egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 That's the whole problem with religion isn't it, the rules. Who made them up? When I ask the door knockers they say "they are the word of god", so not the Romans I reply. They then tell me that god came down from heaven and put those words into mans head and man put them into a book. This book is now the rule book, we have to follow these rules or we are going to go to hell forever. That's a long time I think. If these rules are the word or god, rightly or wrongly if you want to follow that religion to avoid hell or whatever, you should follow those rules right? That's all fine but what happens if we change the rules like now? Government "you have to change your rule book as some of the rules are homophobic" Church "but dems the word of god!" government "I don't care, this is the 21st century ya know, change some of the rules"... Does this mean that god has come down from heaven and is now instructing the government to change the word of god as god has changed his mind? What if it's the devil that is doing all this stuff, god is furious but he is busy saving people's dogs from tornados as he has a back log of prayers (peoples wish lists) as long as my knob? I get what egg is saying, it's like being a catholic and wearing a condom. It's their right to choose the bits of the religion they like and pretend the other rules don't exist. Sort it out with St Peter at the gates and try and blag your way in as you followed most if the other rules. However egg, don't you see what Turks is saying? Even a little bit? I don't tokes, no. Basically he's saying that because the bible frowns upon sodomy (there's an altogether different issue about whether that includes lesbians) then he can't see why a gay couple would follow Christianity and/or want to marry in a church. I say that anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, creed, colour or whatever, should be able to choose their religion. Nobody can choose their sexual orientation. Turks is, in essence, saying that if you've been born gay it's wrong to be a Christian. Why should you have that choice taken away because of a part of your make up that you didn't choose? After all, if the adulterors and thieves (sinners) can follow Christianity then why shouldn't a gay person? If anything the gay bloke should be cut more slack than the others as they chose to do what they did. Anyways, work calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Maybe I read it wrong but I don't think he is saying that. He Has not said it is not their choice just that it is a strange choice to make. It is strange because that religion is in general against you and actively discourages your 'life style'. Many of them will try and pray the gay out of you and other such crazy stuff. It would be like Matty managing the skates. It's his choice, he can do what he wants but it would be a strange one as they wouldn't make him feel welcome and would try and make him denounce the scummers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I don't tokes, no. Basically he's saying that because the bible frowns upon sodomy (there's an altogether different issue about whether that includes lesbians) then he can't see why a gay couple would follow Christianity and/or want to marry in a church. I say that anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, creed, colour or whatever, should be able to choose their religion. Nobody can choose their sexual orientation. Turks is, in essence, saying that if you've been born gay it's wrong to be a Christian. Why should you have that choice taken away because of a part of your make up that you didn't choose? After all, if the adulterors and thieves (sinners) can follow Christianity then why shouldn't a gay person? If anything the gay bloke should be cut more slack than the others as they chose to do what they did. Anyways, work calls. It's not difficult to understand Egg. Of course they have the right to choose to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a buddist or a Jedi. But why would they? Why would they want to be part of a group that condemns their way of life? Why would they insist on that religion blessing their wedding when that religion condemns it in its books and effectively been forced to approve of their marriage and bless it by changes in politics. Yet despite this some religions and churches are refusing to allow gay marriages on their churches. A Jewish person has every right to join the Nazi party, do you think they would, or do you think because Nazis are opposed to Jews theyd never even consider it? we keep being told religion is irrelevant theses days but not when it comes to trying to prove some liberal point it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Maybe I read it wrong but I don't think he is saying that. He Has not said it is not their choice just that it is a strange choice to make. It is strange because that religion is in general against you and actively discourages your 'life style'. Many of them will try and pray the gay out of you and other such crazy stuff. It would be like Matty managing the skates. It's his choice, he can do what he wants but it would be a strange one as they wouldn't make him feel welcome and would try and make him denounce the scummers. Exactly, in Eggs desperation to come across as a great, fair minded type of guy, he seems to be having trouble understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Interesting article on the use of the much quoted term abomination in the bible: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D In summary its mainly a mistranslation and should really be 'Taboo' or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Exactly, in Eggs desperation to come across as a great, fair minded type of guy, he seems to be having trouble understand this. Turks, no desperation here and I'm not trying to come across as anything. I am a fair minded guy who respects freedom of choice. Whether a choice is a sensible one should, within reason, be a decision for the person making that choice. I get that you feel that a gay person would be making an odd decision if they wanted to follow christianity. I don't agree with that. Lets leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Turks, no desperation here and I'm not trying to come across as anything. I am a fair minded guy who respects freedom of choice. Whether a choice is a sensible one should, within reason, be a decision for the person making that choice. I get that you feel that a gay person would be making an odd decision if they wanted to follow christianity. I don't agree with that. Lets leave it there. Do you think it would be an odd decison if a Jew became a member of the Nazi party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Do you think it would be an odd decison if a Jew became a member of the Nazi party? Ridiculous and pointless question. You're confusing choice and dna. People are born gay. They can't opt in or out of it. Religion and politics are all choices - that includes judaism, christianity, nazi's etc. Anyways, it would be unusual if a Jew decided to become a Nazi because Jews have suffered terribly at the hands of Nazi's in living memory. Gay people have not suffered in living memory, or at all, from the church. If a Jew chose to make that decision it would be up to them. Who are you, or anyone else, to take a moral stance against it and deny them that choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Didn't Christians burn gays in the middle ages to rid them of evil spirits? That's an ahk ja! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Not just in the middle ages - some nutter tried it in 2011. "Chris Staples, a citizen of Carroll County GA, woke up with his home set a blaze after receiving a threatening anti-gay note. Staples gives the account of a rock with the threatening note being thrown through his window as he was watching t.v. and finishing a cigarette. He said the note read “We know you’re gay. And God hates gays. You won’t be raping anybody in the county and God’s going to make sure that you burn in hell.’ And something about my daddy… my daddy will make sure you burn in hell.” Several [hours] later Staples woke up with his house burning to the ground, and was lucky to barely escape." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Ridiculous and pointless question. You're confusing choice and dna. People are born gay. They can't opt in or out of it. Religion and politics are all choices - that includes judaism, christianity, nazi's etc. Anyways, it would be unusual if a Jew decided to become a Nazi because Jews have suffered terribly at the hands of Nazi's in living memory. Gay people have not suffered in living memory, or at all, from the church. If a Jew chose to make that decision it would be up to them. Who are you, or anyone else, to take a moral stance against it and deny them that choice? No it isn't, the principle is the same. Would a Jew chose to be a member of an organisation that condemns them? They have a choice to join the nazi party or not, but based on their knowledge of them would they chose to? Same goes for joining a religion, you have a choice to join it or stay in it, why would you be in one that condemns your way of life? i know plenty of people who have been members of religions that have left them because they no longer believed, no longer wanted to be, or no longer lived by its teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Didn't Christians burn gays in the middle ages to rid them of evil spirits? That's an ahk ja! Dunno Tokes. Not quite as recent or relevent as WW2 though! You got to remember that the world has evolved. Nazi scum was and always will be Nazi scum. When I was young there was little tolerance of gay people. We've become a lot more tolerant since. The church are more tolerant of gay people than they were 20 or 30 years ago and have on quite a bit since the middle ages. The change is down to another of things, including an understanding that homosexuality is not a choice. that has led to acceptance and integration. Marriage is probably about the only area where there remains inequality and this bill rectifies that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Dunno Tokes. Not quite as recent or relevent as WW2 though! You got to remember that the world has evolved. Nazi scum was and always will be Nazi scum. When I was young there was little tolerance of gay people. We've become a lot more tolerant since. The church are more tolerant of gay people than they were 20 or 30 years ago and have on quite a bit since the middle ages. The change is down to another of things, including an understanding that homosexuality is not a choice. that has led to acceptance and integration. Marriage is probably about the only area where there remains inequality and this bill rectifies that. No it wont, because Gays will have the choice of marriage or civil partnership, hetrosexual people wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 No it isn't, the principle is the same. Would a Jew chose to be a member of an organisation that condemns them? They have a choice to join the nazi party or not, but based on their knowledge of them would they chose to? Same goes for joining a religion, you have a choice to join it or stay in it, why would you be in one that condemns your way of life? i know plenty of people who have been members of religions that have left them because they no longer believed, no longer wanted to be, or no longer lived by its teachings. Like i've said it's a matter of personal choice. We all do things that other people may question but what the **** has it got to do with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I'm not against the bill as such egg. As you may have guessed I am not a religious man (just joking god if you are reading this, love you really, you and jesus are great. That water into wine stuff - first class) but I don't think governments should be able to force religions to change their rule book. Next woman will be entering the FA cup as it is unfair of the FA to discriminate against them. If they do that, I am straight into the women's only section of my gym - there are some fitties in there. Can't they change the bill so that gay marriages can have exactly the same rights as straight ones but without forcing priests or vicars or whoever to marry them? It is a strange choice though to follow a religion that dams you and the way you live to eternity in hell, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 No it wont, because Gays will have the choice of marriage or civil partnership, hetrosexual people wont. Civil partnerships will fall by the wayside in no time. They were introduced as a diluted form of gay marriage. Now that proper marriage has been allowed the watered down version will have little or no appeal. Other than you I don't know of anyone who would (apparently) want civil partnership over marriage. It's like having a piece of bread when you could have a sandwich. Now that I've said that I understand where you're coming from can you tell us why you would have preferred civil partnership and how Mrs (or Ms or Miss had you not got married properly) would have been sold on the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Like i've said it's a matter of personal choice. We all do things that other people may question but what the **** has it got to do with them? but you dont think it would be an odd choice? To chose to be part of something that doesn't want you as part of it? to demand that they bless something that they dont approve of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Civil partnerships will fall by the wayside in no time. They were introduced as a diluted form of gay marriage. Now that proper marriage has been allowed the watered down version will have little or no appeal. Other than you I don't know of anyone who would (apparently) want civil partnership over marriage. It's like having a piece of bread when you could have a sandwich. Now that I've said that I understand where you're coming from can you tell us why you would have preferred civil partnership and how Mrs (or Ms or Miss had you not got married properly) would have been sold on the idea? They still have the choice though. Hetrosexual people dont have that choice. Gays can have the full fat version or the zero calories one, hetrosexual people cant. your the upholder of all things equal on this forum, how Is that fair and equal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I'm not against the bill as such egg. As you may have guessed I am not a religious man (just joking god if you are reading this, love you really, you and jesus are great. That water into wine stuff - first class) but I don't think governments should be able to force religions to change their rule book. Next woman will be entering the FA cup as it is unfair of the FA to discriminate against them. If they do that, I am straight into the women's only section of my gym - there are some fitties in there. Can't they change the bill so that gay marriages can have exactly the same rights as straight ones but without forcing priests or vicars or whoever to marry them? It is a strange choice though to follow a religion that dams you and the way you live to eternity in hell, isn't it? Now don't go comparing then rules of private clubs and associations with the nation as a whole. World of difference. I don't agree that vicars should be forced to marry anyone. The right to marriage should be for all. The right to pursue a religion should be for all. The individual church should have ultimate sanction on who they marry. To an extent they always have - some won't touch a divorcee for example. The HRA or whatever should be tweaked to permit that choice. If an individual chooses to follow that faith knowing that their church may not marry them it's up to them. It might be unwise, or wise, but it's up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 They still have the choice though. Hetrosexual people dont have that choice. Gays can have the full fat version or the zero calories one, hetrosexual people cant. your the upholder of all things equal on this forum, how Is that fair and equal? If you read back I've said that if Civil Partnerships remain they should be opened to all. Anyway, answer the question please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Now don't go comparing then rules of private clubs and associations with the nation as a whole. World of difference. I don't agree that vicars should be forced to marry anyone. The right to marriage should be for all. The right to pursue a religion should be for all. The individual church should have ultimate sanction on who they marry. To an extent they always have - some won't touch a divorcee for example. The HRA or whatever should be tweaked to permit that choice. If an individual chooses to follow that faith knowing that their church may not marry them it's up to them. It might be unwise, or wise, but it's up to them. So what happens when a gay person wants to get married in a certain church and the vicar is against gay marriage and refuses to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 If you read back I've said that if Civil Partnerships remain they should be opened to all. Anyway, answer the question please. I wanted to have the choice to have a civil partnership, i may not have chosen to have one in the end afterall, but i wanted that to be an option so we could decide. as it was i was forced to get married as that was the only option and now i want something i cant have just to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 So what happens when a gay person wants to get married in a certain church and the vicar is against gay marriage and refuses to do it? Then they get married somewhere else. The same as the divorcee who can't get married in Romsey Abbey so has to make do with Lordshill Church. Yes, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Now don't go comparing then rules of private clubs and associations with the nation as a whole. World of difference. Who did that? I was comparing a religion to a members club with a set of rules. It appears we agree on all the other points though - shame. Let's not let that get in the way of a good argument though, I have to kill time until bear is reinstated. So what do you think of Turkish? Do you secretly agree with him as well but just won't say it is a strange choice to wind him up? If so well done. Bring up tight white tops and crocs as well, this really pushes his buttons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Then they get married somewhere else. The same as the divorcee who can't get married in Romsey Abbey so has to make do with Lordshill Church. Yes, it happens. If it was that simple it would be great. What if they go to that church and demand to be married in that church as that is the one they belong to and attend? Who has the rights on this one?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Who did that? I was comparing a religion to a members club with a set of rules. It appears we agree on all the other points though - shame. Let's not let that get in the way of a good argument though, I have to kill time until bear is reinstated. So what do you think of Turkish? Do you secretly agree with hum as well but just won't say it is a strange choice to wind him up? If so well done. Bring up tight white tops and crocs as well, this really pushes his buttons. I've never wound anyone up in my life Tokes, honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 If it was that simple it would be great. What if they go to that church and demand to be married in that church as that is the one they belong to and attend? Who has the rights on this one?? The Church. It should be like a kebab shop having the right to refuse service at the managers discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I disagree egg you have and will be dammed to hell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 The Church. It should be like a kebab shop having the right to refuse service at the managers discretion. Who is the manager? The local franchise owner or the big wig in Rome or Canterbury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 The Church. It should be like a kebab shop having the right to refuse service at the managers discretion. Who in the church? The vicar of the actual church or the managemen, whoever that may be, who approve of gay weddings. what about if the gay person appeals the decison not to marry them in that chuch? You do know this is going to happen very soon, dont you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I had a gay marriage last night but I'm not sure if it was faked because there wasn't enough blood on my jacket. Oops, wrong topic... well at least this one's still open (despite not being about football either)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Who in the church? The vicar of the actual church or the managemen, whoever that may be, who approve of gay weddings. what about if the gay person appeals the decison not to marry them in that chuch? You do know this is going to happen very soon, dont you. The vicar of the individual church, as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 ^ lols yeah. I thought the lounge was about none football related topics. It appears to be non football related topics certain mods agree about or at least don't care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Egg! stop getting in the way of my ^ thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Egg for arguments sake.... A gay guy, let's call him Brian Earsy from Birmingham has very strong links to his local church. He has been going to the church every Sunday for years, his grandparents are buried out the back, his parents got married there etc. Anyway, he wants to marry his macho partner, let's call him Ricky Whitedic from Sholing. They both really want to get married in that church because of Bearsy's, I mean Brian's links. However, in the last couple of years the vicar has changed and the new one is very anti gay. He is not a big fan of bearsy's ways or how Ricky is so affectionate to him in public (even if he is very well dressed). There is a dispute. Does the Vicar have the final say or can bear appeal and maybe get married in that church by by a different vicar? Asking for a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 The vicar of the individual church, as it is now. what about if he is overruled by the head of the church, who as an overall religion allow gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 I had a gay marriage last night but I'm not sure if it was faked because there wasn't enough blood on my jacket. Oops, wrong topic... well at least this one's still open (despite not being about football either)... Jimmy D can obviously cope with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 Egg for arguments sake.... A gay guy, let's call him Brian Earsy from Birmingham has very strong links to his local church. He has been going to the church every Sunday for years, his grandparents are buried out the back, his parents got married there etc. Anyway, he wants to marry his macho partner, let's call him Ricky Whitedic from Sholing. They both really want to get married in that church because of Bearsy's, I mean Brian's links. However, in the last couple of years the vicar has changed and the new one is very anti gay. He is not a big fan of bearsy's ways or how Ricky is so affectionate to him in public (even if he is very well dressed). There is a dispute. Does the Vicar have the final say or can bear appeal and maybe get married in that church by by a different vicar? Asking for a friend. Simply, the current policy of the decision lying with individual church should continue. Whatever the right of appeal is at the moment (if any) should also apply to gay people. I don't see any argument for gay people to be treated any better or worse than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 You hear that Turks? He doesn't know either. Bear will be gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 They still have the choice though. Hetrosexual people dont have that choice. Gays can have the full fat version or the zero calories one, hetrosexual people cant. your the upholder of all things equal on this forum, how Is that fair and equal? Many people agree it is not fair and equal, hence why the Labour amendment looks to end this anomaly. I haven't heard anyone who was pushing for equality of marriage say they don't support the extension of civil partnerships. And as for homosexuality, marriage and the church, well there are different opinions and interpretations. In this link a prominent minister argues for the acceptance of gay marriage and interprets the bible somewhat differently than you have. http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/sexuality/stevechalke.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 23 May, 2013 Share Posted 23 May, 2013 They still have the choice though. Hetrosexual people dont have that choice. Gays can have the full fat version or the zero calories one, hetrosexual people cant. your the upholder of all things equal on this forum, how Is that fair and equal? I'd like to point out that this is not an argument against gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 28 May, 2013 Share Posted 28 May, 2013 Tomorrow sees the first gay marriage in France. Where? In the city of Montpellier where I've lived since 1973. Over 700 journalists been invited to ensure it become a circus. France's top singer Johnny Halliday replied when asked what he thought " I don't approve but don't disapprove either" Safe reply surely not to upset any of his fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Wolf Posted 3 June, 2013 Share Posted 3 June, 2013 As a Christian, I do think that no Church should be forced to allow it however at the same time I think no Church should be banned from offering it. It should be up to the elders (or whoever you havein charge at your church) to talk about it and decide. However in terms of giving homosexuals the right to be married in registry offices etc then it would surely be discrimination to not let them? If someone is a non believer in God, I don't think it's fair that they're discriminated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 3 June, 2013 Share Posted 3 June, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331545/Gay-marriage-Paris-protests-enter-second-day-violence.html Huge protests in France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now