planetf1.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531

I can't believe I live in a country where this stoneage mentality still exists...

He can f**king do one for all I care. So angry .

_________________
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Read that earlier .

First reaction was "good will to all men unless you are gay.".

I would really love someone to have the balls to pass a law that says they can't discriminate and they have to do the ceremony.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

It annoys me that on a day like this, instead of simply wishing goodwill to all mankind and celebrating a rather significant historical moment he uses it as a political crowbar.

Typical of so many people in religious power. Disgraceful that he even brought it up today.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world

Lets not forget that he is catholic, and Catholics are known for being stuck in the past a little.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

They aren't that bad. They do agree the world isn't flat these days

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

As a few other posters have said, it's the fact that he used his Christmas sermon to preach this message that really annoys me. The one time of the year that people might listen to him and he has a chance to spread a message of peace and goodwill (or whatever Christians are meant to be into) to the world yet he uses it to attack a group of people by prattling on about "governments mistakenly promoting such patterns of sexual intimacy as objectively to be approved among the young".

_________________
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Leaving aside the right or wrong of the subject. he is correct. This 'subject' irrespective of what it is, is on the point of becoming law without following due course.

I am absolutely not anti-gay, so the content of the subject is irrelevant to me, but as he says, it is on the cusp of becoming law when it was never overtly discussed or backed. Which is wrong.

A majority should never have a discussion on the rights a minority has, they should be the same regardless...

_________________
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter it's discrimination.

Discrimination in any shape size or form is wrong (and that includes positive discrimination) .

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

But aside from his opinion being right or wrong, my point was about the despicable timing of such comments from him.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world

Just as another point, the civil rights act in the USA was pushed through without much discussion... Somethings are just right.

_________________
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Then change the rules. Who decides what is 'right' and what is not? The rules have worked well for a few hundred years, why should one item, no matter what it is be above them? Who decides what the next item to go through this way is? Maybe ginger babies should not be allowed to live? lets sneak it through.

so was this right?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-ch ... d=16878536

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

But that is just your view on it. You would be surprised (or may be you wouldnt) how many people take this fairy cakes as 'gospel' as it comes from the mouth of bigoted idiots just because of indoctrination.

Where I was brought up (in UK) was so indoctrinated with a local version of baptist that every facet of everyday life was governed by it. Most of which was not even in the bible. It was just on the point of being thrown out when I was growing up, but even to today, there are those who believe what they were told as kids, even though it was out of the heads of a couple of people in power in the religious community. I am talking things with no foundation at all here, not from any direct guidance in the bible or long standing practice, just what was preached at people on sunday. I am sure others know what I am on about.
The fact that it goes contrary to any common sense in your head does not matter, its ingrained in some people to believe what another group tell them is right. Unfortunately, it seems that many religious leaders are of this type

Of course it is not right. but, was he right to do what he did? that is another question.
He does not own the church and has to do what the congregation want. I have some sympathy with him.
But no, its wrong morally. I am not him so cant say what I would have done. I know what I like to think I would have done, but I would not like to face an empty church for the rest of my time there.

My opinion is this: religion is a personal choice; NOT LAW. You don't have the right to force your personal beliefs on a public that may or may not agree with you. Your personal opinions should be your own. Religion should have no input on what is legal or not.

No one cares anyway. Has anyone looked at the statics of marriage in this country? At least gays; who have had to be ridiculed and mocked by people to get the right to marry will appreciate marrige. Which is more than we can say for most straight couples.

I agree, the church should not be forced to marry gay couples if they are against it, thats their choice. but it should be legal for them to marry in places that are happy to undetake the ceremony.

_________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time…so remember: great achievements take time, there is no overnight success.

All well and good in a perfect world. But, peoples opinions must still conform to what is acceptable within law. for instance, and I can only speak from a point of view of what is generally called 'the west' here, but what about marriage age? You or anyone else can say there is no physical reason why for some it could be 12 years of age.
Many people are fully developed by that age, so why not? It is only convention, which is really just another term for the laws, that forbids it. 200 years ago it was probably fully acceptable, but not now.

There are many gray areas which overlap law religion and convention, and they change. In general, it is better to obey the law and get it changed to reflect todays 'norm' than it it to disregard it.
Although I know what you are saying, and agree in principle, what of others that dont think the same?

I'm one of the oldies so wont be around either

I read in the week about the huge number of immigrants in some places and wonder how this will affect the overall picture of things?

Many are from countries who are far more religion lead than the UK currently is and also tend to have higher birthrates. Possibly influencing things in the opposite direction.

A friend of my grandson has a 'partner' who can not return to his Islamic country as he says he would face the penalty for it.

and who says his opinion should matter? By his logic, he is a minority himself (Catholic in this country ) that should be ignored.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

If people want gay marriage, I'm cool with it as long as they allow Civil partnerships to straight people, or otherwise completely make all benefits, tax issues, medical, legal etc issues for both the same.

I don't see why gay marriage etc would bother anyone really. But perhaps it's because I grew up in a pretty accepting time, and if I had grown up more used to an anti-gay world, I might have been shaped into disagreement. I'd like to think I still wouldn't, but who knows.

Inappropriate post removed.

But when you or Denorth express your opinion, it is just that, your opinion. no one else gives a fig about it. When someone in his position expresses 'his opinion' it influences the thinking of thousands of people.

I often scoff when you hear things on the TV, like 'the presedent of the USA, the most powerful man in the world' as it is rubbish. If he said the Pope needed 'removing', there would be a fuss, if the Pope said he needed removing, it would happen.

Most of us who are not religious to a huge extent don't understand the mindset of those who are. It is ultimate power.
I don't just include Catholic or even Christians in this group either.

Sorry Alien, I'm sure you'll want to clarify this part of lots of your posts too! It is not as simple as religious communities and religion are bigoted or homophobic.

My parents are both Christians and are fully at ease with other peoples sexuality. They have had many openly gay couples in their church since I can remember and was old enough to understand (around the early 90's). I'm also 99% sure there are lots of communities who are in no way religious, but fully homophobic.

Islamic religions are just as, if not more homophobic than any denominations of Christianity in the UK. However, we will not see an Islamic leader saying anything about gay people in the news, because we usually only see them in the news about hate and extremist preaching, even though that is a very small minority of Islamic followers. I think it is the same here, that this is the worst thing that the news can report on anything Christian related.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

I think i understand how you define organised religion. But I just want to clarify what i was trying to get across. It's not just my patents, it is the church they attend that has no issues with gay people. They have blessed relationships and I'm sure would perform marriages if they were able to. So that church would be a religious organisation that was gay friendly, but i guess the problem (and who you actually mean by 'Organised religion') are the people at the top. Although in the article given, the archbishop of Canterbury was saying that the church of England made a mistake voting against female bishops, which he was trying to get accepted. So it's not all the people at the top who are against moving forward.

On a side note, a rock bar and music venue (which i only went to once then found out the owners were national front!) has been taken over and its black windows are now pink with a big rainbow flag flying outside and is now called the 'pink pony'. I only mention this due it's advertising slogan 'we are a heterosexual friendly bar and cafe' which i thought was great!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

No offence, but I don't think that church or your parents are particularly good Christians then if they pick and choose which words of God they choose to ignore or accept. If the Christian God has a problem with gay people (amongst others) then to accept gay marriage is by definition a non-Christian attitude. Perhaps I should be happy that the church is in some cases becoming more liberal I.e. choosing to deny the Word of God, but surely this should be seen as a sign that the basis of the whole Christian faith is flawed.

No offence taken, although you could say Christianity has always picked and chosen from the bible, otherwise they would still celebrate all the Jewish festivals as well as Christian. My parents church simply put a bigger emphasis on the new testament and used the old testament for guidance rather than law. The problem with the Christian God is that it is also the God of many other religions that originated in the middle east, it's just down to each religion how they choose to worship. I'm not a Christian myself, but I think that the way my parents church taught people was is very positive to all its congregation and its local community in general. There was no class, race, sex or sexuality discrimination and I've yet to see a more welcoming and friendly church anywhere. As for good Christian values, in did take the Catholic church 700 years to apologise for the crusades!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

That's all very good but I do the same in the way I teach my children without the need for any religious belief or following.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world

Fact is, if the church are in effect an independent organisation that wish to have their own rules over who they allow to marry then fine, but then they should have no influence in how anything outside of their 4 walls works. They would not like that!!!!!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world

Well if they were allowed their own rules should other organisations.

would any other establishment be allowed to effectively close their doors to one group of people?

Should any establishment be allowed to close it doors to one group?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I think people are entitled to love people of the same sex, it is their life and is completely acceptable... however I do consider it against human nature in terms of procreation, which is what life actually is. Homosexuality is the opposition to procreation, as is celibacy, which certain aspects of religion preach. Procreation is a way of life, and anything that goes against procreation is not natural.

I'm aware I may get abused verbally for that view, but it is just my view, and I wouldn't dare force anyone to agree with it, and I wouldn't dare allow it to prevent me having friendship with a gay person. I have a couple of friends in same-sex relationships, and I have no problem with them living their life that way.

But Mr Nichols sounds like he resents the whole thing and is using a time of goodwill to try and spread his resentment, which is wrong.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

I think that if I had been born a girl I would be a lesbian, I could never bring myself to have sex with a bloke

Its a tricky situation. I believe gay marriage should be allowed in church but then again golf clubs still have certain rooms only men or women are allowed in. They are private organisations so are allowed. The church however has influences well outside of its own walls.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world

But then the the golf clubs and such are getting grief too. Isn't the big one in America getting a bit of stick these days?



This might not be 100% accurate but I believe that every known species that engages in sex as a past time (Not solely for reproduction) engages in same sex relation ships. But there is a relatively small minority of species on the Planet that engage in sex for anything other than reproduction.

There is a species of monkey which sex is used as a greeting.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Really? This should be introduced to humankind. For people I find attractive only. And who are disease free. And I'm likely to meet on a regular basis.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."