Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2012, 06:28 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17330633, but what do you think?

Posted by: Darren Mar 11 2012, 07:56 PM

Since when did the church start owning marriage? Pretty sure something similar existed long before the Christian church came along?

The catholic church seem to jump on this subject as a way of deflecting criticism from the horrific and continuing long term abuse of children by the clergy.

Cherry-Picking the bible? You're doing it right.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Mar 11 2012, 09:23 PM

It'd be nice if those voting 'NO' would identify themselves and explain their reasons......

I voted yes, because who cares if 2 men or 2 women want to get married. Whose business is that other than theirs? Who are you to say they shouldn't?

And please don't go quoting the bible in your defence. Believing in the tooth fairy is not rational and will only lead to you being mocked for living in another century.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 11 2012, 09:52 PM

I don't think it should be, (and voted no), because marriage is basically a religious institution. If you want to be part of that group, you follow that groups rules. The civil partnership law allows you to have the same recognition in law so that side of it is covered which to me seems fair. I don't think it's all that important though, I care about it in the same way that I care about whether a news presenter wears a tie. It's really not that big of a deal, I just preferred it when gays weren't so in your face all the time.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 11 2012, 09:59 PM

What kind of incessantly moronic moron would say no? Marridge is no more religious than taking a dump. All it means is showing your commitment for someone and you can be committed whether you are a man, a woman, or a monkey.
I know some gay people are they are not in your face and even don't mind the odd joke about being bummers.

So I am with stewiegriffin..if you vote no state your reasons and prepare to be shot infront of your families.

Posted by: GMR Mar 11 2012, 10:16 PM

It is ironic that the Church is against gay marriages and kick up a fuss but when priests bugger and abuse children not a Dicky bird (they actually try to obstruct the police in bringing the perpetrators to justice); in fact they keep their mouth shut. The Catholic church has a history of atrocities (Inquisitions, buggering children, abuse etc) but when it comes to two homosexuals wanting to marry like heterosexuals they start getting on their high horse. Before worrying about two gay people wanting to get married maybe they should get their own house in order.

The Catholic Church is the biggest hypocrisy. Those priests that condemn gay marriages and their congregation who supports them should be lined up against a wall and shot.

We all should be treated as equals and those that try to divide should be removed from a decent society.

Posted by: GMR Mar 11 2012, 10:19 PM

And here lies the problem; "religious institutions". The Church isn't the cure, but the problem. Remove that and we will be on the road to a better society.

i voted that gay people should be able to get married.

Posted by: GMR Mar 11 2012, 10:23 PM

The moron is the bigot. Remove them and you are on your way to a better society.

Posted by: GMR Mar 11 2012, 10:26 PM

Good post.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 11 2012, 10:44 PM

If you remove the church and the religious element, you just have the legal side, which would then be a civil partnership. Which is what we already have

Posted by: GMR Mar 11 2012, 10:53 PM

Under the law it is recognised as two different entities. Under a fair society we all should be treated equally; currently we are not. On top of that the changes will come in some point in history (why continue the unfairness?). Don't forget that the Church at one time didn't recognise interracial marriages. The Church is the biggest bigotry body in the world. The Church should be leading the way in fairness, not trying to hold it back. As i said; they are hypocrites; they condemn gay marriage but turn a blind eye to their own buggering and abusing small children. It is not gay marriages that should be stamped out but bigotry and hypocrisy in the church.

Posted by: urZah Mar 12 2012, 12:54 AM

Of course 'yes'.

There is no argument against it. And equal marriage is happening anyway so those that voted 'no', educate yourself for your sakes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 09:09 AM

Pair-bonding is social, gender-intolerance is religious. In my view you should be free to marry who you want (siblings excepted), and as has already been said I think it would be a good idea for the fiddly-fathers of the Catholic Church to wind their necks in and not suppose that a professed belief in delusional make-believe fantasies gives them a legitimate platform to comment on the real world.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 09:28 AM

Quick question. what does the world of Islam say about gay marrieage ? or are are all gays supposed to be Christian ? Try telling a Muslim that religion is irelevent in the 21st century and see where you get.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 12 2012, 09:43 AM

Can someone tell me what the difference is in law between a marriage and a civil partnership? When my wife and I came out of the register office had we married or entered a civil partnership?

Posted by: x2lls Mar 12 2012, 09:45 AM

What did it say on the bit of paper you had in your pocket?

Posted by: massifheed Mar 12 2012, 09:45 AM

I'll admit to being largely ignorant of the origins of marriage as we have it in this country. If it is indeed solely a Christian/Church-based ritual then my views would be broadly in line with Strafin's. In the same way that I can't understand why people who are not religious want to get married in a church, or have their kids christened.

If a civil partnership gives all the same rights under law that a marriage does, then surely the only difference is the descriptive term for the partnership - simply the word 'marriage'? It seems to me (and I may just be cynical here) that the descriptive term is important to many, but not the institution itself, given the rate of divorce in this country.

A bit of a huge generalisation there, don't you think?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 09:52 AM

Hey, I didn't start this fatwah.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 10:04 AM

I believe that marriage and civil partnership create equivelent rights in law. Both marriages and civil partnerships can be solemnized in a variety of sanctioned locations. I don't think there's any legal reason why a civil partnership can't be solemnized in a church, though I have a feeling it's only the Quakers that will currently allow it in their churches. I don't believe there will be any obligation on churches solemnizing wedding for same-sex couples in the same way as churches already have the discretion whether or not to allow a particular opposite-sex couple to marry in their building, though it does create the anomolous situation of allowing the church to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the supply of goods and services in a way that would be illegal for any other service provider.

A marriage in a register office is still a marriage, though if you feel the need to differentiate where the ceromony took place it's called a civil marriage rather than a religious marriage.

The crucial difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is that only opposite-sex partners can be married, and only same-sex partners can become civil partners - it simply discriminates against same-sex partners calling themselves "married" and enjoying the social and cultural significance of the word in order to placate the gender-intolerance of religious bigots.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 10:12 AM

Hmm, so people who are religious are automatically Bigots are they. Thats interesting, didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 12 2012, 10:12 AM

That's your answer?



I thought anyone could have a civil partnership?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 10:15 AM

Why would you think that? The manifest historical contribution by the Quakers to peace and toleration disproves the proposition.

No, it's religious bigotry that makes religious bigots.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 10:15 AM

Then you were wrong.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 12 2012, 11:12 AM

Fair enough, I said I thought. I don't see any reason to get snotty about it.


What options are there then, for oppsite-sex couples who don't want to get "married", but do want a partnership recognised in law?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 11:42 AM

You're right, I'm sorry about that.


Simple answer is that other than marriage there's only "living together" which essentially has zero common law recognition, but the full answer is more nuanced.

An unmarried partnership has more social and cultural recognition than it had previously in that many couples live together without marrying so you don't tend to hear about people "living in sin" as was once the case and you don't tend to get turned away from hotels for the lack of a wedding ring.

It is possible for unmarried partners to adopt children jointly which gets around some of the practical difficulties of being unmarried because both partners are then legally the child's parent.

Rules of intestacy don't recognise unmarried partnerships. That's not a problem if you make a will, but not all of us do that until it's too late.

Tax law doesn't recognise unmarried partnerships, though even that's a little less significant than it once was.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 11:54 AM

So, if you are a Christian and hold firm beliefs is that when you become a bigot ?

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 12 2012, 12:03 PM

It would appear that you can be accused of being a bigot for having any opinion of you own that does not comply with the law or is a minority view.
Your freedom to have an opinion that is not that of the majority or presumed majority has been seriously undermined by this and previous governments and of course Brussels and the court of human rights.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 12 2012, 12:05 PM

In my opinion, that is a more concerning issue than whether or not a civil partnership can be called "marriage".

I would have thought - again, just my opinion - that it would make sense to give people who don't wish to have a "traditional" marriage the option to have a civil partnership in the same way that same-sex couples can. That way everyone has the option to have a legally recognised partnership. The naming of such a partnership I find largely irrelevent. Can they not both be called "marriage", but have some means of differentiating between the traditional religious union, and secular version? That way, the church should be happy, and those who want nothing to do with the church should also be happy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 12:07 PM

It would depend on whether those beliefs were bigoted or not. For example, a belief that the world will end in the consumption of the earth by a mutant star goat would not be a bigoted belief, whereas a belief that you should be stoned to death for practising anal sex would. D'you see?

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 12:14 PM

A mutant Star Goat seems like a pretty good option right about now, considering the whole place has gone to **** in a handcart that is.

Posted by: urZah Mar 12 2012, 03:51 PM

Why is that you think the whole 'place' has gone to ****?

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 05:17 PM

O M G. So many reasons too many to list here. Basically society is breaking down. It's so sad.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 12 2012, 05:35 PM

Surely the debate is if same sex marriage should be allowed in church (a civil marriage ceronomy is legal for gays or straights) so how do you keep the bible out of it?

Would a change in the law compelling the church to marry same sex, also allow divorced catholics to marry in church?

Should the church only allow church goers, of whichever sexual persuasion, to marry in a church?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 12 2012, 05:35 PM

No, but it often seems to help.

However there are plenty of bigots of other faiths and of no faith. Bigotry is usually defined as relating to firmly held views - and an intolerance of alternative views.

Everyone is bigoted in some way - it's just some forms of bigotry are generally acceptable and some aren't - I guess it comes down to whether the majority share a particular bigoted view. Personally I am a bigot when it comes to murder - I don't like it and I would not be very tolerant if someone was telling me that it was fine to murder people.

To many marriage is just a word to describe a partnership between a couple - the legal niceties being irrelevant. To Christians marriage is a sacrament - something holy, blessed by God. However, my 'marriage' was only blessed by a local registrar and would, I should have thought, be no more than a civil partnership in the eyes of the church. But the church has come to terms with heterosexual civil weddings, in time I suspect it will come to terms with homosexual ones as well.

To me the important things about marriage are all enshrined in the civil partnership and the personal commitment between the couple - religion and God has nothing to do with it. Perhaps an alternative solution to the current fuss is to follow the French model and stop allowing churches to conduct the civil side of marriage. To get the legal partnership issues sorted you would have to go to the local register office, so every couple has a civil partnership and those that want to can go through a religious ceremony to bless their union (and get the nice photos outside the church).

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 05:40 PM

Thank you, succint , sensible post.

Posted by: spartacus Mar 12 2012, 05:47 PM

Gay people should allowed to marry..... so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.

Posted by: urZah Mar 12 2012, 06:44 PM

How terrifying these times must appear to you.

With the introduction of same-sex marriage and the gradual decline of the influence of 'the Church', I believe society will become a more tolerant, equal and just place to live for everyone, so there is hope Penelope.

As for people wondering if Church's will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages - they won't, similar to how no-one is forced to conduct civil partnerships. The Equal Love campaign that is getting discussed in parliament soon (and that has the backing of every major political party) is calling for civil marriages to become available to all couples, and for civil partnerships to become available to all couples. Fab, everyone's happy.

Same-sex marriage is already present in around a dozen countries, including several states of America(!), so there is really nothing to be afraid of.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 12 2012, 07:31 PM

No, gays cannot legally be married in a civil marriage ceromony, but that is what the government proposes. There is no plan to oblige churches to marry same-sex couples. The Catholic protest is against same-sex marriage in register offices.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 07:49 PM

I have no problem with civil same sex marriages, what I object to is the pandering to same sex couples as we had not too long ago when a registry office was required to remove all pictures of heterosexual couples from the premises in case they caused offense.
If anyone wants to get married that's fine, obviously. Just don't ask for special treatment.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 12 2012, 08:00 PM

Isn't special treatment what a wedding is all about?

Posted by: urZah Mar 12 2012, 08:02 PM

That's not true though is it? By who? When? Where? If there is any truth in that, the staff probably did it out of a worry or courtesy that offence might be caused, they just forgot to apply logic and realise that no-one would be offended by that.

And as far as Wedding day requests go, I'm sure registry offices have a lot worse stories to tell than that...

Posted by: GMR Mar 12 2012, 08:08 PM

Homosexuals don't want special treatment, just to be treated as equals.

As for removing pictures of "heterosexual couples"; that was because two heterosexual people complained that as it didn't show "homosexual couples" as well it was discrimination.

Posted by: user23 Mar 12 2012, 08:12 PM

Is it not just evolving as it always has done?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 12 2012, 08:13 PM

Not necessarily true; some push so much it ends up being positive discrimination, just like feminists.
There, I said it.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Mar 12 2012, 09:10 PM

Your objection is groundless then. They were never required to remove any pictures at all. Their own marketing department (Liverpool Registry Office) thought that back in 2005 it would get more people to use the place (and generate more income) if it was more 'neutral' to everyone. They may have made a mistake. They may, in fact, have not taken any pictures down at all, or only one, who knows? But the truth often struggles to keep up with the lie.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 12 2012, 09:15 PM

That's because a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.

Posted by: GMR Mar 12 2012, 09:21 PM

That depends how you look at it.

Posted by: GMR Mar 12 2012, 09:24 PM

I wish you use quotes so we know who you are talking to. It isn't that difficult; below in the right hand corner press reply.... it will quote it for you. I've seen your messages before but I presume you are replying to the previous poster.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 12 2012, 09:50 PM

I would have said that was obvious.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 12 2012, 09:53 PM

Also if you highlight all the post quote buttons you want to reply to you will get them all in one reply. That way you won't have to post three or four different times.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 12 2012, 10:03 PM

Should not all the restrictions be lifted? What's wrong with polygamy if all the participants agree - a 'marriage certificate' would at least formalise the situation? Equally, advances in contraception can significantly reduce the genetic problems associated with loving relationships between siblings. There have been several reported cases lately where the partners didn't even know when they met. So perhaps a much wider review is called for; which would then mean the spotlight wasn't just shining on one segment of the community.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 12 2012, 10:15 PM

I think this may be the story mentioned


STRAIGHT ART COULD OFFEND GAY NEWLY WEDS

Two paintings depicting heterosexual couples are removed from a British registry office to avoid offending gay couples who will use the facility later this month in some of the countries first Civil Partnership ceremonies.

In an effort to promote a ‘gay friendly’ image, Liverpool registry office is removing two paintings that depict heterosexual relationships, and replacing them with landscapes which the registration office feel will not be offensive to gay and lesbian couples


That was published in Dec 2005 so now doubt things have moved on a piece but I can see that feathers may have been ruffled. I think the key phrase may be "offensive to gay and lesbian couples"

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2012, 10:20 PM

Was that the reason, or the journalist's opinion?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 12 2012, 10:28 PM

Quote fron the Registrar

"Register officer Janet Taubman told the Liverpool Daily Post: “We had two pictures up before. In one room there is a picture of a signing of the register with a young bride. The other was of a Romeo and Juliet on a swing. They were innocent pictures but the new paintings are less likely to offend.”

Bizarre, who would they offend ? and why ?

Anyway, just thought I would chip in with my twopennorth.

Posted by: x2lls Mar 12 2012, 10:41 PM

For crying out loud.... Get agrip on reality. There are many of us on this planet who just couldn't give a plop.

We all want a life whereby others don't meddle, but here we are discussing other peoples lives like it mattered!!!!

Posted by: GMR Mar 12 2012, 10:56 PM

I prefer doing them individually.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 13 2012, 12:37 AM

Shows you take a personal approach to each reply

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 13 2012, 01:07 AM

Especially if it's still being perpetuated 7 years later.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 13 2012, 01:15 AM

I think the whole planet is in a mess, I just hope that once the humans have died out whatever comes after us does a better job of it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 13 2012, 01:16 AM

Except in this case, it might not be entirely a lie.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1502646/Register-office-avoids-offending-gay-couples.html

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 13 2012, 01:26 AM

I voted No to gay marriage out of spite. I'm fed-up with gays vandalising public conveniences, and with their importuning, often forcing closure out of office hours!

Posted by: Strafin Mar 13 2012, 07:59 AM

Fine, but don't tell other people how to post!

Posted by: GMR Mar 13 2012, 05:01 PM

Posted by: GMR Mar 13 2012, 05:03 PM

You could argue that we are in a learning process; the out come should be a better society. We all need to make mistakes and learn from it. I am not as cynical as you. I see it all part as a process.

Posted by: GMR Mar 13 2012, 05:08 PM

I said it because when somebody replies you don't know who they are talking to. And what is wrong with giving a bit of advice? You have given me some advice and I am not chastising you for it. In fact I appreciate that you care enough to want to tell me; and I am touched! As i am sure Penelope is touched by my comments

Posted by: GMR Mar 13 2012, 05:10 PM

I thought you would

Posted by: Darren Mar 15 2012, 01:31 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/several-west-berkshire-churches-urge-parishioners-to-sign-anti-same-sex-marriage-petition

Again, the catholic church being very vocal about gay marriage, but their silence over child abuse is deafening.

Wow, That's some leap Mrs Crowther. So the riots were caused by the possibility of gay marriage and allowed to continue by their all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful invisible sky fairy who also allowed Richard Mannington Bowes to be killed. Talk about you wrathful gods...



Oh won't someone please think of the children!!!

Along with a lot of other thing too.

For the record, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden have all allowed gay marriage and I don't see them being engulfed in riots, plagues of frogs or fire and brimstone.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Mar 15 2012, 11:02 AM

Sadly the objections to same sex marriage are not only restricted to the Catholic Church or even Christianity alone, as proponents of other Faiths seem at times to interprete their particular scriptures in equally, and at times even in harsher intolerant ways.

I really cannot see what problems can be caused by gay people marrying, as I am not a member of, and do not follow a faith that sees marriage in the same way as others do.

It does concern me that some of the critics of gay marriage, such as some Church of England Bishops, claim to be champions of equality, and sit as legislators in the House of Lords. Their less than tolerant arguements, is further evidence to me that the time has come for the total separation of 'The Church' and the State.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 11:12 AM

Only when it's of benefit to them and their faith and the children then undoubtedly fondle.
Because after all the sky fairy they call "Oh Jesus lord all mighty" will smite them with an almighty smite if they do not....

I hate religion. Simply because of half of the crap they come up with. They are the Klu Klux Klan of the 21st century (even though they formed at 0 BC clearly.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 15 2012, 11:17 AM

Apparently, although it defies all mathematical logic, we went from 1BC straight to 1AD with no zero in between. But who's counting? (old joke.)

Posted by: blackdog Mar 15 2012, 11:29 AM

I'm afraid I still can't see what the fuss is about - what is actually being proposed? What is the difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage? I saw on TV that the two are the same in terms of legal rights and commitments.

Is it really just about the use of the word?

If it is I would like to protest about the misuse of the word gay - as far as I can see homosexuals are no more cheerful than heterosexuals.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 11:47 AM

Because they are married.

Posted by: Jonno Mar 15 2012, 01:12 PM

I think I can resolve this issue quite easily. My Invisible Friend (the only true Invisible Friend) has just told me that gay marriage is acceptable. So that's that then. :-)

Posted by: urZah Mar 15 2012, 01:28 PM

The Church is so self-destructive it's laughable.

It's the 21st Century and they still see homosexuality as a choice - how anyone wants to even be in the presence of, let alone be in any way associated with bigots such as Sally Crowther is beyond me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 15 2012, 01:34 PM

Church should be leading the way for it, not against it; they could do with the membership!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 01:49 PM

Shall we all draw up signs and protest outside the church on Sunday morning?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 02:21 PM

I don't think you will make that sign. xjay
Reading previous posts from others your colouring kit might have been confiscated.

This is hopeless. The idea of choice is daft. I didn't choose to have a pleasantly toned voice.
Same as Vince,Ken,Ed didn't either,(to sound like frogs).

I don't think there is anything heretical in gay marriages. After all I spent a week sharing a room with
a current couch celeb,who managed to make a dancing show come to life. Nicest bloke ever,and clever.

Maybe it is an old tradition, was it right in the first place? And who translated the Bible?
Was it used to create power. Greek spin doctors? Ask the snake. it knew everything.
ce. Apples anyone?

And No I am not religious at all. But I was married in a Town Hall, with a pint after. Phew....

Posted by: Darren Mar 15 2012, 02:36 PM

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 15 2012, 03:01 PM

"Steady Now"

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 03:04 PM

LOL.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 15 2012, 03:12 PM

Careful now.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 15 2012, 03:37 PM

There are numerous translations - the more interesting question is who wrote the bible? - and for what purpose?

Then there was the time when a group decided what would be in the bible - and what would be left out.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 03:52 PM

Quite right. I am thinking of a reply.
But in the meantime I am off for a beer, I may be gone some time!
ce.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 04:22 PM

At 4pm?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 04:27 PM

I fear I have no answer. Despite the refreshment.
The New Testament is fairly recent so that may have been 'of the time'.
Scrolls are still being pieced together,and using computers a few words are appearing.

Scribes and Pharisees seems the answer. Still the ancient sites do exist so some history was there.
I have not looked at a bible for most of my adult life. It was a big book with all sorts of stuff.

The Rosetta stone., Linea B,all prove that "Life and the garden of Eden" all probably existed.
I still go for a bit of Spin by someone.
ce

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 15 2012, 04:29 PM

Depends if it is new or old testament - Old was principally Moses (Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy). New testament principally Mathew Mark Luke John Paul and Peter.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 04:31 PM

At 4.PM? xjay.
One of the joys of being old and having a good pub 100 yds away.
And I thought about the reply the whole time.
ce

Posted by: NORTHENDER Mar 15 2012, 04:35 PM

In my daily dose of one S.Pepys he talks of such things today ce.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 04:37 PM

I guess "Joshua did fit the battle of Jericho",but with added spin.
Any sign of the Tower of Babel yet? Apart from TV.
Of course this is all nonsense and I don't really know what I am talking about.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 04:44 PM

I seem to be using a word invented in recent times, NORTHENDER.
Spinning and Pepys, I will have to look that up.
As I will have to dust off an old Bible.
It was ever thus. The victor tells the story.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 05:01 PM

I know we have slightly diverted the subject. It naturally tends to return.

Just looked up Pepys and Scribes.... There are pages ...I'll be here all night.
perhaps not Northender.
ce

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 05:08 PM

Please do carry on off topic...it's most entertaining on a crappy day.

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 05:26 PM

There are a lot of speculations, but nothing factual, on ho wrote the Bible. Probably written by people who had creative imaginations and loved telling stories; what grew out of those stories was gullibility/ naivety and subservience.


As for "what purpose; control!

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 05:28 PM

What it is all about is being treated equal.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 05:58 PM

OK GMR.
Control is power. Much the same as today and through the Norman period in the UK.
The same in the rule of the Holy Roman Empire in the Low Countries. Fire and torture.

I have looked up (very briefly) Bible translations ,the results from the ancient days are staggering.
I like conspiracies and devour pulp fiction discoveries of ancient times.
I have bookmarked the page for a return.
Thanks for your concern yjax.... I returned home safely, hic.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 06:14 PM

OK . I am off on a tangent. Apologies to the OP.
Where was the 'word' kept to survive. Was it stolen from Jerusalem by the Romans?
I know Cicero and Plutarch have websites but the Old Testament is a lot of scrolls.
How did it survive? Something I have never bothered to think about.
ce

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 15 2012, 06:20 PM

I agree with this, as it is my understanding that there is no proposal from the government to try and force churches into holding gay weddings - they will remain a civil ceremony only; so I do not hold a particularly strong view.

However, tolerance and allegations of bigotry go both ways, and I would hope that the gay activist lobby can accept what they demand of others. I also have sympathy with the view that sometimes minority issues are too far up the agenda, but that's a democratic society for you!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2012, 06:28 PM

Should we not all carry a gourd?

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 07:13 PM

The point is should a religious organisation control and manipulate the mind or is that part of its remit? Should religion be there to show us the good, spread equality, heal wounds or divide nations, peoples, sexualities, cultural positions, thus cause unrest?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2012, 07:39 PM

I understand your point but I think you're asking too much. I'm all for toleration, and that very much includes toleration for people's spiritual views which not unreasonably they'll want to talk about and practice, and in general it would be borish to ridicule those views. But when people start using their religion as a platform for hatred and bigoty it invites the inevitable back-lash against the absurdity of that religion.

Posted by: Ron Mar 15 2012, 08:01 PM

How many did you have at 4 o'clock?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 08:13 PM

Hard to tell GMR.
The Cathars and Templars fared badly.So there was secular intervention.
A bit of thievery by the various monarchs.
The Popes at the time called them heretics.
This is wildly off topic.
England has some amazing ruins which are thanks to good thinking by a Tudor king.

ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 08:16 PM

Just the one .Ron..a small sherry.
I won't do the song bits.
ce

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 15 2012, 08:20 PM

When I was in the U.S. military, the only way you could receive quarters allowance is if you were married. You could not receive it if you were living with a partner, male or female.

As for religion, if you join a club, you abide by the rules of the club. If you don't like it, you leave and find a club to suit your needs.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2012, 08:31 PM

I couldn't agree more. But these bible-bashers want to stop same-sex couples marrying in a register office. There is no proposal to oblige churches to marry same-sex couples, this is strictly about whether same-sex couples can marry in a register office. How is that any legitimate concern of the church?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 15 2012, 08:32 PM

Today, registry offices; tomorrow...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2012, 08:36 PM

tomorrow disestablishmentarianism...

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 08:42 PM

But ruins nevertheless.

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 08:45 PM

True; but good clubs change with the times. Those that stay still eventually die. Evolution means making things better; those that don't improve have to die.

Going back to those rules and women were regarded as subservient and flogging and stoning was a Christian conception.

Only a fool stays still.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 08:52 PM

Well they do look good. But in the recent strange weather flint walls have fallen.
They must have been magnificent once.
Still Ruins.
ce

Posted by: Darren Mar 15 2012, 09:15 PM

Or a sandal.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2012, 09:19 PM

Splitter!

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 15 2012, 09:48 PM

You should see some of the gourds for gents bits.
Papua New Guinea.
ce

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 15 2012, 10:26 PM

My religion (Catholic) has progressed to the point when the masses are no longer in latin, amongst other things. However, God Parents have to be Catholic and my children were baptized C of E (my wife's religion). I though I was bringing the children in to the religion, not the God Parents. I found the American Catholic Church to be more understanding than in Europe.

Also, I got so angry with the previous Pope with the Church's comments on the child molesting B**TARDS that I could not bring myself into a Catholic church for about 5 years. Sad thing is it has happened in all religions.

At the end of the day I have the option to go, stay, or pick out what I feel is most important to me in my view of the church.

Posted by: GMR Mar 15 2012, 10:49 PM

When man finally learns to grow up then he can shake all this superstitious mumbo jumbo out of his system.


In this weeks New Scientist there are an article called "The God Issue" and it is about "why our minds have a god-shaped space." You say that you baptized your kids C of E. The best thing you could have done for your children was to wean them of this bullsh*t. All you are doing is continuing them on the path of mythology and ignorance; ignorance that allows the Church to preach bigotry and turn a blind eye to their own buggering children. Your mind set is still medieval. It doesn't matter what church you belong to they all preach the same crap.

Religion/ God is a psychological problem. Years of conditioning and hard wiring.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 15 2012, 11:05 PM

Yeah, that's tolerant!

Posted by: Ron Mar 15 2012, 11:12 PM

You are a tollerant little man arnt you!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 15 2012, 11:35 PM

As far as I am aware that is a sort of vegetable-***-fruit. Sort of like a pear just not as attractive.

I think religion should be abolished personally. I am not really religious...if I were to become religious I would choose Buddhism because that is what is the closest match to my personal believes...I don't meditate as such but find myself in a sort of trace throughout the day where I just clear my mind...so I can fill it with pictures of Rihanna or similar smeared in baby oil.

I think the Church is pathetic, for slating marriage of some people who like the bum (either the front bum or the rear bum) and they force children to like the bum as well.

Now surely when a Catholic Male priest fondles a male child that shall be classed a homosexual act yet it's not... ? I'm confused where they draw the line in the sand. Obviously closest to the children with the largest sand castle.

What makes me laugh, I read somewhere on my Blog...someone posted up something along the lines of:
"If all the knowledge and folklore in the world were erased, new religions will be formed; some may me similar to existing religions but none will be the same - Yet eventually, we will come to learn everything we currently do about the way the world truly works."

Obviously not as eloquent as the original article but basically...truth will out...we would rediscover science and the exact same facts would come to light.

I'm sorry but (generally Christians) most religious people I meet try to just brainwash you into their religion.. everything that happens to you is because of God and at every opportunity they suggest turning to God as if he is some sort of one stop life solution guy......"help me, my girlfriend left me, I'm a drug user and I have no job and I'm going to lose my house" - Have you tried Jesus? (say that in an Irish accent it sounds much funnier...because then it sounds like "Cheeses". )

Rather than let your Children find out their own believes they are brought up religiously... you know what else as well, at Primary School you were FORCED (I went to Spurcroft from 199..6? To 2001 I think and then Kennet from 01-06/07) and in all of my lessons at Spurcroft, I was forced to behave, think and write as if I were a Christian. We were forced to pray, and join in singing with religious songs. If you didn't sing you were taken out of assemble and told off.
At Kennet we briefly touched on other religions bud most of it was Christianity. To be honest they spent more time with a condom and a banana than they did on other religions which weren't Christianity. It's all a big lie. And a vicious circle ensues where those kids are brainwashed and as Adults they brainwash their children (of course they only concieve after marriage and abstain from all sexual acts with a parter until marriage...yeah right try going a week.........I can't. ....then again I don't have a partner or in fact any friends or family so even if I was from Norwich I'm still stuck at home with my gentlemans magazine...Private Eye...)

Perhaps that explains my problem with authority, having my own beliefs (I do not believe in any sort of higher power, I believe in fate but seriously life is what you make it, you are not pre-configured to have <this> happen at <this> time in your life) from a young age and constantly having to fight against rules forced upon me..I am quite messed up I agree with my friend on that one. The one in my head I call him Bob.

I was about 13 and I used to go to the Youth Club at Thatcham Baptist Church (I think, the one near the Burdwood Centre) it was called Crusaders.. - I went there on and off for a couple of years.. the people were nice don't get me wrong but they forced you to listen to small preaches and chapters of the bible...if you didn't listen you weren't allowed to BUY sweeties... Now I mean come on....
"Jesus will always be with you"... no he f***ing won't. The only person that's always with me is me and those people which I create in my head.

One thing I will remember about Crusaders, one of my friends as you do was sat in the back on a short journey to the Bowling alley down lower way. As a kid he would reach through and play with the electric window switches, the guy driving (forgot his name but he was Scottish) had locked them so you couldn't use them... And anyway he got annoyed by this and stopped at the roadside and kicked my friend out of the car....no mobile phone, no informing of parents, just left him there.. I tried to reach through my window to give him my mobile phone but the guy driving PULLED AWAY before I had the chance. I had to phone his mum to let him know.
Now is that very Christian and forgiving? No it makes you a pillock.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is that religion is damaging, it's used as excuses for murder, war, women who choose to have abortions for personal or health reasons (and yes it's not Murder is it, "oh a life you have killed" IT WAS NEVER LIVING WAS IT YOU DUFUS IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS OR A NAME OR EVEN A FUNCTIONING BRAIN") aren't allowed because Father Abbot/Ted/Christmas will kill you and send you to ****...I reckon if you actually counted up the amount of deaths directly attributable to wars over religion, deaths caused by religion getting in the way of medical attention, or those stupid shakey-bakey sermons where some idiot taps your forehead and you spaz out...that's all fake too..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3q-Pkh2CUs
like at 0;55 LOL.

Sorry shoot these people in the face and then let them find out that there is actually no God and stop ruining everyone elses lives.

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 12:17 AM

I wouldn't say little. Besides; the truth is the truth..... unless you can prove differently?

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 12:18 AM

I am glad you think so

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 16 2012, 06:01 AM

I posted the above because the church I believe in is all about tolerance, peace and love. The reason behind the decision to baptize the children in the C of E is because one of my children's God Parents is a Hindu. We have every faith in this person that they will insure our moral and religious belief's will be taught if anything happens to us. While the C of E didn't meet our exact needs, it still was close to what we wanted.

As I said, I pick and choose what I like about the church, as we are Christians, and it's our belief's not the wrapper that is important. Religion, like politics sometimes corrupts those who fail to see the true message.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 16 2012, 10:15 AM

I think this sums it up nicely, pick the bits out of the plum pudding that fits you personally, for me it's the architecture and the comfort that religion gives to some people in times of need, sure, some of it's bad but to demonize all religion just 'cos it's trendy is entirley the wrong tack to be on.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 16 2012, 10:51 AM

I assume then, that you can prove your take on things beyond any doubt at all?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 16 2012, 11:37 AM

When I am in times of need I turn to Profiteroles and Ice Cream.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 16 2012, 11:47 AM

Sorry this really doesn't compute! Strongly suggest you look at exactly what baptisim means and what the Church of England is actually about. You'll then see why having a Hindu as a godparent is wholly inappropriate! Think you'll find the church the Christians in the CofE believe in isn't about tolerance, peace and love. Check it out - might make a difference.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 16 2012, 12:15 PM

This is where I found the C of E our fit.

As for the baptism:

As for the God Parent:

Yes, it does say that In the C of E, the God Parent took part in the service, but did not sign the baptismal certificate. Guess what, we didn't care because he was there partcipating and witnessing the ceremony. The certificate to us is just a piece of paper. Again, we have every faith that he will bring them up in the Christian faith, and in time they (our child) will develop their own faith.

We are very happy that our son attends classes in school that describes the different religions. In time, he will make his own choice if he wishes, or doesn't want to follow a faith. As long as he grows up tolerant, understanding and accepting of others, to me that is the divine spark in everyone...

Posted by: massifheed Mar 16 2012, 12:38 PM

Huh?!?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 16 2012, 01:15 PM

Looks like Rowan has had enough and has announced he is stepping down.

I wonder what percentage of gays actually want to be able to get married? - previous research in the US and Oz appears to suggest they are not actually that bothered..

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 16 2012, 01:37 PM

I read obituaries in the Telegraph. Mostly to check I am not there yet.
Often I am surprised to see phrases such as He/She is survived by a lifelong partner.
Male or female , it really doesn't matter.

Chris Huhne seems to want a threesome ,he now has a Black Widow on his back.
Well that's politics over for the day.
ce

Posted by: Strafin Mar 16 2012, 03:29 PM

I wondered that, is this a campaign by the gay community, or a bit of liberal stirring?

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 04:55 PM

my point was that all religion is based on is faith and what is faith? If I can quote from the latest article in New Science about God/ religion. "Finally, I would like to comment on the folly of faith. When faith rules over facts, magical thinking becomes deeply ingrained and wraps all areas of life. It produces a frame of mind in which concepts are formulated with deep passion but without the slightest attention paid to the evidence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US today, where Christians who seek to convert the nation into a theocracy dominate the Republican party. Faith is no way to fun a world". This was written by Victor J. Stenger.


As for proving; you can't prove a negative.

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 04:57 PM

Are you suggesting that they might be no different to heterosexuals?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 16 2012, 06:45 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/blackberry/p.html?id=1352751

Talk amongst yourselves.
As for my actual view on homos, well I have nothing against them. I can't understand why a bloke finds another bloke attractive, but that's just me - I don't mind at all and have been friends with homosexual males without any sort of issues..as long as they don't try to get on me (because let's face it I am at the peak of the male gender tree) ... whatever makes them happy.
Where as women are so much softer and gentler and cuddlier and if I was a woman (which I may or may not possibly be) I would probably be a lesbian too.

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 07:17 PM

That is neither here nor there. It is about choice/ equality. A lot of heterosexual couples don't want to get married; so? Let us treat everybody as equals. The only people who object are the bigots.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 16 2012, 07:45 PM

In a surprise turnaround http://www.theonion.com/articles/vatican-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-after-meet,20912/.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 16 2012, 07:48 PM

Does it encourage debate to brand detractors as bigots? Does not intolerance of another perspective itself become http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 16 2012, 09:03 PM

Yes, its all rather sad - the poor old CofE - all things to all men. The best place for the real meaning of baptism is the Bible - horses mouth so to speak. There is a famous painting in the crypt at St.Paul's cathedral in London - Holman Hunt, called 'Behold I stand at the door and knock. Many revivalist preachers use this to illustrate Christ trying to enter our lives. However, the quote comes from the book of Revelation and actually depicts Christ standing at a church door trying to get in. Looks as if its just as appropriate today.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 16 2012, 09:06 PM

Worshipping God is the core reason is it not?

Posted by: GMR Mar 16 2012, 09:15 PM

The trouble is somewhere you have to draw the line. There is no problem with another person's perspective; like Hitler's on the Jews. But that doesn't change the fact that he is a bigot and intolerant to differences; differences from himself.



Society is changing/ evolving. In a more backward medieval times maybe certain practices and ways were tolerable. This was because of that generations limits. But if we are going to go forward and in the process try to create a better society. If we want to do that then those that cannot accept equality for all must be marginalised. Look around you; we are not going backwards.



I have no problem with other people's views; we are all entitled to them, no matter how extreme. But the problem comes when people try to enact those views; enact them in a changing society.



The other question we need to ask; are we going forward or backwards? Societies choice. Which way do you want to go?

If two people (of the same sex) want to get married and be treated as equals what is wrong with that?

Posted by: Strafin Mar 16 2012, 10:39 PM

No, and yes!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 16 2012, 11:06 PM

I'd say to recognise a bigot, isn't being bigoted, but hating bigots is bigoted.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 17 2012, 08:37 AM

There is no 'proof' in religious belief, that is why we call it faith - faith that God exists.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 17 2012, 10:18 AM

To us we used it as we see fit. We rejoiced publically by introducing our son into Christianity, and we also found someone, the Hindu Godfather as someone we know and love who will carry on our wishes. Again, the wrapper doesn't matter, it's the message we got.

"Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter...

Posted by: On the edge Mar 17 2012, 11:50 AM

Can quite see where you are coming from. Trouble is the CofE is supposed to be a Christian Church - which should be following biblical truths. This isn't probably the right place to expand that here; but its only Bible that would give you the answers you seek.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 17 2012, 05:09 PM

All of you out there deriding religion are going to feel pretty silly if you're wrong.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 17 2012, 05:28 PM

I guess so Penelope.
The Mayan Calender is closing faster as I get older.
I expect I will be in Dantes worst region because of posting rubbish.
I will be the postman endlessly trying to deliver Papa Johns leaflets
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 17 2012, 05:51 PM

As a side topic Penelope, how do the followers of long ago religions cope with their future?
Dead ones that is. For me it is a white board with the name rubbed out. That is it.
If you are lucky someone will choose "Me and Bobby McGee" ,Janis wailing, as you are edged off.
ce

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 17 2012, 07:35 PM

I think it is wrong to label anyone who has a contrary view, a bigot, unless you fully understand their reasons.

People who try and force views based on their religion are just as bad as the militant secularists. Bigotry and narrow thinking goes both ways.

Once the law is changed, it will be interesting to see after 12 months how many gay marriages there have actually been, as this will show whether what is proposed is as a result of the desire of many or just the angry few.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 17 2012, 08:25 PM

Phil 1111112 ,sorry about that..... 'jittery finger syndrome'.

I am glad you have made your views known and that your child has GodParents that you like.
Read "Bleak House".
ce.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 17 2012, 09:03 PM

Nothing is perfect in this world, especially when it's been exploited by mankind over the years.

I don't knock anyone's beliefs, unless they either try to push it on me, or use it in a way that harms others.

We find if we tailor our beliefs to today's problems, alot of them could be resolved by some kindness, goodwill, charity land understanding. In the end, that's what I believe the message that JC was trying to get across.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 18 2012, 12:48 AM

Yeah.. you're right there actually.
Although I was open at first to the possibility (anything is possible you know...I may one day end up picking up one of the Sugarbabes) but I think it's a far safer bet (in my opinion anyway) to assume from experience that there is not a God.

In the bible they state god is Malevolent, Incontinant and Omipitant, or something like that...
So that means he is all knowing, all powerful, and all something else.
Yet people still die, young people die, just recently someone I know got hit by a train, a good guy he was, only 19. Never met the chap but spent a bit of time playing online games with him. Where's the justice in that? Would an incontinent God smite such an innocent child? Or more than that, provide disease and famine to many poor Africans and people from those sort of areas?
Some blame "gods will"...well by that he's not all caring because he is favouring others by not smiting them as well..thus you break down the religious jumbo about it.

I mean yes it's weird, I believe in Ghosts and the supernatural but not in God or religion...it's not really a big jump from Casper to a floating dead guy in a dress.

As long as no war, death (eg from prevention of abortions or medical treament etc) is caused I couldn't give a Llama what religion you are. Whatever helps people get through the shootstorm which is the "daily grind"..

Posted by: blackdog Mar 18 2012, 01:53 AM

Interesting - but illogical.

This is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager - bet on God, you can win but you can't lose.

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 18 2012, 09:28 AM

Right, so just to get this clear, you choose the bits of the 'Good Book' that suit you and your lifestye, and ignore the others? And that's because the Word of God 'didn't meet your exact needs'. You therefore set yourself up as someone who knows better than God and you only accept those bits of The Word that fit in with what you want. What an incredible ego.

Best of luck on Judgement Day.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Mar 18 2012, 09:42 AM

Let's just treat everyone the same as an inclusive society - the exclusive society idea breeds intolerance and, as history shows, everything from persecution, hatred and war.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 18 2012, 09:56 AM

He didn't say he only chose the good bits, he only said he liked them. We don't know whether he follows all of the rules or not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 18 2012, 09:59 AM

I don't think we need The Bible to know what is right or wrong. If anything, The Bible can be a hindrance (in this issue anyway).

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 18 2012, 10:43 AM

Really?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 18 2012, 11:34 AM

Nice to see xjay that you lent the crayons to Google for today.
ce

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 04:27 PM

Yes, like some people have faith that fairies exist or that their friends are invisible rabbits.

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 04:31 PM

But I do understand their reasons; so do many others.



I agree. But society is changing and whatever way you look at it not allowing certain groups to be equal as others is outdated, bigoted and wrong.





That has nothing to do with it; it is about choice and equality. It doesn't make any difference if nobody uses the institution of marriage; it should be there for all. We should all be treated equally and fairly.

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 04:34 PM

Agreed. If the bible or Koran as supposed to be good books then why do they do so much harm?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 18 2012, 05:00 PM

People are falliable.

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 05:55 PM

Of course they are; but the Bible or Koran is nothing without those people, that is my point. They are just words in a book. It is people that give them substance.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 18 2012, 06:32 PM

That wasn't an answer to my question.

Assuming that you subscribe to evolutionary theory, are you able to prove - beyond a doubt - that that theory is correct?

Or, perhaps to look at it another way; can you honestly say that you understand fully the scientific arguments for evolution? I can't. I find it pretty mind-blowing, and there is a certain amount that I can follow, but past that I just don't have the brains to understand it.

My point is, unless you fully understand the science, then you are just taking someone's word for it, surely? In much the same way that a Christian would believe in the Bible, a Muslim the Koran etc.

Atheists often will ridicule those who follow a faith as believing in a fairy tale, and imply that they are foolish to believe in something when they are not able to provide evidence on demand. Yet the sum total of many atheist's anti-religion argument is simply that science has proven religion to be wrong, without actually knowing or understanding the science behind what it is they are saying is fact. To me that is a display of faith of the same level as anyone who subscribes to a religion. It's just faith in man, rather than a deity.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 18 2012, 06:37 PM

Yes there is a certain amount of faith, but, people who argue against it with any intellectually superior alternative, are in the distinct minority.

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 07:52 PM

It was my answer.



There is evidence that we have evolved. There is not evidence about God or Jesus.



I understand quite a bit. I've been reading it for years.... as a matter of interest another one of my interests is religion; both Christianity and Islam/ Muslim. I've read both religious books.



I agree to a point. But with science/ evolution there is prove and a body of people who can give you that evidence. You can't say the same about religion/ god.



Atheists work with science and use their evidence. All religion has got to offer is faith, and blind faith at that.


I would like to quote one of my favourite quotes.


Herbert Spencer, Essays scientific, Political and Speculative. 1891 "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."

Posted by: GMR Mar 18 2012, 07:55 PM

But quantity doesn't equal right. I would say about 80 to 90% of people don't dig beneath the surface. The majority of people believe in what they are told and don't bother to check beyond that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 18 2012, 08:33 PM

I'll re phrase it.

Yes there is a certain amount of faith (in evolution), but, people who argue against it with any intellectually superior alternative, are in the distinct minority.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 18 2012, 08:38 PM

I didn't say we didn't follow the Bible, not at any time. It's the rites and ritual's of the church that we don't agree with.

What didn't meet my exact needs was the rules of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wouldn't let our choice of God Parent participate in the service, whereas the C of E would. We felt we were bringing the child into Christianity, not the God Parent. I would like to see where in the Bible it says a Hindu can't be a God Parent in ensuring the wishes of parents.

Again, the wrapping (Catholic, C of E, Baptist, etc) is not important to us, it's the message. The message is peace, love, understanding, compassion, kindness and acceptance.

On Judgement Day, do you think being a particular "wrapping" will be important, or do you think the deeds done during a lifetime will open the pearly gates?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 18 2012, 09:15 PM

This misunderstand the nature of scientific truth. Scientific theories must predict testable hypothesis, and the theory is good until its hypothesis fails a test. Newton's theory of gravity was a good theory because it made specific predictions which could be tested by observing the motion of planets and Newtonian gravity was good enough to put a man on the moon, but a problem with the precession of Mercury broke Newton and it wasn't until Einstein's theory of General Relativity that science could explain it. And even then General Relativity is only a theory, and while it's gone on an predicted stuff like gravitational lensing which has been tested and observed it can't be entirely "true" because although it explains how mass distorts space-time it doesn't predict why mass exists and so you get the Higgs field which predicts the God particle which people are looking for at Cern to test this theory and if they find it the theory will be good, but only until it fails.

Science is built on doubt, not on faith.

And I can't think of an example of someone basing their homophobia on science, though to be honest I'd be surprised if it hadn't happened.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 18 2012, 09:57 PM

Science is built on fact, otherwise without evidence it wouldn't be called "scientific"...
With Science you get an idea (for example "Rihanna is a very attractive young lady whom I would invite into my house for 'coffee'") and then before your idea can be proven, evidence is needed to back it up.
Perhaps in my case a well placed video camera would sufficice.

Brian Cox, that guy who says "millions and billions, and billions, of carbon atoms" - Whatever his beliefs may be, I'm pretty sure there is evidence for the big bang theory and evolution, and a comparable lack of evidence that a woman was able to conceive without welcoming a man into her barn door, get my drift?
And that a man was able to rise from the dead (like Shaun of the Dead I presume) ... sounds more like a game of Resident Evil to me.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 18 2012, 10:11 PM

First of all I will state my position. I believe in God. But the God I believe in is a God who created everybody equally and expects his creations to do the same, that is respect to each other, as he respects us.

One of the reason's I believe that he put us on this Earth is for us to learn, find our own way and respect each other in our journey. He created differences to make the world better, not to be mocked or vilified. To have the same would be bland. I do not believe that a God that created us would expect us to treat our differences differently or subjugate those differences to victimisation or bigotry.

The Bible or other such religious pieces of works (such as the Quran) are open to interpretation. Why do humans then wish to interpret those differences in the worst possible light? If works are open to interpretation then let us take the least corrosive explanation.

No loving God who created us in all our glorious differences (gay, straight, black, white etc) would then want us to find ways to torment one group or another. I find it abhorrent that we interpret things so that we can hound good decent and loving people into the ground. Those that condemn those that wish equality for all should be ashamed.

If we have ancient laws that discriminate against a certain group or another then those laws should be changed. We cannot call ourselves a civilised society until we treat everybody as equals and have laws to reflect our civility.

When we are finally judged the first reference will be how we treated our fellowman and did we shower him or her with the same respect, rights and loves as we expect to be treated ourselves?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 18 2012, 10:21 PM

Heather I respect your beliefs.
However;

So how come there are people in the Africaans, Middle East, Blackburn, etc, who are suffering, without clean water etc.
Is that equal?

I don't understand that bit - we are all equal yet clearly we are not equal, the fact is we do have iPods and free health care and houses, where as those in Africa do not. That is a product of their own making; the way the economies etc have grown, is it not? Rather than to do with being created equal, or Gods will.

Not looking to change your religion. Just understand your position.
If it helps I have 20p for the viewfinder.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 18 2012, 11:03 PM

Heather W. I think you have summed up the whole world's woes
Humanity just does not get on with each other.

I was amazed this week to be doorstepped by a couple of evangelists.
Years ago I did do the usual thing of saying "My wife has just passed",
etc and gently closed the door.

This time they had my name, dates, and wanted to comfort. Quite nice really, Sadly the phone rang. Phew, was I lucky.

And a friend in my Norfolk village has become a sort of starter priest. Not really sure what that means.
Lay (something). I am proud for her making the move to becoming what she wants.
ce

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 19 2012, 09:40 AM

I dont think God is very hung up on ipods or health care. You are speaking of equality from the perspective of what we have, faith teaches that all God's children are born of man and that we all die, so therefore we are all equal.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 09:45 AM

You know what everyone else is thinking?




Hmm

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember the issue of same sex marriage being on the agenda at the General election, or indeed appearing in the manifesto of any of the main political parties. Neither can I remember any campaign or protests on this matter. In fact, some gays have voiced their oppostion, calling the consultation document patronising and uneccessary. Are they bigots too?

It does seem odd that at a time of great worry about the economy, NHS reform, wars and terrorism and an upcoming budget, main stream politicians are suddenly concerned about gay rights.

So why has this idea appeared now, and seemingly so heavily backed by the Government? Could it be a bone thrown to the Lib Dems in return for acquiessence/support over tax/benefit changes? Or is the Cabinet worried about a mischievous gay candidate splitting the vote in the imminent London Mayoral election, thereby handing victory to Red Ken, who himself has been trying very hard to win the gay vote. I suspect both and more.

Most interestingly, the consultation document does not:
1. Make provision for religious same-sex marriages
2. Replace civil partnerships
3. Allow heterosexual couples to have a civil-partnership
4. Apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland

Does not seem very fair or comprehensive to me. So, I do not see what is proposed as a major step forward in human rights. Hence my interest to see how many gay marriages actually take place, I suspect very few.

But if the proposed changes make you happy, then great. The document is obviously having the desired effect.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 09:58 AM

I like that god, she sounds nice, you wouldn't get her saying something hateful like this

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 10:18 AM

I'm with Vodabury here. We pander too much to the sensibilities of the loonie left with their Guardian-reading bleeding hearts, it's political correctness gone mad. It's like the blacks; how many of them really wanted to walk on the same pavements or ride in the front of busses in America, and look at all the fuss the namby-pambys made over that, how has that made America a better place? And then there's votes for women; so one or two dry old dikes tied themselves to racehorses and we go and give them all a vote when women only ever wanted to stay at home and do what their husbands told them. And then there's Jeremy Bentham going to all that bother starting a university just so Jews and other heretics could get an education, and I bet half the graduates from UCL write on the Guardian so how has that helped? And what about the abolition of slavery, it put millions of Africans out of work just because William Wilberforce found God, and not the sensible Gof of the Church of England mind, a Guardian-reading namby-pamby God. It's political correctness gone mad.

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 19 2012, 10:38 AM

You actually DID say that 'if you join a club you abide by the rules". Is not the Bible the rule book? You just changed clubs until you found a club with an interpretation of the rules that suited you. That doesn't mean that their interpretation is right.



So a religion that had something like this as it's mission statement would probably be ok?

"community service, ministry and outreach to those on the edges, and to promoting human rights, respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment. We believe all people have a right to express their unique joy and beauty and to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency and guilt that chain the human spirit."

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 10:39 AM

Thanks.

Yes, once the hysterical ranting, with its comparison of the gay marriage issue to the abolition of slavery and ending of apartheid has died down, it will be interesting to see how many people have been wronged and are now free to....call their relationship a different name.

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 19 2012, 10:45 AM

Simon's taking the mickey, he's not really agreeing with you. He's being a mischievous old Hector.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 19 2012, 10:46 AM

Biblical truth - mmmmmmm.

So you think that homosexuals should be executed because the bible says so?

Or do you believe in the sixth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 10:56 AM

He is like Hector - the teacher in Alan Bennet's The History Boys ? Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Mar 19 2012, 10:57 AM

Sorry, the club is the particular church you attend. The Bible is the guidelines on how the clubs should operate. All the various religions did some terrible things in the past, in total contrast to the teachings of the bible. It was man who ran the churches (clubs), and it was man who did the terrible things.

JC did set down the mission statement with his words. That's what we are following. I don't think you feel that our decision to ask a Hindu to be our son's God Father was a good thing to you. That is something you need to try and understand. It's the child who we brought into Christianity, not the God Father.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 19 2012, 10:58 AM

Many members of society cherry pick those extracts from the bible that suit what whatever they wish to make a statement on and this is helped by the contradictions of the bibles messages.
I don't think the choices in the Koran , which is becoming equally important in our society, are so accomodating.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 11:14 AM

Wasn't Hector the male teacher who was discovered sexually fondling a schoolboy? You're saying I'm a paedophile because I support same-sex marriage? Bit strong isn't it?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 11:20 AM

I say no such thing. And I would not be so hysterical as to suggest the link you propose. Another poster brought up "Hector", not me.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 19 2012, 11:24 AM

No, I think that was a Roman Catholic priest.

Posted by: Penelope Mar 19 2012, 11:26 AM

Quite right, you did miss out giving the vote to 'other classes', shocking ! letting the unwashed and uneducated have an opinion went just a little too far.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 11:29 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Boys: Hector is discovered sexually fondling a boy.

So will you explain what aspect of Alan Bennett's Hector you had in mind when you said: "He is like Hector - the teacher in Alan Bennet's The History Boys ? Thanks for the heads up"?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 19 2012, 11:34 AM

Read and understand whole thing - context is all. Commandment No. 1 might hold some of the answer.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 19 2012, 12:34 PM

So it's because we all share the same life cycle - eg we are born and then die, that is "equal" in Gods eyes?

I don't think that's how life works really. Clearly some are more priveledged than others..quality of life, health, family, etc - there is very little "equality" - you are born and you die which is a fact of science not of God.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 19 2012, 01:44 PM

I still can't cope with how we believe. I have a brownie box camera photograph.
The spot where Alexander the Grape, called it a day, and returned home.

Under a palm tree and probably thinking this is a nice spot,my parents in about 1950.
How long ago was that. Well one was my lifetime. The other was a long time before.
ce

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 19 2012, 01:45 PM

No, I meant the REAL Hector, hence the 'mischievous old Hector' quote.

http://&quot;%5burl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/72078267@N07/6850492496/




Don't be so ruddy silly, I couldn't give a flying f@rt who you got to do the job. I just love the idea of changing your church until you found a set of rules that suited you.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 01:54 PM

Right, with you. A dog. Thanks.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 02:12 PM

I see what you've done here: Commandment #6 is that you must not murder, so that's killing people you hate, killing people that god hates, such as homosexuals, is fine.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 02:14 PM

So are you going to explain your reference to the child-abusing teacher in the Alan Bennett play?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 19 2012, 02:30 PM

Why delve into Alan Bennet's play?
Surely the History Boys was part of Crookham Court.

Sadly the junior matron took to my best chum. Lucky boy.
A different school I have to add
ce

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 03:24 PM

The only person who has mentioned child-abuse is you. In the play I asked another if he was referring to, all the students were sixth formers and had already passed their A Levels - they were 18-19 years old and doing a "third year sixth". The age of consent is 16.

Would you like to explain your post linking my question about gay marriage to racism, sexism and slavery? Or were you only joking? Difficult to know whether you are being serious or not when you post the way you do:

Posted by: Penelope Mar 19 2012, 04:23 PM

I think its what passes for humour out here in the boonies. Sorry if you didn't understand.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 19 2012, 04:29 PM

Boondocks shirley.Penelope.
Fen county in Ingerland.
ce

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 04:59 PM

You compare me to a character in an Alan Bennett play who's defining scene is sexually abusing one of his pupils, but you say that's OK because the child was over the age of consent?

I'm going to put you on ignore now, I'm guessing you won't understand why.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 19 2012, 06:01 PM

WHO IS ALAN BENNETT?
And what is these Boondocks you mention?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2012, 06:04 PM

Shall I Google that for you?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 06:06 PM

Simon

Sexual abuse is not the play's topic, "defining scene", nor the main trait of any character - you are making things up. And I did not compare you to anyone.

The character I refer to was a bombastic, falstaffian, know-all and eccentric teacher whose humour, sometimes, was difficult to understand.

I do not mean to upset you, and if I have touched a nerve, then I apologise; I don't know you or your history. All I would ask is that you explain your posts too, because you confuse me - you agree with me then "take the mickey"!

Anyway, all the best.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 19 2012, 06:24 PM

I'm not all that sure how he came to that conclusion either.



I tend to think that people choose whether to take offence, or not. In this case, it almost seems as if Simon went looking for it. But that's just my opinion. In fact, when he mentioned it the first time, I thought he was joking.



Agreed. If you post to say that you agree with someone, but are really just being sarcastic, then you can't be too surprised if some people dont "get it".

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 19 2012, 06:25 PM

Ah yes... "Google that" - Quite the response.
You go to school and ask a teacher something."go and google that for you". Doesn't solve the problem. I'm sure I can find out that Alan Bennett (born 9 May 1934) is a British playwright, screenwriter, actor and author. but what does that actually tell me about him??

Posted by: massifheed Mar 19 2012, 06:37 PM

He was not an hairy man.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2012, 06:38 PM

You are lucky; when I was a school, we didn't have the Internet, Google search, and Wikipedia to copy and paste our homework.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 06:47 PM

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with the play and I wasn't best pleased to be compared to the character that Wikipedia described. No hard feelings I hope.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 07:01 PM

It was a sarcastic post, I'm sorry that didn't come over well.

The serious point that I was trying unsuccessfully to make was that historically other minority groups have suffered prejudice and the establishment then, and particularly the church, wheeled out the same lame excuses to defend the status quo. There is no need for a vocal demand for same-sex marriage because to require that demand is to accept that homosexuals are different to heterosexuals, and they're not, they're all just people and all people deserve to be treated equally. In time I hope that people will be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, just as I hope that race, religion, and gender will no longer be grounds for discrimination.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 07:03 PM

Sir, no hard feelings here. Take care and best wishes.

Posted by: GMR Mar 19 2012, 07:44 PM

That isn't what I said.






It doesn't have to be in the Manifesto for it to be brought up. Manifesto's are just the main points, not all of them.


Calling for a consultation doesn't make one a bigot; Gays are not saying they don't want it. What makes one a bigot is when you discriminate against somebody because of the colour of their skin, sexuality etc.



The government is not single issue organisations. Yes there are important things like the NHS, Economy etc but that doesn't mean the government has to stop everything because of it. Governments have other issues to deal with; such as discrimination and other matters. And gay marriages isn't a new concern but has been an issue for years.



It hasn't just appeared but has been around for years. The subject needs dealing with and now is a good a time as any. Only the bigots are rattling the cages.



The 4th has their own making powers. As for the others; give it time.



It does seem fair to me and the majority in this country; as Polls have shown.

It doesn't matter how many gay or straight marriages take place; it is not about that but equality and fairness.



If a document makes one person happy then it would have probably been ignored; the point is society as a whole sees the unfairness in the system and wants it changed.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 08:15 PM

What a load of patronising nonsense.

You say:

It does seem fair to me and the majority in this country; as Polls have shown.


About 60 Million people live in this country and a poll has shown 51% or more support gay marriage? What poll do you refer to?

And you say:

It doesn't have to be in the Manifesto for it to be brought up. Manifesto's are just the main points, not all of them.


You sound like a Lib Dem re Uni fees.

Compare Stonewall's website now to a WayBackMachine cache from 2010. You might just get my point.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 19 2012, 08:31 PM

Wow this thread is getting an awful lot of attention....
What an emotive topic for many. I suppose the emotions of whether or not you like men is a good one. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Or both. Like Hovis.

I think when he states "as polls have shown", I have not seen any "poll" but I think that the general majority of England have no problem with homosexuals.
Unless they are from Blackburn. Or Leeds as I went up there and was holding my mates hand (it was his request he wanted to know why his girlfriend held hands in a weird way so he was demonstrating on me) and even though my mate was MASSIVE quite literally he was like one of those big scary bouncer people (but nicest guy in the world) some "lads" were like "AYY A COUPLE OF BENDERS GET OUT OF HERE WE'LL NUT YA UP T'ROAD"... yeahh...run away.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 19 2012, 09:11 PM

The argument has been hijacked and turned into a gay rights crusade, as these conversations always seem to. The OP and question raised is about same sex marriage, not about the rights or wrongs of homosexuality itself.

Posted by: GMR Mar 19 2012, 09:39 PM

The Polls that were taken by Newsnight/ channel 4.



I am not a Lib Dem and I don't need your point. Maybe you should use your brains; no government is going to change things unless people support them.

Oh, and you sound like something very bad.

Posted by: GMR Mar 19 2012, 09:40 PM

The argument hasn't been hijacked; this is an open forum for debate... and that is what is happening.

Posted by: GMR Mar 19 2012, 09:41 PM

And this from a you.....

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 19 2012, 09:44 PM

BBC and Ch4 . The link please, so it may be examined. Thanks.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2012, 09:45 PM

The OP was specifically about the Catholic church's requirement of its adherents to go forth and protest about the plan to allow same-sex couples to marry in register offices. Gay rights as you put it is very much what this is about isn't it - the right for people to be treated equally irrespective of their gender?

What I do see is that there is a shade over 50% that actually agree with the Catholic church that the law shouldn't be changed to allows same-sex couples to marry in a register office. I'm actually surprised there is so much gender prejudice about still.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 19 2012, 10:19 PM

I think the term necessary is "spin-off"... that is a thread starts on Subject A, but ends up talking about Subject B simply because the two are closely linked.
It's natural evolution...on the internet.

Although the 48% of people who voted "no" to allowing same-sex marriages clearly aren't very evolved at all. That excludes forum friends who voted no, because you are exempt from my rule

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2012, 10:58 PM

Why get married? Find someone you can't get on with and buy them a house!

Posted by: blackdog Mar 19 2012, 11:30 PM

Since the bible was put together, and before, churchmen and theologians have been debating and arguing about the meaning of the bible - after 2,000 years they are still arguing. And you expect little old me to understand the whole thing?

Thou shalt have no other God, etc. Is Allah different to God, or Jahweh? Have Christians not broken this commandment by worshipping Christ? However, even if I had only the one god - She would be my interpretation of godliness. If I were a Christian this interpretation might be very similar to yours - but it is very unlikely to be the same.


Recent translations give 'you must not murder', the King James version is 'thou shalt not kill'. Two versions of the same bible, two subtlely different messages. Which biblical 'truth' should I elect to follow?

Posted by: GMR Mar 20 2012, 12:26 AM

What link? It was on the programme. If a link exists then I am sure you are capable of finding it. I didn't get my information on their websites, just by watching their programmes.

Posted by: GMR Mar 20 2012, 12:27 AM

Whether evolved or not the law will be changed and rightly so.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 20 2012, 06:25 AM

It was just a TV programme you once watched. OK.

You see, I am just asking you to provide some evidence for all the claims that you make.

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 20 2012, 06:41 AM

Does this help anyone?

http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2012/03/19/same-sex-marriage-britain/

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 20 2012, 07:04 AM

Thanks, the headline states "public divided over same sex marriage", and note this is YouGov plc, not a government website. Sample size 1,700.

Posted by: Squelchy Mar 20 2012, 07:16 AM

This is the poll that the TV programmes were reporting on.

I believe it was commissioned by the Sunday Times.

The most up to date polls are:

Telegraph/ICM: "The results show opinion finely balanced, with 45 per cent supporting the move in principle, 36 per cent opposing it, and the rest saying they do not know"

Sunday Times/YouGov: "In a YouGov survey for The Sunday Times today, 43% of those polled said they support gay marriage, while 32% said they supported civil partnerships but opposed gay marriage"

Populus: "Latest Gay Marriage stats from last weekend. Two thirds of Brits in favour."

Of course, the result you get depends on the question you ask.


The coalition has just started it's own consultation under the auspices of Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone. They reckon it'll take 12 weeks. Although it's really about how to do it, rather than 'if' as the decision has already been made.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 20 2012, 08:04 AM

Very true, and especially so taken together with small sample sizes.



Yes, it does seem the decision has already been made. Hence my earlier post that this is more about politics than anyone's rights!

At the 2010 general election, Stonewall were demanding international recognition for civil-partnerships, not demanding same-sex marrriage. They must have been very surprised by the sudden rush of concern of the government.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 20 2012, 09:00 AM

"Man created God in his own image..." Just find a translation that works for you. In any case Christians aren't justified by law but by faith (see for example Paul to the Romans) so they don't even have to follow the rules, they just have to say sorry afterwards. Simples.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 20 2012, 09:33 AM

How do you "not know"
It's not a life decision you make

Posted by: GMR Mar 20 2012, 03:11 PM

Don't be stupid. I watching all political programmes regularly. I just don't go on their sites.



And how do you do that? I watch programmes like Newsnight every night (and Channel 4 News) and different stories and Polls are shown. I don't keep copies of them; that would be mad. However, I am sure that if you researched it on the net you'll find what you are looking for.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 21 2012, 09:26 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17453849
What lovely people.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 21 2012, 10:37 AM

Yes, and often such topics get bogged down in arguments over religion too.

Not high on the news agenda today because of the Budget maybe, but the ECHR has just ruled (in a case brought from France) that gay marriage is not a human right (source: some of the major newspapers carry this story today). This would appear to confirm a ruling in 2010, in a case brought from Austria (where the UK Government intervened on the side of Austria!).

The judges said: "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”

More interestingly, it was opined that if same-sex unions (sic) did became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination – something that the government consultation document pretends cannot happen? I bet it will if lawyers secure funding! Either Lynne Featherstone is naïve, or thinks the public are naïve, in suggesting that such challenges to the church could be prevented through domestic legislation.

Peter Tatchell makes it very clear on his website that he will not just be happy with civil gay marriage, and demands gay religious ceremonies too. It is all about equality, you see. On Stonewall’s website is this comment by Ruth Hunt, Director of Public Affairs: “We [also] seek to retain civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people recognising their special and unique status.” I take this to mean there are gradations of equality, either that or Animalism is back!

It will be interesting to see what the Government does now – they have backed themselves into a corner somewhat.

I am not making the case for or against gay marriage for I hold no strong view on the structure, name or legality of a gay relationship. I am merely noting the politicking, double standards and insincerity on this minority issue.

BTW: Thank you very much to those who have sent me a PM.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 21 2012, 10:42 AM

What sort of pathetic, bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, selfish, ostentatious way to look at the world.
Really who are our so called leaders, who put them there...what sort of crap do they say........

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 21 2012, 07:21 PM

Yes, the European Court of Human Rights certainly makes some judgements that some people think defy common sense. But when one considers why and when it was established (following the horrors in Europe by the Nazis and the perceived threat from Communism) some people also may think that the nature of some of the cases that are now brought before it, also absurd.

But, maybe, times and perceptions of severity and need, change.

Apologies if I have invoked Godwin.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 22 2012, 08:50 AM

There is another alternative. Why don't we simply abolish marriage? Given the divorce rates and of course there would necessarily need to be divorce for gay marriage, ity could be argued that those who can marry, want to escape afterwards anyway! There seems to be no major civil advantage - save for inheritance; something that could be addressed in other ways. Similarly, making arrangements to care for children could be dealt with through the usual legal channels - a contract. Get rid of the whole concept and that stops any more debate about State involvement in emotion and personal relationships. The 'we simply want to declaire our love' can be done in any Pub, Church, Market Place....just don't involve the State.

Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 22 2012, 09:16 AM

Gay/Straight marraiges - who cares, it all ends in divorce within the year....

Posted by: NORTHENDER Mar 22 2012, 09:21 AM

Really?

Posted by: Penelope Mar 22 2012, 09:31 AM

bitter, very bitter !!

Posted by: Rosewinelover Mar 22 2012, 09:36 AM

I've never been married....Nothing to be bitter about - just stating the facts (with a bit of exaggeration...)

In answer to original post, I have no problem with gay marriages. It does not affect me, it does not make my life upset in anyway - live and let be

Posted by: Penelope Mar 22 2012, 10:14 AM

puts a whole new slant to the phrase 'Wedding Ring' though.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 22 2012, 08:25 PM

To your first point. No it is not fair but that does not mean that God did not create or wish us to be equal. It is man that has gone against Gods creation plan. When we were put on earth He allowed us free will. Some use that free will to be good citizens and help others, others use that free will to abuse their fellow man. We are all answerable for our actions and either on Earth or in front of our Creator we will be judged by our actions and appropriate punishments, I am sure, will be taken.

Second point. There is a lot we do not understand, but that does not mean there is no an answer there (or an explanation).

Third point. I do not have a religion or support an religious organisations. My faith and loyalty is to God, not those that take his name and use it for their own purposes.

None of this changes the original point that bigotry against our fellowman is wrong. We were given free will and I am sure that God hoped in his wisdom that we would use our intelligence wisely and sensibly. Maybe our time on Earth is for us to learn and those that do learn will be rewarded. Those that fail to respect each other will suffer the consequences. Who knows?