Lighthouse

The English national team is of course massively racist. Cole, Johnson, Defoe, Lennon, SWP... What planet are they on? 92% of the uk population is white, so from now on only one dark chap on the pitch please. We also need to have 5 women on the pitch too. Obviously we can only have 5 men, we don't want any favouritism here, so the 11th player can be a tranny (assuming Turkish is okay with this). As for the kit, I think some form of sequined leotard will embrace the gay aspect of our community, as well as a Burberry hat to represent the chavies.

Precisely.

If I discovered a girl I was going out with was a bloke I'd be pretty horrified, so I agree that the deception side of it is wrong. I was referring to the concept of cross dressing in general.

I agree entirely with that second bit. Hypocrisy and religion seem to go hand in hand a lot of the time. I don't see any reason why you couldn't have a big ceremony with a civil partnership though. The only thing you couldn't really do is have it in a church. If you take religion out of the equation, a church is just a draughty, dimly lit old building so it's hardly essential to a ceremony. It seems to me like more and more weddings don't happen in a church these days anyway. A lot of people seem to get hitched on beaches in the Maldives, alpine villages or Swan-ky Hotels.

What people get up to in private really isn't much of an issue I'd say. If you like dressing up as a bird and hanging around gay bars, dodgy nightclubs or whatever then it's your choice. Strikes me as weird, but then as long as nobody is getting hurt I'm fairly unjudgemental (is that a word? I kind of like it) Does it bother you Turkish?

It seems odd to me that a gay couple will want to get 'married' as opposed to a civil partnership. Surely they are the same thing, other than marriage being more of a religious ceremony and a civil partnership just being a social joining. It seems especially odd when you consider many religious types are anti-gay and I'm sure there many reasons in the Bible (I've never read it) why gay people shouldn't get married. It kind of like a black family wanting to live in Britain. Not a problem. But a black family saying we want to live in Britain with an official blessing from Combat 18? That's a bit odd* *I'm not saying the Church of England are like Combat 18. I know a few on here like to take metaphors incredibly literally.

*Griffit.

Size was great, I wish we'd kept him. Think he even told the Dutch media he would have loved to sign for us. When you consider we started last season with Perry, Lancs and Thomas before Jaidi and Trotman joined, I think we'd have been much better set at the back. Anyone who went to the last game in the CCC at Forest would have seen the difference he made to our side. He went off injured with 15 minutes left at 1-1. Before you knew it, we were losing 3-1.

He was alright when he wasn't injured. Remember him looking by far the most interesting player in a 0-0 bore draw with Plimuff. Was in the Poland squad for the world cup the summer after he left us.

Clearly you have never heard of lemon party* *If I'm right, don't google it.

If you'd said to me... "50 years from now public nudity in summer will become the norm. We will all go to work naked because it's perfectly natural. Then, in their lunch break, married men would bend their secretary over the desk and give her a good seeing to because sex is perfectly natural." ... then I'd take your point. That would be an example of something not considered acceptable in present society, which could conceivably become acceptable over time.

There is a massive difference between what will pass as acceptible in civilised society and what goes on on remote Pacific islands. You only have to look at Al Qaeda or Waco to see what can happen when a bunch of misfits are isolated from society, under the leadership of a complete nutcase. The day sexually abusing children becomes legal in Britain I will jump off a bridge, because if that's considered acceptable I'm done with the world.

You're comparing apples and oranges there though. Homosexuality and paedophillia are two completely different issue. The former is a consenting relationship between two adults and nobody is being abused (unless they're into the kind of thing). Paedophillia is an adult sexually abusing a child against there will and is a disgusting crime. Homosexuality was only outlawed because people saw it as being unnatural and against God, whereas now it has been proven to be a naturally occuring 'annomaly' and people are a lot less religious. Paedophillia on the other hand will never be regarded as being morally acceptable. I agree, a mother and father is the most natural and therefore the ideal set-up for a child. We don't live in a world of ideals however. We live in a world where there are single parents, divorced couples, families with fathers working abroad etc. All of these are generally fine and I think homosexuality falls into the same bracket.

Now at Skonto Riga, where he has managed to pick up a Latvian passport.

Why state it though, what relevance does it have? Lots of perfectly acceptable practices were outlawed in the past and many are still outlawed abroad. I assume you are refering to the strongly Islamic countries, who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. Countries where you can get beaten for being drunk, women can't drive cars and the lives of Christians are valued at litterally half that of Muslims. As for this case, it's tricky and it really comes down to the individuals concerned. If they are just like any other normal couple then it isn't really much of an issue. If on the other hand a person just has surgery and cross-dresses out of some freaky sexual fettish they clearly aren't good candidates for raising a child. In this particular case it's the "man" who has given birth to the child, which is a little odd. I don't agree with it because if you're going to have a sex change then make your mind up, one or the other. Does this mean they shouldn't be able to raise the child? Not nescessarily, but it depends on the individuals concerned.

Wow. There was me thinking there was no danger of Newcastle wanting Lambert and they go and sign Shefki Kuqi. It reminds me of a few years ago when Bolton sold Anelka to Chelsea and brought in Rasiak to replace him.

Kids get bullied at school for being fat, ginger, wearing glasses, being from different ethnic backgrounds... many things. Yes there is a chance a child MIGHT get bullied but I don't think that should prevent gay people from adopting children. As for having his picture in the paper, I refer again to the Beckhams, Brad and Angelina, the Royal Family etc. If Elton's child is in the paper it's as much because he is famous as he is gay. 'Elton adopts baby' wont be news forever. Also I'm not making silly points, I'm drawing comparisons which you can't seem to comprehend. And what questions haven't I answered?

Thanks, had DMG down but stuck him in the wrong line. I know it's Andrei, but I stuck him in the 'Andrew' bracket because I think (correct me if I'm wrong Russian Saints) it's the Russian version of Andrew.

Can you put together a team with the same name (international variations permitting)? I've been wrestling with a few lists, haven't got an XI yet though. The best I've got is 7 Daniels and 6 Michaels. Chris - Baird, Makin, Marsden, Perry, Lucketti Paul - Telfer, Williams, Jones, Wotton, Smith Alan - Blayney, Shearer, Bennett, Ball Alex - Ostlund, OC, Pearce Dean - Hammond, Richards Michael - Channon, Svensson, Mills, Antonio, Nilsson, Adams Daniel - Harding, Seaborne, Butterfield, Guthrie, Petrescu, N'Guessan, Higginbotham Joseph/Jo -Mills, Tessem David - Connolly, Beasant, Peach, Prutton, McGoldrick Matthew - Oakley, Le Tissier, Patterson, Mills Jason - Puncheon, Euell, Dodd John - Viafara, Forte, Sydenham Steven - Crainey, Mills, Moran, Williams Andrew - Surman, Davies, Kanchelskis Kevin - Davies, Phillips, Keegan Peter - Madsen, Shilton, Crouch, Rodrigues, Osgood Lee - Todd, Holmes, Barnard, Molyneux James - Beattie, Magilton, Case, McCalliog, White

I vaguely remember a few games when we had 3 midfielders in the defence, namely Wright, Euell and Skacel.

That's the whole point of a metaphor, it's different to what you're trying to explain. Tedious point, which I can't be arsed explaining any more. How about a pet dog. Two humans are not capable of conceiving a dog, so does that mean they are therefor incapable of caring for one? How about single parents? A person, male or female, cannot conceive on their own, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to raise children on there own? P.S. I'm not saying you're homophobic, but having gay relatives doesn't imunise you from being a homophobe.

Yep. Darren Kenton too.

I notice the URL for that picture is from imageshack, meaning you have this picture saved on your hard drive. Dirty boy.

I thought he was excellent in several games in midfield. Ran the show infact. Hull away when we won 4-2. There was a home game against Leicester when he scored (think that was the game that nearly got called off). He was also pretty good in the play second leg in midfield with Guthrie. Also he is not the worst CB we've ever had, not by a very long way. Darren Powell was worse, as were Jackobsson, Lancashire, Davenport and Lundekvam mk.05.

It seems this simple metaphor has gone way over the heads of some people, so I will go back to the basics. The ability to conceive a child and the ability to raise a child are two completely different concepts. You only have to look at examples like the Baby P fiasco to see that. Some woman got knocked up and 9 months later a baby fell out of her. Brilliant. Does that mean she is a suitable mother? No, of course not. Between this woman (I forget her name) and her boyfriend they neglected and beat a baby to death. It's the most tedious of tedious links. What you are saying is that a straight father raising a child is natural, but a gay farther isn't. Why? Because a straight father can conceive a child "naturally". In other words a straight father is a suitable parent because he sh*gged some woman 9 months ago, but a gay father isn't because he didn't. I don't normally agree with Deppo, but he makes a valid point here. We do thousands of things in every day life which aren't "natural". Your car, your TV, your ipod... you go on holiday flying isn't natural. You get there and disagree with the Spannish food, the doctor gives you antibiotics, that's not natural. The list is endless. Let's put it another way. Single parent families. There are loads of people out there, be it single mums or single dads, who raise a kid on their own. If a man can raise a kid on his own, why can't two men? I've got a friend who shares a flat in London with his brother. Should they be banned from having kids because 2 men living together isn't natural? Where exactly is the problem? A man can raise a kid without a mother in the house, no problem. Two men can share a house, that's no problem. Is it simply the fact that the two men have a sexual relationship that is the problem here?