The Satanic thingee will consist of the most adament opposition, but I imagine their numbers to be small. This debate's been on going for years, and this is the first time I've heard of it.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
You're confusing civil and canon laws. At the end of the day, I expect the SCOTUS will have to rule on gay marriage, and I would expect the finding to be similar to ours: gay couples have the right to marry. No church can be compelled to marry gays if the church is against gay marriage, but all gays are entitled to a civil ceremony. If a particular JP opposes gay weddings for religious reasons, s/he may be excused if and only if s/he and find an alternate JP who will do the deed. note the onus is on the JP, not the couple.If the Supreme Court ever rules in favor of gay marriage (which I think is unfortunately much less likely than people think, at least short term), it won't be because of religious equality.
ps Some vicars etc have been offering gay couples "blessing ceremonies" for ages, and are happy to do the real deal now.
Stormy wrote:the language will be determined by popular usage
It would include gays, with or without an agenda. It would also include hetros.Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist. They are the enemy of the traditional.
Suska wrote:C'mon Donald, that appeals to you right?
Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist. They are the enemy of the traditional.
Suska wrote:Gays can't claim marriage any more than any Hedonist.Heterosexuality is as hedonistic as homosexuality. Your hedonism theory applies to everyone, not just people you choose to apply it to. Homosexuals can claim marriage as much as anyone else can.
Suska wrote:They are the enemy of the traditional.That's not a bad thing. It was tradition for people to have slaves, to treat your wife like property, beat your wife, use horses to plow the fields, live in homes made of sod, etc.
Then why not say that instead of making a childish insult?If it was a childish insult it would be meaningless. No. For you Godstud, only very serious adult insults that convey the gist of the problem. For example; instead of asking me to say something you might have tried reading what I had already written and pointed out just for you to read.
Marriage has been considered romantic-sexual for quite a while now.Oh, so you did finally get around to reading it. I wonder what that was all about? Yes Godstud, the popular idea is that marriage is meaningless. I suppose I should just lay down on the road and wait for someone to run me over, but I thought I'd put objecting to the situation somewhat first.
Homosexuals can claim marriage as much as anyone else can.anyone else who is a hedonist. Correct.
live in homes made of sod, etc.Yes, exactly, when I say traditional in a thread called "If homosexuals can marry each other" I'm obviously talking about sod houses.
Suska wrote:You want to embrace the new "mating" protocols, I don't.
gr1 wrote:Its more like we don't think it's right to deny people rights given to us by man's own laws.Again, marriage is not a right. More like a rite, it embodies the sanctity and prudence required for lasting and harmonious personal bonds.
Donald wrote:I think the main focus should be saving the Earth from the destructive forces of capitalismI don't have a problem with this as a general goal. I don't believe the foundation for organizing is individual but relational, starting with faithful couples. Without the prospect for a genuine bond - a bond which we don't call weakness, but faith, we can't have anything more than selfish individuals. In order for the individual to have a stake in any future, any nation or even a community there must be productive families - a positive outlet for sexuality. Hedonism is completely hostile to that, it is plainly competitive mating instead of cooperative. In such an environment - as in capitalism - the vast majority of people will be rendered useless and a few rendered all powerful. Every form of hedonism attacks all optimism for love.
OK. So what is your argument? So far you have […]
@Julian658 I will be ignoring your replies to […]
Given such a narrow scope, it's incorrect to ma[…]
I was a kid in the Sixties. There were 3 stations[…]