Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 05 February 2013, 20:36:23
-
MP,s have just voted to allow gay marriage.If you were an MP how would you have voted ?
Poll to be added.
-
I can never understand gays.. must be a biologic thing .. so cant comment on a subject that I never understand :-\ (dont know)
-
Gas.
-
More Tories voted against Cameron than with him.
I always wondered why he picked this hobby horse - after all it wasn't in his manifesto.
I've just noticed that it is the aim of the EU to get member countries to get rid of the subsidiarity (of having jurisdiction) over family law, and make an EU-wide Procedural law based on the Stockholm Program..by which same-sex marriage would be implemented throughout Europe. >:( ::)
http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/es/el-dia-dia/detail/article/eu-aims-at-recognizing-same-sex-marriage-in-all-27-member-states.html (http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/es/el-dia-dia/detail/article/eu-aims-at-recognizing-same-sex-marriage-in-all-27-member-states.html)
So, was he just following Brussels's orders in order to ensure his place when he loses in 2015? ::) ::)
-
Against as marriage as an institution has been the bedrock in all societies for the creation and bringing up of children from time immemorial. Humans take longer than most animals to reach adulthood which is why this public commitment came about. If you allow it when their is no pro-creation element, then why not also allow same sex close relations to marry? There are also other legal difficulties like how do you define adultery and is it grounds for divorce?
I also think there will be many problems for the church and other people that are against it on religious grounds.
I'm pro civil partnerships as I think it made things more equal from a legal point of view and provided a form of commitment for those in same sex relationships.
At the grass roots level this has done much damage to the Conservative party where it wasn't in the manifesto and the party as a whole wasn't consulted. George saw it helped Obama's popularity and decided it would do the same for the Conservatives! Still the good news is that is has helped increase UKIP numbers. :y
Dithering Dave now has a tough decision to make, is he going to propose to Nick or George? ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
Gas.
[/highlight]
Pickled Eggs will do it to you every time Steve! ;D ;)
-
Live and let live :y
As long as they don't chase me then I'm all for equality, but it has to be in every way ;)
-
As it says in Bible- man not lye with man nor woman with woman-how can a church condone it??
-
i am dead against it.......however in this day and age it appears to be more common and not being able to understand why the same sex want to be together just beats me..also it is being rammed down our throats all the time and that alone makes you wonder who is right and who isnt..so maybe live and let live but on this occasion i would vote no...
-
I voted against,nuff said :(
-
i am dead against it.......however in this day and age it appears to be more common and not being able to understand why the same sex want to be together just beats me..also it is being rammed down our throats all the time and that alone makes you wonder who is right and who isnt..so maybe live and let live but on this occasion i would vote no...
Not in the Biblical sense I hope. :o :o ;D ;D
-
Live and let live :y
As long as they don't chase me then I'm all for equality...
My way of thinking too, at the end of the day as long as those concerned are doing no harm to others then who really cares?
..also it is being rammed down our throats all the time...
I do kind of object to the 'normalisation' of same sex relationships though (i.e. Eastenders, etc.) as I believe the whole point of existence is to procreate...
-
As it says in Bible- man not lye with man nor woman with woman-how can a church condone it??
same way they condone tattoos, or mixed fabric clothing? or bacon?
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
-
I voted against,nuff said :(
+ 1 :(
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
Are you a newbie?............. :D :D :D :-X :-X :-X
On a more serious note, I am sitting on the fence, leaning towards no...... :-\ :-\
-
gay marriage you can shove that where the sun don't shine ;D
but seriously as long as they don't bother me let them get on with it each to there own :)
and no matter what the bible says we can't hide behind religion all the time :y
-
gay marriage you can shove that where the sun don't shine ;D
but seriously as long as they don't bother me let them get on with it each to there own :)
and no matter what the bible says we can't hide behind religion all the time :y
So, a total contradiction then..... :D :D :D
-
I voted yes.
Puffs have as much right to be miserable as anyone else.
-
gay marriage you can shove that where the sun don't shine ;D
but seriously as long as they don't bother me let them get on with it each to there own :)
and no matter what the bible says we can't hide behind religion all the time :y
So, a total contradiction then..... :D :D :D
yes quite so ;D
god I'm so confused ;D
-
gay marriage you can shove that where the sun don't shine ;D
but seriously as long as they don't bother me let them get on with it each to there own :)
and no matter what the bible says we can't hide behind religion all the time :y
So, a total contradiction then..... :D :D :D
yes quite so ;D
god I'm so confused ;D
Another puddled oofer..... :D :D :D
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
Are you a newbie?............. :D :D :D :-X :-X :-X
On a more serious note, I am sitting on the fence, leaning towards no...... :-\ :-\
umm I'm not familiar with anyone's arrangements in this department gay or otherwise unless you mean that banter about gold Omegas some time ago ? ;D
-
wifeys had me watching channel 4 and 5 latley, so my life has been quite gay ( you try prizing the remote from wifeys grip, would not mind if it was my willie)
this has me asking allsorts of questions now looking at who started the post i do remeber something brushing my booty when i was putting some parts in my car during my last vist :o :o
-
I voted against,nuff said :(
+ 1 :(
+2 :(
It's a queer old world :D
-
Rods2 pretty much said what I would have said.I couldnt care less what consenting adults do with/to each other,and if they want to make a long term commitment,then civil partnerships seems like a sensible option.
Marriage however,has been between a man and woman,the world over for centuries.It has always been the basis of society - man/woman get married,procreate,become mum and dad,and their kids grow up and do the same.Its altering the fundamentals of society even further than has already been done in recent times,and I wonder what will become of society in the future.
I also dont believe for one minute that Churches etc. will be able to remain exempt in the long term.Once we have got used to this situation it wont be long before there is a test case in the European court and Churches will have to perform same sex marriages or face being shut down just as Catholic adoption agencies have had to face closure ratherthan accept same sex adoption.
Interesting to see Nicks EU angle on this,it seems all roads lead back to Brussells on way or another.Its also abvious that Camoron is trying to get himself into the pink voting sector which the other two parties have kept the Tories frozen out from historically.
I think he may actually be more cynical and self serving (but less competent) than Bliar.
The media (BBC in particular) have been preaching to us for the last week or so that public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of a yes vote.I can only imagine that the polls were conducted in the Gaurdian canteen. ::)
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
So, 2 gay men is sickening but 2 gay women is acceptable? ??? ::)
-
One of natures little contradictions,so it seems. ::)
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
So, 2 gay men is sickening but 2 gay women is acceptable? ??? ::)
no offence intended :-[, hmmm could mean many things, "hmmm outrageous" "hmmm dreadful" "hmmm ????" :y
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
So, 2 gay men is sickening but 2 gay women is acceptable? ??? ::)
no offence intended :-[, hmmm could mean many things, "hmmm outrageous" "hmmm dreadful" "hmmm ????" :y
You haven't offended me, just highlighting the "Flaw" in your argument ;)
-
My tuppence worth. Many people are not religious but still marry in church to be seen to be doing the right thing. If we accept that religion is more a business than anything else then the church surely has the right to deal with customers how it likes. At the end of the day no business has to deal with anyone it does not wish to deal with. So if you make a law stating someone can use a business by law then that has to be an unfair in my book. Pubs often refuse to serve some people, clubs refuse entry, shops can also refuse to serve people, banks don't have to give you an account.
So why should the church be "forced" to serve anyone who demands it ?
-
We already have civil partnerships.
I agree there is a wider EU harmonisation agenda or at the very least jobs for the boys after this parliament as a result of toeing the line. So much for keeping powers at home!
The whole subject is fraught with legal difficulties which will mire the courts for years to come.
Will the Lords throw it out?
To sum up, what a waste of expensive politician time when there are proper problems to crack. I hope it brings the Tory government down. It won't of course.
-
::) if we look the things from religion perspective , things will go on a different direction :-\
if god give us life and our biology , then he is responsible ;D
"All credible scientific organizations state that sexual orientation is influenced by biological factors and environmental factors (scientifically speaking, the hormonal environment of the womb is considered an "environmental factor'), and that it cannot be changed, as it is innate and set at birth"
"Neurologically speaking, gay men tend to have brains similar in structure and function to that of straight women, and lesbians tend to have brains similar to straight men"
"The same is also present in other species (yes, many animals exhibit bisexual or even primarily homosexual behavior.)"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_scientific_explanation_for_homosexual_behavior (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_scientific_explanation_for_homosexual_behavior)
-
Appears to me that the OOF word filter has removed the word "tolerance" from the English Language.
:(
-
I do not care what others do who are in love, and I agree with the sentiment, "live and let live".
If two people love each other, and Jesus encouraged all to love each other regardless of gender, then let them marry. Why not? It will not physically effect anyone else! ;)
-
Appears to me that the OOF word filter has removed the word "tolerance" from the English Language.
:(
Indeed... I must admit to being quite surprised, and somewhat saddened, by the results thus far :(
-
Appears to me that the OOF word filter has removed the word "tolerance" from the English Language.
:(
Indeed... I must admit to being quite surprised, and somewhat saddened, by the results thus far :(
Yes, and Christianity is all about tolerance. Other comments that do not conform to that principle worry me too! :( :(
Are there really so many intolerant people who are OOF members? ::) ::) ::)
-
Tolerance is a two-way street. There are no actual anti-gay comments on here. It would seem that the majority are quite happy for people to engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex. They are also tolerant of gay couples having legal protection for their relationships through the civil partnership process. However, they would not wish to see the basis of marriage changed to suit a minority. Besides which, I understand that it was only a few in the gay community that were even pushing for gay marriage.
Gays should tolerate those who wish to maintain the status quo with regard to marriage.
It has been suggested that this will lead to a stand-off between church and state when (rather than if) a gay couple who are refused a church wedding take their case to the ECHR. Additionally, it seems a possibility that the family law governing adultery (once the only reason for divorce) will have to be scrapped, since it is practically impossible to decide what sexual act between gay couples constitutes adultery.
This is a needless piece of legislation which will have serious consequences in the longer run. :( :(
-
Marriage, its only a church thing anyway.
-
Gays should tolerate those who wish to maintain the status quo with regard to marriage.
Why? Surely the same could be said the other way around?
Surely everyone has the same rights (in broad terms) so why should anyone be excluded because of age, sex, colour, creed or sexuality? ???
What I mean is, why should I be able to "marry" my wife but a gay person only be able to enter a civil partnership :-\
-
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
-
My tuppence worth. Many people are not religious but still marry in church to be seen to be doing the right thing. If we accept that religion is more a business than anything else then the church surely has the right to deal with customers how it likes. At the end of the day no business has to deal with anyone it does not wish to deal with. So if you make a law stating someone can use a business by law then that has to be an unfair in my book. Pubs often refuse to serve some people, clubs refuse entry, shops can also refuse to serve people, banks don't have to give you an account.
So why should the church be "forced" to serve anyone who demands it ?
Tell that to the couple who owned the guest house where they wouldn't let a gay couple share room...
-
My tuppence worth. Many people are not religious but still marry in church to be seen to be doing the right thing. If we accept that religion is more a business than anything else then the church surely has the right to deal with customers how it likes. At the end of the day no business has to deal with anyone it does not wish to deal with. So if you make a law stating someone can use a business by law then that has to be an unfair in my book. Pubs often refuse to serve some people, clubs refuse entry, shops can also refuse to serve people, banks don't have to give you an account.
So why should the church be "forced" to serve anyone who demands it ?
Tell that to the couple who owned the guest house where they wouldn't let a gay couple share room...
That, as everyone knows, was a set-up perpetrated by the gay terrorists.
-
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
[/highlight]
And that is the most sensible reply we're ever going to get on this subject! :y
-
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
-
Also....this word 'tolerant'. If you were black or gay, would you be happy for someone to 'tolerate' you? It says to me "I don't like you but I will 'tolerate' you. Say thank you".
-
Also....this word 'tolerant'. If you were black or gay, would you be happy for someone to 'tolerate' you? It says to me "I don't like you but I will 'tolerate' you. Say thank you".
Methinks you need to look up the definition of the word ... :)
As you probably won't ...
tol·er·ate
/ˈtäləˌrāt/
Verb
Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
I've highlighted the important bits for you .. :)
-
Also....this word 'tolerant'. If you were black or gay, would you be happy for someone to 'tolerate' you? It says to me "I don't like you but I will 'tolerate' you. Say thank you".
Methinks you need to look up the definition of the word ... :)
As you probably won't ...
tol·er·ate
/ˈtäləˌrāt/
Verb
Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
I've highlighted the important bits for you .. :)
I dont need you, or anyone else, to highlight anything for me, thank you. The dictionary definition is, more or less, exactly what I said. Endure= put up with. Forebearance= keeping quiet when you feel like punching someone.
We all have to 'tolerate' every day. Pedantic, self-righteous twits are very difficult to 'tolerate' sometimes though. Highlight that.
-
BTW, did anyone notice the picture caption that the limp-wristed, PC BBC put up when reporting this story. Two (male) hands entwined, both wearing rings on the wedding finger, one black and one white. ;D ;D ;D
What we need is a great big melting pot...................sing along now.
-
Also....this word 'tolerant'. If you were black or gay, would you be happy for someone to 'tolerate' you? It says to me "I don't like you but I will 'tolerate' you. Say thank you".
Methinks you need to look up the definition of the word ... :)
As you probably won't ...
tol·er·ate
/ˈtäləˌrāt/
Verb
Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
I've highlighted the important bits for you .. :)
I dont need you, or anyone else, to highlight anything for me, thank you. The dictionary definition is, more or less, exactly what I said. Endure= put up with. Forebearance= keeping quiet when you feel like punching someone.
We all have to 'tolerate' every day. Pedantic, self-righteous twits are very difficult to 'tolerate' sometimes though. Highlight that.
Looking in the mirror are we ???
Everyone here is entitled to a point of view ... yours is not the only valid one .. although you apparently think it is.
-
That took a while, Nige. Sadly, not worth the wait.
-
And, as everyone knows, of course mine is the only valid point of view.
-
Marriage however,has been between a man and woman,the world over for centuries.
Marriage is just a tool used by the society within which we live though, doesn't mean that it is 'right', or that it should be aspired to. I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least (but) 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
So, 2 gay men is sickening but 2 gay women is acceptable? ??? ::)
I reckon it's to do with the lure of boobs, they have to hold an attraction for both males and females ,to do with breast feeding!
If we accept that religion is more a business than anything else then the church surely has the right to deal with customers how it likes.
Not really because the 'Church' in our society has (or maybe HAD) a powerful influence on how every day people live their lives.
And, as everyone knows, of course mine is the only valid point of view.
;D Although you do occasionally make a valid point...
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Life of all types on this planet does seem brutal and harsh and if we (mankind) weren't arguing about sky fairies (no pun intended), or skin colour, or trying to batter some weaker individual then we'd probably all top our selves...
-
And, as everyone knows, of course mine is the only valid point of view.
Nope, mine is. :P
...and I don't buy the opposing position your giving us on this topic. Its the modern era Esta. It's ok to show your gay side in public these days. Rather than grooming me with camera phone pictures. ::) :'(
Hurry up and get married, then you can stop harassing me! >:(
;D
-
just realised how much i have missed this site ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
Marriage however,has been between a man and woman,the world over for centuries.
Marriage is just a tool used by the society within which we live though, doesn't mean that it is 'right', or that it should be aspired to. I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least (but) 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
So, 2 gay men is sickening but 2 gay women is acceptable? ??? ::)
I reckon it's to do with the lure of boobs, they have to hold an attraction for both males and females ,to do with breast feeding!
If we accept that religion is more a business than anything else then the church surely has the right to deal with customers how it likes.
Not really because the 'Church' in our society has (or maybe HAD) a powerful influence on how every day people live their lives.
And, as everyone knows, of course mine is the only valid point of view.
;D Although you do occasionally make a valid point...
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Life of all types on this planet does seem brutal and harsh and if we (mankind) weren't arguing about sky fairies (no pun intended), or skin colour, or trying to batter some weaker individual then we'd probably all top our selves...
good question..
-
just realised how much i have missed this site ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
Hahaay, look, Mr Lovejoy is back. :y
-
yes been away for a while i met this coloured cross dressing scotsman, he said he loved me and was going to marry me but turned out he just wanted to ride me like a horse until he could not tolerate me any more :o :o
-
And instantly you thought of us. ;D
-
well i was going to phone the gay help line, but Jamie never answered the phone so whats a man to do ;D ;D
-
Sadly it does seem to be a common economic saving, to have a web site rather than man a phone line. He often makes himself available here though. :y
...I just wish I'd known the true purpose of the site before I signed up. :'(
-
I do not care what others do who are in love, and I agree with the sentiment, "live and let live".
If two people love each other, and Jesus encouraged all to love each other regardless of gender, then let them marry. Why not? It will not physically effect anyone else! ;)
Lets ignore the fact that according to bible God burnt burnt the cities of Sodom and Gomarrah to the ground because their inhabitants were indulging in homosexuality.Lots wife was turned into a pillar of salt,just because she turned around and took one last look as she was leaving. ;)
-
that was not very tolerant of him and he did it twice unless you got a stutter ( burnt burnt)
-
I do not care what others do who are in love, and I agree with the sentiment, "live and let live".
If two people love each other, and Jesus encouraged all to love each other regardless of gender, then let them marry. Why not? It will not physically effect anyone else! ;)
Lets ignore the fact that according to bible God burnt burnt the cities of Sodom and Gomarrah to the ground because their inhabitants were indulging in homosexuality.Lots wife was turned into a pillar of salt,just because she turned around and took one last look as she was leaving. ;)
Ah yes, Albs, but remember. All religious tomes are 'open to interpretation', so you're probably wrong, I think. If mad mullahs can turn the Quran into a book of hate, then I'm sure the particular part of the bible that you mention bears scrutiny.
-
that was not very tolerant of him and he did it twice unless you got a stutter ( burnt burnt)
Someone with the surname 'Lovescock' should be very careful on a thread such as this.
-
Steve been there done it,got the stains on my tee shirt, dont know why women make such a fuss about it all to be honest :o :o ;D
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
-
yes been away for a while i met this coloured cross dressing scotsman, he said he loved me and was going to marry me but turned out he just wanted to ride me like a horse until he could not tolerate me any more :o :o
they are a strange lot in ramsgate.............. :o
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
c
Wrong on the 'affectionate scenes' there LD. Some make me puke and others give me the horn. ;D
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
c
Wrong on the 'affectionate scenes' there LD. Some make me puke and others give me the horn. ;D
Don't lie... You can't get the horn at your age :P :D
But seriously... It should be one rule for all, not pick and chose what you like ;)
-
hope you have not been sleeping with a certain administrator to get your post count up :o :o they always hurt the ones they love ;) :y
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
NO :y
Let's see, so a beastialist can marry is donkey or a necrophilliac a corpse, it is still affection ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
NO :y
Let's see, so a beastialist can marry is donkey or a necrophilliac a corpse, it is still affection ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Exactly what I'm saying... If one form of affection should be banned then all all affectionate scenes should be banned/post watershed ;) One rule for all :y
Although that's a little bit of an extreme example as both are illegal ;)
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
Very well put :y :y
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
You've been a long time in the desert, haven't you lad? Sunstroke..........or something ::)
-
I love my Mrs and intend to spend the rest of my life with her, hopefully. Why should we need an expensive piece of paper to declare our intentions? And why should we be financially penalised for living together rather than living as a married couple?
It doesn't have to be that expensive ;) I think our "Wedding" was £145 (all in) at the Register Office ;) We actually had a celebration the following day, which did cost more, but were already married in the eyes of the law :y
What most people tend to lose sight of is this one fact: Most ordinary, everyday folk are racist, sexist and homophobic. Just accept that fact and things will become much more clear.
Oh.....and the introduction of laws to try to change what is basic human nature will fail....every time.
Correct :y :y :y
What offends me are the TV soaps ( SWMBO) full of same sex people, kissing, in bed well before the watershed >:( >:(. I don't want it in my lounge thank you very much, it ain't normal so why make out it is. Just keep it behind closed doors thank you very much :y :y
If that is so offensive and should be "kept behind closed doors" then surely any affectionate scenes should be treated the same way? ???
And on the subject for religious interpretations and the bible... It's a nice collection of stories but full of holes :-X ;)
NO :y
Let's see, so a beastialist can marry is donkey or a necrophilliac a corpse, it is still affection ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Exactly what I'm saying... If one form of affection should be banned then all all affectionate scenes should be banned/post watershed ;) One rule for all :y
Although that's a little bit of an extreme example as both are illegal ;)
It isn't that long ago that sodomy was :(
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
You've been a long time in the desert, haven't you lad? Sunstroke..........or something ::)
Nice try, but you can't groom me. Go back to Chris he said he liked your chipolata ;D
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
You've been a long time in the desert, haven't you lad? Sunstroke..........or something ::)
Nice try, but you can't groom me. Go back to Chris he said he liked your chipolata ;D
He told me it was more like a mini cocktail sausage :-X
-
You wouldn't like it for a wart over your eye, as my dad used to say ;D
-
....
Although that's a little bit of an extreme example as both are illegal ;)
It isn't that long ago that sodomy was :(
Exactly... Was ;)
-
You wouldn't like it for a wart over your eye, as my dad used to say ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
What I cant understand is that all manner of heterosexual people can abuse the institution of marriage and no one bats an eyelid.
But if two loving and committed adults of the same sex want to express their dedication to each other, some believe that a Civil Partnership is the most they deserve. That somehow what marriage stands for does not seem to come in to the equation. Surely if two people are that committed to each other then why should we care on which side of the fence they play on? I see no such uproar when heteros abuse marriage in the name of celebrity.
This is a modern world and we need to show the rest of the planet that we can give people the same opportunities regardless of creed, colour, orientation, class, etc. People don't choose to be gay or straight, or bi just the same as we don't choose what the colour of our skin is or which family we are born in to. It is not something you can control, so why should your rights be absconded as a result?
I am all for upholding beliefs and values but where they come in to conflict with the values and standards we should be committed to as human beings (equality, fairness, respect for others, etc) then I feel they should give way.
Excellent, well thought out post :y :y :y :y :y :y
-
I do not care what others do who are in love, and I agree with the sentiment, "live and let live".
If two people love each other, and Jesus encouraged all to love each other regardless of gender, then let them marry. Why not? It will not physically effect anyone else! ;)
Lets ignore the fact that according to bible God burnt burnt the cities of Sodom and Gomarrah to the ground because their inhabitants were indulging in homosexuality.Lots wife was turned into a pillar of salt,just because she turned around and took one last look as she was leaving. ;)
That is the Old Testament, and does not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. It never happened, and was written by men who wanted to keep control of everything.
It fact marriage is a very dubious device that was designed to keep women under control and keep them shackled to one man until death do us part. It was in an age when women had no rights, could not own property and could not hold a bank account. Now women have the power to decide on marriage on the basis of love, not by what has been organised for them, and as a slave to tradition.
The fact is with humans of either gender their sexuality can be of numerous grades, enjoying all diverse types of relationship with hundreds of different sexual practices. Men with women, men with men, woman with women, men with sheep, men with, well you have got my meaning. Their sexuality has nothing to do with anyone else, it is only important between themselves.
Forget that chocolate box image of marriage as in the past, with women laying on their back and thinking of England to pleasure men which in many circles was the only way for females. 2012 is a different age! I was happily married, with much love, but deceit broke it up and I would be the last person to dictate the terms of any marriage between two loving people. I have no objection to a couple with a diverse view of life and love, as God created a very diverse World.
I wonder how many who are preaching to everyone else the importance of marriage have actually stayed faithful in marriage; have actually stayed within marriage; have lived maybe a very depressed existence within marriage. The pious of many in church congregations angers me greatly, as I have seen and heard it at close hand. That is why I, as a Child of God, worship God outside of any organised religion as it is politically motivated, self centred, and so often in their piety at odds with the teachings of Jesus, who certainly was in love with a prostitute, and openly encouraged his disciples to love one another, as everyone should, even with enemies. Jesus was of understanding and love, being against the piety and self importance of the established church with it's blinkered thinking. Jesus never married and just lived a life of love and preaching the word of God!
The Churches must modernise and increase their inclusiveness and diversity to reflect real people without dictating what people should do. If they do not then their congregations will shrink still further. |However it is reassuring that many clergy are now far more liberal. It is highly interesting that indeed many clergy have made it clear that there is no clear statement in the Bible against homosexuality. They have studied theology, and know what they are stating, with a clear backing for the churches to marry two people of the same gender. A senior churchman actually stated that God has far more to worry about than two humans of the same gender getting married. How right!!
Love, and live let live! :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
-
So you as a christian believe that the first half of the Holy Bible is a load of old bollix ? Interesting.
The senior churchman who stated that there was no clear statement against homosexuality in the Bible,has obviously never read it.
Btw,I have read it cover to cover many times.It just so happens that I no longer believe a word of it.
It could be argued that the church is actually dying because it has changed/modernised etc. It was once a centre point,a yardstick for national morality,conscience etc.In the last 50 years it has to a large extent changed according to fashionable thinking and no longer represents a solid,reliable focus point for communities etc.
Muslimism on the other hand has not moved a single inch from its centuries old views of the world and it is thriving all over the world.
Food for thought possibly ?
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
With a biscuit :y :y
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So the government are ringing the changes -- thats a bummer. ;D ;D
-
So you as a christian believe that the first half of the Holy Bible is a load of old bollix ? Interesting.
The senior churchman who stated that there was no clear statement against homosexuality in the Bible,has obviously never read it.
Btw,I have read it cover to cover many times.It just so happens that I no longer believe a word of it.
It could be argued that the church is actually dying because it has changed/modernised etc. It was once a centre point,a yardstick for national morality,conscience etc.In the last 50 years it has to a large extent changed according to fashionable thinking and no longer represents a solid,reliable focus point for communities etc.
Muslimism on the other hand has not moved a single inch from its centuries old views of the world and it is thriving all over the world.
Food for thought possibly ?
Yes Albitz :y :y :y
World created within six days, and the 7th for God to rest; An ark big enough to take creatures in two by two from the World! No, sorry too many fairy stories. That is why Jesus arrived to give a lot more clarity on the true word of God as some very politically minded people had wrtiten their version of how things should be believed! The New Testament is however basically the true word, although again some allowance must be made for the men recording it all hundreds of years after the events. ;)
-
So you as a christian believe that the first half of the Holy Bible is a load of old bollix ? Interesting.
The senior churchman who stated that there was no clear statement against homosexuality in the Bible,has obviously never read it.
Btw,I have read it cover to cover many times.It just so happens that I no longer believe a word of it.
It could be argued that the church is actually dying because it has changed/modernised etc. It was once a centre point,a yardstick for national morality,conscience etc.In the last 50 years it has to a large extent changed according to fashionable thinking and no longer represents a solid,reliable focus point for communities etc.
Muslimism on the other hand has not moved a single inch from its centuries old views of the world and it is thriving all over the world.
Food for thought possibly ?
Yes Albitz :y :y :y
World created within six days, and the 7th for God to rest; An ark big enough to take creatures in two by two from the World! No, sorry too many fairy stories. That is why Jesus arrived to give a lot more clarity on the true word of God as some very politically minded people had wrtiten their version of how things should be believed! The New Testament is however basically the true word, although again some allowance must be made for the men recording it all hundreds of years after the events. ;)
Agreed.Although the New Testament is if anything worse. It tells us that there is a being called god somewhere up in the heavens.He is all powerful and omnipresent.It doesnt mention a Mrs god,but says he had a son somehow.He was an only child whom he loved very much,but for some vague reason this all powerful,all knowing being decided that the humans he created had become "sinners" whatever that means,and the only way to fix that problem would be to send his son to planet earth in the form of a human.
The chosen method of turning his son into human form was to plant him as a feotus into the womb of a newly married virgin and allow him to be born onto a poor family.Then he would somehow talk sense into the humans all over the known world and convince them to stop being "sinners".
This plan failed,so plan B was to allow the humans to crucify his son and this would allow a process whereby his blood would allow human sins to be washed away and forgiven if they saw sense and repented.If they repented they would then be granted eternal life by god,in the form of another being who lived with him up in the heavens for all eternity.
No sense or logic whatsoever to any of it.If someone wrote that book these days they would be sectioned.In fact if you read the apostle Pauls book of revelation,it would be hard to argue that he was anything other than a lunatic,or discovered LSD two thousand years before anyone else did. ;)
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
With a biscuit :y :y
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
An OOF biscuit, that's an idea! I'll certainly have it with my cup of tea! :D :D :D ;)
-
So you as a christian believe that the first half of the Holy Bible is a load of old bollix ? Interesting.
The senior churchman who stated that there was no clear statement against homosexuality in the Bible,has obviously never read it.
Btw,I have read it cover to cover many times.It just so happens that I no longer believe a word of it.
It could be argued that the church is actually dying because it has changed/modernised etc. It was once a centre point,a yardstick for national morality,conscience etc.In the last 50 years it has to a large extent changed according to fashionable thinking and no longer represents a solid,reliable focus point for communities etc.
Muslimism on the other hand has not moved a single inch from its centuries old views of the world and it is thriving all over the world.
Food for thought possibly ?
Yes Albitz :y :y :y
World created within six days, and the 7th for God to rest; An ark big enough to take creatures in two by two from the World! No, sorry too many fairy stories. That is why Jesus arrived to give a lot more clarity on the true word of God as some very politically minded people had wrtiten their version of how things should be believed! The New Testament is however basically the true word, although again some allowance must be made for the men recording it all hundreds of years after the events. ;)
Agreed.Although the New Testament is if anything worse. It tells us that there is a being called god somewhere up in the heavens.He is all powerfu land omnipresent.It doesnt mention a Mrs god,but says he had a son somehow.He was an only child whom he loved very much,but for some vague reason this all powerful,all knowing being decided that the humans he created had become "sinners" whatever that means,and the only way to fix that problem would be to send his son to planet earth in the form of a human.
The chosen method of turning his son into human form was to plant him as a feotus into the womb of a newly married virgin and allow him to be born onto a poor family.Then he would somehow talk sense into the humans all over the known world and convince them to stop being "sinners".
This plan failed,so plan B was to allow the humans to crucify his son and this would allow a process whereby his blood would allow human sins to be washed away and forgiven if they saw sense and repented.If they repented they would then be granted eternal life by god,in the form of another being who lived with him up in the heavens for all eternity.
No sense or logic whatsoever to any of it.If someone wrote that book these days they would be sectioned.In fact if you read the apostle Pauls book of revelation,it would be hard to argue that he was anything other than a lunatic,or discovered LSD two thousand years before anyone else did. ;)
Well Albitz. What can I say, but I do believe the whole concept and so do millions of others. Christians have done for 2,000 years, and even a whole empire that had physical contact with Jesus, was converted to those beliefs. Add to that some personal experiences and I know that God exists, along with good and evil spirits, with an afterlife of some form or another. You either believe or you do not. I do :) :) :)
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
With a biscuit :y :y
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
An OOF biscuit, that's an idea! I'll certainly have it with my cup of tea! :D :D :D ;)
I don't think you would Lizzie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Think of homosexual practices ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And thats my point I suppose.It doesnt make sense,its illogical,but people choose to believe it.Its called faith.
People of faith have always been around and always will be.They have always faced persecution,and they will be persecuted soon by this new law.Some people of faith also have faith in the Old Testament,as is their right.The basis of our laws and justice are from the 10 commandments in the Old Testament.I will bet good money that within the next decade,faith organisations will be forced to choose between their beliefs and the dictats of the state over this vote.
We have already seen it,with registrars who because of their faith couldnt perform same sex civil ceremonies being forced out of their jobs,even though they had been in those jobs long before the law came into force.Also Catholic adoption agencies being forced to close because their faith wouldnt allow them to be part of same sex adoption.
Historically this country has been a Christian country.The state and Church have been inextricably linked.The Monarch is both head of state and head of the Church of England.Recent events are combining to unravel that situation,and who knows where that is going to lead us. If it happens in the next decade,we may well have President Blair.After that simialr or worse ?
The law of (possibly) unintended consquences will come into play in the near future imo.
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
With a biscuit :y :y
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
An OOF biscuit, that's an idea! I'll certainly have it with my cup of tea! :D :D :D ;)
I don't think you would Lizzie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Think of homosexual practices ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No, I'm thinking of a pure heterosexual encounter!!........and a cup of sweet tea! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Nothing that is said on this forum will alter your beliefs, Lizzie, nor mine. I think it's time for a nice cup of tea. ;D
No, indeed! :D :D :D :D
A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
With a biscuit :y :y
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
An OOF biscuit, that's an idea! I'll certainly have it with my cup of tea! :D :D :D ;)
I don't think you would Lizzie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Think of homosexual practices ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No, I'm thinking of a pure heterosexual encounter!!........and a cup of sweet tea! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Naughty but nice :y
-
And thats my point I suppose.It doesnt make sense,its illogical,but people choose to believe it.Its called faith.
People of faith have always been around and always will be.They have always faced persecution,and they will be persecuted soon by this new law.Some people of faith also have faith in the Old Testament,as is their right.The basis of our laws and justice are from the 10 commandments in the Old Testament.I will bet good money that within the next decade,faith organisations will be forced to choose between their beliefs and the dictats of the state over this vote.
We have already seen it,with registrars who because of their faith couldnt perform same sex civil ceremonies being forced out of their jobs,even though they had been in those jobs long before the law came into force.Also Catholic adoption agencies being forced to close because their faith wouldnt allow them to be part of same sex adoption.
Historically this country has been a Christian country.The state and Church have been inextricably linked.The Monarch is both head of state and head of the Church of England.Recent events are combining to unravel that situation,and who knows where that is going to lead us. If it happens in the next decade,we may well have President Blair.After that simialr or worse ?
The law of (possibly) unintended consquences will come into play in the near future imo.
Relax it will all be fixed in the next 30 years or so, when you will have either converted to Islam, started a new life probably in the US or been helped by those in charge to meet your maker. ::) ::) ::)
-
None of the above,but Im sure I will have pushed up quite a few daisys by then. :y ;D
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
I was quite neutral myself, Daz. But then Peter Tatchell and gay pride marches came along.
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
I was quite neutral myself, Daz. But then Peter Tatchell and gay pride marches came along.
Was gonna say opps em but not sure that would be the right thing too say :D
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
I was quite neutral myself, Daz. But then Peter Tatchell and gay pride marches came along.
Was gonna say bugger em but not sure that would be the right thing too say :D
Probably not. ;) ;D
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
I was quite neutral myself, Daz. But then Peter Tatchell and gay pride marches came along.
Was gonna say bugger em but not sure that would be the right thing too say :D
Probably not. ;) ;D
Especially in front of STHomo....likes picking up soap as I remember ;D
-
I don't mind gay men or women. Quite comfortable with my own sexuality unlike some. ....
Although something doesn't seem right that they can now marry :-[
I was quite neutral myself, Daz. But then Peter Tatchell and gay pride marches came along.
Was gonna say bugger em but not sure that would be the right thing too say :D
Probably not. ;) ;D
Especially in front of STHomo....likes picking up soap as I remember ;D
Depends who I'm picking it up for. Wouldn't pick up ugly's, maybe yours.
-
Best offer hes had in years,as hes such an ugly facker. ;)
-
I have been away and have just trolled through every word in this thread........ :y
One small part of a sentence I did pick out, and agree with, and its not about gays. Its just the simple words.........
keep women under control and keep them shackled
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have been away and have just trolled through every word in this thread........ :y
One small part of a sentence I did pick out, and agree with, and its not about gays. Its just the simple words.........
keep women under control and keep them shackled
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh!! You have taken that out of context from my post! :o :o :o :o
Typical devious bloke! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
I have been away and have just trolled through every word in this thread........ :y
One small part of a sentence I did pick out, and agree with, and its not about gays. Its just the simple words.........
keep women under control and keep them shackled
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aye :P
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/1996_7038_BTF_2689_3.jpg)
-
I have been away and have just trolled through every word in this thread........ :y
One small part of a sentence I did pick out, and agree with, and its not about gays. Its just the simple words.........
keep women under control and keep them shackled
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh!! You have taken that out of context from my post! :o :o :o :o
Typical devious bloke! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
That's very offensive, making a sexist, offensive and stereotypical remark about men.
-
I have been away and have just trolled through every word in this thread........ :y
One small part of a sentence I did pick out, and agree with, and its not about gays. Its just the simple words.........
keep women under control and keep them shackled
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh!! You have taken that out of context from my post! :o :o :o :o
Typical devious bloke! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
That's very offensive, making a sexist, offensive and stereotypical remark about men.
You obviously didn't notice my numerous laughs as it was a joke remark based on another joke remark. :) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think you need to lighten up! ::) ::) ;)
-
I`m probably older than most of you and grew up in the age when homosexuality was against the law of the land, i`m not happy the way it has been bought into everyday living, with every tom dick and harry suddenly popping out of the closet, holding hands and saying I love him / her. but to start saying that they can actually marry one another in a church makes a whole mockery of the state of marriage, man marries woman, has children, marriage consummated full stop.
I dont have any christian beliefs whatsoever but I can understand the the total abhorrence that alot of people feel about this issue.
Thats my few pence worth, take it or leave it, i`m not really bothered
-
I'd have a lot more "respect" for the "religious" viewpoint (ie those quoting the bible and saying marriage is a holy estate etc etc etc) if those saying it were not so damned hypocritical.
"marriage can only be between man and woman 'cos the bible says so".
The bible (and the promise before god made on marriage) also says "until death us do part" and "thou shalt not commit adultery"
So all those who have a) Got divorced and b) had an affair (and many have done both) have broken the "rules" of the bible and their religion and IMHO should have no voice in this debate :)
But of course I forget the basic tenet of many people ... "I can do what I want providing you do as I tell you" .... :(
Hypocrisy .... simple as ..
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
That's right. It's highly contagious that gay bug. Be careful you dont catch it.
-
I wonder is there any Gay OOF members on here ? ...Personally i'm against it, The thought of 2 men together is sickening to say the least 2 women hmmm :-X ;D
but you can help women ;D ;D
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
ABSO- FREAKIN'- LUTEY
One up the done, no harm done...... Freddie Mercury ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
That's right. It's highly contagious that gay bug. Be careful you dont catch it.
:-X :-X Where's that sarcastic smiley? ::)
-
I`m probably older than most of you and grew up in the age when homosexuality was against the law of the land, i`m not happy the way it has been bought into everyday living, with every tom dick and harry suddenly popping out of the closet, holding hands and saying I love him / her. but to start saying that they can actually marry one another in a church makes a whole mockery of the state of marriage, man marries woman, has children, marriage consummated full stop.
I dont have any christian beliefs whatsoever but I can understand the the total abhorrence that alot of people feel about this issue.
Thats my few pence worth, take it or leave it, i`m not really bothered
thats what i think :y :y
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
But it is natural ;) Most other mammals exhibit bisexual and homosexual traits as well as hetrosexual ones ;)
-
I`m probably older than most of you and grew up in the age when homosexuality was against the law of the land, i`m not happy the way it has been bought into everyday living, with every tom dick and harry suddenly popping out of the closet, holding hands and saying I love him / her. but to start saying that they can actually marry one another in a church makes a whole mockery of the state of marriage, man marries woman, has children, marriage consummated full stop.
I dont have any christian beliefs whatsoever but I can understand the the total abhorrence that alot of people feel about this issue.
Thats my few pence worth, take it or leave it, i`m not really bothered
So are you equally as unhappy with the way that any outward signs of affection have become commonplace? ???
-
Tolerance it seems is a bit of a one way street - again.Tory MP David Burrowes has called in police after receiving death threats because he voted against the proposal.Details of his travel arrangements have been posted online presumably to assist anyone who might want to harm him and his family, and his children are being bulled at school for having a "homophobic" father (I hate that word).
Camoron btw,who has publicly stated that this is a matter of great principle for him didnt actaully turn up for the debate on the issue in the commons.He wouldnt recognise a principle if it kicked him up the arse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9845185/Tory-MP-gets-death-threats-over-gay-marriage-opposition.html
-
I'd have a lot more "respect" for the "religious" viewpoint (ie those quoting the bible and saying marriage is a holy estate etc etc etc) if those saying it were not so damned hypocritical.
"marriage can only be between man and woman 'cos the bible says so".
The bible (and the promise before god made on marriage) also says "until death us do part" and "thou shalt not commit adultery"
So all those who have a) Got divorced and b) had an affair (and many have done both) have broken the "rules" of the bible and their religion and IMHO should have no voice in this debate :)
But of course I forget the basic tenet of many people ... "I can do what I want providing you do as I tell you" .... :(
Hypocrisy .... simple as ..
""so all those who have got divorced, or had an affair ......should have no voice""
that sounds weird!
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
That's right. It's highly contagious that gay bug. Be careful you dont catch it.
:-X :-X Where's that sarcastic smiley? ::)
Quite.
I must say how disappointing it is to read a good number of the posts on this thread.
-
8) they can do what they like as long as they stay away from me its not natural
That's right. It's highly contagious that gay bug. Be careful you dont catch it.
:-X :-X Where's that sarcastic smiley? ::)
Quite.
I must say how disappointing it is to read a good number of the posts on this thread.
Yep, and surprising too. There are some very bigoted posts coming out :(
(Excuse the pun :-X)
-
Tolerance it seems is a bit of a one way street - again.Tory MP David Burrowes has called in police after receiving death threats because he voted against the proposal.Details of his travel arrangements have been posted online presumably to assist anyone who might want to harm him and his family, and his children are being bulled at school for having a "homophobic" father (I hate that word).
Camoron btw,who has publicly stated that this is a matter of great principle for him didnt actaully turn up for the debate on the issue in the commons.He wouldnt recognise a principle if it kicked him up the arse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9845185/Tory-MP-gets-death-threats-over-gay-marriage-opposition.html
Unfortunately there will always be people looking for a fight >:(
-
There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?
-
There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?
when our politicians are in trouble with a subject, they talk or do something different to change the subject.. and they are always successful!
-
So discrimination is ok as long as it has it's basis in religion, tradition or so-called moralities?
Would this extend to views on race, class or disability?
-
There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?
I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.
But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.
And that is what the Bill is actually about.
-
So discrimination is ok as long as it has it's basis in religion, tradition or so-called moralities?
Would this extend to views on race, class or disability?
Whether discrimination is the correct term to use when speaking of poeples objections on moral/religious grounds etc. is debatable.
There are no genuine grounds within religions or morals to have any negative views regarding race/skin colour/disabilty.
-
History says otherwise.
-
There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?
I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.
But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.
And that is what the Bill is actually about.
A valid argument.Objectors to the bill imo range from those who object to homosexuality on one hand,to those who believe that the tradition of marriage* shouldnt be tinkered with by cynical vote hungery poloticians.
* Marriage - A centuries old institution adhered to in many parts of the world,where a man and woman are joined in a holy/legal union,normally resulting in procreation which keeps the human race going from one generation to another in an orderly/civilised/social fashion.
It has been the bedrock of civilised society for a long time,and we should carefully examine all the possible ramifications before fundamentally changing it.
-
I think gay folk are pretty cool.
As for if they should be allowed to marry... who cares, religions all 'dangle berries' anyway :)
-
I think gay folk are pretty cool.
As for if they should be allowed to marry... who cares, religions all 'dangle berries' anyway :)
Nowt so understanding as an atheist. ::)
-
There always have been and always will be people who object to homosexuality on grounds of religion,tradition,morality etc.
Until possibly 25 years ago that would have included the vast majority of the U.K. population,but nowadays the figure would be less to a certain extent.
I cant understand why those who hold the opposite view cant accept that people are entitled to hold those views for those reasons and be tolerant of that. Whatever your views on the subject,there is no denying that things have changed a lot and will continue to change.Why not just let that proceed at its natural pace and leave it at that,rather than force the issue so much,and cause a lot of trouble with peoples faith/conscience/morals etc along the way ?
I accept what you say ..totally ..... If someone wishes to object to homosexuality they are certainly entitled to.
But to say "homosexuality is OK and in a civil partnership it is OK, but in a marriage is not" .. is not objecting to homosexuality .. it is treating a homosexual couple differently to a heterosexual couple.
And that is what the Bill is actually about.
A valid argument.Objectors to the bill imo range from those who object to homosexuality on one hand,to those who believe that the tradition of marriage* shouldnt be tinkered with by cynical vote hungery poloticians.
* Marriage - A centuries old institution adhered to in many parts of the world,where a man and woman are joined in a holy/legal union,normally resulting in procreation which keeps the human race going from one generation to another in an orderly/civilised/social fashion.
It has been the bedrock of civilised society for a long time,and we should carefully examine all the possible ramifications before fundamentally changing it.
As I said above .. "'Til death us do part" and "forsakeing all others"
so if you stick to religious principles as grounds to object to gay marriage .. then adultery and divorce are equally debarred .... and some 40% of the population have done either or both ...
but because people want that it is now acceptable ...
hypocrisy ? ? ? ??
-
Well,Ive been married for well over 30 years,so Im well on the way to "til death us do part". :y ;D
I agree to an extent with what you say.It used to be against church rules and morals for divorcees to remarry,but they decided at some point to move with the times.There are valid arguments imo,which say that the church shouldnt move with the times.
Getting back to the gay marriage/discrimination issue.The argument assumes that all gay people agree with changing the rules to allow gay marriage I would have thought,otherwise gays are discriminating against gays.
I know that Andrew Pierce ( an excellent intelligent journalist imo) has always argued against it.Ive just heard it said on Question Time that Christpher Biggins has said that Marriage is for men & women to enter into and raise a family,and Rupert Everett has said that children should be raised by a Mother & father.He has recieved death threats for saying so.All three of them are openly gay.
Mark my words,within a decade (at most) Churches will be forced by law to marry gay people or be forced to close by the state.
That to me will be when we have a fascist state.
-
Well,Ive been married for well over 30 years,so Im well on the way to "til death us do part". :y ;D
I agree to an extent with what you say.It used to be against church rules and morals for divorcees to remarry,but they decided at some point to move with the times.There are valid arguments imo,which say that the church shouldnt move with the times.
Getting back to the gay marriage/discrimination issue.The argument assumes that all gay people agree with changing the rules to allow gay marriage I would have thought,otherwise gays are discriminating against gays.
I know that Andrew Pierce ( an excellent intelligent journalist imo) has always argued against it.Ive just heard it said on Question Time that Christpher Biggins has said that Marriage is for men & women to enter into and raise a family,and Rupert Everett has said that children should be raised by a Mother & father.He has recieved death threats for saying so.All three of them are openly gay.
Mark my words,within a decade (at most) Churches will be forced by law to marry gay people or be forced to close by the state.
That to me will be when we have a fascist state.
Precisely. A very perceptive point. :y
-
I'll be quite honest....it (the gay world) revolts me. . But I live and let live. I have my opinions, you have yours. I'll not belittle you for your beliefs, so I in return, do not expect you to belittle me.
As another poster said....I do not like it on my telly in my lounge. If you accept it well and good. Once upon a time, Mary Whitehouse campaigned about hetrosexual content on TV. Her generation were appalled by it. I couldn't see what the fuss was about. Different generations! Now present generations accept it without question. The same is now applying to the 'gay' syndrome. A generation thing again.
Do not call me a bigot, just because my beliefs are not the same as yours.
This forum has shown quite clearly, the nation is divided, and the topic has put friends against friends. A typical case of 'if not seized on by government', (why????) all would have carried on at a natural pace, until at some time in the future, mankind would possibly accept more readily what is happening to society.
You younger people have to remember that some of us have been on this earth a lot longer than you, we have been brought up in different times to you, have different views to you, be it on gays, immigration, NHS, capital punishment, education or whatever.
So do not preach to us as though we are bigots, racists, fascists etc. Everyone in a democracy is entitled to an opinion, and because we don't agree with your opinion, that is the way of the world. Just because your education has been different to ours, does not give you the right to chastise us for our feelings on things.
As a footnote.....I am not having a go at anyone in particular, friends will be friends,,,,if points of view end those friendships, then friendship was not there in the first place :y
Rant over :y .....and you are all still welcome to the Wycombe meet in May ;D ;D
-
I'll be quite honest....it (the gay world) revolts me. . But I live and let live. I have my opinions, you have yours. I'll not belittle you for your beliefs, so I in return, do not expect you to belittle me.
As another poster said....I do not like it on my telly in my lounge. If you accept it well and good. Once upon a time, Mary Whitehouse campaigned about hetrosexual content on TV. Her generation were appalled by it. I couldn't see what the fuss was about. Different generations! Now present generations accept it without question. The same is now applying to the 'gay' syndrome. A generation thing again.
Do not call me a bigot, just because my beliefs are not the same as yours.
This forum has shown quite clearly, the nation is divided, and the topic has put friends against friends. A typical case of 'if not seized on by government', (why????) all would have carried on at a natural pace, until at some time in the future, mankind would possibly accept more readily what is happening to society.
You younger people have to remember that some of us have been on this earth a lot longer than you, we have been brought up in different times to you, have different views to you, be it on gays, immigration, NHS, capital punishment, education or whatever.
So do not preach to us as though we are bigots, racists, fascists etc. Everyone in a democracy is entitled to an opinion, and because we don't agree with your opinion, that is the way of the world. Just because your education has been different to ours, does not give you the right to chastise us for our feelings on things.
As a footnote.....I am not having a go at anyone in particular, friends will be friends,,,,if points of view end those friendships, then friendship was not there in the first place :y
Rant over :y .....and you are all still welcome to the Wycombe meet in May ;D ;D
Wow!!!!!! nice post...... :y :y :y
-
I'll be quite honest....it (the gay world) revolts me. . But I live and let live. I have my opinions, you have yours. I'll not belittle you for your beliefs, so I in return, do not expect you to belittle me.
As another poster said....I do not like it on my telly in my lounge. If you accept it well and good. Once upon a time, Mary Whitehouse campaigned about hetrosexual content on TV. Her generation were appalled by it. I couldn't see what the fuss was about. Different generations! Now present generations accept it without question. The same is now applying to the 'gay' syndrome. A generation thing again.
Do not call me a bigot, just because my beliefs are not the same as yours.
This forum has shown quite clearly, the nation is divided, and the topic has put friends against friends. A typical case of 'if not seized on by government', (why????) all would have carried on at a natural pace, until at some time in the future, mankind would possibly accept more readily what is happening to society.
You younger people have to remember that some of us have been on this earth a lot longer than you, we have been brought up in different times to you, have different views to you, be it on gays, immigration, NHS, capital punishment, education or whatever.
So do not preach to us as though we are bigots, racists, fascists etc. Everyone in a democracy is entitled to an opinion, and because we don't agree with your opinion, that is the way of the world. Just because your education has been different to ours, does not give you the right to chastise us for our feelings on things.
As a footnote.....I am not having a go at anyone in particular, friends will be friends,,,,if points of view end those friendships, then friendship was not there in the first place :y
Rant over :y .....and you are all still welcome to the Wycombe meet in May ;D ;D
Wow!!!!!! nice post...... :y :y :y
Well said Tony :y :y
Let me put it simply:-
Penis + Vagina = marriage :y :y
Penis + Anus or Muff + Munch = Queer :( :(
Don't mention Sheep ;D ;D ;D ;D
Whatever your sexual preferences are, enjoy them with consenting adults just don't expect the rest of us to condone or accept it. :y
-
A very well put, reasoned response Terbert! :y