What about people who believe in 'people'? I believe in people. I believe they are genuinely, in the vast majority good. I believe, in the vast majority, people are kind and loving and accepting and tolerant, I believe, in the main, that when you meet someone that person not only wishes you no harm, but actually wishes good things for you. I believe that, most 'bad' things that people do are done out of fear and not malevolence. I believe that, in the main, people are really not that interested in where i put my penis. I believe that as long as others arent getting hurt most people wish that you would 'do whatever makes you happy'.

Do i have to frame that as fairy story told by a big man in the sky who is benevolent but doles out violent retribution, that loves me unconditionally but will punish me with the worst pain and torture imaginable, for eternity if i break one of his special rules, that is omnipotent and loving but allows horrific things to happen, is omniscient but needs me to talk to him and asks for tax breaks and money for that to be a belief that counts?

A man who criticizes something that is already illegal is a bigoted homophobe? He didn't say anything bad about homosexuals, he just said he thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

because homosexual love is clearly different from 'normal' love, of course they shouldnt be able to express it in the same way.

Homosexual love is obviously different from heterosexual love: the former is between members of the same gender, the latter between members of the opposite gender. Obviously they are different.

There you are then. Your faith is in people. All you've done there is reversed polarity: a religious person, of the monotheist religions anyway, will believe that human beings are capable of acts of incredible goodness AND acts of incredible badness. They give credit to their God for the good, and to Satan for the bad, but they place responsibility for choosing which option to take firmly on the shoulders of the human being.

I actually rather like that. I think the religious person has a much clearer view of human nature than what you're espousing. It certainly fits better with my experience of people, which has been a mix of the good, the bad and the outright ugly.

I see the f'whit.... I mean "laypeople" have kept the church in the dark ages when it comes to women Bishops, what a bunch of complete bigoted w@nkers the "congregation" of the Church of England are.

Skin colour makes no difference when it comes to sex. If we are talking about the love which leads to marriage and I presume we are given the topic of the OP, then sex has to be a part of that. Straight sex and gay sex are different, at the very least because of the gender issues. Therefore, the love between a straight couple and a gay couple cannot be the same. I'm not saying it is wrong; I'm making no value judgement at all. But to state the two are the same is illogical, simply due to the sexual element.

No. As opposed to you, who did not describe what I described.


It fits better with my view of the world because my view of the world is based upon my experience of the world. My experience of the world is no more or less a lie than is yours.

The vote was lost by only six votes, and that was only in the house of laity. Those against ordination of women as bishops have been quoted as saying their problem was with the legislation. They wanted those 'in conscience' who could not vote in favour to be allowed an exception, much like the case is for those who 'in conscience' cannot accept women priests are catered for now.

The CofE is unique as a religious organisation, and indeed almost so as an organisation per se, because unlike any other it represents a massively diverse set of people, with very diverse beliefs, in the UK and all over the world. Trying to secure a consensus in an organisation with so much diversity is almost impossible.

You are aware that love and sex are not the same thing? If so, why are you conflating them?

The CofE is almost unique, especially in its involvement in the legislature. I'm still at a loss as to why the Lords Spiritual are granted a role in British law making when they clearly discriminate against people on the grounds of gender, sexuality and religion. I say "amost unique" because I know of only one other country that allows unelected religious leaders of one faith to participate in its legislature - Iran

There is a consesnus, they're all bigoted nutjobs that believe a fairy story.

I'm with coddy on the legislative angle too, how great it is to be in a club with Iran.