believe religion has good point.

The way I look at belief/non belief is this analogy

The way that I relax and de-stress is through my dogs, whenever I need any sort of emotional cruch they supply it. However some people keep dogs and use them for aggression and some dogs kill innocent people. Now if there was a movement to ban all dogs, I would be very defensive of my point of view.

This analogy can be used (in my opinion) to religion, just replace dog with the word religion in the last paragraph and just let's live and let live

I'm an atheist/agnostic myself and I'm talking from my own experience as a member of 'the atheist community,' so to speak. It was these that I was referring to mainly and you'd rarely hear a good word said about any religion here and amongst some there is almost a refusal to accept that religion could be a legitimate cause for good. I'd certainly say this of one of my heroes, Christopher Hitchens.

#129 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,334 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:13 PM



The way that I relax and de-stress is through my dogs, whenever I need any sort of emotional cruch they supply it. However some people keep dogs and use them for aggression and some dogs kill innocent people. Now if there was a movement to ban all dogs, I would be very defensive of my point of view.

 

Your analogy falls short though because religion isn't just a crutch.  It is also a massive inspiration.  Great (and evil) things have been achieved in the name of a particular religion, the evil aspect of its inspirational nature has been witnessed this week of course.  We tend to write religious terrorists/extremists off as nutters but they are inspired by their religion, just as those who have made huge sacrifices for the poor or to save others from harm have been inspired in the name of their religion.  I'm not saying that inspiration is the sole province of religion, but just as religion provides support in times of struggle, it inspires at other times.  I'm not sure a dog can ever be inspirational.



#130 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:52 PM

No.  Two women still don't have the right equipment to procreate with each other.  They still have to go to a third person (in this case, the scientist).

 

I don't like what science is proposing here.  Seemingly, nor does the Sheffield professor in your link. 

 

But then again, I didn't like the 'spare part' baby science either.

 

I think that westerners have become very 'me' centred.  So long as we all get what we want then pox on the consequences.  I think the potential consequences of playing with the genetic makeup of human beings in the way that is proposed is to risk creating a monster, if not in that generation then in future generations.  Makes my skin crawl.

 

I'll be honest it is stuff like this that worries me for the effect on society, not so much gay marriage. Some of the stories coming out of science labs now are truly frightening.

 

 

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. It isn't a precondition ( 'thou shalt procreate!' ), never has been, never will be. Lots of married people don't have kids, for a multitude of reasons, some biological, some not. It doesn't make their marriages any less valid that people who do have children. Let's be honest here, it's just being used as a weak argument by people who don't really like the thought of gay people being married to each other.

 

Could "natural indications" now be regarded as a strong argument, regardless of whether or not you believe in God? Does "modern reason" really trump everything for humans, unlike for every other animal or plant on Planet Earth?

 

There is no oxygen in space. Is this an indication that humans shouldn't be in space? (because we may mess it up...)

Humans cannot breathe underwater for long. Is this an indication that humans shouldn't be there?

Humans were born into two sexes with two distinct reproduction system that fit together perfectly(!). Could that not be regarded as an indication that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality?

 

In the age of science and reason could there not be a case for suggesting that us humans are so confident in our actions and beliefs now that we have put ourselves 'higher' than God or Nature and that we could cause much harm in the long run? Whether that be morally, environmentally etc.

 

Most people seem to ignore the fact that there is genuine debate about whether homosexuality is wrong even in Christian churches. The passages from Leviticus and the OT are as irrelevant as the ones saying that eating shellfish is an abomination. Jesus's coming was supposed to be a new covenant open to all not just Jews, hense why Christians are not obliged to follow any of the other laws in Leviticus.

Passages from the NT are also not as clear cut as they might seem. I personally believe that the Churches attitude to practising homosexuals is a real death knell to its position as a mainstream feature of society. Most people, especially the young, have gay friends nowadays and cannot accept an attitude that says there is something wrong with their friends and that they are making a choice to be that way. It just makes the church seem out of touch and encourages people to ignore it on this issue which they then inevitably do on other issues.

I've had many a debate on gay marriage and in my opinion all the arguments are retrospective and come down to an underlying dislike of homosexuality. After all, the main argument is basically a semantic one and one not worth getting worked up about.

 

I am no Christian, far from it. But I must say I do respect the Church for being cautious on certain matters. Sometimes I do think they are too cautious, but the thing is modern humans are so quick to throw out the old, replace with the new, sometimes with very little thought. It does seem that (despite being guided by pure Revelation) that the Church at least carefully think about things, consider life and Planet Earth in the context of hundreds of years (as opposed to Prime Ministers who think of life in terms of five years). I still don't think they are right on this issue, but they could be on other issues.

 

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the actual state of marriage at the moment. Divorce rates are absolutely rocketing through the roof.

 

Many many scientific studies have stated that two biological parents provide the best environment and childhood for children, with those raised by one much more likely to suffer. It does seem like a rather large social problem.

 

What about gay couples? Is a gay couple raising a child the right environment for that child? "Rights" should not come into that discussion at all, the importance is the answer to that question.

 

Could this be what the Church is worried about? The breakup of marriage and it's consequences for society?


Edited by ShotgunGold, 24 May 2013 - 07:55 PM.


#131 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:19 AM

As possibly the only person here who teaches those stories to children, I would actually have to agree. Since changing schools, I've certainly softened in my approach to the teachings of Christianity and the stories are often a really good way of getting across a point. The lessons also command a certain amount of respect that you don't get in other subjects. I think a lot of atheists/agnostics refuse to see any good in religion and put all their focus into the creationist and anti-homosexual brigades. I personally think that purely secular societies have yet to fill in some of the gaps of religion for instance strong community and charitable work. I'm not saying I agree with the motives for these things but if they disappeared completely our society might be the worse for it.  

 

 

As possibly the only person here who teaches those stories to children, I would actually have to agree. Since changing schools, I've certainly softened in my approach to the teachings of Christianity and the stories are often a really good way of getting across a point. The lessons also command a certain amount of respect that you don't get in other subjects. I think a lot of atheists/agnostics refuse to see any good in religion and put all their focus into the creationist and anti-homosexual brigades. I personally think that purely secular societies have yet to fill in some of the gaps of religion for instance strong community and charitable work. I'm not saying I agree with the motives for these things but if they disappeared completely our society might be the worse for it.  

I taught RE in my probationary year along with my main subject, and like you I'm an atheist

 

I really enjoyed it.

 

There is an important distinction between religious education and religious instruction. Teaching about belief gives you a chance to tell some cracking stories, gives insight into the backgrounds of different cultures and all sorts. 


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#132 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,527 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:29 AM

I'm not sure a dog can ever be inspirational.

 

Lassie! Rin Tin Tin! Gnasher!


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#133 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:44 AM

Lassie! Rin Tin Tin! Gnasher!

ruby! dexter! jess!

 

 

inspiration is in the eyes of the inspired


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#134 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,527 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:49 AM

Humans were born into two sexes with two distinct reproduction system that fit together perfectly(!). Could that not be regarded as an indication that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality?

 

Only if you also believe that any other human being that doesn't fit the 'perfect' blueprint is less equal. The limbless, the deaf, the blind, for example? That's a very dangerous road to travel, and thankfully we live in (mostly) more enlightened times. Every human being is different in their own way and that's nothing to be frightened of, or reason to treat them differently.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#135 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:02 AM

I'll be honest it is stuff like this that worries me for the effect on society, not so much gay marriage. Some of the stories coming out of science labs now are truly frightening.

 

 

 

Could "natural indications" now be regarded as a strong argument, regardless of whether or not you believe in God? Does "modern reason" really trump everything for humans, unlike for every other animal or plant on Planet Earth?

 

There is no oxygen in space. Is this an indication that humans shouldn't be in space? (because we may mess it up...)

Humans cannot breathe underwater for long. Is this an indication that humans shouldn't be there?

Humans were born into two sexes with two distinct reproduction system that fit together perfectly(!). Could that not be regarded as an indication that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality?

 

In the age of science and reason could there not be a case for suggesting that us humans are so confident in our actions and beliefs now that we have put ourselves 'higher' than God or Nature and that we could cause much harm in the long run? Whether that be morally, environmentally etc.

 

 

I am no Christian, far from it. But I must say I do respect the Church for being cautious on certain matters. Sometimes I do think they are too cautious, but the thing is modern humans are so quick to throw out the old, replace with the new, sometimes with very little thought. It does seem that (despite being guided by pure Revelation) that the Church at least carefully think about things, consider life and Planet Earth in the context of hundreds of years (as opposed to Prime Ministers who think of life in terms of five years). I still don't think they are right on this issue, but they could be on other issues.

 

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the actual state of marriage at the moment. Divorce rates are absolutely rocketing through the roof.

 

Many many scientific studies have stated that two biological parents provide the best environment and childhood for children, with those raised by one much more likely to suffer. It does seem like a rather large social problem.

 

What about gay couples? Is a gay couple raising a child the right environment for that child? "Rights" should not come into that discussion at all, the importance is the answer to that question.

 

Could this be what the Church is worried about? The breakup of marriage and it's consequences for society?

the divorce rate is down

http://www.guardian....t-england-wales

I'm not sure how the divorce rate is relevant to not allowing same sex couples to marry

 

family life and the rearing and nurturing of children has taken on many forms as long as human beings have reproduced-that is still the case: that is true in this country and throughout the world.

 

What counts in the binging up od children is stability, a positive nurturing, loving environment, a safe environment, being valued. I would like to see some of the research you mention regarding how being legally married or by parent being a legally married different sex couple by definition provides this environment.

 

The church, any church or any religion has no right to say who whom is allowed to be married, and/or what a family should consist of.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#136 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:03 AM

Only if you also believe that any other human being that doesn't fit the 'perfect' blueprint is less equal. The limbless, the deaf, the blind, for example? That's a very dangerous road to travel, and thankfully we live in (mostly) more enlightened times. Every human being is different in their own way and that's nothing to be frightened of, or reason to treat them differently.

yes


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#137 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:14 AM

 Edited out


Edited by Wolford6, 25 May 2013 - 11:24 AM.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#138 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:18 AM

the divorce rate is down

http://www.guardian....t-england-wales

I'm not sure how the divorce rate is relevant to not allowing same sex couples to marry

 

family life and the rearing and nurturing of children has taken on many forms as long as human beings have reproduced-that is still the case: that is true in this country and throughout the world.

 

What counts in the binging up od children is stability, a positive nurturing, loving environment, a safe environment, being valued. I would like to see some of the research you mention regarding how being legally married or by parent being a legally married different sex couple by definition provides this environment.

 

The church, any church or any religion has no right to say who whom is allowed to be married, and/or what a family should consist of.

 

Probably because

(1) fewer people are getting married until they have lived together for several years and are more settled as couples

(2) fewer people are getting married full stop. There is no stigma for children whose parents are not formally married.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#139 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:25 PM

Probably because
(1) fewer people are getting married until they have lived together for several years and are more settled as couples
(2) fewer people are getting married full stop. There is no stigma for children whose parents are not formally married.


Could well be mate
The point is that it's a red herring when it comes to same sex couples marrying and the ability if different family structures and configurations to bring children up adequately
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#140 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,914 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 05:09 AM

You are falling into the trap of discussing the Bible as if it was a work of.fundamental truth. I must find time to ask my sister as she is actually qualified in these matters.

Oh, and whilst Cameron is in the mood, he should de- establish the C of E too. You can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people etc. etc.

Edited by JohnM, 27 May 2013 - 05:14 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users