planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:29 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Gay marriage vote UK.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
Well gay marriage has been voted in by a majority of over 200 votes.

Thank goodness for that. Some of the archaic nonsense I have been listening to on the TV and radio over the past week has been simply staggering.

_________________
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 Feb 05, 2013 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1775
Despite now having the option to marry another man I'm still not gay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:03 pm
Posts: 224
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Despite now having the option to marry another man I'm still not gay.


And that's precisely the point is it not? It is an option; it's not compulsory. These rabid twits foaming at the mouth about the evils of gay marriage seem totally blind to the evils perpetrated in the names of "normality" and "natural"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1775
painless wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Despite now having the option to marry another man I'm still not gay.


And that's precisely the point is it not?

Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 4564
Why do we call it gay marriage? Shouldn't it be called just marriage?

_________________
Any old sap can pull teeth from a dead crocodile.
It takes a man to pull teeth from a live one.


:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1775
dizlexik wrote:
Why do we call it gay marriage? Shouldn't it be called just marriage?

100% agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
dizlexik wrote:
Why do we call it gay marriage? Shouldn't it be called just marriage?


Well OK, but up until 90 minutes ago, it was gay marriage / same sex marriage or whatever.

_________________
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 Feb 05, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
This is a disgrace it is going to ruin my marriage..


























Oh wait no we forgot to do that bit :lol: :lol:

Ram it up the God botherers obviously the big man wasn't listening to their prayers. Or Maybe he was and he doesn't like bigots.

_________________
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 Feb 05, 2013 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1317
So is this different from civil partnerships? I dont get the difference or the issue really. People should just be able to live how they want.

I'm glad I live in fairly understanding place like the UK.

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
The most amazing comments I've had the misfortune to hear are 'It will ruin the concept and tradition of family life'. Um well' I've just checked and my family still appears the same despite the ruling, and one from a Christian claiming that 'The Bible doesn't approve of it so it shouldn't be allowed'.

Um' since when did the Bible make decisions on how we ask live our life.

Thankfully there are plenty of Christians and people who follow other religions that are happy with the ruling.

_________________
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 Feb 05, 2013 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 1287
Catholic priests - The belief that having sex with men is abhorent, once they reach the age of 16.

Seriously though, this is a great day for equality. I can't believe there is, relatively speaking, so much opposition to this in a country where only 3% of people attend church. If your disagreement isn't based on religion then what's your problem?

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
Banana Man wrote:
Catholic priests - The belief that having sex with men is abhorent, once they reach the age of 16.

Seriously though, this is a great day for equality. I can't believe there is, relatively speaking, so much opposition to this in a country where only 3% of people attend church. If your disagreement isn't based on religion then what's your problem?


Most likely it's ignorance.

_________________
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 Feb 05, 2013 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1775
f1madman wrote:
So is this different from civil partnerships? I dont get the difference or the issue really. People should just be able to live how they want.

I'm glad I live in fairly understanding place like the UK.

Actually this does change things beyond the just the name. For example, apparently before this bill a wife couldn't divorce her husband on the grounds of adultery if he had sex with another man! Maybe this is why so many Tories are against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 2911
I can understand those against it, even if they are not 'anti-gay'. The term marriage has always been used for a male-female bond. I dont know that it should apply to same sex partnerships (which I am not against)

It is just one of those things that has always been, like a kid calling the female parent mam or mother.
Its just a word I know, but a convention that is thousands of years old, like 'brother' or 'sister' clarifies gender.
Maybe a new word could serve the same purposes legally without the overlap.

Opening a can of worms I know, but no matter how much better a woman is at a male role, or a man at a female role, they still retain a distinctive description.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: UK
Banana Man wrote:
Catholic priests - The belief that having sex with men is abhorent, once they reach the age of 16.

Seriously though, this is a great day for equality. I can't believe there is, relatively speaking, so much opposition to this in a country where only 3% of people attend church. If your disagreement isn't based on religion then what's your problem?

I'm not sure there is that much opposition among the general public. Certainly anyone I've ever spoken to on the matter has been in favour of legalising it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
moby wrote:
I can understand those against it, even if they are not 'anti-gay'. The term marriage has always been used for a male-female bond. I dont know that it should apply to same sex partnerships (which I am not against)

It is just one of those things that has always been, like a kid calling the female parent mam or mother.
Its just a word I know, but a convention that is thousands of years old, like 'brother' or 'sister' clarifies gender.
Maybe a new word could serve the same purposes legally without the overlap.

Opening a can of worms I know, but no matter how much better a woman is at a male role, or a man at a female role, they still retain a distinctive description.


Language evolves, it always has and always will. A chap who is anti gay marriage was on 5 live earlier using the dictionary definition of marriage as part of his argument. Well compare a 2013 dictionary with one from a few decades ago and the definition of a lot of words will have changed significantly. Getting hung up on 'traditions' is not helping the world move on IMO.

_________________
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: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2689
You should all watch last nights mrs Brown! There's a great bit where she grills the local catholic priest about blessing her gay son and partner. And what the same priest says tight at the end of the episode pretty much sums up the whole religion thing.

And as someone pointed out before, it is no longer gay marriage, now its just marriage. The only difference is that gay couples still have a religious marriage, but that's fine cause religion and marriage aren't one and the same anymore.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Quote:
@brianmoore666: My support of gay marriage is because I don't see why they shouldn't suffer like everyone else. - Mrs Moore is so lucky!
:lol: :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: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:59 am
Posts: 652
Banana Man wrote:
Catholic priests - The belief that having sex with men is abhorent, once they reach the age of 16.

Seriously though, this is a great day for equality. I can't believe there is, relatively speaking, so much opposition to this in a country where only 3% of people attend church. If your disagreement isn't based on religion then what's your problem?

If you made a similar joke (I hope it's a joke) about gay people, you'd get strung up, but because it's about Catholics nobody minds - does that sound right?

The main representatives of the Catholic Church (in France as well as the UK) were/are among the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, but they are by no means the only group opposed - they just happen to shout the loudest.
The fact that some MP's voted against the bill says nothing about the views of the electorate. Some MP's may well have been personally opposed, and some may have voted that way because they thought it was the safest bet in terms of their career / re-selection - who knows.

From a personal perspective, I don't know anyone who has particularly strong views on the issue, but then I only know two gay (lesbian) couples who've been married, and they just got on with things without worrying too much about what it was officially called or how it affected their legal status.

Anyway, the concept of marriage predates all the established religions, they don’t own it, they didn’t invent it, and they therefore have no right to try and dictate who can or can’t be married. Holy matrimony (or whatever people want to call it) is a completely different issue though, and as far as I can see the religious establishment should have a say in who can and can’t go through their particular ceremonies or rituals, otherwise it makes a mockery of their beliefs and totally devalues their whole concept of marriage before god. The fact that most peopled who get married in church aren't particularly religious and don't necessarily even believe in god, does somewhat undermine this argument, but then I suppose it's up to them to decide how hypocritical they want to be - the money they earn from it may help ease the conscience.


Basic bottom line:
1). gay marriage isn’t and should never have been a big issue – we’re just catching up with Belgium
2). discrimination on the basis of a persons’ (or groups) beliefs is just as bad as discrimination on any other grounds, therefore if the Catholic Church, or any other religion, doesn’t want to sanctify a marriage because they believe their god disapproves of it, then that’s OK too. It’s not going to stop people getting married and they’ll probably come round eventually anyway, but it’s not up to us to dictate what they can or can’t think or believe.


PS I like the Belgium system; everyone has to go through a civil ceremony, it’s the only recognised form of marriage, and if you want a church / religious ceremony, you have to have gone through the civil ceremony first – there’s a clear distinction between civil/legal/social marriage and religious marriage / holy matrimony.


BTW I'm neither Catholic, gay, or religious in any way whatsoever, so what the heck do I know! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1775
Jimbox01 wrote:
Banana Man wrote:
Catholic priests - The belief that having sex with men is abhorent, once they reach the age of 16.

Seriously though, this is a great day for equality. I can't believe there is, relatively speaking, so much opposition to this in a country where only 3% of people attend church. If your disagreement isn't based on religion then what's your problem?

If you made a similar joke (I hope it's a joke) about gay people, you'd get strung up, but because it's about Catholics nobody minds - does that sound right?

The main representatives of the Catholic Church (in France as well as the UK) were/are among the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, but they are by no means the only group opposed - they just happen to shout the loudest.
The fact that some MP's voted against the bill says nothing about the views of the electorate. Some MP's may well have been personally opposed, and some may have voted that way because they thought it was the safest bet in terms of their career / re-selection - who knows.

From a personal perspective, I don't know anyone who has particularly strong views on the issue, but then I only know two gay (lesbian) couples who've been married, and they just got on with things without worrying too much about what it was officially called or how it affected their legal status.

Anyway, the concept of marriage predates all the established religions, they don’t own it, they didn’t invent it, and they therefore have no right to try and dictate who can or can’t be married. Holy matrimony (or whatever people want to call it) is a completely different issue though, and as far as I can see the religious establishment should have a say in who can and can’t go through their particular ceremonies or rituals, otherwise it makes a mockery of their beliefs and totally devalues their whole concept of marriage before god. The fact that most peopled who get married in church aren't particularly religious and don't necessarily even believe in god, does somewhat undermine this argument, but then I suppose it's up to them to decide how hypocritical they want to be - the money they earn from it may help ease the conscience.


Basic bottom line:
1). gay marriage isn’t and should never have been a big issue – we’re just catching up with Belgium
2). discrimination on the basis of a persons’ (or groups) beliefs is just as bad as discrimination on any other grounds, therefore if the Catholic Church, or any other religion, doesn’t want to sanctify a marriage because they believe their god disapproves of it, then that’s OK too. It’s not going to stop people getting married and they’ll probably come round eventually anyway, but it’s not up to us to dictate what they can or can’t think or believe.


PS I like the Belgium system; everyone has to go through a civil ceremony, it’s the only recognised form of marriage, and if you want a church / religious ceremony, you have to have gone through the civil ceremony first – there’s a clear distinction between civil/legal/social marriage and religious marriage / holy matrimony.


BTW I'm neither Catholic, gay, or religious in any way whatsoever, so what the heck do I know! :lol:

There is a big difference between criticizing someone's religion and criticizing someone's sexuality. A religion is a choice whereas someone's sexuality is out of their control. If someone believed that we should throw an innocent 8 year old into a volcano every full moon because it was part of their religion would be not be allowed to criticize it?

Religion is not part of your biological make up and it is totally under your control. The problem is that every major religious institution is built around forms of indoctrination of their subjects during their youth, and children don't usually have the choice not to follow the religious path their parents choose for them which does muddy the water to an extent, because by the time they become old enough to make a choice their brain has already been hardwired to think a certain way. However, the fact that it may have been forced upon them does not mean that it cannot be criticised.

They cannot be criticised for being programmed to think a certain way, however the institutions that programmed them certainly can be.

And that is the other huge difference between sexuality and religion. Sexuality is not an organisation, religions are. Gay people are not a collective, just like blonde or ginger people are not a collective. There may be 'gay groups' but these are groups of gay people who choose to group together and these gay organisations can be criticised in the same way that religious groups can be.

However - with regards to the Catholic Church - it is important to remember it is a huge organisation, one of the biggest collectives in world (1.2 billion members, making it similar to China or India in size) and as a result it is impossible to tar it with one brush. The behavior of most Catholic people is not represented by the high profile cases involving Catholic priests. So, while it is fair to criticise people for their religious beliefs, it is not fair to criticise Catholics for the behaviour of some of their clergy. It is fair, though, to condemn the Vatican for its role in covering it up and to use that as evidence of its lack of any moral standing and hypocrisy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1249
Johnston wrote:
Quote:
@brianmoore666: My support of gay marriage is because I don't see why they shouldn't suffer like everyone else. - Mrs Moore is so lucky!
:lol: :lol:


Joan Rivers once said:

"I'm all for gay marriage,.... why should the straight suffer with divorce"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2689
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
However - with regards to the Catholic Church - it is important to remember it is a huge organisation, one of the biggest collectives in world (1.2 billion members, making it similar to China or India in size) and as a result it is impossible to tar it with one brush. The behavior of most Catholic people is not represented by the high profile cases involving Catholic priests. So, while it is fair to criticise people for their religious beliefs, it is not fair to criticise Catholics for the behaviour of some of their clergy. It is fair, though, to condemn the Vatican for its role in covering it up and to use that as evidence of its lack of any moral standing and hypocrisy.

I think this is probably one of the most sensible paragraphs from a non-religious poster regarding religion I've ever seen anyone write on this forum!

Well said :nod:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:44 am
Posts: 247
moby wrote:
I can understand those against it, even if they are not 'anti-gay'. The term marriage has always been used for a male-female bond. I dont know that it should apply to same sex partnerships (which I am not against)

It is just one of those things that has always been, like a kid calling the female parent mam or mother.
Its just a word I know, but a convention that is thousands of years old, like 'brother' or 'sister' clarifies gender.
Maybe a new word could serve the same purposes legally without the overlap.

Opening a can of worms I know, but no matter how much better a woman is at a male role, or a man at a female role, they still retain a distinctive description.



For thousands of years, the term marriage meant a male-female bond for life, with no chance of divorce. That was changed a few hundred years ago. What's wrong or different about changing it again now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 1691
Very glad this has passed. I can now look back at this government with a silver lining, even if the Tory majority was against it.

_________________
"Sometimes in your everyday life, you should say the right thing. But the wrong thing is funnier." Ed Byrne

"I'm the one that's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to" Jimi Hendrix


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1249
AngusWolfe wrote:
Very glad this has passed. I can now look back at this government with a silver lining, even if the Tory majority was against it.


+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1359
Just read that the American boy scout organisation have a ban on gay members and leaders......

They've just delayed a vote on removing the ban.

I'm amazed.

_________________
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: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2689
Asphalt_World wrote:
Just read that the American boy scout organisation have a ban on gay members and leaders......

They've just delayed a vote on removing the ban.

I'm amazed.

I'd assume that's more down to fear of child abuse or fear of 2 boys having sexual contact under the US age of consent. Cause of cause we all know that all homosexual men are paedophiles and no homosexual can go 5 mins without shagging someone! (incase anyone's confused, that was sarcasm!)

I could be very wrong, but I always associate American Boy Scouts with the stereotypical 'christian American's' who make the UK's conservatives look like hippies!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2689
Incase anyone's interested in the opposition this vote faced, here's a list of MP's and the constituencies they represent
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/labour-and-lib-dem-mps-who-voted-against-gay-marriage-full-list
I can't comment on the MP's themselves, but a lot of the constituency's are typical for homophobic mentality, high muslim/'strict, old school' christian population.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 1691
Quote:
Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against equal marriage (4)

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)


That is the most British Name/constituency combo ever.

I also never knew there were 4 lib dem MPs xD

_________________
"Sometimes in your everyday life, you should say the right thing. But the wrong thing is funnier." Ed Byrne

"I'm the one that's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to" Jimi Hendrix


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3067
Hopefully another nail in the organised religions coffin in this country, just a few more generations to go...

Ironically, there are probably more gays than church attendees.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2689
Thought Id drag this thread out again cause I just saw another feature about this on BBC news.

On one hand there was a retired archbishop claiming that Cameron was discriminating against Christian values with the upcoming legalization of gay marriage. To which I thought why is that discrimination? It doesnt say that the church has to marry gay couples, it isn't even saying that the church has to accept gay people into their congragations (although it's a bit un-christian not to!).

On the other hand, they had an interview with the St. Paul's reverend who pointed out that his gay neighbours were nice people that didn't threaten either his own marriage ir his beliefs and why shouldn't they get the right to marry out of the church?

It just seems so stupid to me that there us such a massive difference in thought, even within the church. I can't remember the exact story from one of the Gospel's, but it goes along the lines of Jesus helping a non-Jew, to which his disciples were aghast and were told then to love your neighbour. Surely, this exactly what some members of the church of England ate not doing, even though they are supposed to follow Jesus' teachings.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 1691
minchy wrote:
Thought Id drag this thread out again cause I just saw another feature about this on BBC news.

On one hand there was a retired archbishop claiming that Cameron was discriminating against Christian values with the upcoming legalization of gay marriage. To which I thought why is that discrimination? It doesnt say that the church has to marry gay couples, it isn't even saying that the church has to accept gay people into their congragations (although it's a bit un-christian not to!).

On the other hand, they had an interview with the St. Paul's reverend who pointed out that his gay neighbours were nice people that didn't threaten either his own marriage ir his beliefs and why shouldn't they get the right to marry out of the church?

It just seems so stupid to me that there us such a massive difference in thought, even within the church. I can't remember the exact story from one of the Gospel's, but it goes along the lines of Jesus helping a non-Jew, to which his disciples were aghast and were told then to love your neighbour. Surely, this exactly what some members of the church of England ate not doing, even though they are supposed to follow Jesus' teachings.

The Christian church disagree on most things, which is why there are so many denominations. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic church are particularly well documented.

The big problem is The Bible was written by many people, over many years, all of which were in a different society to today. It often contradicts itself, and therefore allows people to pick and choose which bits to follow. But considering Jesus himself says that "Love your neighbour as yourself" is the GREATEST commandment, I do worry about the anger and discrimination put forth by some members of the Christian faith. The hypocrisy and paradoxicality of the church is one of the main reason I personally became atheistic.

_________________
"Sometimes in your everyday life, you should say the right thing. But the wrong thing is funnier." Ed Byrne

"I'm the one that's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to" Jimi Hendrix


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:05 am
Posts: 90
Location: Portknockie
I don't know which side is funnier in this whole debate. The religious lobby whose arguments make no sense to me really and who think they have the right to tell others how to live or the pro gay lobby who, in the name of freedom to live as you chose, run around calling anyone who dares to disagree with them "ignorant" and "homophobic" and basically telling people a certain point of view is unacceptable.

I am glad its all over because whenever the self righteous members of each lobby appeared on the TV I was instantly, and massively, overwhelmed with apathy.


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 2 guests


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 : 0.127s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]