Unhuh don't use that it's not in the New Testament with me. I am perfectly ok with you making your own church without the Word and having all the sin you want somewhere else. Far far away from me. I have plenty of lust and sexual perverse demons of my own.
Romans 1:26-27King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

They SHOULD be allowed
But why would they WANT to
have a sacred and personal
ceremony in a place
that has condemned them
for so many years?

The church most probably
will never allow it
but great strides have
been made in the last
twenty years to even
RECOGNIZE a same sex
marriage AT ALL

We can only hope
the future brings
less intolerance
to ALL aggregations
of society as we
are forced to admit
we are running out
of room and we are
really only one
mind anyway

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

Well said! And those who quote things like Romans always forget that Jesus never spoke a single word in it that has to do with such matters. For that matter, Jesus never actually spoke very much of anything in the New Testament outside of the four major gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Leaving Revelation out of it, since it is more symbolic and metaphysical than factual or historical in some ways. The rest was what other people said, and all of it was written generations after that fact too by people who were not Jesus and who never knew him either. Plus, there were a lot more gospels in the beginning than those that made it into the Council of Nicea's idea of proper Biblical canon. Gospels that gave women more rights, and which spoke of tolerance and love rather than of bigotry and hatred. In fact...

There was even a Gnostic gospel that was excluded by the Council of Nicea because it hinted at something they really, REALLY would not have liked if it may have been true (which, you never know, it could have been!)... a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and line that originally said Jesus kissed her on the mouth. There was even another Gnostic gospel that was excluded because it hinted at Jesus very possibly caring a bit strongly for someone of the same sex. A simple googling of these things is all that is needed for those who wish to look into the excluded gospels further.... as well as some of the reasons they were excluded. Personally, I believe Jesus embraced all forms of love because if Christ was part of God in some way, and if God is Love, then God is all forms of Love not just the forms of love that mainstream religion or society would prefer. To limit Love, therefore, is to limit God! Christians who speak of God's Love and then preach hatred in God's name are both limiting God and sinning against Love. If God is Love, then to sin against Love in ALL its' forms is to sin against God! Which is why Jesus sought to free people from the trap of being enslaved by laws that require people to be hateful towards others who are not like them. They say Hitler was a Christian too, and I think we have a good idea what kind - the hateful, prejudiced kind. And we see where that led him! So yes indeed... hatred be damned... this is an age of enlightenment, of modernity. In such an age, bigotry is both antiquated and primitive. I will always prefer a more civilized belief system to a barbaric one steeped in hate and bloodshed. Those who defend hatred likely would also defend the horrors that were the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials, I am sure. I refuse to defend barbarities in the name of any faith! If Christ returned tomorrow, I believe He would look at those who do such things in His name and say to them: "I do not know you." and He certainly would not recognize any faith that endorses hatred as having anything to do with His own. You cannot say God is Love and then deny people the right to love as their hearts will them. For is it not often said of God, that God works through peoples' hearts? It is! So  I say, let people be guided by the love in their hearts, not the hate shouted into their ears. Then, the world will be a better place! For any world that loves Love itself in all its' forms is a blessed world. Just as any world that rejects Love is doomed to eternal strife, and also sadly war. Such is human nature!

And that is all I have to say on the matter beyond what I have already stated. To those who are civilized, enlightened, and who believe in Love rather than hatred... all I have said is evident and obvious anyway without me spotlighting it. Blessed be!

Note: There will be those who say: "But look, the Gnostic gospels and the Apocrypha were written after Jesus' lifetime!" yes, and so were all the gospels. Not one document exists in the Bible or in any bible, that was actually written either by Jesus or even in Jesus' lifetime that could be connected to Him. So how old something is, is a moot and unimportant point.

Yes, all true and all so eloquently put, but ..and here's the thing:

if you believe in God, or a higher power of intelligence or even if you believe that the universe is a law unto itself numerically speaking, then where do you see the act of gayness fitting in ?

I've heard the argument that a fair percentage of animals show gay tendencies but it's not clear whether it's predatory, lust of love on display. Indeed if man and women have shown gayness for many thousands of years what is the importance of gayness in the evolution of humans. Ie, what changes in terms of physical or mental ability have complimented the act of gayness  

the way I see it, gay people are broken. which isn't such a bad thing I should add. there are many in society that are broken.  but I think we should at least admit it.  In terms of the universe, gay people are ( and I really don't like to use the word) ...incompatible to the overall long term survival of humans (naturally)

Love knows no  gender or race. if a person loves someone they of course should be able to marry their love be it two men, two woman, or man and woman. Love is what it is

yes, go you ! go love !

the vote passed,  62.77 %  yes 37.23 % against. for the most part Dublin continuance were 70% - 30  in favour.  at least half of the country's constituencies were very close averaging 51 % for and 49%  against.

The act of parliament which criminalised homosexuality back in the 1600s was campaigned for by a Protestant bishop  who also happened to be the last man hanged In Dublin for being gay. The law itself was only repealed in 1992, I think Ireland is the first country Worldwide  to enshrine marriage undefined by gender Into its constitution

anyhow, live let live, die let die

If you truly are against anyone wanting to do anything that is non threatening to the safety of human lives you have too much time on your hands.If two people of the same sex want to get married, I'll tell you now I'm too busy with my life to give two shits about any one who wants
to be married.
 It's like asking me my opinion on the royal wedding. I don't give a damn.They cancelled certain tv programs I like to broadcast that bullshit. I'm fucking American! I am more for gay marriage than I am for celebrity affairs. Yes to me the prince and his wife are like Kanye and Kim.
Anyway I think same sex marriage any where is cool. The bible is a good book that can be taken out of context easily. It's man made yet it's one of the reasons we do not live in true chaos.I have mixed feelings about it, but I can't stand when people use it to justify social insensitivity.
 I love my country, I just hate the people in charge.

We are not God, we can't control whom marries who.

speak for yourself

Yes they most certainly should as it is a public facility. personally i dont understand why people outright support the churches appearant inability to be there for anybody who wants to be there. i frankly hate when churches and their literally holier than thou attitudes toward people who just want to be equal to everyone else. this inequality extends to everybody frankly. for example poor people used to be allowed to sleep in all churches. not any more. poor people cant even feel comfortable going to church when collection comes around and you cant affored to give and also feed your own family. sorry if i come off as ranting it just occurs to me that a church is just another public institution like everything else but unlike every other institution in the modern age this is the only one that still completely discriminates. i think that's always been the illogical/emotionally corrupt insitute of greed and hate otherwise known as religions problem over the course of history. frankly i dont know who would want to get married in such a hateful place. everytime ive ever been to church i personally have regretted being there and ever going.

"Incompatible"? Nonsensical wars, illnesses that can be cured but cost more than your life, genocide, starvation, I love guns  but there are people who should not have them, human trafficking, drug trade, and many more things are way more incompatible with human survival than two people of the same sex wanting to get married anywhere.I bet more people die from preventable causes than there are gay people on this planet.Lets not forget about the people who lost their lives to fight for equality throughout history.
I'm sorry for being so rambunctious in this post but that word "incompatible" in reference to this topic is kind of silly and overlooking the progress humanity has made towards equality for everyone. Me being from New York City and around all types of people opened my eyes along time ago. There are bigger fish to fry and if the church don't want to catch up with times then forget them.

I agree, all those things you list are incompatible to the overall long term survival of humans. I'm trying to look at this in an impersonal context.

yes, no one should have the platform to dictate the terms of love. the legalities of love and marriage within our society (for the most part) are left to law enforcement and courts to sort out, we (most of us) live in places where this is the acceptable way or at the very least we put up with it.

I suppose the momentum of societal changes are well under way for many different aspects, or at least the illusion of change and a more politically correct environment. things have been changing in the other direction also. a more aggressive threatening world has dictated that some freedoms have been put on hold,  things like mobile phones, TV and Internet interactions have been and are constantly watched, filed through, recorded  etc  

we may not like the churches teachings in the context of morality and sin but we have no rights to demand the church changes. We can ask it to reconsider or we can leave.

incompatible comes from our need as a species to procreate. for now our species can survive if a percentage of the population desist from pro creating but there are other factors that can jeopardise it. male sperm count and fertility is at an all time low. Porn culture has generations thinking that the correct way to procreate is to " jizz on her titties or chin ". so we really could do without many more people turning gay   ...for the good of the species like

Craic, forgive me, as I respect you as a poet, a person, and a bastion of common sense, but the 'incompatibility' line is utter bullshit.

Either the survival of humans evolves and changes to incorporate homosexual relationships. Such as surrogate births, and babies that are more or less grown in a vat and 'birthed' by being then handed over to the parents. Or the human species dies out while some git shouts "I told you so" to the furtherment and solution of nothing. Which in that case we are all buggered anyway, given the existence of black holes in the blackness of space. But that's all doom and gloom, and not the gritty determination that underpins existence.

Plus with the existence of orphans, homosexual marriages are a viable answer, after all in such cases there would not be a threat/problem of the parents having a 'natural' child and then neglecting the orphan. Plus the whole outsider thing could be a proud badge to wear, as if people should actually care intensely about other people. Newsflash, you care but not always, even in sleep they are not always on your mind.

Personally it seems rather daft for a 'new construct' such as homosexual marriage (new in terms of everything) to want to be connected with an old construct such as the Christian church. Even then the church is rather new in the game of religion, and has hardly kept itself up to date and fresh. Most of its places are either relics of stone, or converted social centres that rely on physical location rather than global or even spiritual connection.
Its like a bear tried to get chummy with dinosaurs as the ice age hits and the dinosaurs die out.

Gods, if only there was aliens to fight then humanity may actually place nice with itself rather than these temper tantrums. And yes I have gone off thread and have nothing relevant to say anymore.

forgiven and thanked for the frankness. Kinda figured the incompatible Line  was a bridge too far and was a bit disappointed it didn't rouse some stronger rebukes.  

I've often wondered about evolution and why it's taking so long for the next wave of Homo to emerge. There are some theories out there referring to Indigo children and autistic people but nothing at all concrete. there is some strong evidence says the last wave (homo erect us ? ) lived side be side with its predecessor for a long time and mixed sexually before it was eventually wiped

anyhow I wonder if we'll bring on our own evolution visa vis vat children or designer children  ..or put simply, eugenics