Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Would have voted for the bill

10 (21.3%)

Would have voted against the bill

30 (63.8%)

Dont know

3 (6.4%)

Mind your own business,I was never confused

4 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 34

Voting closed: 08 February 2013, 20:38:34

[cleggy]

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

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
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

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

NO 

Let's see, so a beastialist can marry is donkey or a necrophilliac a corpse, it is still affection

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

Although that's a little bit of an extreme example as both are illegal

It isn't that long ago that sodomy was

[Gaffers]

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

[Lazydocker]

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

He told me it was more like a mini cocktail sausage

[STMO123]

You wouldn't like it for a wart over your eye, as my dad used to say 

[Lazydocker]

....

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

[Lazydocker]

You wouldn't like it for a wart over your eye, as my dad used to say 

[Entwood]

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 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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!

[STMO123]

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

No, indeed!

A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please:y

[albitz]

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 ?

[cleggy]

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.

No, indeed!

A damn fine idea!! Two sugars with milk please

With a biscuit

If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join their club 

[SteveAvfc.]

So the government are ringing the changes -- thats a bummer. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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

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.

[albitz]

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

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.