egg

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.

I understand your opinion about someone else's right to choose for themselves.

You sure that's what the bible says? Regardless, I'd hazard a guess that in 21st century the church probably won't actually kill a gay person. I might be wrong though. If I was gay and believed in the virtues of Christianity I'd probably like the opportunity to pursue that religion. I'd be reasonably confident of the faith not killing me, and would be comforted by the fact that adulterors and thieves are allowed in the church and that some of them may even have been allowed to get married. The bottom line is its not for anyone to question why anyone should choose to do something. It's about that individual being able to make a decision the same as you, me or anyone else.

On that basis everyone who steals, commits adultery or a biblical sin would be precluded from following a religion and/or having a proper marriage. Or is it just gay men that you say should be singled out? Del, we'll never agree on this. Call me a soppy liberal but i think that everyone should be able to follow whatever religion they believe (not you or anyone else) suits them. They should also be able to marry.

Why should a gay person not have the same entitlement to follow a religion as a straight person? Your attitude to equality is all over the place Del.

Nicely swerved.

If civil partnership is to remain I don't see why it can't be opened up to straight people if gay people are to have the same marriage rights. However, why would anyone choose civil partnership over marriage? Would anyone really want to enter into an intended lifelong union that does not provide for exclusivity as per marriage? I would like to know Turks rationale, and how he would have sold the diluted form of "marriage" that is civil partnership to Mrs Turkish.

That's wrong. The same financial claims can be made on dissolution of a civil partnership as for divorce. The only differences in the process is that it's called something different and has to be in specific courts. Gay people can't even get a "divorce" and have to go to specific courts. And yes, one is in Brighton. It's not hard in the 21st century to have the same marriage, divorce process and court system for gay and straight people alike.

Apparently not. It would also seem that being gay is a decision that one makes.

Would mrs Turkish have been happy with your wish to have a diluted form of "marriage" where you were not committing exclusively to each other? Seems an odd wish.

You miss the point. Adultery doesn't exist in civil partnerships. Under the existing law gay couples can only "marry" in a way that doesn't recognise that their union should be exclusive to each other.

You're right. One of the differences between proper marriage and civil partnerships is that civil partners do not get '"married" to the exclusion of all others. Because of that adultery is not a ground to dissolve.

That'll be the problem. There will need to be explicit primary legislation making it clear that no chorch or other religious institution must be compelled to marry anyone. The HRA will also need amendment. It's doable, but i can't see it happening.

That's a very sensible suggestion. I hadn't appreciated that this bill was expressly against c of e chrches to marry gay couples. To give the decision to the individual churches allows for gay couples to decide on a church wedding if they feel that sits comfortably with their faith, and allows the vicar a free decision.

I'm new to this area. Is their actually a report button? We need a stat ometer to see who has the most fractions, who issues the most and who grasses the most. Kind of an opta upgrade for forums.

Agreed.

You wannabe bears are so fickle.

Exactly. I can't risk having to declare it on my practicing certificate renewal. What if I get a fraction for calling a fat person a fat person, or an idiot an idiot (no offence tokes)? Career over, marriage wrecked etc.

Tokes, your interest is flattering but recent events have confirmed that the dumb mods are exactly that. If they mistake my serious nature for sarcasm I could get one of them fractions. I can't risk such a serious black mark, sorry. I will pop by from time to time though just to call you a bellend, and argue a pointless point until I bore myself to sleep.

And for what?

I'll gladly moan anywhere, for a fee. I only made on comment re Brian etc. After that my beef was with you, not the bear. Reading it back I wander if someone saw the "when you meeting for a fight" and didn't appreciate the humour/context? If so I don't want anyone being precious on my behalf.

Have you complained about him to the mods?

Woah Tokes, don't go pointing the finger at me. I'm a miserable bastard but not that miserable. Your man bear was a forum gem. His egg is egg and tokes is chicken was genius - and true! I've never contacted a mod, complained about anyone on a forum or put anyone on ignore. There is a frequent flyer on that NC thread who is a self confessed complainer and has been instrumental in at least one previous banning of a prominent poster.