Same-Sex Marriage

[meol]

2. A lot of morals are about controlling desire. If I want to punch someone in the face and I know I could beat the crap out of them, I would restrain my desire to exact physical revenge, same with stealing, being a douche, etc. Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's good. Sometimes we have to do something that doesn't make us happy for the better.

There's something we can agree with. Impulse control is part of a good moral code. However, I disagree with "A lot of morals are about controlling desire". Desire isn't something evil by itself, nor is controlling it necessarily good. I'd say the real moral issue behind all the examples you mentioned is not harming others in some way.

 

You said "Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's good.", and i want to throw it back to you. Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's bad. You still have to explain what you find wrong about "partaking in gay activity" (I assume you mean sex?).

[Romy]

[hide]

Do I support Gay marraige? No, I do not. It's nothing I would ever do myself, it's not something I can see too many of my friends doing, so therefore it truly has nothing to do with me. Would I do anything to stop a Gay marraige from happening? No I would not. That's none of my business, and I have no control over what you do with your own life.

 

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced.

"in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks).

 

I don't see it as relevant.

 

 

He said gays don't conern him, so he's not going to care much or ever do anything about it. Thus "If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced."

1)

And I'm saying we can't by and be apathetic, otherwise we would never accomplish anything. Even when we make war and suppress people we find new technology to help us do so, as opposed to when we don't make definitive choices we waste time. Everything concerns us. If you believe gays should be married you should help fight for their right. If you believe gays shouldn't be married, you should fight to preserve your definition of marriage. Sitting on the fence is cowardly.

2)

As for you saying Christians find gays sinners? The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both believe and teach being gay is not a sin (loved by God equally) but partaking in gay activity is a sin, and they are the largest and second largest bodies of Christian Communions, so there goes your theory with thinking gays are automatically sinners. May I ask, do you speak from learning from a Protestant sect, or did you go to a parochial school, or another source or did you read some book?

3)

And God doesn't send the Israelites to kill people, that is how they interpreted their relationship between themselves and God. Quite frankly I find some of the Israelite writings a bit pompous.

 

1) That's exactly what I said :S...

 

2) I don't think the difference is big enough to matter. So it's okay to be gay so long as I don't fulfill my desires? That's just plain dumb.

 

3) Umm, what about sending them to wars all over to "win" Israel? What about setting rules to wars (such as- before going to war, first ask your enemy if they'd want to surrender, if they wouldn't go for it!)?

 

 

God repetitively sent his chosen ones to war. Period.

 

EDIT: By the way, it wasn't Israelis I was talking about, it was Hebrews.

[/hide]

1. I said that because you said you didn't find it relevant and now you say that's what you said.

 

2. A lot of morals are about controlling desire. If I want to punch someone in the face and I know I could beat the crap out of them, I would restrain my desire to exact physical revenge, same with stealing, being a douche, etc. Just because you fulfill a desire of lust or anything like that, does not mean it's good. Sometimes we have to do something that doesn't make us happy for the better.

 

3. Again, those are rules of war made by the Israelites, not God. The Israelites have interpreted God's inspiration like that, but Yahweh is not a god of war.

 

Response to your edit: We aren't discussing Israelis, that's modern day. Israelites are descendants of Israel, i.e. Jacob.

 

1) So you were only trying to add on my first post :S? Nevermind, forget it.

 

2) That's still dumb. Saying it's okay to be gay aslong as you don't act out your "gayness" is dumb. There's nothing you can say that would change that.

 

3) Not true. God had given specific rules for wars circling the land of Israel, and specific rules to those who don't. If I weren't lazy I'd prove it too.

 

4) I misread.

[atestarossa]

Okay. It seems like my statement spawned some discussion. And of course, not everyone that is religious want everyone to believe the same. But the christianity do have a missionary point of view. (look at the last words of matthew, you'll see a command to this)

 

But I will compare religion to political views, at least in this debate. Because when you have something that becomes the ruling thing of your life, then keeping that just as your "little secret"

 

 

But most important, about my view. I do not thing homosexuallity is healthy for a person, nor do I think it is "right" (morally)

but i'm no homophobe. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I don't act different to homosexuals than heterosexual persons. Because we all are (in my Christian point of view) created as God's images. Therefore I can't hate another person either.

 

Saying that all persons that is against homosexual marriage either is afraid of them, hates them, or is too stupid to understand is truly wrong

I, as many others have thought about this for a long time, looking at it in a theological, and a cultural context.

 

I still believe that it is wrong, but I as a Christian can't out of the bible argue that there should be laws that forbid it. And out of the cultural context, I can't.

So I may dislike it, but marriage (as a juridical pact between two people that want to live the rest of their lives together) must also be possible for homosexuals.

However. I do not like that the (Norwegian) state, also tries to change what the church's point of view on this is. If a religious community (of lack of better words in English) out of religious reasons don't want to marry homosexuals (or marry people that are divorced) then that should be the respected. As long as the secular state don't uses this against the rest of the people

 

I am very firm on this. I do want the state to be secular, as far as it is possible (there is imo nothing like total neutrality; that is a constructed idea) while I do want the [f]society[/f] to be marked by christianity.

Not by force, not by might. Each person is a free soul, that is to decide about their lives themselves.

But through speaking with people, being kind people that live for something more that is here. (And mark this. I do not say that non-christians aren't good people. I'd say about half of my best friends are not christian.

 

I'm not very structured when I write about this, and it's a lot because of my English. I do have a hard time translating my thoughts over from Norwegian, without loosing a lot of the arguments quality.

Anyways, I hope that you can see mercy to that, and take up my views. I do not want to offend people, but rather maybe think together with me about this topic. :)

[RexMilotic]

Okay. It seems like my statement spawned some discussion. And of course, not everyone that is religious want everyone to believe the same. But the christianity do have a missionary point of view. (look at the last words of matthew, you'll see a command to this)

 

But I will compare religion to political views, at least in this debate. Because when you have something that becomes the ruling thing of your life, then keeping that just as your "little secret"

 

 

But most important, about my view. I do not thing homosexuallity is healthy for a person, nor do I think it is "right" (morally)

but i'm no homophobe. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I don't act different to homosexuals than heterosexual persons. Because we all are (in my Christian point of view) created as God's images. Therefore I can't hate another person either.

 

Saying that all persons that is against homosexual marriage either is afraid of them, hates them, or is too stupid to understand is truly wrong

I, as many others have thought about this for a long time, looking at it in a theological, and a cultural context.

 

I still believe that it is wrong, but I as a Christian can't out of the bible argue that there should be laws that forbid it. And out of the cultural context, I can't.

So I may dislike it, but marriage (as a juridical pact between two people that want to live the rest of their lives together) must also be possible for homosexuals.

However. I do not like that the (Norwegian) state, also tries to change what the church's point of view on this is. If a religious community (of lack of better words in English) out of religious reasons don't want to marry homosexuals (or marry people that are divorced) then that should be the respected. As long as the secular state don't uses this against the rest of the people

 

I am very firm on this. I do want the state to be secular, as far as it is possible (there is imo nothing like total neutrality; that is a constructed idea) while I do want the [f]society[/f] to be marked by christianity.

Not by force, not by might. Each person is a free soul, that is to decide about their lives themselves.

But through speaking with people, being kind people that live for something more that is here. (And mark this. I do not say that non-christians aren't good people. I'd say about half of my best friends are not christian.

 

I'm not very structured when I write about this, and it's a lot because of my English. I do have a hard time translating my thoughts over from Norwegian, without loosing a lot of the arguments quality.

Anyways, I hope that you can see mercy to that, and take up my views. I do not want to offend people, but rather maybe think together with me about this topic. :)

 

Changing the churches views on homosexual marriages is something that should be done, just as in America and other countries they were forced to marry black and white people, or two people of different races. If the church is going to be allowed to marry, then they should be forced to followed the secular laws on it, or should lose the right to marry. Unless churches are changed to strictly religious unions, which provide no legal rights what so ever, then they should be following secular laws. If they gave no legal rights, then I wouldn't mind if they had the choice on who they marry.

[atestarossa]

Okay. It seems like my statement spawned some discussion. And of course, not everyone that is religious want everyone to believe the same. But the christianity do have a missionary point of view. (look at the last words of matthew, you'll see a command to this)

 

But I will compare religion to political views, at least in this debate. Because when you have something that becomes the ruling thing of your life, then keeping that just as your "little secret"

 

 

But most important, about my view. I do not thing homosexuallity is healthy for a person, nor do I think it is "right" (morally)

but i'm no homophobe. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I don't act different to homosexuals than heterosexual persons. Because we all are (in my Christian point of view) created as God's images. Therefore I can't hate another person either.

 

Saying that all persons that is against homosexual marriage either is afraid of them, hates them, or is too stupid to understand is truly wrong

I, as many others have thought about this for a long time, looking at it in a theological, and a cultural context.

 

I still believe that it is wrong, but I as a Christian can't out of the bible argue that there should be laws that forbid it. And out of the cultural context, I can't.

So I may dislike it, but marriage (as a juridical pact between two people that want to live the rest of their lives together) must also be possible for homosexuals.

However. I do not like that the (Norwegian) state, also tries to change what the church's point of view on this is. If a religious community (of lack of better words in English) out of religious reasons don't want to marry homosexuals (or marry people that are divorced) then that should be the respected. As long as the secular state don't uses this against the rest of the people

 

I am very firm on this. I do want the state to be secular, as far as it is possible (there is imo nothing like total neutrality; that is a constructed idea) while I do want the [f]society[/f] to be marked by christianity.

Not by force, not by might. Each person is a free soul, that is to decide about their lives themselves.

But through speaking with people, being kind people that live for something more that is here. (And mark this. I do not say that non-christians aren't good people. I'd say about half of my best friends are not christian.

 

I'm not very structured when I write about this, and it's a lot because of my English. I do have a hard time translating my thoughts over from Norwegian, without loosing a lot of the arguments quality.

Anyways, I hope that you can see mercy to that, and take up my views. I do not want to offend people, but rather maybe think together with me about this topic. :)

 

Changing the churches views on homosexual marriages is something that should be done, just as in America and other countries they were forced to marry black and white people, or two people of different races. If the church is going to be allowed to marry, then they should be forced to followed the secular laws on it, or should lose the right to marry. Unless churches are changed to strictly religious unions, which provide no legal rights what so ever, then they should be following secular laws. If they gave no legal rights, then I wouldn't mind if they had the choice on who they marry.

 

This is actually my view as well. In my first post, I said that I support that (in Norway, I don't know enough about the American situation to be fair) the churches should give up the right of the marriage as the juridical agreement.

Then the churches would of course be free to provide a blessing, or similar to the couple that just have been married, and this would probably, from the Christians been seen as the "wedding" although the state should have the responsibility of what we today call marriage.

 

The problem in Norway, is that the government, instead of taking the right to marry people away from the churches, then they force them to go against their views to still marry people. (The church is just using a loophole about liturgy to avoid this at the moment, which they can't do forever.)

[meol]

...

This is actually my view as well. In my first post, I said that I support that (in Norway, I don't know enough about the American situation to be fair) the churches should give up the right of the marriage as the juridical agreement.

Then the churches would of course be free to provide a blessing, or similar to the couple that just have been married, and this would probably, from the Christians been seen as the "wedding" although the state should have the responsibility of what we today call marriage.

 

The problem in Norway, is that the government, instead of taking the right to marry people away from the churches, then they force them to go against their views to still marry people. (The church is just using a loophole about liturgy to avoid this at the moment, which they can't do forever.)

I completely agree with you both. A complete separation of church of state like that would help a lot, and would support the rights of both gays and religious. It might not fully bring the social acceptance that gays want, but it'd be a huge step forward.

 

However, I don't see this happening this any time soon. I really doubt established churches would be willing to either compromise with the sinners nor to give up any of their power.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Let the gays get unioned. Don't call it marriage with all the same benefits. Have it strictly civil and allow the churches to reserve the right to reject marriages. Is that not a decent enough compromise? The gays get all the legal benefits and the right to join, and to the people with religion they retain their sacrament of matrimony.

 

The only problem I see with this solution is there is always the person who wants more, and I'm sure there would be the gay who sues for discrimination between the nominal difference of a union and a marriage. (not that gays are particularly greedy or something, its just in human nature to say I want that, then once you get it, it isn't that big of a deal.)

[SeanyTheSailor]

Let the gays get unioned. Don't call it marriage with all the same benefits. Have it strictly civil and allow the churches to reserve the right to reject marriages. Is that not a decent enough compromise? The gays get all the legal benefits and the right to join, and to the people with religion they retain their sacrament of matrimony.

 

The only problem I see with this solution is there is always the person who wants more, and I'm sure there would be the gay who sues for discrimination between the nominal difference of a union and a marriage. (not that gays are particularly greedy or something, its just in human nature to say I want that, then once you get it, it isn't that big of a deal.)

I agree completely... and they already can! It's called a civil partnership. But no one is allowed to be special these days, no one can have something that someone else can't have. I don't want gays not to be able to marry because I hate them its just..... WHY can't a marrige between a man and a woman be special? I'm not great at putting thoughts and feelings into words so I'll just leave you with that.

[RexMilotic]

Let the gays get unioned. Don't call it marriage with all the same benefits. Have it strictly civil and allow the churches to reserve the right to reject marriages. Is that not a decent enough compromise? The gays get all the legal benefits and the right to join, and to the people with religion they retain their sacrament of matrimony.

 

The only problem I see with this solution is there is always the person who wants more, and I'm sure there would be the gay who sues for discrimination between the nominal difference of a union and a marriage. (not that gays are particularly greedy or something, its just in human nature to say I want that, then once you get it, it isn't that big of a deal.)

 

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

[Alg]

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for.

[fakeitormakeit2]

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for.

That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education).

[atestarossa]

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for.

That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education).

 

 

But if the church does give their powers away from this, what do they loose? The blessing over married couples would by all probability be counted among Christians as the wedding, and where the marriage is started, before the eyes of God. The only difference would be that you also had to sign a couple of papers at the local courthouse (or where you sign these kind of papers)

The official part, just for economy, and registration goes for the government, while the religious part, the ceremony, and the celebration would still be at church (if you are a Christian, that is)

 

To put this in a historical context as well: It wasn't before the 5th century (that's 400-499, right?) that Christian marriage also was counted as official marriage. This was when cæsar Constantin made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

[fakeitormakeit2]

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for.

That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education).

 

 

But if the church does give their powers away from this, what do they loose? The blessing over married couples would by all probability be counted among Christians as the wedding, and where the marriage is started, before the eyes of God. The only difference would be that you also had to sign a couple of papers at the local courthouse (or where you sign these kind of papers)

The official part, just for economy, and registration goes for the government, while the religious part, the ceremony, and the celebration would still be at church (if you are a Christian, that is)

 

To put this in a historical context as well: It wasn't before the 5th century (that's 400-499, right?) that Christian marriage also was counted as official marriage. This was when cæsar Constantin made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

Normally when you take one step in one direction it doesn't just end with a step... It normally advances with a couple more, this goes for good and bad. As a result of the removal of the legality of their wedding of couples, it might be an excuse to move to further stripe them of something as I stated before. Humans have an inclination to not just take one step in a direction, even if that was their initial intent.

[Alg]

Should that be a reason not to take the initial step though?

[fakeitormakeit2]

Should that be a reason not to take the initial step though?

When you can accomplish practically the same goal with a different name(i.e. let gays be civilly union-ed with all the right of the married, but leave the Church as is), yes, it isn't worth it. It's starting a fire when one can be avoided.

[RexMilotic]

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for.

That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education).

 

 

But if the church does give their powers away from this, what do they loose? The blessing over married couples would by all probability be counted among Christians as the wedding, and where the marriage is started, before the eyes of God. The only difference would be that you also had to sign a couple of papers at the local courthouse (or where you sign these kind of papers)

The official part, just for economy, and registration goes for the government, while the religious part, the ceremony, and the celebration would still be at church (if you are a Christian, that is)

 

To put this in a historical context as well: It wasn't before the 5th century (that's 400-499, right?) that Christian marriage also was counted as official marriage. This was when cæsar Constantin made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

Normally when you take one step in one direction it doesn't just end with a step... It normally advances with a couple more, this goes for good and bad. As a result of the removal of the legality of their wedding of couples, it might be an excuse to move to further stripe them of something as I stated before. Humans have an inclination to not just take one step in a direction, even if that was their initial intent.

 

Is that even an argument? It's not stripping anyone of the legality of their wedding, it's setting things how they should be.

 

Should that be a reason not to take the initial step though?

When you can accomplish practically the same goal with a different name(i.e. let gays be civilly union-ed with all the right of the married, but leave the Church as is), yes, it isn't worth it. It's starting a fire when one can be avoided.

 

No, that's not the same thing. It's two different things. You think it isn't worth it because you're happy with the system, but the system is incorrect.

[atestarossa]

I do understand that initial steps can continue in a bad fashion afterwards. But in Norway, there's not much power left for the church anyway. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway. It has been a state church since the reformation.

The first thing people use to think when they hear about a state church is theocracy. And hell, let this be clear, I do not support this in any way.

The problem in Norway is that the state church have been forced to give up more and more on their theology. This is not because their bishops, priests and theologists have decided this way, but because the government dictates the church policy. The parties in government today are (as far as I remember) the only ones that want to keep the state church, whereas the other ones, including the Christian People's party wishes a separation of church and state.

The only thing that holds this back, is the socialists and to a degree the social-democrats that want to keep the control over the church. (The social-democrats have done a lot good throughout their years in government by the way, but their religion politics annoy me)

[fakeitormakeit2]

I do understand that initial steps can continue in a bad fashion afterwards. But in Norway, there's not much power left for the church anyway. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway. It has been a state church since the reformation.

The first thing people use to think when they hear about a state church is theocracy. And hell, let this be clear, I do not support this in any way.

The problem in Norway is that the state church have been forced to give up more and more on their theology. This is not because their bishops, priests and theologists have decided this way, but because the government dictates the church policy. The parties in government today are (as far as I remember) the only ones that want to keep the state church, whereas the other ones, including the Christian People's party wishes a separation of church and state.

The only thing that holds this back, is the socialists and to a degree the social-democrats that want to keep the control over the church. (The social-democrats have done a lot good throughout their years in government by the way, but their religion politics annoy me)

Well they probably want to keep the Church as a branch of the government so the Church cannot criticize the government or teach its congregations against anything the government doesn't want. the Christian Party probably realizes their theology is being compromised but as long as the government can dictate policy, I don't see why they would give up that power, other then petition en masse.

[RexMilotic]

I do understand that initial steps can continue in a bad fashion afterwards. But in Norway, there's not much power left for the church anyway. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway. It has been a state church since the reformation.

The first thing people use to think when they hear about a state church is theocracy. And hell, let this be clear, I do not support this in any way.

The problem in Norway is that the state church have been forced to give up more and more on their theology. This is not because their bishops, priests and theologists have decided this way, but because the government dictates the church policy. The parties in government today are (as far as I remember) the only ones that want to keep the state church, whereas the other ones, including the Christian People's party wishes a separation of church and state.

The only thing that holds this back, is the socialists and to a degree the social-democrats that want to keep the control over the church. (The social-democrats have done a lot good throughout their years in government by the way, but their religion politics annoy me)

 

I heard about that, and how people were forced to join the church? I would hate that, and even though I don't support religion, I can understand where you're coming from.

[Romy]

Sorry for bumping, I just felt it really belongs here, yet didn't think I should start a new topic (as there are already enough IMO):

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/09/same.sex.marriages/index.html?hpt=T2

 

=D> =D> =D>

[Saru Inc]

=D I read the comments below... yikes :o

[Romy]

Yeah, it's a real shame that's how society acts.

[magekillr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKcq5U_MLs

 

YAY!

[fakeitormakeit2]

Yeah, it's a real shame that's how society acts.

I've been saying that since I've been able to comprehend it. I use to be deemed anti-American. Now people just agree with me.

[Giordano]

Dude, that is so nasty it's horrible. All gays should burn in hell for their holding hands...such [bleep]ry!

 

Heh. I be trollin', they hatin'... 8-)