Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Wow I'm glad I provide excercise for these people who love to jumpt to conclusions!

No no, read it again. I said it was nothing to do with the religion. I'm being pushed to answer a question based on whether 'a religion' would accept a gay marriage. I am telling you that I don't care which religion it is, whether or not i would acceopt it is based on whether it falls in to what I'd call the qualification for marriage.

It's all 'therefore this' and 'hypothetical that'. Why don't you just tell me what it is you want me to say? And it surprises you that I consider the aspects of some other religions to be incorrect???

I don't have a problem in anyone thinking I'm wrong, but go back and read the thread (something that certain people don't like doing when discussing such matters with me) and you'll see that Kronas was very direct, confrontational and offensive. His words were "You're wrong". I would never EVER be as insultingly direct to someone with different beliefs to myself, at the very least I'd give reasons why I disagreed with them.

Come on, you should know by now that my detractors don't need to something like that!!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hmmmm, it's just that in a discussion like this about religion I think that it's not really valid to construct a hypothetical religion to prove a point. You might as well ask if Russ would agree with you if there was a religion that allowed zoophilia(?sp). Ancient Greeks don't really count either since, well, they (and their religion) don't exist (and were not even sure what their religion allowed anyway)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Much like your dire warnings for the fall of society should gay marriages be premitted. Hypothetical is ok when you want to use it, but should someone else use it you see it like an escape hatch. You, nor anyone else in this thread, has provided any specific description of the sort of woe we would face? At the end of the day, I cannot see you providing any concrete justification for your viewpoint, merely constant rhetoric.

Is that so?

Apparently he can never dare to tell you that your beliefs are wrong? That would cover the situation even were he presenting you with his reasons why you were wrong.

I don`t know, have you ever told someone that there views are wrong? You've now said you'd be perfectly willing to do so provided you could sugar-coat your responses first.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I respectfully disagree. :)

I think a hypothetical example is useful as it allows you to probe the underlying meaning of someones argument without providing a specific example. The absence of such a religion allows someone to sidestep an issue, the hypothetical situation provides a situation where they can describe how they would respond if actually faced with that situation.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just giving my opinion of what I feel would happen. Were you doing that?

Erm, thanks for helping me prove my point there! I was responding to his confrontational attitude where he said "I've got news for you - you're wrong". Now if you can show me ANY situation where I've been as direct and disrespectful as that, I'll give an unreserved apology. But if you can't, will you come back and post that you are trying to read something in to my opinions which isn't there for some unknown reason? If I felt, for example, Buddism was wrong and a practitioner of that faith was on here, do you really think I'm the type of person who says to him/her "Sorry to tell you this, but you're wrong"? No, if it came down to that I would point out where I felt they were incorrect and tell them I respect their right to hold that belief but would disagree on certain points. It's a big no-no to come straight out and say "you're wrong" like Kronas did. I'm not objecting to him thinking I'm wrong, it's the WAY he said it.

So I can't give my own opinion without, as you call it, "sugar coating" it?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I can see what you are getting at but I still think it's an unfair way of arguing a topic like this because of the way you can just keep asking: "ah but what if.....?". Anyhoo.....I'll let you get back to the fray

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:Peaceman:

In fairness to Russ all he is saying is that "in his eyes" the marriage would not be a real one and he has every right to hold that view and needs not (further) explain why.

The reality is that the state makes similar distinctions in reverse as the validity of marriages depends on which religion holds the ceremony requiring most to also go through a civil procedure as well as the "church" one for the marriage to be validated for official purposes.

In essence there will always be a need to cover two separate concepts. The first being the civil †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ�, which I am certain Russ would not disagree would always be legal in the eyes of the law.

The separate issue of being married in the eyes of God is something each individual is perfectly right to make their own personal judgement on as it is about THEIR beliefs not those of the couple getting married.

The only time this would create a problem would be if the person concerned was acting in some official capacity and refused to accept the civil marriage because of some personal belief that the marriage was not valid in the eyes of God.

Hope that helps resolve this dispute by giving a different perspective on the differences between civil and religious marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I have explained why!! But you have summed it up well with the difference between a civil and religious marriage. To me, a gay marriage is on pretty similar ground to a civil marriage. I don't really recognise either.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

LOL I know you have Russ.

I was just trying to point out that hounding you for more detailed reasons and/or forcing you to answer specific hypothetical situations was unwarranted given that you had no need to explain your beliefs at all.

Perhaps I should go back and add the word "further" to that sentance. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah ok! So many people attacking me today kinda makes me a little paranoid :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well Russ you have a lot more patience than I would in your position. :angel:

I keep wondering why everyone seems to personalise these errr.....discussions(sometimes tirades) down to attacking Russ.He is not personally responsible for what the various Christian faiths believe about a variety of issues.He can only comment from his own viewpoint. :shrug:

However so many of you think you can argue Russ out of his deeply held views and opinions just by attacking his beliefs.Not gonna happen,folks as all you are going to do that way, is put his back up and make him more committed. :nono:

How about we just leave it there?Please?

Incog. :wavey:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Towny is able to accept a distinction between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. It's one thing to say that you can't accept a religious marriage for a gay couple because it is prohibited by your religion. To say that you wouldn`t even accept a civil gay marriage strikes me, and I`m sorry to say this but not a single one of your posts in this thread convinces me of the contrary, of simple bigotry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Cheers Coggy but there is a small element on this site who just want me to be exposed as a hipocritical bigoted 'Christian' who has it in for gays.

Not going to happen people.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well sorry but that's your problem then. I wouldn't accept ANY civil marriage, as I've already stated.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I'm sorry, but that's just dodging the question.

It seems you're saying that you will not object to marriages in any churches whose beliefs (or whatever) agree with yours, but (from subsequent messages) you won't recognise *any* marriages (and not just homosexual marriages) as "proper" from *any* Church that you don't agree with (or, indeed, civil ceremonies).

Now whilst you're entirely free to hold your own beliefs and opinions, don't you think this is just a *little* narrow minded or possibly even arrogant?

You object to others saying "You're wrong!" yet what you are doing, no matter how politely you care to phrase it, is saying that "we're the only ones who are entitled to call it marriage because we're the only ones doing it right!"

You say subsequenly: "As long as God recognised my marriage, I couldn't care what others thought" but do you think your religion really gives you the right to tell everyone else that, because they haven't got married in a way that agrees with what *your* particular interpretation of what God will recognise, they're actually *not* married at all??

Oh, BTW, re: "go back and read the thread (something that certain people don't like doing when discussing such matters with me)" Russ, how many times are you going to sling this sort of vague accusation around? If you want to complain about a particular person, please have the good manners, not to mention the courage, to name names.