bless you jay, that was nicely written. now, could someone pleeeze tell me what this has to do with homosex? or am i losing it.....
The marriage "Saviours"
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
:lol: I'm for thinking it's a prophetic vision on the changing mindset of americans who voted for Bush.
I can't seem to find anything homoey about it...maybe the word BEAST?
my god, i can't believe this issue has been around for such a long time and still no one can get over it! that is amazing! interesting from a history stand point too.
Everyone knows (I thought) that the high society Roman men liked themselves more than they liked their women (for what ever reason).
It has been said of this that it was more a cultural thing than a "feelings" thing, and that this is what Paul was talking about, rather than those who truly feel in their innards they don't have attractions for the opposite sex, but of the same sex.
If you didn't know about that, the Greeks will blow your mind....
It has been said of this that it was more a cultural thing than a "feelings" thing, and that this is what Paul was talking about, rather than those who truly feel in their innards they don't have attractions for the opposite sex, but of the same sex.
If you didn't know about that, the Greeks will blow your mind....
Reverend Blair said:
Whoa, don't go assuming i have any affiliation to any organised religion. 8O Thank you
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour
...and I look forward to the day when our government cracks down on churches for descrimination and hate crimes...
Canucklehead said:
...and I look forward to the day when our government cracks down on churches for descrimination and hate crimes...
RE: The marriage "Saviour
If you have no affiliation with them, then maybe you shouldn't be promoting their bigoted dogma as the law in a secular state.
If you have no affiliation with them, then maybe you shouldn't be promoting their bigoted dogma as the law in a secular state.
I believe it was more in the Aristocracy where those tastes were more...varied, the roman populace is no different than any in an urban setting today, some liked it some didn't.
The greeks were also very open with particular tastes. They also thought the male form to be artistically supirior to those of women. That didn't mean that fantasized over them, but apprecieated the figure more.
I am promoting the idea of religious freedom. How is it that I am promoting any specific church by simply stating that the term marriage is used to describe a religious ceremony? Who cares what religion/faith/tribal belief devised it? The point is that seperating marriage and union allows whatever sect using the term the freedom to apply it as it pertains to their particular ruleset while allowing the rest of us the chance to be coupled with someone longterm minus the religious connotations.
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour
In an ideal world that would happen, but this is not an ideal world nor is this country anywhere near that stage in it's evolution.
Vanni Fucci said:
In an ideal world that would happen, but this is not an ideal world nor is this country anywhere near that stage in it's evolution.
I will answer mike question, why is peapod so concerned with homosex??? Well the truth is I am not! Its none of my business what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their sexual life. What I am concerned about is a group of people deciding that a small minority of people should be vilified and set apart from the rest of society, because some people are offended by their sexual perference. What will offend them next??"left-handers, people with a limp, latte macchiato drinkers" Ouch! guess I fit into two of those, I am left handed and I drink latties, I don't have a limp tho
So yes mike the homosex thing really bothers me. And I will go further than that, no one, not family, not friends, not even love can make me change my view on this. "To thy ownself be true"
So yes mike the homosex thing really bothers me. And I will go further than that, no one, not family, not friends, not even love can make me change my view on this. "To thy ownself be true"
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour
And this is exactly why I do not trust this "it won't affect the church’s right to marry who they want" BS.
And if this doesn't fit into the commi line of thinking I don't know what does.
And let’s not be fooled into believing the NDP isn't full of these sorts of people and that the left isn't bent on the destruction of the Church.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his coat and buy one". Were going to need it in the future, but they will see it comming and start to ban guns and keep lists of people who have them....
Vanni Fucci said:
And this is exactly why I do not trust this "it won't affect the church’s right to marry who they want" BS.
And if this doesn't fit into the commi line of thinking I don't know what does.
And let’s not be fooled into believing the NDP isn't full of these sorts of people and that the left isn't bent on the destruction of the Church.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his coat and buy one". Were going to need it in the future, but they will see it comming and start to ban guns and keep lists of people who have them....
Jay, most people could not care less what you believe. You keep failing to understand this. It when you want to take what you believe and make into laws, that every single canadian has the right and obligation to stand up and say no way!
"Jay, most people could not care less what you believe."
they only care about what you believe.....
"It when you want to take what you believe and make into laws, that every single canadian has the right and obligation to stand up and say no way!"
What people believe is right and wrong are made into law everyday Pea...you don't know this?
they only care about what you believe.....
"It when you want to take what you believe and make into laws, that every single canadian has the right and obligation to stand up and say no way!"
What people believe is right and wrong are made into law everyday Pea...you don't know this?
No you are trying to remove the authority of the state and place that authority in the hands of religious groups. The state, not the church, not the mosque, not some guy with a funny hat and a broomstick, but the state, issues marriage licenses. The pending legislation is very clear that religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM. Trying to say otherwise is being less than honest.
Reverend Blair said:
Hardly! I am advocating allowing the state full control over unions. They get the first and final say in the union issue. Marriage being returned to the church (as a generalisation for all faith based institutions) allows them control over thier own little societal clique, which I might add, people sign up for voluntarily because they agree with the what their particular church advocates. Anyone attending a 'church' who does not believe in whatever they teach is a fool to be there in the first place as they are not being true to themselves. Full Stop