retep Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Nobody is being oppressed, and people have asked others who claim this to point out specific instances where this has taken place, as yet none of the oppressed have actually shown us where in the thread this supposed 'oppression' is taking place. All that is happening is the people against gay marriage are being asked to quantify why, and apart from a few cherry picked biblical quotes no one seems to have actually given a reason. For me personally if people are using the Bible then I want to know the nature of why they think it, if it's sin let's establish what exactly 'sin' is. unfortunately we aren't getting those explanations, all we're getting is 'Bible says no', surely you can see that as reasons go that's pretty lame? What are the Dalai Lama's thoughts on homosexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 What are the Dalai Lama's thoughts on homosexuality? Dunno, I'm not a mind reader. You can tell us though if you have a mind to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 All that is happening is the people against gay marriage are being asked to quantify why, and apart from a few cherry picked biblical quotes no one seems to have actually given a reason. ? Actually I gave my reasons earlier in the thread. Nothing to do with religion, discrimination, homophobia or bigotry in my reasoning just the fact that a man and woman are different to a man and man or woman and woman therefore their union is called by a different name. A man and woman are equal but different and so is their union albeit called by a different name. If homosexuals wanted their union to be termed a marriage why did they accept the term civil partnership and why did some couples partake happily of this union ? If there weren't civil partnerships I would agree that there was discrimination. Was the creation civil partnerships just an intermediate step to lead into the present argument and will the European Courts say it is discriminating by allowing some religions to marry homosexual couples and not others. I think they will decide this is discrinination and force all churches to marry homosexual couples. The decision will then have been taken out of the hands of our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 What are the Dalai Lama's thoughts on homosexuality? Hope this helps. http://www.freewebs.com/gaytibet/dalailama/dalailamaspeaks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Hope this helps. http://www.freewebs.com/gaytibet/dalailama/dalailamaspeaks.html Nice get out ..its ok for others but not for Buddhists,its whats called telling people what they want to hear,there's another religion thats well versed in the same practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Actually I gave my reasons earlier in the thread. Nothing to do with religion, discrimination, homophobia or bigotry in my reasoning just the fact that a man and woman are different to a man and man or woman and woman therefore their union is called by a different name. A man and woman are equal but different and so is their union albeit called by a different name. Just like the fact that a white person and a black person are different, so they have different seats. A white person and black person are equal, and the seats are just as comfy, but different so the seats are in different places. Different but equal, different but equal, yada yada yada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 That was written around two thousand years ago, people had lots of odd ideas in those days Bit like the Quoran then,shame its readers dont share your point of view of it being outdated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 What are the Dalai Lama's thoughts on homosexuality? I don't know I don't know him. However the Buddhist scriptures (the Pali canon which are my holy 'books' are 11 times longer than the Bible and there are Mahayana scriptures too so plenty to go at) don't condemn homosexuality once. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 11:47 ---------- Hope this helps. http://www.freewebs.com/gaytibet/dalailama/dalailamaspeaks.html That's not entirely accurate. what the article fails to mention is that except on full and half moon days those prescriptions apply only to monks. Nowhere in the scriptures does it explicitly deny anal sex for lay followers (except on afore mentioned days) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Actually I gave my reasons earlier in the thread. Nothing to do with religion, discrimination, homophobia or bigotry in my reasoning just the fact that a man and woman are different to a man and man or woman and woman therefore their union is called by a different name. A man and woman are equal but different and so is their union albeit called by a different name. If homosexuals wanted their union to be termed a marriage why did they accept the term civil partnership and why did some couples partake happily of this union ? If there weren't civil partnerships I would agree that there was discrimination. Was the creation civil partnerships just an intermediate step to lead into the present argument and will the European Courts say it is discriminating by allowing some religions to marry homosexual couples and not others. I think they will decide this is discrinination and force all churches to marry homosexual couples. The decision will then have been taken out of the hands of our government. And your position has been effectively and politely debated by posters pointing out that the nature, definition and parameters of marriage has/have changed considerably over the millennia to reflect both the pragmatic needs and philosophical of society. Why shouldn't that evolution continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Nice get out ..its ok for others but not for Buddhists,its whats called telling people what they want to hear,there's another religion thats well versed in the same practice. Interesting interpretation. He seems to be saying live and let live to me. ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 11:53 ---------- Bit like the Quoran then,shame its readers dont share your point of view of it being outdated Oh here we go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.