Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Kapanis]

Quote the scriptures and lets talk context and unpack them if you like. They were not part of God's plan when marriage was created in Genesis before sin entered the world. Man and a woman leaves their families and join together and the two will become one flesh. Wheres the polygamy, rape and pedophiles there?

Like you said, you just can't pick and choose with the bible

 

[sataris]

To be honest, I had large post written with various arguments and found myself being overly aggressive.

So as to keep my own sanity, I'm bowing out of this thread.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

.

To be honest, I had large post written with various arguments and found myself being overly aggressive.

So as to keep my own sanity, I'm bowing out of this thread.

Well sorry mate. Hate to think my views cause that much agitation for anyone.

 

[sataris]

.Well sorry mate. Hate to think my views cause that much agitation for anyone.

Not your fault mate, anyone whose willing to discuss ideas deserves better than ad hominems and strawmans. (which is what 70% of my post was).

 

[Mister B]

Let it be said, the Catholic Church itself is encouraging parishioners to avoid interpreting scripture as a literal text. This is not how to bake a cake. Educators in Catholic schools are being encouraged to recontextualise the scripture to make it meaningful and relevant.
While I appreciate some will have the belief that scripture is to be read literally, the church itself is asking the opposite. The feeding of the 5000 in Luke for example, speaks of Jesus receiving 5 loaves and 2 fish with which he fed 5000 people. For many within the church, this is not possible to believe as miracles just don't cut it. Looking at the historical context, it was common for travellers of the time visiting distant lands to carry food with them. Was the miracle literally turning 5 loaves and 2 fish into a feed for 5000, or was the miracle that one man was able to draw 5000 to gather together, speak with each other and share all the food they were carrying in their travels with each other?

 

[mtooler]

Like you said, you just can't pick and choose with the bible

There's no parts of the bible commanding those things become the traditions of marriage. It was established in Genesis. Hence let' see the scriptures and contexts being argued against me. Secular society not Christianity has those variants operating in it, let's see some defence of secular society please assuming he's an advocate for it in secular society as he hadn' condemned it.

 

[mtooler]

Let it be said, the Catholic Church itself is encouraging parishioners to avoid interpreting scripture as a literal text. This is not how to bake a cake. Educators in Catholic schools are being encouraged to recontextualise the scripture to make it meaningful and relevant.
While I appreciate some will have the belief that scripture is to be read literally, the church itself is asking the opposite. The feeding of the 5000 in Luke for example, speaks of Jesus receiving 5 loaves and 2 fish with which he fed 5000 people. For many within the church, this is not possible to believe as miracles just don't cut it. Looking at the historical context, it was common for travellers of the time visiting distant lands to carry food with them. Was the miracle literally turning 5 loaves and 2 fish into a feed for 5000, or was the miracle that one man was able to draw 5000 to gather together, speak with each other and share all the food they were carrying in their travels with each other?

Literal and miracles do cut it. What's next, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, just symbolic, Jesus wasn't real just symbolic representation of a parable haha. I'd strongly encourage ignoring the one or two who might think it symbolic. I'e never ever heard anyone suggest it is symbolic, aside from you who says others say it.

 

[RW]

Let's keep this discussion to the topic at hand, which is the Swans' participation in the Mardi Gras (it's a footy board, after all).

 

[Mister B]

Literal and miracles do cut it. What's next, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, just symbolic, Jesus wasn't real just symbolic representation of a parable haha. I'd strongly encourage ignoring the one or two who might think it symbolic. I'e never ever heard anyone suggest it is symbolic, aside from you who says others say it.

You're going to be terribly disappointed then to find out recontextualisation and the consideration of historical context is now commonplace in Catholic schools in Victoria.

 

[Kapanis]

There's no parts of the bible commanding those things become the traditions of marriage. It was established in Genesis. Hence let' see the scriptures and contexts being argued against me. Secular society not Christianity has those variants operating in it, let's see some defence of secular society please assuming he's an advocate for it in secular society as he hadn' condemned it.

Its all or nothing. I could post links to various passages that would suggest some pretty bad s**t, however I'm sure you will interpret to fit within your belief system. I simply can't be bothered to be honest

 

[Kapanis]

You're going to be terribly disappointed then to find out recontextualisation and the consideration of historical context is now commonplace in Catholic schools in Victoria.

He's not a Catholic, why would that bother him?

 

[mtooler]

You're going to be terribly disappointed then to find out recontextualisation and the consideration of historical context is now commonplace in Catholic schools in Victoria.

Contextualisation is fine and helps draw meaning from the text, as it also does when viewing the scriptures all pointing and showing insights of Christ in the new testament.

It is the worldview or filter that is problematic. Taking a post modern construct to the scriptures that all truth is relative would be crazy and not at all how the bible should be interpreted.

Revelation, Daniel and other prophetic books are clearly metaphoric but need to be contextualised in the wider bible context, not post modern political correct secularism.

 

[mtooler]

Its all or nothing. I could post links to various passages that would suggest some pretty bad s**t, however I'm sure you will interpret to fit within your belief system. I simply can't be bothered to be honest

Yeah pretty much, they'd be explainable. Some parts of the Bible show people's wickedness and depravity when they use their free will to do immoral things.

If you want to stump most Christians roll with genocide by the Jews and flood of Noah where babies were drowned by God. If people don' know the context and how it is pointing to Christ then it will make no sense.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why would letting men marry men and women marry women be a bastardisation? Why is it a bad thing? What are you trying to protect marriage from?

Answer that without implying homosexuality is bad. Give it a go.

It kind of depends on what you infer.

My own view is that if you stand before family and friends and declare a permanent union with one other, then you are married.

My view is also that any government that commands any person to recognise a marriage can get stuffed.

I further take the view that social health of a society is derived from the bottom up. By that I mean that social health has an order of importance that places the individual first, then the family, then local community, then state and so on.

Marxists on the other hand believe that social health is best managed from the top down. They want the institution of family destroyed.

It says a bit that our Marxist friends, who traditionally have no real support for homosexuality, and certainly not marriage, were suddenly all aboard same sex marriage because “love is love”. What Horseshit! There is a lot to protect marriage from. I don’t think homosexuals are one of those, but there’s certainly some riding that wave who’s motivations are less than pure.

 

[BarneyBent]

I've already explained it previously on this thread. I suggest you read my comment there for elaboration short answer follows.

Marriage is a tradition which derives for a man and woman together for the specific purpose of conception and procreation. That's how it evolved throughout history. Men and women are genetically designed to procreate NOT men with men or women with women. That is fact. Therefore any deviation from that as occurs because gays and lesbians exist occur as an abberation in genetic design. Nothing wrong because it takes all genetic variations to make up the world but that's truth of it.

But why can't others who love each (men/men or woman/woman) other qualify? Well because no matter how long you have sex a baby will never be produced. So to answer the question in the way you framed it yes it's because of homosexuality ......unapologetically. Very happy for anyone loving a partner but in my view according to my values around the marriage tradition and why it arose .....homosexuals simply don't qualify and never will.

An exclusive club limited to man and woman couples. Yes I'm sorry it is in my view or should be. I'd love to be an Olympian but I didn't qualify so I'm not. Same thing. It's not fair? Heaps of exclusive clubs where people never qualify. For instance, apart from being hugely disrespectful id love to be able for convenience sake to park in a handicapped car space. Guess what I don't qualify because I don't meet the perquisites. Should I complain and politicise it saying it discriminates against able bodied people? Nah I'll pass because it occurs for a reason ie allow people who are handicapped easier ways to get around. Marriage occurred for a reason too - to indoctrinate a system around traditions for a man and woman culminating in procreation. A way to signify that bond for that ultimate purpose.

Homosexuals would love to make it about discrimination of a minority and the lobby was successful in that regard. "How can they be discriminated against in that way anymore when they love identically to a hetero couple". So congratulations it's changed. But my answer to that question is and will always be .....because they don't qualify. No babies!

There is a trend nowadays for political correctness to run rampant causing the pendulum to swing the opposite direction beyond all realms of simple equality which was it's justified original goal. An opinion like mine derived other than from discrimation can't be honestly held without me being labelled a bigot or discriminatory against gays. I'm not. Really I'm not. Live and let live I say. IMO the concept of marriage is now bastardised. I have to accept it because it's the law and in all honesty it doesn't directly affect me so it won't be hard but I think it's wrong all the same.

Id love input of other heterosexuals who voted yes to comment but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant element in that decision was concern over being 'seen' as discrimatory......wanting to be seen as progressive abd enlightened rather than on the merits around the concept of marriage itself.

So what do you make of married heterosexual couples that either won’t or can’t have children?

 

[BarneyBent]

It kind of depends on what you infer.

My own view is that if you stand before family and friends and declare a permanent union with one other, then you are married.

My view is also that any government that commands any person to recognise a marriage can get stuffed.

I further take the view that social health of a society is derived from the bottom up. By that I mean that social health has an order of importance that places the individual first, then the family, then local community, then state and so on.

Marxists on the other hand believe that social health is best managed from the top down. They want the institution of family destroyed.

It says a bit that our Marxist friends, who traditionally have no real support for homosexuality, and certainly not marriage, were suddenly all aboard same sex marriage because “love is love”. What Horseshit! There is a lot to protect marriage from. I don’t think homosexuals are one of those, but there’s certainly some riding that wave who’s motivations are less than pure.

But that’s just it - heterosexual marriage was recognised by default, homosexual marriage was not legally recognised. That’s what this was about. Not about a government commanding you to recognise a marriage - the government doesn’t force you to recognise same sex marriage any more than it forces you to recognise straight marriage.

And regarding the broader destruction of marriage, you know what will destroy marriage faster than marriage equality? Keeping it a discriminatory institution in a society that is moving further and further away from that discrimination.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So what do you make of married heterosexual couples that either won’t or can’t have children?

My views are causing upset for many on the thread so I'm not going to comment or respond further out of respect.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

So what do you make of married heterosexual couples that either won’t or can’t have children?

Or adoption?

I know gay couples that are bloody wonderful parents & have raised lovely, smart, successful, well adjusted & respectable sons & daughters.

Saying you can't marry because you can't procreate is a load of s**t no matter how long winded you are or how much you try to dress it up.

Fail. Try again.

 

[BarneyBent]

My views are causing upset for many on the thread so I'm not going to comment or respond further out of respect.

I would encourage you to reflect on why they might be causing upset and consider if they are truly justifiable views.

 

[RUNVS]

Or adoption?

I know gay couples that are bloody wonderful parents & have raised lovely, smart, successful, well adjusted & respectable sons & daughters.

Saying you can't marry because you can't procreate is a load of s**t no matter how long winded you are or how much you try to dress it up.

Fail. Try again.

ALso if procreation is the defining criteria, then no woman over 50 would be allowed to marry.

There are also genetic conditions where kids know almost as soon as they are able to understand that they are infertile, I guess they can't one day marry either.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Meh not fussed about this but happy for the club. I’ll pass on my views on the same sex marriage though as frankly this is a football board.

That said if it raises awareness I’m happy enough for the club to do it.

 

[RUNVS]

Meh not fussed about this but happy for the club. I’ll pass on my views on the same sex marriage though as frankly this is a football board.

That said if it raises awareness I’m happy enough for the club to do it.

I think it does help, as it tells gay children (and children know subconsciously if they are gay or not) that they are welcome in organised sport.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think it does help, as it tells gay children (and children know subconsciously if they are gay or not) that they are welcome in organised sport.

As I said not fussed either way. But I’ll never get in the way of activities to help promote cohesiveness in society. As a society we need to cut out the bigotry and really have everyone treated well. We don’t need people to be scared of saying what they are and being happy doing it.

I’ll just personally leave my thoughts on SSM out of this thread out of respect.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I would encourage you to reflect on why they might be causing upset and consider if they are truly justifiable views.

I make a point of trying to back away from an issue because gays are passionate about it and that's not enough you'd rather get in my face taking or trying to the moral high ground. So I'll answer because you seemingly want to enagage me.

I know exactly why it might be causing upset and that's because gays as a minority have been unjustly persecuted by homophobic behaviour for significant portions of their life so the natural reaction is to be passionate about anything which affords an opportunity for validation of homosexuals as same sex marriage might. So those that are getting upset because I'm holding a view contrary to same sex marriage are doing so through the pyschological defence mechanism called 'projection' .........blame for all that persecution is being projected on one person who affords an opportunity for venting all that pent up emotion relating to that persecution.

Not my problem. Yours.

 

[BarneyBent]

I make a point of trying to back away from an issue because gays are passionate about it and that's not enough you'd rather get in my face taking or trying to the moral high ground. So I'll answer because you seemingly want to enagage me.

I know exactly why it might be causing upset and that's because gays as a minority have been unjustly persecuted by homophobic behaviour for significant portions of their life so the natural reaction is to be passionate about anything which affords an opportunity for validation of homosexuals as same sex marriage might. So those that are getting upset because I'm holding a view contrary to same sex marriage are doing so through the pyschological defence mechanism called 'projection' .........blame for all that persecution is being projected on one person who affords an opportunity for venting all that pent up emotion relating to that persecution.

Not my problem. Yours.

I’m not gay. And people are upset because you are literally denying homosexual people the same legal status and rights, as well as symbolic validation.

Blame projection all you like, but the fact is, you tried to contribute to their ongoing discrimination. Granted, in the scheme of things this level of discrimination is pretty minor, but just because it’s not literal murder/criminalisation is no excuse to ignore it.

But of course, you don’t identify as someone who is discriminatory, so you justify it using archaic and fundamentally flawed logic - that marriage is about procreation. Plenty of people marry and don’t procreate, plenty of people procreate and don’t marry, and plenty of homosexuals adopt or procreate through surrogacy. So unless you believe that gays shouldn’t be allowed to have children, and that people who can’t or don’t intend to have children shouldn’t be able to marry, your argument is invalid.

You know what we call that? Rationalisation to resolve cognitive dissonance. Your problem, not mine.