[Closed] attention seeker needs more publicity....

Then shout away, but bear in mind that shouting so loudly that you end up shoving your agenda into the faces of the apathetic might be counter productive to your cause.

hey they need to turn the other cheek according to their book not me

In reality you need to speak loudly and forcibly to win the argument

No point or sense in just accepting injustice due to the views of the pointy hatted dude and his sky fairy

hey they need to turn the other cheek

Wasn't it that kind of action that got the gays into sin in the first place... 😉

No point or sense in just accepting injustice due to the views of the pointy hatted dude and his sky fairy

Particularly when it is a civil matter that has chuff all to do with religion in the first place.

There have been some good,decent arguments put forward, but when the same people who argue for tolerance and equality intersperse this with mocking abuse and derogatory comments about someone because he is different to them, they only weaken their own position.
Why not attack the argument rather than the person?

Why not attack the argument rather than the person?

[i]Yes WE are going to change their views and lets all shout very VERY **** loud till we deafen their voices and gay people have the same rights and the same ceremony as straights [/i]

But a Civil Partnership does give you the same rights and the ceremony, if you choose to have one, as a hetero-civil marriage. Some religions may choose not to allow that ceremony to be performed under their auspices, but, frankly, that's their right; it's the rules of their club.

As has been said, it's ridiculous that all this fuss is basically not over what it is, because we (those of us who believe that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples) have what we want, but what it's called. And what it's called is more about what people call it than what's written in the statute book. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

For instance, I consider a same sex couple who are in a civil partnership to be married and would refer to them as such. I may be breaking the law but I won't get arrested and the more I do this the more widespread and accepted it becomes until eventually the activists on either side are wondering what the hell they're arguing about because the rest of society has moved on.

This is quite probably already happening right under our noses so while from a legal standpoint you're not winning, peoples apathy is actually working for you, not against you.

Exactly.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if I don't get to be a page boy in a sailor suit at emsz's wedding, there'll be hell to pay 🙂

Junkyard - Member

OH FFS toast leave the vegans out of this we are a terribly persected minority and you need to take our rights seriously

So should Vegans be allowed to get married?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Then insist it is a goose or possibly a swan with a sore throat.
But definitely not a duck. Not a real one anyway. Not like proper ponds have.

I can see why that would upset rivers, lakes and other alternative waterways...

Arguable. What clearly should be law is that you're not allowed to ride a Tandem unless married to eachother - think of the scandal otherwise!

So should Vegans be allowed to get married?

Only to Muslamic swans

if my experience is anything to go by NO

have you read the Bible?

Have you Edukator?

The same book in the bible which says homosexuality is immoral is the same book which says you can't eat pork... Deuteronomy by the way.

Edukator I'm also not suggesting that your are saying it's immoral. I am saying that it is amazing how Christianity can pick and choose what it wishes to believe and ignore.

We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ... I know what she means LOL

You should both have a suit and a dress and change at half time 🙂

[i]We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing[/i]

But you have decided on sailor suits for the page boys, right?

My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ...

Tell her you're dressing the page boys as the Village People 😀

😆

We haven't decided about the dresses/ suits thing My mum said if we both wear suits we'll look " a bit gay" ... I know what she means LOL

My mam was forever telling my sister that her hair/clothes/posture made her look "dykey". Turns out that it was being a lesbian that made her look dykey.

My mam was forever telling my sister that her hair/clothes/posture made her look "dykey". Turns out that it was being a lesbian that made her look dykey.

My mom only objects to lesbian weddings if they both wear dresses, because that makes a mockery of marriage and, well, [i]"one of them has to be the man!"[/i]. My mother also once said that all gays "wear leather caps, it's part of their uniform". And meant it.

I love her to bits despite the fact she's racist and socially inept, but she wasn't really much of a role model...

BBC News reporting that a few more religious types have been pushing the boundaries of (im)morality

I love her to bits despite the fact she's racist and socially inept

So - do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?

You be the sailor TJ, I'll be the cowboy, tonyd can be the construction worker.

(genuinely without wanting to hi-jack the thread and so please don't think I am, but just want to clear this up a bit....)

Have you Edukator?

The same book in the bible which says homosexuality is immoral is the same book which says you can't eat pork... Deuteronomy by the way.

Edukator I'm also not suggesting that your are saying it's immoral. I am saying that it is amazing how Christianity can pick and choose what it wishes to believe and ignore.

This point has been raised a few times and to be fair is an extremely understandable comment - just wanted to try and very briefly clear this up a touch. The Old Testament laws as laid down in Leviticus etc were laws set out for the nation of Israel at that time, i.e. they are basically the Jewish laws. In the New Testament, when Jesus came, he basically put in place a New covenant with the world that replaced the majority of those laws. Essentially, the Old Testament was written for and about Israel, the New Testament for everyone, whether Jewish or not. Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.

Sorry for the mild hi-jack, hope that makes sense. Not meant to impart anything either way, just wanted to clear it up. Some great debate points in this thread - let's keep it like that.

Indian one for me please. I want to bag racist and homophobic when I "black up" for the role and mince - iirc he was the only gay one anyway

speed12: the trouble comes that not every Christian sees it like that (including the Cardinal it seems).

Leviticus and Deuteronomy are commonly used by the extremist Christian homophobes, as is the Old Testament tale of Soddom and Gomorrah. Though obviously such groups tend to conveniently ignore all the other Old Testament laws and stories that don't fit their prejudices.

But fair point, and let's not get into a big religious debate. The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

So - do I need to buy a hat for emsz wedding? Or a sailor suit?

I think you should go as Sailor Moon!

[img] [/img]

Which rather topically was censored from the original Japanese anime for the American release - Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune were depicted as cousins, rather than as lovers, and Zoisite was given a female voice actress despite originally being a male character to make his relationship with Kunzite less... well, gay.

Yay equality! o/

Christianity is NOT about obeying laws.

It shouldn't be.

Dont worry Grum it is fine god is love and

Christianity is NOT about obeying laws. The whole doctrine of Grace says that there is NOTHING we can do to make God love us more and NOTHING we can do to make Him love us less.

Just heard the Muslim view of this mentioned on R4.
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality [/url]

Makes Catholicism look like a liberal hippy festival by comparison.

I haven't read all the Bible but enough to quote some gems. In Luke 19 you'll find Jesus has little regard for some of the ten commandements. He tells his followers to bring his ennemies (those who didn't want Jesus to be king) before him and kill them, then he sends a couple of disciples to steal a donkey for him to ride into town on, threatens to stone people on the ride, enters the town and squats the temple.

Imagine how the Cardinal would react if a bunch of revolutionaries did that in his church!

The discussion is over non-religious civil marriage. The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I've heard have been similar: "this shouldn't be allowed in church". Nobody is asking for that.

Essentially, all that's being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.

Essentially, all that's being asked for is for the name of the current civil partnership arrangement to be officially changed to match what most people call it anyway.

Speed12 what was Jesus's view on pork?
I'm presuming he didn't eat it himself but I seriously doubt he preached about it's wickedness or I'd never have experienced the taste sensation that is a bacon buttie when I was a kid.

Did he mention any thing about homosexuality?

If the answers are no and no then why are the various churches still hung up about same sex couples but not bothering to boycott danepak?

The churches are still free to make up their own rules as they see fit.

This is really the key issue with this, I think. Most of the anti- points of view I've heard have been similar: "this shouldn't be allowed in church". Nobody is asking for that.

On a superficial level this is a persuasive argument - it's their chuch / club / belief system - they can retain whatever rules they please within that system...

However, as many theologians are currently arguing re female bishops, the chuch cannot stand isolated from societal values.

They look frankly absurd and out of date in insisting that only men can be bishops, and rightly so.

It is exactly the same mentality re same sex marriages.

Would it be acceptable for them to require their "club members" to be white, blond, blue eyed and fine physical specimens? Would we still be ok with the opinion that it's their club so they can do what they please?

Of course not.

I'd love to believe that the churches will become the victim of Darwinism - slow extinction through failing to adapt and evolve...

Unfortunately I suspect that their are too many ignorant people around for that to happen anytime soon 🙄

Would we still be ok with the opinion that it's their club so they can do what they please?

Speedy 12 has just shot down most of the reasons I can dislike the church. Why has that been kept secret from even it seems all the church goers. Would it be best to publish a bible with just the new bit?
I've not read the new bit is it all nice and loving?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/07/muslim-african-nations-un-gay-rights?

Religion. An appalling load of sh1te.

No, the new bit isn't all nice and loving, Zippykona, check my last post. Jesus endorsed the rules Moses had set down in Leviticus so some church people consider Jesus was against homosexuality even though you won't find a direct condemnation from him in the New Testament. It's down to interpretation. Google something like "Jesus on homosexuality".