Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Bishop: Gay marriage breaks democracy,jails bishops,bans religion/political freedom watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    Would you agree the basis for SSM being legalised is 'people should be free to marry whoever they please, irrespective of sexuality'?

    Do you agree with the principle we should apply morality consistently, i.e., if a morality applies in one context, it's only fair to apply it in all contexts?

    Like all groups, LGBTs have a tendency towards own-group bias. Earlier this year LGBTs banned other LGBTs from marching in pride rallies under the UKIP banner. Why? Apparently UKIP refused to pay homage to identity politics, or to place groups before individuals and mention LGBTs in their manifesto.
    No, I don't agree with it for that reason. I agree with SSM, or just M, because marriage grants reduced taxes and better hospital visitation rights to its constituents to each other. (These two things would also make it institutionalised discrimination.) Marriage is also an intrinsic part of our society, and generally signifies a milestone in long-term relationships. It is cruel (I believe) to deny such also for those reasons. If people relate it to religion, I say marriage pre-dates religion, because it does.

    Yes, I do believe we should try to apply morals consistently, by trying to make it on more objective bases. It is hard to find a measure or modicum of objectivity, but I believe I have found it. I think as extent of objectivity is correlated with its applicability to everyone, we should try use that as our basis (then we need to determine a more objective way of "what's pain?".) Though whether objectivity should be listened to is another subjective matter.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    I believe it's what they call reductio ad absurdum, or, in other words, reducing your opponents argument to ridiculous or absurd proportions, and then criticising, mocking or satirising the outcome.
    Ahh, ok. It's just that I thought the statement was just too "ridiculous" to be genuine, although there are people who believe natural disasters are caused by immortality.

    Concerning the subject of the thread, how attainable is freedom of speech without the freedom to express religious and political thoughts that are not necessarily the "most popular" opinion of the community without prosecution?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    No, I don't agree with it for that reason. I agree with SSM, or just M, because marriage grants reduced taxes and better hospital visitation rights to its constituents to each other. (These two things would also make it institutionalised discrimination.) Marriage is also an intrinsic part of our society, and generally signifies a milestone in long-term relationships. It is cruel (I believe) to deny such also for those reasons. If people relate it to religion, I say marriage pre-dates religion, because it does.
    Either way, same thing. And implicitly you seem to agree with it on the basis 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose', otherwise you would have to oppose this principle (do you oppose this principle?). This principle also sets the foundation stone for everything you've articulated above.

    So, on that basis, and based on your appreciation for extending morality consistently, you have to support the legalisation of incest.

    I support SSM, therefore I have to support incestuous marriage. To many the former is a natural right but the latter is incredibly icky. They'll argue 'reproductive issues' (like I haven't heard it all before ), however you could also argue that reproductive issues, or an increased risk in relation to reproduction, exist between heterosexual couples over the age of 40.

    To ban incestuous marriage on the principle of reproduction, and if you believe in applying morality consistently (which is basically equality and justice), would mean you'd have to ban marriage between people over the age of 40.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    Ahh, ok. It's just that I thought the statement was just too "ridiculous" to be genuine, although there are people who believe natural disasters are caused by immortality.

    Concerning the subject of the thread, how attainable is freedom of speech without the freedom to express religious and political thoughts that are not necessarily the "most popular" opinion of the community without prosecution?
    It's well documented that global warming is caused by the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

    Is it freedom of speech to...stop someone from marrying?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCitizenAct)
    Either way, same thing. And implicitly you seem to agree with it on the basis 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose', otherwise you would have to oppose this principle (do you oppose this principle?). This principle also sets the foundation stone for everything you've articulated above.

    So, on that basis, and based on your appreciation for extending morality consistently, you have to support the legalisation of incest.

    I support SSM, therefore I have to support incestuous marriage. To many the former is a natural right but the latter is incredibly icky. They'll argue 'reproductive issues' (like I haven't heard it all before ), however you could also argue that reproductive issues, or an increased risk in relation to reproduction, exist between heterosexual couples over the age of 40.

    To ban incestuous marriage on the principle of reproduction, and if you believe in applying morality consistently (which is basically equality and justice), would mean you'd have to ban marriage between people over the age of 40.
    Ha. But what does The Bible say about incest? That's the million-Euro question.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    Is that your actual, serious, genuine opinion? Maybe it's all the trolls on TSR, but I'm having a hard time telling if you are being sarcastic.

    Are you a catholic or christian?
    Catholics are christians mate.

    His Holiness The Pope Francis I of The Holy See, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, The Holy Father, recognises me as a Holy Roman Catholic.

    His Grace The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby MA (Cantab) OEC recognises me as Anglican.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with homosexuality to be honest
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthetruth)
    I disagree with homosexuality to be honest
    theres no democracy under gay gay
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sonalisinha120)
    For these I just thought about statement, Only these can help you best to pic in the position. I found a helpful site
    http://residencypersonalstatements.net/ and honestly think these will help you best.
    You may only spam in Korean.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The Archbishop is always right. I'm just pointing out the obvious no-one has mentioned yet: With same-sex marriage, there will come more frequent flooding just like what had happened to the UK. God will also bomb the marathons and create tornados in states where gay marriage is not yet legalised.

    Christians should brace themselves for the gay marital storm.

    God is angry.
    Cant believe people like you really exist
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OK after reading through the material supplied and a cursory look of the responses I conclude that whats needed is apartheid. Both gays and normal ppl innately believe in the superiority of their lifestyle (I know I do anyway) and don't tell me that chauvinism does not exist amongst lesbians; male homos do often despise real women and regard them as inferior or at least an incumbency to them. [David Walliams revenge against the vagina/Matt Lucus female impersonation] per example. Normal ppl feel that deviants such as these have been given enough rights already and they have, they do not deserve equal rights quite simply because we have no evidence yet that that their deviancy is the equal of normal ppls love. Recently these abnormals have demanded the right to enter into primary schools and promote battyman culture/life to the defenseless minds of children who will accept anything new if presented to them in joviality, (drag queens on children television shows [ambiguous puppets Erni & Bernie, Sesame Street]). This is particularly disturbing as vanishingly few of these perverts actually have/raise children themselves so why do they desire such a drastic capitulation from normal society? if not to inculcate young minds with a dangerous, unproven, unwelcome and largely unwanted deviant doctrine?? If this line is crossed we may lose normalcy forever.

    Its time to consider giving gays their own town, that way we know who they are and where they are. They can do whatever they like there without interference from normal society and we can get on with the business of raising our children, safely according to our well proven system of heterosexual-gender binary. All pro homo legislation will be reversed in the land as gays become irrelevant; gays however can meet their end in their own domain and never know persecution from normal ppl.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I thought everyone in Australia was in jail, when did they let them out?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    It's well documented that global warming is caused by the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

    Is it freedom of speech to...stop someone from marrying?
    Opinions is not always manifested.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Catholics are christians mate.

    His Holiness The Pope Francis I of The Holy See, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, The Holy Father, recognises me as a Holy Roman Catholic.

    His Grace The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby MA (Cantab) OEC recognises me as Anglican.
    Catholics are not Christians.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Gosh, those poor Catholics. So hard done by.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O$car)
    Cant believe people like you really exist
    I bet you also can't believe GOD actually exist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    Opinions is not always manifested.
    Can't understand you over your poor grammar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    Catholics are not Christians.
    Says who? The Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah Jesus ****in' Christ, HRH The Prince of Peace, founded the Roman Catholic Church Himself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Says who? The Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah Jesus ****in' Christ, HRH The Prince of Peace, founded the Roman Catholic Church Himself.
    I doubt he did but ok.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saeed97)
    I doubt he did but ok.
    I bet you also doubt if he did exist.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 17, 2015
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.