Home

TheSinner.net

Gay marriages now legal in the UK

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re:

Postby Yeats on Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:08 pm

One thing I do find interesting is the increasing polarisation in society between those who maintain "traditional" moral standards and those (such as The Dude) who maintain a more "Modernist" stance. I think this fundamental disagreement may cause severe problems and tensions in society in the future.

[hr]

Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Yeats
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:07 pm

Re:

Postby Humphrey on Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:09 pm

Quoting yeats from 17:36, 8th Dec 2005
if only the world contained more people so serious about their beliefs it would be a much better place.

[hr]

Some day we shall be glad to remember such things


What a ridiculous statement!!!, wouldnt you say Hitler was pretty serious about his beliefs!, or Pol Pot for that matter. Strong opinions arent always a good thing.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/
Humphrey
User avatar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:29 pm

Re:

Postby themushroomgod on Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:48 pm

I think we all need to accept that in today's modern world, the morals that govern what is permissible in society need to be secular in nature, not tied to any sort of religeous belief system.

Why?

A religeously based moral system will inevitably clash with the interests of those individuals who do not subscribe to those beliefs, forcing them into a position they'd rather avoid. Going back to the issue of gay marrige, let's take an example:

A system under the rule of (for example) Roman Catholic morals: gays are not allowed to marry. Thus we see that the gay section of society will have a course of action they do not think of as immoral denied to them.

A system under the rule of secular morals: gays allowed to marry. They are not constrained in any way from actions that are harmless to society.

It seems that a religeously based system simply wishes to enforce it's moral code on the whole population, regardless of whether any particular "immoral" action actually harm society at all.

To conclude, secular humanist morals>judeo - christian values

[hr]

Ooh! A Monkey!
Ooh! A Monkey!
themushroomgod
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:58 am

Re:

Postby Yeats on Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:44 pm

Quoting themushroomgod from 18:48, 8th Dec 2005
I think we all need to accept that in today's modern world, the morals that govern what is permissible in society need to be secular in nature, not tied to any sort of religeous belief system.



This is one of these ideas that sound great in theory but don't actually work in reality, take gay marriage for example.

Say you allow gay marraige, then you have offended Catholics, Muslims, many Christians and a number of other groups therefore your secular morals have offended a number of people crucially undermining their rights.

More importantly, however, is the fact that many from these groups will feel the need to openly object, protest and attempt to block this legislation. If you attempt to stop them doing this you will have fundamentally damaged their democratic rights. Also you don't take into account that these people may be able to use democratic means to overturn the decision - anyone can stand as an MP regardless of religious belief.

My point therefore is that there is no such thing as a utopian secular society, someone will always be offended and outraged by your decision and people will seek to protest and block your motion and you must allow them to do this - it would be despotic to prevent them doing this. A society must have a moral source from somewhere (in the case of a nation with a state religion) or else accept that it cannot impose it's secular morals on others and accept due democratic debate and discussion with the population and their varying religious beliefs - "A man cannot take of his religion when he enters a room the same way he takes of his hat"


[hr]

Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Yeats
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:07 pm

a veritable saltmine

Postby ezra on Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:46 pm

While you may disagree with them they clearly practice what the believe in their faith, if only the world contained more people so serious about their beliefs it would be a much better place.


What, like Bush? Like the jihadists? Like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I also respect that he has not descended into bad language or personal attacks on homosexuals at all despite the severe provocation that some on this board have given him.


If you could explain how we were provoking him to engage in a spot of queer-bashing, I'd love to know.

so if it is just myself and a few others with a moral backbone, that decide to take it upon ourselves to stem the bleeding of society then I'll do it gladly.


Your impact on the 'bleeding of society' is negligible, if any. If this is a decline, it's not one which you have a whelk's chance in a supernova of preventing. I suggest you try being nice to people instead. Maybe there are more pressing concerns on your moral backbone - like the starving poor? Come on: if you're going to rank the worlds problems, homosexual marriage ain't the highest by anyone's standards - even yours.

Say you allow gay marraige, then you have offended Catholics, Muslims, many Christians and a number of other groups therefore your secular morals have offended a number of people crucially undermining their rights.


People do not have a right not to be offended.

I've got a seminar to run to, otherwise I'd rant more. Consider yourselves lucky :)
ezra
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:36 pm

Re:

Postby Bitterandtwisted on Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:51 pm

Quoting Yeats from 19:44, 8th Dec 2005



Say you allow gay marraige, then you have offended Catholics, Muslims, many Christians and a number of other groups therefore your secular morals have offended a number of people crucially undermining their rights.



Explain how annoying these people undermines their rights.

[hr]

Grant me the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't and the incapacity to tell the difference.
[img:2ysfvhns]http://www.danasoft.com/sig/dm35.jpg[/img:2ysfvhns]
Bitterandtwisted
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:22 pm

Re:

Postby Senethro on Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:52 pm

Quoting The Dude from 18:00, 8th Dec 2005
[s]Quoting from 13:03, 7th Dec 2005
No more of these "moral decline" arguments? Why not? Doesn't moral decline exist?
8< SNIP! 8<


Though well intentioned you've made the mistake of accepting his baseless assertions as correct. A lot of these assertions are "conventional wisdom" which often has rose tinted spectacles, has unreliable memories of times before 20 years ago and no memories older than those of the oldest human.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby Senethro on Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:52 pm

Edit: douple bost

Edit2: Bitter, it infringes on their rights by preventing them from forcing their morality on others.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:23 pm

Quoting Yeats from 19:44, 8th Dec 2005Say you allow gay marraige, then you have offended Catholics, Muslims, many Christians and a number of other groups therefore your secular morals have offended a number of people crucially undermining their rights.


Sorry, no. If I say or do something that sits ill with your religious beliefs - tough luck. I haven't harmed you or materially impacted on your life in any way. Whereas, what you would have is a system in which a couple cannot designate each other as next of kin, do not automatically have, for example, the right to make decisions on each other's behalf while ill, cannot be deemed as a unit in terms of the law. You, in short, decide that they are second class citizens, not entitled to the same rights as other members of society. Why? because you find their lifestyle objectionable? Sorry, but that's totally unacceptable.

Oh, and it's not a Judaeo-Christian view, the overwhelming majority of Jews would be appalled at some of the comments made on here in the name of morals and righteousness. As José Jiminez said the vast majority of Jewish congregations are precisely as open to gays as to anyone else, many conduct gay marriages (which had no legal weight until now) and most will train homosexuals for the rabbinacy.

It is not given to man to judge.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Yeats on Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:37 pm

Quoting exnihilo from 20:23, 8th Dec 2005

Whereas, what you would have is a system in which a couple cannot designate each other as next of kin, do not automatically have, for example, the right to make decisions on each other's behalf while ill, cannot be deemed as a unit in terms of the law. You, in short, decide that they are second class citizens, not entitled to the same rights as other members of society. Why? because you find their lifestyle objectionable? Sorry, but that's totally unacceptable.



I never actually said anything against gay marriage, I was simply stating it as an example of why "secular morals" are completely unworkable.

[hr]

Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Some day we shall be glad to remember such things
Yeats
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:07 pm

Re:

Postby macgamer on Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:39 pm

Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans 8:5-26 Those who are living by their naturally inclinations have their minds on things human nature desires; those who live in the Spirit have their minds on spiritual things. And human nature has nothing to look forward to but death, while the Spirit looks forward to life and peace, because the outlook of disordered human nature is opposed to God, since it does not submit to God's Law, and indeed it cannot, and those who live by their natural inclinations can never be pleasing to God. You however, live not by you natural inclinations, but by the Spirit, since the Spirit of God has made a home in you. Indeed, anyone who have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But when Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin but the spirit is alive because you have been justified; and if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead has made his home in you, then he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your own mortal bodies through his Spirit living in you.
So then, my brothers, we have no obligation to human nature to be dominated by it. If you do live in that way, you are doomed to die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the habits originating in the body, you will have life.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:45 pm

And there it is! The quotation from Paul that I all but predicted a few posts back. Well done macgamer. I assume, as you're a good little follower of the Bible that you never wear polycotton, that you refrain from shaving, and that should you be unfortunate enough to get mildew in your home you'll burn it, and those of your neighbours, to the ground?

Or are you only bound by the parts of the Bible that suit you?

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:47 pm

Also, it just occurs to me that this is the most wildly self-defeating quotation possible.

Presumably it's in reference to homosexuality, given the nature of this thread, and presumably it's an exhortation to refrain from homosexuality for the good of the soul. Yet it talks about natural inclinations, hmm...

Sorry, but if you can tell me where Christ said things, I'd be vaguely interested, I'm just not the least bit bothered by what Saul has to say, because he was a raving zealot.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby maenad on Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:14 pm

But I like my human desires :-(.
Tommy can you hear me?
maenad
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:24 pm

Re:

Postby themushroomgod on Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:52 pm

I stand by my views - a country adminiserting with laws based on the morals of a specific religeon forces that religeon on it's entire population. This is against their human rights. Religeous types will ber happy, but the rest of the population will be oppressed. A coutry administering with laws based on secular morals forces nothing on noone, save the general being nice to each other and respecting people's rights. Thus, no one is oppressed.

In all truth, I just don't think that religeously derived moral codes have much relevance today, and this can only be a GOOD THING. Anyway, I'm sure God/Allah/Whoever would far rather we made up own own moral code than dictate one for us - it's more interesting that way!

[hr]

Ooh! A Monkey!
Ooh! A Monkey!
themushroomgod
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:58 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:12 pm

I'm not sure who you're arguing against, but just in case it's me, I didn't mention Judaism to suggest that people should conform to our beliefs, I only mentioned it in protest at it being lumped in with other beliefs.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby nighteyes on Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:31 pm

only read part of this thread...have been missing for a while. but no doubt those of you who know me wont be surprised im more than happy that the government has taken a step. maybe not as far as i would like to see it be taken (so that the rights of a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexuals) but none the less i would be more than happy to enter into a civil partnership with my partner although i think she would prefer to have an actual wedding. i may not be religious but she is.
i cant stand how people can oppose this forward step. if something were to happen to me in the future i would like to be safe in the knowledge that she wouldnt be done out of house and home. bring on the 20th of december is all i say.

[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!
i didnt say i was consistant, just right!
nighteyes
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:58 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:45 pm

She may get her way yet. People think schisms in the church are a thing of the distant past. But they're not. Watch this space.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Insight on Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:30 am

It's been discussed before - but I will attempt to reiterate: as far as civil partnerships are concerned, this is NOT religious matter. It is a legal milestone of equality.

As much as anyone might want to argue the unnatural sin of homosexuality or the abomination that it represents, it has been a part of modern Western society (LEGALISED) for over 30 years - and is therefore an acceptable factor in all our lives - like it or not. People may have divisive opinions in the matter - which, of course, in democratic society is fine and dandy - but it can't be denied that those who govern our land have deemed "the love that dare not speak its name" a "normal" part of 'British' life - so it should therefore be treated as any other minority culture.

I find it difficult to believe that this thread would be happening if mixed-race breeding or cross-race adoption were the issue - homosexulaity is simply another 'quirk' of the human condition - nothing more - why does it bother people so?

[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Genders
Former SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender
Current Dumbfounded fool of Hospital-Land
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37101378
Insight
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:28 pm

Re:

Postby Prophet Tenebrae on Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:48 am

Anyone can't see that the Anglican Church is dangerously close to some kind of fracture - schism or otherwise - probably hasn't been paying attention. You've got a bunch of quite liberal and tolerant churches in the West (quite - not totally) and a LOT of fiercely bible thumping conservative churches in Africa etc.

Not exactly a happy mix.

As to marriage... well, good to see people are losing so much sleep over what started out as a mechanism for property transfer. People want to call it marriage, let them you fuckers.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif
Prophet Tenebrae
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron