planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:56 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2674
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 :x .

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1472
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.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3045
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
They aren't that bad. They do agree the world isn't flat these days :lol:

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2674
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
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.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2674
moby wrote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1472
But aside from his opinion being right or wrong, my point was about the despicable timing of such comments from him.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2674
moby wrote:
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
I am fully supportive of religious leaders preaching homophobic and or sexist dogma. Anything that shows them up for being the bigoted institutions they are and turn people away from organised religion is fine with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:
moby wrote:
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.

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


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.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am fully supportive of religious leaders preaching homophobic and or sexist dogma. Anything that shows them up for being the bigoted institutions they are and turn people away from organised religion is fine with me.


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

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
Johnston wrote:


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.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:19 pm
Posts: 337
Location: In the misty morning, on the edge of time.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
Saz wrote:
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.


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 have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
moby wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am fully supportive of religious leaders preaching homophobic and or sexist dogma. Anything that shows them up for being the bigoted institutions they are and turn people away from organised religion is fine with me.


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

The thing is now, the people who are going to agree with the church's stance are the people who already agree and won't have their minds swayed. The tide has turned against homophobia in the last ten years in the UK, especially among the younger demographics. While this may not be the case for older generations, unfortunately that is a battle you can't win and - speaking frankly - they won't be around for as long to express their opinions.

When the church spouts bigoted opinions like this, rather than turn the younger generations against homosexuality it will turn younger generations against the organised religions spouting their hate speak. As society in Britain secularises - which, let's face, even among declared Church of Englanders, is something that has largely already happened - people will see an institution they already have mixed feelings towards spouting opinions they know are wrong and turn their backs on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
moby wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am fully supportive of religious leaders preaching homophobic and or sexist dogma. Anything that shows them up for being the bigoted institutions they are and turn people away from organised religion is fine with me.


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

The thing is now, the people who are going to agree with the church's stance are the people who already agree and won't have their minds swayed. The tide has turned against homophobia in the last ten years in the UK, especially among the younger demographics. While this may not be the case for older generations, unfortunately that is a battle you can't win and - speaking frankly - they won't be around for as long to express their opinions.

When the church spouts bigoted opinions like this, rather than turn the younger generations against homosexuality it will turn younger generations against the organised religions spouting their hate speak. As society in Britain secularises - which, let's face, even among declared Church of Englanders, is something that has largely already happened - people will see an institution they already have mixed feelings towards spouting opinions they know are wrong and turn their backs on it.


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

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.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1052
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2635
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
Inappropriate post removed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
domdonald wrote:
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.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
mac_d wrote:
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.

The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.

It's the "Butt Buddies" solution from the South Park episode "follow that egg" - I don't see a need for civil partnerships to continue once gay marriage is legalised. Existing civil partnerships should just be recognised as marriages once the law is passed.

And really, we should stop calling it "Gay Marriage" and just call it marriage. By calling it "Gay Marriage" it implies there is something different about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
moby wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
moby wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I am fully supportive of religious leaders preaching homophobic and or sexist dogma. Anything that shows them up for being the bigoted institutions they are and turn people away from organised religion is fine with me.


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

The thing is now, the people who are going to agree with the church's stance are the people who already agree and won't have their minds swayed. The tide has turned against homophobia in the last ten years in the UK, especially among the younger demographics. While this may not be the case for older generations, unfortunately that is a battle you can't win and - speaking frankly - they won't be around for as long to express their opinions.

When the church spouts bigoted opinions like this, rather than turn the younger generations against homosexuality it will turn younger generations against the organised religions spouting their hate speak. As society in Britain secularises - which, let's face, even among declared Church of Englanders, is something that has largely already happened - people will see an institution they already have mixed feelings towards spouting opinions they know are wrong and turn their backs on it.


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

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.

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that all old, or even most older people were bigoted, just that they were born in an era when homophobia was endorsed by the state meaning they were brought up in an environment which makes any homophobic attitudes more hardwired and are thus "set in their ways" in that regard. Obviously, not all older people are homophobic or we would still be living in a nation where homophobic legislation was still in place.

Yes, there are communities in the UK which are more religion led, however I maintain that the children growing up in those communities will embrace the national way of thinking rather than the religious way of thinking provided they are not living in segregated societies.

Also, as you pointed out, many of those who have come from states who control through religion have often done so to escape persecution or because they are more liberally minded. While this cannot be said to be all, or even a majority of the immigrant religious people, what is true is that they will be an overall more progressive make up of their religion, and living in a country where society is accepting of homosexuality etc... means it is more likely for a change in attitudes to occur in those religious communities here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3045
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
minchy wrote:
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.

At the very start of my thread of comments I specifically used the words "organised religion" meaning I am talking about the establishment and not the individuals. Of course religious individuals are gay friendly, and this may even be a majority of religious individuals. I hope that it is because it will mean that ordinary individuals will stop listening to religious leaders.

Religious organisations use issues like this to create divisions, find a minority group and use it as common enemy to unite the rest behind.

I have friends who are gay and Christian, so I know that - as individuals - religious people can be fine with it. And of course, non religious people can be homophobic as well. However, as organisations, religious is spreading a message of homophobia whereas society is doing the opposite (hence the push to allow gay people to marry)

What frustrates me the most about organised religion is that the Catholic Church sits on a huge mountain of wealth. It could use that wealth to help people in poverty etc.. etc.. (which of course it does use some of it to do) however I can just see the meetings now (of course, not literally) where the religious leaders are sitting there deciding how to use the money, "should we give it to orphans? build homeless shelters? install wells for drinking water in Africa?" then someone comes in "The gays are planning to marry", "Right, it's decided, let's spend huge resources fighting that, and with any change that's left over we'll tell Africa that condoms are evil"

Even if gay marriage was against the will of God, even if it was morally bad on some quantifiable scale, is it really worse than all the indisputable bad things happening in the world that they could do something or raise awareness about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3045
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1903
By organised religion, I mean at the level above the individual parishes. There are vicars who don't even believe in God, and there are many who are gay friendly. I'm talking about institutions like the Vatican and the Church of England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
minchy wrote:
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!


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3045
domdonald wrote:
minchy wrote:
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!


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1472
minchy wrote:
domdonald wrote:
minchy wrote:
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!


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!


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.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1472
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!!!!!

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Asphalt_World wrote:
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!!!!!



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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
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..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3137
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











8O

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1472
Johnston wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
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!!!!!



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?


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.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Asphalt_World wrote:

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.



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?

jammin78 wrote:
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.


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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Johnston wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:

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.



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?

jammin78 wrote:
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.


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.

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..."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.149s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]