hibs.net Messageboard

View Poll Results: Should marriage/civil union between two people of the same sex, be allowed?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, anyone should have the right to marry whoever they want

    60 90.91%
  • No, marriage should only be between a man and a woman

    6 9.09%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 76 of 76
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To be honest I couldn't care less if folk want to marry their dog .
    Would certainly benefit the management of Harry Redknapp's tax affairs.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #62
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,751
    Following the result of the vote in Australia, they've just shown a home made video of the Australian ambassador to France proposing to his boyfriend.

    It was quite funny to see how nervous he was - obviously scared of getting a KB as well as the 'public' aspect of the thing.

    It had me welling up to be honest. COUGH COUGH (gruff voice) not that I'm gay or anything you understand...

  4. #63
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,743
    Yes of course they should. Glad to see same sex marriage has just been legalised in Australia.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

    And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.
    Very well put

  6. #65
    @hibs.net private member snooky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Down East
    Posts
    12,130
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio sledge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ooft, I fairly went for it in that thread didn't I?

    I have to say that my views and thoughts on the matter have evolved since those posts were written and I now realise that denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry is discriminating against them. Letting same sex couples have civil unions but not marriages whilst at the same time saying that LGBT people shouldn’t be discriminated against was a hypocritical view to have.

    My personal viewpoint was formed from the position of my faith and view of marriage as a Christian institution, created by God to be between one man and one woman. However, marriage in this country has moved so far away from that definition and has so many different forms that I can't justifiably hold back the right of marriage from one group of people based on a view which may be the "traditional" view but is not something which should be forced on people who do not agree with it.

    For what it is worth, I still hold the belief that Christian marriage should be between one man and one woman, however I am well aware of the fact that other people and other Christians will not agree with this view, so I would support allowing churches to choose whether they will conduct same sex marriages or not. Given what I have said above I’m not sure whether this is still a hypocritical viewpoint or not, but in all fairness, I would wonder why a same sex couple would want to get married in a church which viewed their relationship as sinful.

    I’m not sure if that makes sense, but that’s where I am just now.
    Just to put the cat among the pigeons, what about the hetrosexual couple who were recently not allowed to have a civil partnership ( by a legal ruling). No fair.
    Yet again, the Law is an ass.

  7. #66
    Testimonial Due Colr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by snooky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just to put the cat among the pigeons, what about the hetrosexual couple who were recently not allowed to have a civil partnership ( by a legal ruling). No fair.
    Yet again, the Law is an ass.
    I read that the law is going to change on that. About time.

  8. #67
    @hibs.net private member calumhibee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,651
    I know time has moved on and the posters may have changed their viewpoint but Iím still not following from the previous thread why some posters specifically proclaimed theyíre ďagainst homosexual sexĒ. What on earth is there to be against, especially if as they claimed theyíre not homophobic?

    Thatís not a go at the posters btw, genuinely interested as to how you can disagree with it.. I donít even know what there is to disagree with? Obviously Iíd disagree with it if I came home and two guys were in my bed blasting each other up the arse, but Iíd disagree with that if it was a straight couple aswell.

    My thoughts for this thread - I have absolutely no issues with people being gay and think they should have all the same rights as anyone else. That goes for any group infact whether thatís sexuality, race, gender etc.

    I will say however that I cannot stand extremely camp folk though (at least nearly all the ones Iíve met, I may just be unlucky) which has had people accuse me of being homophobic before when I couldnít be further from it. Thatís purely based on their personality and if a straight guy acted like that I wouldnít like them either.

  9. #68
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,495
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Myjo5984 Wii Code: 3916 0145 9394 9493
    Quote Originally Posted by calumhibee1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I know time has moved on and the posters may have changed their viewpoint but Iím still not following from the previous thread why some posters specifically proclaimed theyíre ďagainst homosexual sexĒ. What on earth is there to be against, especially if as they claimed theyíre not homophobic?

    Thatís not a go at the posters btw, genuinely interested as to how you can disagree with it.. I donít even know what there is to disagree with? Obviously Iíd disagree with it if I came home and two guys were in my bed blasting each other up the arse, but Iíd disagree with that if it was a straight couple aswell.

    My thoughts for this thread - I have absolutely no issues with people being gay and think they should have all the same rights as anyone else. That goes for any group infact whether thatís sexuality, race, gender etc.

    I will say however that I cannot stand extremely camp folk though (at least nearly all the ones Iíve met, I may just be unlucky) which has had people accuse me of being homophobic before when I couldnít be further from it. Thatís purely based on their personality and if a straight guy acted like that I wouldnít like them either.
    Engaging in homosexual sex is considered sinful and "against nature" by almost all religions with followers expected to live a life free of sin or to pay penance to be forgiven of thier sins, allowing them to go to whichever version of heaven they subscribe to.

    People can be "against homosexual sex" because they believe the widespread acceptance and engagement in this and other sinful acts such as Blasphemy, Abortion, Sex out of wedlock, Divorce and Masturbation etc will result in devine retribution and punishment from god.

    The biblical example of this is sodom and Gomorrah which were destroyed by God because of the lack of righteous people within the cities that were filled with unrepentant sinners.

    In this case thier stance comes from a position of concern for the welfare of our world and that they may be caught up in gods wrath against the sinners despite being, themselves, righteous and faithful people.

    Other people are simply homophobic and filled with hate but disguise it as a religious stance. These are the ones that discriminate, insult and demean anyone different from themselves and struggle to justify thier behaviour beyond "because god said so"
    Last edited by MyJo; 18-12-2017 at 06:58 PM.

  10. #69
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,030
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by MyJo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Engaging in homosexual sex is considered sinful and "against nature" by almost all religions with followers expected to live a life free of sin or to pay penance to be forgiven of thier sins, allowing them to go to whichever version of heaven they subscribe to.

    People can be "against homosexual sex" because they believe the widespread acceptance and engagement in this and other sinful acts such as Blasphemy, Abortion, Sex out of wedlock, Divorce and Masturbation etc will result in devine retribution and punishment from god.

    The biblical example of this is sodom and Gomorrah which were destroyed by God because of the lack of righteous people within the cities that were filled with unrepentant sinners.
    Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely canít be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
    Much

    by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I canít get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

    People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now

  11. #70
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,495
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Myjo5984 Wii Code: 3916 0145 9394 9493
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely canít be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
    Much

    by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I canít get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

    People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now




    #persevered

  12. #71
    @hibs.net private member McD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Livingston
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely canít be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
    Much

    by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I canít get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

    People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now


    A lot of stuff people claim is from the bible/Quran etc, is an interpretation, thereís nowhere in these texts that overtly states ďhomosexuality is wrongĒ. An interpretation based on one persons opinion of another persons opinion of another persons opinion, and so on.

    Theres also a lot of things in these texts that people choose to ignore, as itís something they wish to partake in, and so arenít really following the texts they choose to refer to when criticising others.

    two people in love with each other is a good thing. Regardless of what genitals each happens to have. Itís nobody elseís business, and all good to them for finding the person they want to be with.

  13. #72
    Testimonial Due Colr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any text that was written thousands of years ago, surely canít be taken in detail for the world of today ...the world has changed so
    Much

    by all Means respect that values of goodness explored in all religious text , but I canít get my head around people using a likely Poorly translated text literally in 2017

    People should be free to love anyone that they care too - there are many examples of wonderful same Sex Relationships through generations now
    Well, Epicurus is worth a look.

  14. #73
    @hibs.net private member --------'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    25,324
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh? PSN ID: No comprendo, senor. Wii Code: What's a Wii?
    TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

    And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.[/QUOTE]


    The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

    This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

    The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

    On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

    My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

    The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

    Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

    My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

    And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.

  15. #74
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Doddie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

    And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.

    The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

    This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

    The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

    On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

    My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

    The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

    Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

    My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

    And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.[/QUOTE]

    Enjoyed reading that - a very rational and sound defence.

    I have some synpathy for your view, ive always felt people try to impose things on others to often - religous practice and doctrine should be for those religions to decide upon - but insuppose onve it starts bumpinh up against tge law, it gets complicated.

    I disagree with you completely as i am not religious at all, bit you stated your case very well.

  16. #75
    Left by mutual consent!
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,287
    I can't think of any reason why not.

  17. #76
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    48
    Posts
    20,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Doddie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    TE=hibsbollah;5238735]I appreciate that it's not easy making an argument online when you're in the minority. But to clarify, when you say 'marriage has a clear definition' you mean a Biblical definition, yes? And if so, isn't it highly likely that this wasnt a literal translation? ie-the 'man woman' wording came about because of the world as it was a thousand and odd years ago when the Bible was written, not because it represents the way God wants Christians to live now?

    And finally, you say it can't/shouldn't be called 'a marriage' if it's same sex, although you acknowledge the rights of the same sex people to do all the other associated stuff, and to do the civil partnership thing, which everyone knows is just marriage by another name. What is the importance of the word? I'm just not getting that bit.

    The first reference is in Hebrew in the Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh ..."

    This is quoted by Christ in Matthew and Mark - Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8, and by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. These New Testament references are in Koine Greek, and are a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The English of the NIV (which is the translation I've quoted) is similarly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (Genesis) and Greek (Matthew, Mark, and Ephesians).

    The nouns used for man, wife, father and mother are all clearly gender-specific, and since the words are found in four different places in both Old and New Testaments, most reputable Biblical scholars I know would consider them to refer to something of fairly major importance in terms of Christian ethics. I really can't see how the verse/verses can be anything other than an accurate and literal translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

    On this basis I would be entirely unwilling to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The verse I've quoted constitutes the Biblical warrant for the conduct of a Christian marriage, and I can't see how it squares with any same-sex relationship.

    My job as Minister of Word and Sacrament is to explain and expound the Old and New Testaments as faithfully and clearly and simply as I can, and since I don't have a loose-leaf Bible I can't just ignore the bits I may not altogether like. That's what I took on 35 years ago, and that's where I stand today. I don't see how I can do any other and remain faithful to my understanding of Scripture.

    The legislation relating to civil partnership was needed - regardless of the degree of intimacy in the relationship, it was wrong that two people could choose to live their lives together as one another's Significant Other up to the death of one of the partners, only for the deceased partner's family to muscle in after the death and exclude the surviving partner from all involvement in the funeral arrangements (or often even attendance at the funeral), and quite possibly also use the law to deprive the surviving partner of his or her home and possessions.

    Civil Partnership prevents this injustice and allows people to acknowledge those who are of central importance in their lives openly and honestly and appropriately, and I have no problem with that.

    My problem arises when people who do not share my faith or understanding of humanity and God - and they're perfectly at liberty to disagree with me about anything and everything - seek to force me to agree to and participate in something I don't believe in and which I consider to be wrong. That's an infringement of my liberty of conscience. I don't force people to agree with me, nor do I abuse or persecute those who disagree with me; if you read the Gospels, you'll find that the only people Jesus attacks for their beliefs are the 'scribes and Pharisees' - the holier-than-thou types who themselves made life hard for those whose values differed from their own.

    And I'm not a 'homophobe'. I've met many homosexuals over my lifetime, male and female, and I've yet to meet any who make me afraid. I can't say the same about a lot of the heterosexuals I've met - some of them have been seriously scary.[/QUOTE]

    I think you've missed my point a little bit. I appreciate the use of nouns you describe, man, woman, wife etc in scripture that you've quoted. But can you also appreciate that these words are a reflection of the historical context they were written in? In simple terms, if homosexuality wasn't a 'thing' in the part of the world where they were written (mesopotamia, Palestine or wherever...you'd know better than me) then the author wouldn't appreciate that a man marrying a man could conceivably be a 'thing' either? If he did, he might have used different nouns to reflect the society he was living in. I appreciate in your case you are dealing with issues of personal faith here, not logic. But logically, you have to agree there's some ambiguity, no?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved