Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
are we taking a slightly dubious African-attitudes-towards-homosexuality attitude? or the same towards religion?
or are we just calling Justin Welby a douche?
Justin is a stupid name
what do you think, moker?
Used to be the vicar at the church in my little town growing up. Used to read his little write-ups in the Parish magazine when it came through the door.
yes homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria but there's already a fairly well established history of religious violence in the area
at all in fact, it's the root of all evil in my humble opinion.
However, should the church have to perform gay marriages? Not being "moker" or whatever so shut up and listen...
It's a stupid bigoted club and they can believe whatever they want inside their own four walls right? Gay marriage of course should exist but can't the state do it all rather than force churches to do it?
Serious question. No-one come back being all like YEAH MOKER TWAT and let's have a normal conversation innit.
(ie be able to do so without any pushback) to express any viewpoint whatsoever at any given point.
God knows what he actually thinks of anything.
counts as him not being allowed to have a certain opinion. if you have an opinion and you actually believe it it shouldn't matter one jot what other people think
the idea that they have a right to say what they want and for no-one to disagree with them and the slightest disagreement is impinging on their liberty
'Not being allowed' an opinion basically means 'I don't know how to defend myself when people challenge me' whilst at the same time being totally unwilling to adjust a viewpoint.
I have no problem with it and I'm comfortable and certain in my views.
It's politics and I'm happy to have proper discourse about it.
sonny. You can think what you like. I think you've missed the entire point of everything I've been saying if you think otherwise.
Look what I wrote about this bery topic this morning:
I'm ASKING PEOPLE their opinion on a very valid point that why do churches have to marry gay people? Can't the state just do it without churches needing to?
But instead of an answer I get you and Fidel having a conversation amongst yourselves about my mental state.
This is why I say I'm misunderstood. Please respond to this with further belittling comments and incorrect assumptions with no evidence.
isn't really the same as a question tho is it now
What about the next question I asked after that?
What about after that when I said "serious question". Dunno how much more I can join the dots for you there Fids.
You've ignored them.
religious institutions won't be forced to do it under a section of legislation that promotes freedom of thought. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it's seriously contested on grounds of discrimination, though.
"no, the thing you're pretending the Lunatic Left (tm) is doing is actually not true!
... I'M SURE THEY'LL START DOING IT SOON THOUGH, THE CUNTS"
and you're still twisting it into me railing against the left. From a leading human rights lawyer:
'...the Court may treat a challenge against the UK differently once equal marriage is introduced. ‘It may be’, he says, ‘that once a state decides to implement gay marriage, the court will be less cautious in ruling on how exactly the rules are implemented.’
"only a matter of time"
good work, chump
Human rights lawyer says they may be unable to prevent a challenge.
You think in a continent of 500 million, there won't ever be anyone who feels so strongly about the issue that they'll try challenge it?
but it's a dubious one. One hand, religions can think what they like, and you can't make them bless who they don't want to as part of their club. But, on the other, it is discrimination.
But isn't that all religion? Discrimination based on the "saved" and the "dammed"?
I dunno. Interesting to see how this plays out.
my knowledge of modern religion is pretty slim tbh, but no not really all religion, while it is common belief amongst strict protestants, (dunno anything about islam, judaism or any others), catholicism theoretically goes the opposite way - people can become saved through their actions rather than their actions being a reflection of their 'savedness'.
so now you're telling people how they're allowed to respond to you? the evidence is really racking up here
Pretty soon someone will have the excuse of saying, "I'll have some of what he's mokering".
Is the church being forced to perform gay marriages by the government? I thought it was their own parishioners who were forcing the issue by the dropping attendance.
So really it's entirely up to them if they want to evolve and keep churchgoers going...
Just saying, I don't really know that there's anything being forced on the church here so it's a bit a of non-issue.
instead of reverting to your PROPER user name.
yeah, couldn't after the Spammer test but seems to be okay now.
he's allowed his opinion, leave him alone
I don't know. That's why I asked. Why you all over me for asking something and then requesting we talk about it properly?
I didn't ask to be born.
"I'm ASKING PEOPLE their opinion on a very valid point that why do churches have to marry gay people?"
If you can't see how this implies you believe churches are being made to marry gay couples...
I've been Mokered enough, I think.
but I thought there was considerable pressure to make churches marry gay people. As in, this is considerable pressure.
Might not be set in law though, which I need to check. But the issue is that there's pressure at all.
Why couldn't he just carry on doing whatever it is the Archbishop of Canterburty does.
and his eyebrows.
Suddenly like moker even more.
not much traction to be honest.
I've done nothing to deserve it.
super harsh to lump you in with brusma and fidel. Apologies.
But obviously the CoE needs to pretend they're okay with gay people to maintain relevance in a modern (sane) society.
The priests can't really be okay with it because their book says not to be, and they really believe that book.
So I reckon they hide behind things like this to save face.
That's quite a pessimistic view, they might actually care, and it's just very convenient they can also use it to save face.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
That's not very nice is it?
I know quite a few religious gay men, it always puzzles me how they get over verses like that.
about all sorts of mental stuff and it's universally ignored by modern Christians.
But for some reason that homosexuality one has stood the test of time.
I definitely don't think it's true to say The Bible tells Christians homosexuality is wrong, in any meaningful way.
in old and new test.
But the "Sodomites" were punished merely for being wicked and unruly or some crap, nothing to do with the bum stuff.
and this is coming from an ex-catholic.
all about "passing on the seed" and such.