Just buy back Nasri. :good:
Printable View
LOL queers :lol:
Its funny - if you look at the 'history' of marriage - you'll find that originally it was neither consensual nor anything to do with love (it was for diplomatic reasons or convenience). Bringing history into religious debate is a dangerous thing, because things change throughout history.
I've thought a lot about NQ's views on this, and I think I agree with him. If the church of whatever persuasion teaches that homosexuals can't get married, and the 'marriage' that is in question is a religious, rather than a civil ceremony - as it is here, then I don't think the state's role is to force the church to marry homosexuals. And I don't think that failing to do so is denying homosexuals a 'right'. I think that the people lobbying for this are hypocritical, because while on the one had they are claiming a 'right', they are denying others the 'right' to live their lives according to what they believe in.
The state, quite rightly, allows gay marriage. That's where the issue should remain, IMO.
I would never argue that a religious group should change their teachings to move with the times so in that respect I agree with you (one of the reasons I'm not religious is because I don't agree with the prejudices that exist).
But we're not debating that. As I understand it - The debate is about gay people wanting their civil partnership termed a marriage and the fact that certain members of the catholic church are outraged by this.
Bumlove, bloody disgraceful if you ask me.