Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Big Bad Voodoo

Future of mankind at stake over gay marriage

312 posts in this topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9760782/Pope-says-future-of-mankind-at-stake-over-gay-marriage.html

"In the fight for the family, the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question," the Pope said in Italian during an end-of-year speech.

Kind a misleading title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone surprised really?

I swear the Pope/Vatican spreads more hate than love. :rolleyes:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone surprised really?

I swear the Pope/Vatican spreads more hate than love. :rolleyes:

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.

Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.

Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

And this is not the only thing the church is divided over, which begs the question. if the bible is Gods word, why the hell isn't it seen universally as one work and word; y'know, considering it was made for everyone equally? (That's rhetorical btw)

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is not the only thing the church is divided over, which begs the question. if the bible is Gods word, why the hell isn't it seen universally as one work and word; y'know, considering it was made for everyone equally? (That's rhetorical btw)

Because its process. Church too evolved. They change. Which is good. They allow different opinions and they argued about them.

Jesuits, as one of my favourite orders due their influence on education and knowledge in general, are not seeing many things as others Chatolic orders.

They were always exception in Chatolic church and I like their history and their views on many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

That is logic argument. (Isnt?)

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

That is logic argument. (Isnt?)

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im. Because I didnt see where he said it.

Furthermore Jesuits as part of Chatolic church are for gay rights and they several time argued about same thing in Vatican. So inside they are not unite on this question.

Ah didn't realise they where divided over it. Not surprised though, they couldn't agree on the colour of *****. (gotta love that bit in Braveheart lol)

Edited by Coffey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

Not according to the Oxford dictionary.

Definition of marriage

noun


  • 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage

  • [mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage

  • (in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.

<a name="marriage__8"> 2a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

Which means you can have same sex marriage by it's definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

But Abraham got his child in 60s. Who knows what tommorow bring. Maybe science will found way for curing it. Also if couple dont want a child it might happen to them no matter what.Mysterious is ways of the God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its process. Church too evolved. They change. Which is good. They allow different opinions and they argued about them.

Jesuits, as one of my favourite orders due their influence on education and knowledge in general, are not seeing many things as others Chatolic orders.

They were always exception in Chatolic church and I like their history and their views on many things.

That's my problem. The church should not have to evolve because the rules were given millennia ago; strict guidelines on the do's and do not's of life and the mere fact that the church is still progressing (no longer burning people alive for witchcraft* etc) give evidence to it's man-made origin because I cannot believe that an omnipotent and powerful creator would lay down it's law, only to have it change over time with new additions and the deletion or ignorance of others.

It should have been clear from the start what god intended like these days, burning someone alive*2 would be considered murder and a horrible sin in gods eyes and yet back in the day, his law aloud for it to happen under certain circumstances. Lev 20:14 among others.

Of course you could say that God is letting us progress but he/she/it never had a problem stepping in before, getting involved personally whereas now he doesn't. (unless of course you're of the breed that he clears check-outs and helps you find your keys)

*In developed countries.

*2 Again, in developed countries.

Edited by Sean93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever the pope speaks it's like he's so out of touch. I onder, has he ever even actually met a gay person and talked to them? Likely not as he seems convinced that they're some big bad monster.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah didn't realise they where divided over it. Not surprised though, they couldn't agree on the colour of *****. (gotta love that bit in Braveheart lol)

Yup. When I discovered Jesuits and their history and their stance in general I change my opinion on Chatolic church. You must love that order.

Only thing they are shamed of is their priest Xavier.

When they talk about Big Bang in Vatican Hawking was there. Search for Pierre Teilhard de Chardin for example. He influenced over Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

They dont always obey to Church orders so Vatican and Jesuits have interesting history. Tense one but interesting.

They argued with Vatican about evolution, abortion, big bang, child birth control, gays...

During WW2 Nazists saw them as highly dangerous enemies. And Gestapo hunted down Jesuits and if not killed on scene they would be sent in concentration camps.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I dont see why God if exist wouldnt allow progress in time. Slow one. Why wouldnt Church evolved? If they saw that they were wrong. There are intellectuals among Chatolic church as well. Those people dont want to stick with old mistake rather then hear new voice. But Chatolic church (beside Orthodox church) is church which Jesus established. So things dont go there as in Church who established some loony. They have tradition and rules inside it.

Also Spanish inqusition is more political question then religious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.

Not according to the Oxford dictionary.

Which means you can have same sex marriage by it's definition.

It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.

Unless you're planning on campaigning to make marriage unavailable for the elderly, infertile and those that don't want children (which would fail) that arguement is moot.

The past, women also had no say in who they married. Marriage has changed from it's original meaning already, but so have a lot of things. Why can't people get that?

It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

Words change all the time. How many words do you use the original meaning of?

Edited by shadowhive
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, after this post I will stop talking about Jesuits. Promise.

They leader is called General. (Interesting story why)

They were known as Schoolmasters of Europe. In less then 100 years they established over 500 schools in Europe. And become influental from South America to China.

Some of interesting figures were educated in those school. Such as Rene Decartes.

Personally I respect that order VERY much.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're planning on campaigning to make marriage unavailable for the elderly, infertile and those that don't want children (which would fail) that arguement is moot.

The past, women also had no say in who they married. Marriage has changed from it's original meaning already, but so have a lot of things. Why can't people get that?

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.

Words change all the time. How many words do you use the original meaning of?

That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Edited by Gravitorbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

You need to rethink that, because it isn't true. This is a simple easy wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.

Then you have a big problem, because you can't force people who can't have or don't want children not to marry. If you tried to do so, it would fail and fail spectacularly.

That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Why is it selfish?

Like infertile people, gay people do have options. They have the exact same ways of starting a family as infertile hetrosexuals do, so that arguement falls flat too. If a gay couple wants to start a family why should they not reccieve the same treatment as a hetrosexual one? If they recieve different treatment, then you're basically promoting that these families (and children from them) are inferior. Personally, that's the thing that sounds selfish.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.

That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Do you mean than unless a country has countless more kids in an overpopulated world in which technology has removed several work potentials is not a good country? We've seen the "Go and multiply" scheme all over the world: hunger and thirst, gazillions of dollars gaveaway made by the poors of rich country to make the rich of poor countries even richer. Your comment makes me think that children are the next generation of canon fodder.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.

It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

Those things don't matter at all now.

You do not get married for the sake of having children in today's society. Other than the obvious reasons to get married there is legal benefits to marriage, specifically when death is concerned. If your partner dies and you where not married it is far more difficult to sort out money, house and other things. You also don't get widowers pension etc.

I know all this first hand as my Mother lost my Step dad 2 months before they where supposed to get married right at Christmas as well. You can't even begin to imagine the **** she had to deal with. Like his main bank account telling her on the phone that he could only close his bank account and remove the money, she couldn't do it, yet they lived together for 20+ years. The woman on the phone kept repeatedly telling my Mum he had to come to the phone and my mum was repeatedly telling the moron he was dead. She ended the call with do you want me to go and do a seance so you can speak to him.

So why is it fair if 2 men or 2 women are partners for 20 or 30 years and they have to also go through that?! Marriage is a lot about the legal system now, nothing to do with wanting to have children. ( it does also help with legal issues with children though)

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment makes me think that children are the next generation of canon fodder.

Children can be used as weapon. Iranian pasdarans.

Also Chinese are all over the earth. I read recently how in the future we would look like Brazilians. I doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...y-marriage.html

"In the fight for the family, the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question," the Pope said in Italian during an end-of-year speech.

Kind a misleading title.

The Popes 'falseness of gender identities' is correct.

In the west psychology has been undermined by Liberal ideology. No where in psychology does it say the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental illness was taken because of psychological discoveries. It says it was delisted because of pressure from human rights groups.

Psychological trauma during childhood needs treating and its fallout shouldnt be allowed to undermine the family unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.