The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Greens guilty of gross discrimination > Comments

Greens guilty of gross discrimination : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 23/5/2012

Marriage might be OK for Adam and Steve according to the Greens, but not for Adam and Steve and Sue.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
@ Tweet:
Just on your comment: “No where in the Bible does it say God approves of homosexuality, polygamy, adultery!”

Are you sure? Many Biblical scholars these days claim that adultery is always condemned in Scripture, but polygamy and same-sex unions are not. Both are in fact perfectly acceptable to God, as has been shown recently in other articles here on this site.

Yes, you are right to say “love the sinner, NOT the sin”. This is correct. But surely we must determine rightly which relationships are sinful and which aren’t, so the Church is not rejecting those who Christ would have us welcome.

A growing number of Christians are rediscovering the Truths of Scripture which affirm people in faithful same-sex unions.

There is a discussion on the Biblical revelation here, Tweet, which you are most welcome to join:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13642

@ lolas185, when you say ‘fundamentals’ do you mean ‘Biblical fundamentals’? Are you sure?
This is pretty important question.
Happy to discuss further.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 24 May 2012 8:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
regarding your comments about my assertion religion is a lot of politics, is the 'error' in the reputation or of religion or my insinuation or both?

" .. why should anyone give others any rights in the first place - all that we are asked, especially if we love others, is to abstain from taking away their natural freedoms, rather than chewing those then spitting back what's left of them as 'rights'."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 May 2012 2:25:27 PM

Who has the right to decide whether "others" have rights??! - presumably the same rights those 'deciding' have & enjoy?

What does love have to do with not taking away 'others' freedoms??!

What about less conflated, less ego-centric interactions?
Posted by McReal, Friday, 25 May 2012 5:48:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear McReal,

Religion got bad reputation because some religious organisations also do things that are not religious. One should innocently expect religious organisations (loosely called "religions") to only do religion - to help their members to come closer to God, so when they don't, no wonder that you as a lay-person or observer become confused and come to believe that what they do is part of religion and that therefore religion itself is the culprit.

<<Who has the right to decide whether "others" have rights??!>>

Nobody!

Rights are always granted by certain people to others, whereas freedom is natural, God-given. One can only grant a right once freedom has been robbed away, returning, as if a favour, a fake substitute. So no thanks, we should have no rights and give no rights to others, only retain our original God-given freedom. If you love others and are less ego-centric, then you don't try to rob others of their freedoms.

When Alexander the Great asked Diogenes, "what shall I give you? - just ask and I'll give you half the kingdom", Diogenes replied:

"Will your majesty please step slightly away so that he doesn't obstruct the warming rays of the sun from falling on my body".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 25 May 2012 10:23:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is nonsense. The Greens and pro-marriage equality campaigners are no more hypocrites than civil rights activists in the 1960s. Should campaigners for inter-racial marriage been campagining for gay marriage back then? Well, maybe according to this Opinion piece!Seriously, one step at a time. The time is right to recognise same sex marriages. Poly marriages may be some time off.

As far as polyamory or polygamy are concerned; anyone REALLY advocating for this needs not to slag off the current Gay marriage campaigners. If gay marraige doesn;t get through then they have NO chance of getting what they want either. Saying that, does anyone seriously reckon that Poly-marriages are likely to happen in Australia? As for child marriage etc- that's called pedophillia and is a criminal offence. Hell would freeze over before that was legal in Australia. Marriage is about a consenting ADULT relationship.
Posted by Vanny, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:29:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Vanny
"As for child marriage etc- that's called pedophillia and is a criminal offence."
That's easy to say now. What would you say if societal attitudes start to change?

"Marriage is about a consenting ADULT relationship."
Not always: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/international/asia/30brides.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/vice-bride-kidnapping/index.html
http://www.ivorytowerz.com/2009/02/kidnapping-bride-old-tradition-returns.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PPJcR0RBs (I'm assuming this documentary excerpt is not a joke or being quoted out of context)
Posted by RMW, Friday, 25 May 2012 11:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy