DJKillaQueen

I think it's a bit dangerous to be discussing somone in this way in a public forum. It can lead to mistaken identity and also the woman concerned probably isn't even aware. This is a matter that can be reported to Southwarks Warden Service. They can issue fines to anyone who does not pick up their pets excrement. It's best to leave it to them to address.

I think though there is a clear line between defending the rights of innocents (gays, foreigners and any other group that just is) and the rights of those who break the law (peadophiles). Although I take the point....for me that's a no brainer. And there are some things where there is a clear moral right. We outlaw murder for example. That is right. We outlaw unwarranted prejudice. That is right, and so on. The interesting thing about your link SJ is the following statement from SF in relation to female circumcision...... Personally I think the practice is abhorrent and should be banned world-wide. However, many people would seem to disagree with me, including many women, due to their religious and cultural practices. So SF accepts that some views are abhorrant even when backed by a firm religious belief. It's a pity SF can't see descrimination against homosexuals (a view SF would back with religious doctrine if only he/she had the courage to discuss it openly in this debate) with the same abhorance he/she views female circumcision.

Well unfortunately I think most people would agree that a view that seeks to end descrimination, as opposed to one that upholds it is more valid. But as you are too cowardly to say what you really think then let's just leave it at that.

It would appear you have already made up your mind as to my questionable views DJKQ. Nothing I say will stop you from supporting the government to 'enforce' the proposal on churches That's because you refuse to say what you really think (hard to tell a gay person to their face you think they are not equal isn't it?) and clearly being in favour of descrimatory views towards gays, then of course I won't agree with you, and nor would any right thinking person. Indeed those who descriminate need to be forced to not do so....that includes the Church and that is why we have laws to facilitate that. "...Just because a group of people all believe the same thing...doesn't make their beliefs ok..." Presumably this applies to gays as well? What on earth do you allude to here? The belief that gay people should not face descrimination? Are you now trying to suggest fighting descrimination should not be considered an ok pursuit by gays? Keep digging that hole...... I know you think you are being clever in avoiding my questions but you are only showing yourself for what you are. I thought Christians were proud of their beliefs, why are you so afraid to air them? Because deep down you know they are going to receive the disdain they deserve and in the end, as with all hypocrites, you are a coward too. No wonder the Church is dying in this country. Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult? lol...good point H. I just think they are afraid homosexuals will turn them all gay tbh and then take over the world ;)

Would you care to answer the questions in my previous post SF? I have far more interest in your questionable views than those of Teresa May. as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey LOL yes the luncay of those trying to rationalise their own prejudice never ceases to amaze me......Just because a group of people all believe the same thing (primarily SF's defence of the Church to not be interferred with) doesn't make their beliefs ok. We can point to many an example of that.

You are steering clear of doctrinal issues because you know those doctrinal issues are unnacceptable. But those doctrinal issues are at the real core of the opposition those have to gay marriages. You don't think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones do you? I don't think anyone would mind what a ceremony is called as long as it was held in the same esteem as marriage and that's what you can't bring yourself to agree with. I'll ask you another straight question.... Do you think gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones? I did also ask if you thought it acceptable for a gay couple to be blessed before God in a church. Do you think that would be ok? Your answer to that will indicate what kind of Christian you really are. Answer this too...do you accept that homosexuality is not a choice and therefore as natural as anything that exists by accident of nature? It may not be the norm but it is naturally occuring and always has done (and if God created the Universe, God created homosexuals too). The argument regarding the destruction of anything is just a red herring when really at the root of it all is a misguided belief that homosexuality is a sin and lifestyle choice and that a gay relationship is not as valid as a heterosexual one (because that is the church position). You haven't denied that so I can only assume that's what you believe. You are now also arguing from a standpoint of hypocrasy too. You admit that laws against descrimination in business/ schools etc should be upheld but then think that religion should be somehow exempt from that. Can you not see how offensive that is, how hypocritical? I didn't really pay much attention to this issue before, but now I am firmly in the ground of making sure the government enforce this change on the Church, society will be better off without institutionalised prejudice wherever it occurs.

Being a little slow to respond there SF ;) I suspect the crux of all this really, is that you don't think gay people should have their relationships blessed before God and that the reason for that is that you believe God dissaproves of homosexuality. You probably also think homosexuality is a choice.....a line that has always baffled me given that no heterosexual ever 'chooses' to be so. In which case you support descrimination against homosexuals. If however I'm wrong on the above then I can't see why you would object to the church performing 'union' ceremonies for gay couples as an alternate to 'marriage' ceremonies. Which is it SF?

Yes Christian gay people being allowed to have an equivalent church ceromony (equal in all ways to marriage) but called something different to marriage.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJKQ - Do you believe that descrimination against > homosexuals is ok? > > NO So you must therefore agree that B&B's that descriminate and break the law by doing so should be prosecuted, right?

I'd wish them all the best on life's journey together. So patronising..... Just don't call it 'marriage' As has been pointed out, marriage is not the invention of the church. Here's another question then. Would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to have some kind of equivalent ceremony to marriage in a church. The state would invent a new word...let's say 'union' for arguments sake. Gay people can then have a union ceremony performed at their church. That shouldn't be a problem if terms are all you are bothered about, rather than descrimination, should it?

It only matters to you because you're prejudiced. Absolutely right H and it's precisely because of people like SF that the government is right force change (do you have any idea how insulting it is to a gay person to be told their relationship is not as valid as that of a heterosexual couple SF?..any idea at all?). Just to challenge you SF on a few points.... This isn't a straightforward question and my answer is not necessarily. Yes it is..as it is at the core of prejudice...a prejudice I believe you hold and should be challenged on. When this happens it will be possible for a gay couple, even if they are atheists and have no religious conviction, to demand to be married in a church as is their right. Why would this be the case? Are heterosexual atheists marrying in churches? Why would any atheist want to marry in a church? Or are you suggesting atheist gay people are different to atheist heterosexuals? Again another nonsensical argument from you. This could happen in the same way that small bed and breakfast businesses have been targeted for suspect reasons. They've hardly been targetted. All business are required to operate under the law and the law outlaws descimination on the grounds of sexuality (along with other things). Businesses that break the law deserve to be prosecuted. Again you seem to be arguing that descrimination is ok so I'll ask you an even more straightforward question.... Do you believe that descrimination against homosexuals is ok? The reasons for disallowing gay marriage here are based on the traditions and beliefs of that church that the gay couple would be aware of, even if they disagree with those aspects. They are still welcome to worship in that church but they are excluded from some of that church's rites. Is this discrimination? There's nothing stopping the couple going elsewhere if they don't adhere to the rites and practises of that church. Please do tell me what church institution a gay couple can go to, to be married. The fact is that the rites and practices of many religions are blatently descriminatory. And imo, any person that calls themself a Christian and descriminates against homosexuals or anyone is not a Christian anyway. this is just an attempt to insult and make a mockery of our faith And the resistance to change is a an attempt to insult gay people of faith. I could go on SF. It is blatently clear you do not want gay people in the church.....and that level of prejudice is exactly why the government is right to interfere, and why thankfully the church has no power over state anymore.

What lol? Yes I really do coach ladies football...have run a group for 18 months and it is FREE for those that attend..... You are confusing the five a side pitches that are part of the main sports field with the pitches they painted outside of the fence of the park last year. Those pitches have never been there in all the 20 years I have lived alongside the park FYI ;) But no, I would never argue for removing football for young and old alike, but can also understand the concerns of those that don't want to see other areas used for football apart from those normally designated for such use.

What on earth are you talking about SF? It will benefit the place of homosexuals within the church, homosexuals as devout to their faith as you or any church member but yet treated as 'unequal'. Answer one question...Do you in principle think it is descriminatory to not allow gay people to marry in a church. Put aside all the ridiculous debates about terms or Orwellian diasaster for society....do you believe in the fundamental view that religious prejudice is wrong in any terms against homosexuals? Maybe if you answer that first before argiung the toss about definitons in law, there might be a more truthful debate to be had.

Just because Spain elected to change language in those terms doesn't mean that needs to happen here (I wonder too if something is lost in translation). For same sex marriages, a simple change from husband and wife to partner would suffice. Partner A and B could be used on marriage certificates too. Heterosexuals could continue to use husband and wife. I really don't see any issue there. But to argue that sorting out wording under the new legislation should be a barrier to combatting prejudice just doesn't wash with me.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fabric of society will crumble, I tell you! > > > See also: catastrophic predictions RE giving women > the vote. Couldn't agree more...... and not just women being given the vote.....allowing black people to share the same colleges as whites, allowing people to be educated... and heck even allowing the bible to be published so that people could read it for themselves!

Hmm there is no desire by those who are gay to be 'married'. Have you ever even heard of the gay christian movement? Here you go.... LCGM I think for many of those gay christians, 'marriage' may mean a heck of a lot. You still haven't really given a good enough reason as to why same sex couples should be EXCLUDED from church marriages SF beyond some irrelevant fear that the language of a marriage ceremony may have to change. And no...same sex couples are not equal through civil partnership. A heterosexual couple has the choice of registry office or a church wedding. Homosexuals don't and why?...because at the core of your belief is that God disapproves of homosexuality. THAT is the only issue the church has with gay marriage and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. So where does that leave a gay christian or are you of the belief that all gay people should be athiests. See for me there is a lot at stake here, it's not just marriage, it's the right of gay people to belong to a church, believe in god etc and not be descriminated against by that institution they wish to belong to.

Some could say that the liberal democrats facilitated draconian cuts by jumping into bed with a government given no overall mandate by the public to govern ;)

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking of figures, do we have any figures to > give us an idea of the number of unoccupied pews > at your average church service in England? ....Just think of what we could do with > them instead! Precisely. SF's arguement now seems to have switched to a fear that churches will not be allowed to use the terms man and woman? What ridiculous nonsense and I personally am fed up of being told that sexuality is a 'different' case to other forms of prejudice. The church of all institutions seems intent on keeping itself a devisive one.....what benefit can such an insitution ever have to a society in that form?

SF what on earth does numbers have to do with it? Was racism ok when non caucasians were only 5% of the population? You are using the term minority to justify descrimination against that minority. As the chart shows above....considerably more heterosexuals are not interested in church marriage either......which leads me to suggest the church is in itself a minority movement. Let me ask you this. What are you afraid of? Do you really think the church will come crashing down if a gay couple marry within it? What difference does it really make? A belief system being centuries old does not make prejudice ok. You also make the assumption that most gay people aren't interested in church marriage - well maybe if the church were not so hostile towards gays they might be. Maybe if the church were not so backward in it's thinking towards both gays and women in might not be dying off in this country in the way it is. For me the issue is clear. People do not choose their sexuality. To then allow archaic bigotry to descriminate against them is just not acceptable anymore. The sooner it is forced to drop descrimination the better as far as I'm concerned.

Doing a Dot Cotton That has to be my favourite reposte of all time :))

Well the Bible was written by men, and not Jesus to be fair, so it could be argued that the 'teachings' are not necessary verbatim as written by those who wrote the bible. Menstruating women are 'unclean' according to the same writings and I can't think that came anywhere but from the warped beliefs of the religious leaders who wrote down 'their' interpretations of stories passed orally for centuries. WOnder what SF makes of it all? ;)

errr puzzled...I think you'll find I'd be the last person to banish football from the park given I coach a ladies footy group there every Sunday. Two years ago there was no pitch on this section of grass. There may have been the year before but when I started playing there, there wasn't. The reason being the cracking up of the ground makes sense though. Having said that, these are pitches that cost ?50 an hour to hire and can't be used by anyone who doesn't pay to do so. Encroachment would be what happened last season when two junior pitches were painted onto the section of grass along the East Side just outside the park, a section that has never been used for hire of pitches. So it has happened before.

I disagree. There has always been one field allocated for sports and football (the one behind the swing park) and the common is too waterlogged most of the time in winter to be much use for anything. I have played football there for 18 months now and have never seen a passer by hit by a ball. I have seen lots of dogs urinate on people's property though. Also the pitches are not in constant use either BUT what I would say is that I wouldn't want to see any more encroachment in the park for use as football pitches.

As I suspected. Two seasons ago there were no football pitches on this section of grass.

I'm curious Renata regarding waterlogging as this part of the park in my experience does not suffer from it. Waterlogging is a problem on the common for sure but I would say this section of grass was probably suffering more from uneven drainage (causing parts of it to crack due to lack of rainfall) rather than waterlogging. I suspect the plan is to put two football pitches there next season as opposed to one.