Deano6

pap, I'm enjoying reading this thread, but the one thing that keeps eating away at me is this: if you are prepared to concede the US has the capability of sending people into space, and also that reflectors were put on the moon, why do you find it so hard to believe humans may have been on the moon when you are prepared to believe some incredibly sophisticated robot would have been been able to be manipulated to position the mirror into place. Wouldn't it have been easier to just send a person? You have already accepted that the technology is there to land a craft on the moon - why not pop a human in it? Is your argument now one solely of "the radiation would have got them", as I can't see what else is causing you doubts?

They are entitled to their opinion of him as much as anyone, just because you don't agree with their reasons doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

I knew there was a little French in me all along!

Well that was fun while it lasted. 2-0, game over. Back to having 3rd fewest points in the division.

Take away the emotive baggage, and I don't really see the difference. One group of people excluded from a institution available to others based on a characteristic they were born with. Yes, the alternative being offered provides almost the same level of service (a toilet still flushes sh!t, just as a civil partnership still unites a couple), but for some people that isn't enough and they would like the primary facility to be available to all. In fact the analogy should be even stronger: nobody is insisting that this "bathroom" allows the "blacks" in, only that a neighbour, who is gladly opening his doors to all groups, to not be prevented from doing so by law. Well, aside from the fact that your lack of understanding of people's choices shouldn't really be dictating laws of the land, there are plenty of examples of churches who are very welcoming of gays and lesbians. In case you missed it... ----------- I don't disagree with you, and I don't believe any of the changes in the law being discussed would prohibit such a thing. The issue is whether those who want to (consenting on both sides: church and couple) be allowed to. ----------- I am pleased to have used up all my 3 posts on debating with you today, Mr Turkish. It has been a pleasure.

I dunno, why weren't blacks happy with their "coloureds only" bathrooms in the early 20th century US and embrace them as their thing? I guess some of them didn't want to.

I decided to go to church on Sunday as having "turned atheist" a while back I no longer see much religion first hand and have decided to check out the local churches, synagogues, mosques and temples etc to see what they are all teaching. I went to my nearest church, which is Episcopalian...which my ignorant self had to google to see that it's essentially the Church of England in the States. They changed the name and became a separate offshoot in the Revolutionary War as they didn't want to be beholden to English governance any more, but the banner is still the cross of St George and they name checked Rowan Williams as one of their leaders in their prayers, so they still essentially follow Church of England doctrine. All of which you may well know, but I didn't. Their rector is also English, not that that matters quite so much. Anyway, the thing about this church is that they are very actively supporting of LBGT issues. They promote many gay and lesbian agendas in the community and participate in the annual gay pride parade. They started the AIDS Project back in the 1980s when the epidemic was rife in the local gay community (NYC's Village scene) and opens its doors to host regular dinners for those affected. So, just to echo what others have said above, not all churches share the same teachings and views and some would happily allow their followers to be married in their church. I hope this addresses your points, in that they are founded on a faulty premise. I have actually been to a couple of churches recently, the one before being a fairly hard line Anglican one in Islington that was promoting picketing outside a planned parenthood centre for their opposition to contraception. Sure there will be many churches which do not want to perform gay marriage - and they likely will have few gay members as you point out - but others will be happy to and, in my opinion, should not be prevented from doing so.

Is one of them the story of your brother in Canada?

At least, if not more!

So the "Non Adkins" signings are made by Adkins (and Reed)? Confusing.

[video=youtube;-dGYXGnSeBM]

Wow, this could have been written by me almost exactly, except I did do GCSEs and went to KES.

I like the current one. Suk Madiq

QPR result won't have any impact on us being in bottom 3. QPR are 7 points behind and Sunderland are one point ahead, neither are going to leapfrog us. We stay 17th if Villa and Reading draw, otherwise the winner leapfrogs us.

Not now, Cato. Not now.

If it makes you feel better I got what you were blabbering about from your very first reference.

Hassan Kachloul

Me too, I can't stand Kingsland Red's writing!

But by your own definition of respecting freedom of speech I should be free to do so without fear of retribution, so I'm not sure why you appear to be trying to discourage me.

Sorry, are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to do so?

But nobody is saying he shouldn't be able to say it, just that he should be judged on it once said! Be racist by all means if that's your bag, but then be labelled as a racist for doing so.

If they would join us following our approach, they are available. It matters not how they choose to spend their time before then, employed or unemployed. Would only be unavailable if their existing contracts would make it prohibitively expensive, in which case they are not realistic.

Well nobody in the States wears one (British expats who can source one aside), just to balance our Phil's statement.

Tokyos can you make a rule that pics have to be in the format of: - FIT - FIT - FIT - OLD & MINGING / DEAD That gives me looools every time, and prolongs by vvank!