Gay Marriage in Scotland

[The Iceman]

The Church of which I am a member has lost it's moral authority, but I want to change it from within.

And how exactly does that work?

By bitching on the GAA board.... solves everything........   

[Maguire01]

From what I see, the Church should give up on it's attempted ownership of the term 'marriage'. It gave it up a long time ago like I said in an earlier post. They don't have any right to the term today and will lose any battle to keep the term exclusively to Heterosexual couples.

Why would/should the church (your church? your religion? any religion?) have ownership of the term marriage?

[Eamonnca1]

You have to ask yourself why Jesus didn't marry.

Maybe he was too picky.

[The Iceman]

From what I see, the Church should give up on it's attempted ownership of the term 'marriage'. It gave it up a long time ago like I said in an earlier post. They don't have any right to the term today and will lose any battle to keep the term exclusively to Heterosexual couples.

Why would/should the church (your church? your religion? any religion?) have ownership of the term marriage?

They shouldn't MAguire. They should have taken ownership on something like maybe a "marriage covenant between believers" rather than a Universal term "marriage"
I'm agreeing with you that they really don't have any argument on the "gay marriage" term. they only have an argument on keeping it out of their churches.

[seafoid]

From what I see, the Church should give up on it's attempted ownership of the term 'marriage'. It gave it up a long time ago like I said in an earlier post. They don't have any right to the term today and will lose any battle to keep the term exclusively to Heterosexual couples.

Why would/should the church (your church? your religion? any religion?) have ownership of the term marriage?

Marriage is a civil construct much more than any claim to being a religious one which was about before any of the Abrahamic religions existed . In many parts of the world over time, religious bodies had been the only authority granted in many countries to legally conduct marriage ceremonies and their legitimacy especially in western cultures during the middle ages, but since the 18th-19th centuries countries began to legally conduct and recognise marriages without any religious involvement. Various religions and churches can recognise marriage within their teachings and practices, and many (Catholic church included) ensure that a priest, pastor, minister etc. conducting the religious ceremony is also able to conduct the secular, legal aspect of the signing of the marriage certificate between both partners with relevant witnesses etc.

Relevant churches that conduct ceremonies have their own right to decide who can get married within their churches, chapels, temples and so on. However what goes on outside their religion which has no direct impact on themselves should have the final say in a civil society. The principles and purposes of marriage in different cultures has changed over time and will continue to do so.

The purpose of marriage in most cultures is to tie men financially to the mother of their children. Nothing particularly religious. It is a  model that works most of the time.   It saves a lot of hassle for the women.   And the weddings are lovely.  Plus the priests or whatever get a cut of the fees. 

[stew]

So he decides there is no God based on the death of a family member.......................... Good for him, that must have been  a kodak moment for him.

I find some athiests to be the single most arrogant fcukers on the planet, wee Eamon fits the bill.

Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else save one, they should not be allowed to be married in a Christian Church in my opinion, after all we are told in the bible that men should not lie down with other men.

I don't care what gay people do and as for the Catholic Church, they have been corrupt almost since their inception and I have no time for the Vatican at all at all, that said I go to Church for personal reasons and I am equally comfortable in a Protestant Church as a Catholic one.

[Hardy]

after all we are told in the bible that men should not lie down with other men

Good spot. Let's persecute the Tyrone footballers.

[stew]

after all we are told in the bible that men should not lie down with other men

Good spot. Let's persecute the Tyrone footballers.

[Eamonnca1]

So he decides there is no God based on the death of a family member.......................... Good for him, that must have been  a kodak moment for him.

No, that's not what I said. Did you read the whole sentence or are you just taking part in some competition to see who can look as thick as two short planks in the least amount of words?

I find some athiests to be the single most arrogant fcukers on the planet, wee Eamon fits the bill.

And the "we have all the answers to everything and only we know the difference between right and wrong because we have a direct line to the invisible man in the sky" crowd are less arrogant?  Or maybe you just haven't met enough of them. Maybe you should try to get out more.

Edit to add: Why are you using the word "arrogant" as if that's going to upset me?  If there's one thing I envy about the religious it is the arrogance that they display every single day without a peep of protest from the likes of you. I aspire to their levels of arrogance. I strive towards it every day, hoping I get a wee bit closer to it each time I set the world to rights.

[Jonah]

I find some athiests to be the single most arrogant fcukers on the planet, wee Eamon fits the bill.

Totally agree.

[mylestheslasher]

Isn't the only mention if men lying with men in the book of Leviticus, a book of the old testament that any sane person could only laugh at given the amount if crazy stuff in it. So why do some religions fixate on one part of this book only. Why not the bits about only growing one crop in your field or the bit where you should be stoned to death for braking these laws. Who decided what should be adhered to and why must a believer just accept this without question.

[Eamonnca1]

Isn't the only mention if men lying with men in the book of Leviticus, a book of the old testament that any sane person could only laugh at given the amount if crazy stuff in it. So why do some religions fixate on one part of this book only. Why not the bits about only growing one crop in your field or the bit where you should be stoned to death for braking these laws. Who decided what should be adhered to and why must a believer just accept this without question.

It's the old "the devil can quote scripture" syndrome. They cherry-pick the scriptures to make them fit whatever they like.  If a christian is homophobic then he's going to be able to quote the miniscule bit of text that could be interpreted as opposing homosexuality. If he's more enlightened and more tolerant then he's going to be able to interpret the Bible to discard the anti-gay bit.

The laughable thing is that they claim to get their morality from the Bible.  The reality is they get their interpretation of the Bible from the same instinctive morality that we all have.

[Eamonnca1]

Totally agree.

Totally disagree. So there. 

[Maguire01]

Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else save one, they should not be allowed to be married in a Christian Church in my opinion, after all we are told in the bible that men should not lie down with other men.

Yes, but what's your position on prawns?

[Gazzler]

Isn't the only mention if men lying with men in the book of Leviticus, a book of the old testament that any sane person could only laugh at given the amount if crazy stuff in it. So why do some religions fixate on one part of this book only. Why not the bits about only growing one crop in your field or the bit where you should be stoned to death for braking these laws. Who decided what should be adhered to and why must a believer just accept this without question.

It's the old "the devil can quote scripture" syndrome. They cherry-pick the scriptures to make them fit whatever they like.  If a christian is homophobic then he's going to be able to quote the miniscule bit of text that could be interpreted as opposing homosexuality. If he's more enlightened and more tolerant then he's going to be able to interpret the Bible to discard the anti-gay bit.

The laughable thing is that they claim to get their morality from the Bible.  The reality is they get their interpretation of the Bible from the same instinctive morality that we all have.

The majority of Christians and those who has some faith and beliefs don't go around preaching the bible or using quotes from it to back up their opinions.
You could be a Christian but just hate the idea of two men or women having sexual intercourse it probably has nothing to do with what it says in the bible or scriptures.And it works the other way too.
You can't just generalise like that.
Someone else already said on this thread that you can have faith and beliefs without being religious or being part of a religious organisation and I agree with that.
You make it sound like anyone who has faith is going around quoting scriptures all day long.