Well did you ever

[gfwgfw]

You have much larger choice now for a very happy marriage

Our esteemed leaders have voted 225/175 in favour of same sex marriages

[Romig1]

Another pants topic title gfw....are you desperate to be red-penned or what?

[jacksparrow]

Without wishing to put my foot in it I think our gentle giant was just making a point of letting us know the result of the vote...

[gfwgfw]

Romig

Please - I made a great living writing "headers" for the intellectual reader

Luboo lots

Graham

[Romig1]

Romig

Please - I made a great living writing "headers" for the intellectual reader

Luboo lots

Graham

That must be why it whizzed past over my head, eh?

[Delboy]

You have much larger choice now for a very happy marriage

Our esteemed leaders have voted 225/175 in favour of same sex marriages

This is only a vote for the subject to be debated, a long way to go before it reaches the statute books, once all the details have been debated then has to go through the House Of Lords.

Not as large a majority as I thought it would be, it will split the Tory party.

[gfwgfw]

Spot on Dellboy

[Delboy]

Spot on Dellboy

As always

[Kendhni]

Quite honestly, given the important issues that need to be debated at the minute, this has just been an utter and total waste of valuable time.
I know several gay couples who refer to themselves as being 'married' ... they don't give a monkeys what others refer to it as, they are happy.

[oldbluefox]

Fiddling whilst Rome burns comes to mind.

[david63]

From what I was hearing on the news last night I have serious concerns about the reasoning behind some of the voting. Apparently there were many Tory MPs who voted against it because that was the instructions from their local part activists. Sorry but an MP represents his/her constituents not just the party activists and if this is reflected on other issues then we have another serious problem within our Parliamentary system

[paultheeagle]

What a waste of time.....It don't matter does it. From what I've read most Gay couples aren't bothered by this..The only ones making a fuss are the politicians....One of the politicians making the most noise was Cameron and he wasn't even there for the vote.

You would think that this despicable Government would concentrate their time and efforts on sorting out the economy, getting people back to work and all the other social problems their policies have created....Not wasting valuable time on things that most people ain't bothered about.

Never mind, they might change their mind later...now that is something they are good at.

[Manoverboard]

None too bothered in reality but I do feel a bit ' Olde fashioned ', like some in the Tory Party perhaps, when adoption of children by same sex partners crops up ... can't get my head around that one at all

[kaymar]

Fiddling whilst Rome burns comes to mind.

An apt metaphor, obf.

[Mo2013]

The Bible does not condone homosexuality. I am not homophobic but marriage should be between a man and a woman. For two people of the same gender to marry is not the natural order of things. I was shocked to hear on tv the other day that 'things have moved on so much since the Bible' but the Bible is the Bible - it's not up for alteration! Even as an atheist I find it outrageous that people have the temerity to disregard and 'update' the Bible to suit themselves.

[Kendhni]

Mo, over the years the bible has been manipulated, interpretted and mis-interpretted to suit various purposes. The current version, King James, was deliberately designed to be dictatorial in its preachings and has remained with us ever since. The problem is that there are many more gospels that have not been published or included (it is a bit like what passes as investigative journalism these days, anything that does not fit in with the picture you wish to paint is not mentioned).

However I did find it strange that on the radio being interviewed was a lesbian lady who made it very clear that, despite being an atheist, she was disgusted that she could not get married in a church ... made me wonder why, as an atheist is does not matter where you get married or what you call the union. I however agree that no minister should be forced to marry anybody if it goes against his/her beliefs ... not when there is a registry office alternative .. there is no right for anybody to have a church wedding.

[paultheeagle]

Heterosexual couples will be moaning next....'cause they can't have a Civil Partnership.

[Meg 50]

However I did find it strange that on the radio being interviewed was a lesbian lady who made it very clear that, despite being an atheist, she was disgusted that she could not get married in a church ... made me wonder why, as an atheist is does not matter where you get married

cos the pictures look good at a church wedding....

though praps not so much these days, when all kinds of places are registered for ceremonies, as in days of yore

[Mo2013]

Ken, being an atheist, I am obviously not an expert on the Bible, but its tenets/commandments are surely set in stone, and no amount of manipulation can get away from that. Because I am an atheist, I did not marry in Church and have issue with non-religious people who do, simply because they want a church wedding and they want their pictures to look good. It is wrong.

[Silver_Shiney]

Mo, over the years the bible has been manipulated, interpretted and mis-interpretted to suit various purposes. The current version, Ling James, was deliberately designed to be dictatorial in its preachings and has remained with us ever since. The problem is that there are many more gospels that have not been published or included (it is a bit like what passes as investigative journalism these days, anything that does not fit in with the picture you wish to paint is not mentioned).

However I did find it strange that on the radio being interviewed was a lesbian lady who made it very clear that, despite being an atheist, she was disgusted that she could not get married in a church ... made me wonder why, as an atheist is does not matter where you get married or what you call the union. I however agree that no minister should be forced to marry anybody if it goes against his/her beliefs ... not when there is a registry office alternative .. there is no right for anybody to have a church wedding.

I'm sorry, Ken, but I believe you are very wrong there. The KJV was transliterated by a team of scholars, as was the NKJV and the NIV (which is the most prevalent transliteration today). The "gospels" you allude to were excluded for a reason - they did not pass a test of authority and authenticity. The Council of Carthage "approved" the final composition of the NT in AD397 but they didn't declare the individual books as "good and true", they recognised their intrinsic authority and authenticity. The Bible, in pretty much whatever version you choose to read, is unusual in that it makes no secret of the failings of some of the main characters - wouldn't you want to hide the fact that you were an adulterer and a murderer, as King David was?

Now, you and I started a discussion on this whole area a few months ago, but he who doesn't Half make a Spectacle ( ) of himself put the kibosh on it. If you would like to take it further, I would be very happy to debate with you, either in a separate thread, or privately via PM or email.

Kind regards to you and Julie

Alan

[Silver_Shiney]

Ken, being an atheist, I am obviously not an expert on the Bible, but its tenets/commandments are surely set in stone, and no amount of manipulation can get away from that. Because I am an atheist, I did not marry in Church and have issue with non-religious people who do, simply because they want a church wedding and they want their pictures to look good. It is wrong.

Mo - thank you for respecting the Church

[Delboy]

It will be illegal for the Church of England to conduct same-sex weddings under government plans for gay marriage unveiled on Tuesday.

The measure, which will also affect the Church of Wales.

Under the proposed legislation, religious groups that do want to conduct same-sex weddings will be able to opt-in.

However the Church of England will be given an extra layer of security against being forced to do so in an effort to win over opponents. For the Church to conduct gay weddings parliament would also have to change the law to permit it.

Opponents of gay marriage, have raised concerns that religious organisations who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages will face legal challenge and be forced to do so by the European Court of Human Rights.

However the government is confident that its quadruple-lock, as well as an amendment to the Equalities Act, will prevent any challenge being successful.

[Kendhni]

I'm sorry, Ken, but I believe you are very wrong there. The KJV was transliterated by a team of scholars, as was the NKJV and the NIV (which is the most prevalent transliteration today).

It was transliterated from translations of translations of translations under a dictat from King James that it should be dictatorial in its context i.e. thou shalt, thou will etc. That sort of language apparently was not so prevalent in some earlier translations and, I believe it is now known, not in some of the original source documentation. Also man is fallible and it is known that there are many mis-translations/transliterations in the text ... probably one of the most well known is Josephs coat. That is the problem with transliteration in that often context and terminology gets 'corrupted'.

Even the order of the gospels has differed from earlier translations going from Matthew-John-Luke-Mark to Matthew-Mark-Luke-John which some scholars believe has an underlying reason (but may just be differences in how they are chronologically perceived).

The "gospels" you allude to were excluded for a reason - they did not pass a test of authority and authenticity. The Council of Carthage "approved" the final composition of the NT in AD397 but they didn't declare the individual books as "good and true", they recognised their intrinsic authority and authenticity. The Bible, in pretty much whatever version you choose to read, is unusual in that it makes no secret of the failings of some of the main characters - wouldn't you want to hide the fact that you were an adulterer and a murderer, as King David was?

Hence why it can never succeed in being the definitive word or guide to historical or belief ... that can only happen when those that have the ability, the courage and integrity to release ALL evidence including gospels of others such as Peter, Thomas, Judas etc. as well as other manuscripts into the public domain.

None of this denies any faith or belief that many have, but it is akin to a jury making a decision after only hearing the case for the defence.

[Kendhni]

Opponents of gay marriage, have raised concerns that religious organisations who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages will face legal challenge and be forced to do so by the European Court of Human Rights.

I don't see how that would work because currently a church/minister/priest can refuse to marry/unite anybody they want ... it is a privilege to be allowed to use church facilities not a right .. and I believe that is the way it should remain.

[Silver_Shiney]

It was transliterated from translations of translations of translations under a dictat from King James that it should be dictatorial in its context i.e. thou shalt, thou will etc. That sort of language apparently was not so prevalent in some earlier translations and, I believe it is now known, not in some of the original source documentation. Also man is fallible and it is known that there are many mis-translations/transliterations in the text ... probably one of the most well known is Josephs coat. That is the problem with transliteration in that often context and terminology gets 'corrupted'.

Even the order of the gospels has differed from earlier translations going from Matthew-John-Luke-Mark to Matthew-Mark-Luke-John which some scholars believe has an underlying reason (but may just be differences in how they are chronologically perceived).

Sorry, but you're wrong again. The NIV, in particular, was made directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts by over 100 scholars across a wide range of denominations. It is known that the original texts were written in the vernacular of the day, and it was transliterated into the vernacular of the day. Nobody spoke in "thees and thous" in Biblical times, but they did in the days of the KJV. I've not come across a different order in the four gospels, but such a re-ordering would be irrelevant.