egg

Sorry to hear that del, absolutely shocking behaviour. I presume that appropriate words have been had with the most senior person who will actually speak to a fan?

Don't call him sweaty, tokes will go nuts! Get on the edit button before it kicks off.

Cheers Glasgow, I'm touched.

This Scottish dude ain't fussy, he's even tried to friend me. Poor lad needs help.

Alfa MiTo 1.3 Multijet has a 95g option I think. Nice cars.

Mrs Egg has a Nexus 7 too. It's superb. However, I've used the Fire HD and that is also very good. The Fire HD is without question easier to use, the front screen is so simple. They are both great bits if kit that will suit your needs. I would suggest having a quick play with both to see the differences in action and see which you prefer.

How do you know it's sh1te? It's an actual rumour which may or may not to be true. It's quite relevant to our team though so worthy of discussion. Hardly worthy of a sticky though.

That was shocking. I can't think of one positive. No fluidity, creativity, or anything.

I'd go for a Golf, preferably a Diesel but the Petrol's are economical enough. Comfortable, well built and reliable. You'll get something half decent for £3k.

According to the best possible source the charlatans take the prize, 58 more than for the vaccines.

That was probably the most crowded the joiners ever has been or will be. Splendid gig and a fine venue.

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.

The site was allowing repeat votes if you refresh the page so please vote generously!

The vicar of the individual church, as it is now.

The Church. It should be like a kebab shop having the right to refuse service at the managers discretion.

I've never wound anyone up in my life Tokes, honest.

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 you read back I've said that if Civil Partnerships remain they should be opened to all. Anyway, answer the question please.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.