Was the kit that Sheffield played in last year pink?!

Good initiative imo.

As far as I'm concerned people should be able to get on with their lives irrespective of their sex or sexuality and free of fear or persecution.
Hate crime against the LGBT community is still rife, as is prejudice and discrimination.
In this sense the question of homophobia is very close to the issues of racism and sexism.

Personally I don't give a toss what religion you are, but if your interpretation of whatever text it is you hold sacred tells you to discriminate against others, I've only got three words for you......GET OVER IT!

Finally got round to replying to this. I don't mind answering everyone's questions but it might take a while

I should start by declaring my hand. I don't believe gay people should be able to enter into any formal union, civil partnership or marriage. I do however agree with John McCain that gay people should not be prevented from entering into formal contracts which take care of the legal stuff if they wish to cohabit or divvy up their assets following a death.

The reason I object to any state-sponsored gay union is, well, firstly because I believe it is unbiblical, for the reasons I've stated elsewhere in this thread. And secondly, whilst we may be a secular country in practice (though not as bad as say France), it is absurd that the Head of State and Head of the Church of England should give their implied approval of such unions through Royal Assent. It makes a complete mockery of the CofE. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

I've never argued that gay people can change, more that they can refrain from conducting gay relationships.

As a Christian, do you think sex before marriage is biblical?

Maybe they are just moving forward faster than other religions ?

Religions of all hues find it difficult to cope with questions and changing attitudes without those changes being initiated by themselves, it comes back to control of the population and the big problem that I see with many religions is that you can't re-interpret scriptures and ancient writings in a modern setting without another group of people crying "heretic".

The Catholic church (just as an example) painted themselves into a corner recently with their public treatment of the child abuse scandals, trying to deny the issue and then trying to deal with it internally while expecting the population to be compliant just showed a complete lack of reality in their leadership and a belief that the faithful would just follow and the rest ignore - the modern world doesn't work like that, this is not the middle ages any more.

Apart from certain districts with a WF postcode.

At the risk of getting personal, just how 'literal' is your stance. Have you never for example 'cast your seed upon the ground' (Genesis 3icon_cool.gif...or would you admit that you have occasionally fornicated for reasons other than procreation?
I don't know you but I would probably call you a liar if you said no, which would not sit too well with the following passage which lists homosexuality together with mendacity as unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.
[i"knowing this

Just one other thing that's really bugging me. Their are no direct NT references to Homosexuality, and only 4 in the OT. Even when it comes to the issue of 'sexual morality' only the Pauline Epistles have any direct reference. Can we not therefore assume that this really wasn't that much of an issue For Matthew, Mark, Luke et. al?... or maybe it's just that Paul was the Mary Whitehouse of his time.
The reality is that it's the Church much more than the Bible that obsesses itself with control over sexuality and relationships.

ok, this is going to be a rant, but I'm sorry, some incredibly offensive things have been said on this thread.

1. 'Being gay's not like being black, because you can choose not to be gay but you can't choose not to be black

So as a gay person, I should refrain from having any sexual or romantic liaison with anyone I happen to like? I should actively renounce a part of myself that is fundamental to who I am. This isn't different to being black. There is a huge market for skin lightening creams for black people, and various treatments can remove melanin from the skin. So when I decide to 'keep being black' I'm making exactly the same choice to keep indulging a part of myself people might not like as I do when I decide to keep being gay.

2. God said it's wrong, so I shouldn't do it.

3 Premises of Christianity3. Gay people are acting immorally, but shouldn't be abused, or bullied, or anything nasty like that

Ask yourself why people bully each other, ask yourself why hatred of all stripes happens. It happens because people fundamentally believe there is something wrong with those people who display that trait, whatever it should happen to be. People do not go around abusing those who you respect & consider as equals. When the church and people like Kirkstaller start espousing their bigoted attitudes, they build the base for homophobic abuse at every level to happen.

4. We can hate the sin, but not the sinner

This too is bunkum. I can't help finding someone i see on the street attractive, I can't help wanting to date people I should happen to like. when you try to divorce my sin from my self you demand I deny a fundamental part of who I am, which I cannot do, just as I cannot, and will not, ask you to deny your god. People do not exist in some sort of moral vacuum where you can separate who we are, our actions and our desires.

5. The club shouldn't 'force 21st century morality on its supporters'

This isn't what the club is doing, the club is standing up and saying all of its supporters should be treated equitably. When you demand a right to degrade individuals because they make choices you disagree with, you leave behind a right to believe what you want, and claim a right to have your views aired in public, no matter how damaging or hurtful they may be to people. If supporting a club which believes there's nothing wrong with being gay is so damaging to you, you are free to GTFO.

6. The bible says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, so gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married

Here's a few other things the bible says

-Touching pigs makes you unclean (so no pork for anyone)

-those who plant 2 different crops side by side will go to hell (farmers in the house?)

-those who work on the sabbath should be killed (we definitely played on a sunday this year, guess Nantwichexile will get the academy side he's always wanted)

-it's a sin for women to wear clothes made of two different threads (best chuck the topshop loyalty cards)


now I'm going to presume you're not a complete mentalist kirkstaller and say that you don't believe this. So if you don't, why do you pick out one quote from the bible, that being

'a man shall not lie with another man, for it is an abomination'

and not only give credence to that line you would never give to others, but give it more credence than all of the other passes of peace, love & charity the bible contains? Answers on a postcard please.

7. Property contracts ok, marriage bad

Firstly, Civil Unions are those property contracts, but second, when you remove the term 'marriage' you are happy to give all the benefits the state affords to a marriage, but reserve one word which, by withholding, you use to insult, debase and degrade those people who don't fit into your straitjacket of sexual morality. The job of the state, Kirkstaller, isn't to uphold your religion (even if we're officially CofE, the majority of polled christian's don't share your views), but to treat it's citizens equally, no matter what their colour, sexual orientation, or creed. When the state bows to your ideals it actively participates in the denigration of a community and the worth, as people, of its members. That is horrendously immoral, and a complete failure of the duty of the government to care for its citizenry.


Now, I am happy for people to believe whatever they want to believe and hold any opinion they want, but at the point they come on a public forum trying to debase peopel like me, undermine our choices, our lifestyle, our right to be who we are, and even our right to me treated equally by the rugby club we support, that's enough.

McLaren Field, please give Kirkstaller the indefinite ban his incredibly offensive views deserve. You'd not allow some quasi-respectable BNP supporter to give pseudo-scientific justifications for his racism, and I think 6 pages of attempting to defend his Bigotry is quite enough. Ban. Now.

He's probably in bed. "There's nobody here but us chickens".

No - and for these reasons - you don't change opinions by simply holding your hands to your ears and saying that you can't hear anything, the poster "Kirkstaller" has genuinely held views based on his christian beliefs, now you and I may oppose the fundemental principles of those beliefs, and by the way your reposte to those beliefs was very well constructed, but its of more benefit to have those beliefs aired so that we all understand properly what an element of the population still believe in.

By viewing both sides of the coin we are now much better informed as to why the RFL takes the anti-homophobia stance and where the campaign needs to be targeted.

And for the record I'd do exactly the same for a BNP spokesperson too although to be honest they are easy game to pick to pieces.

I think kirkstaller is entitled to his/her opinions, particularly as they are clearly not being expressed with the specific intention of causing insult or injury (even if that may be the effect for some).

I think an enightened society has room for all views to be expressed, considered and debated. Creating taboo subjects doesn't do much to alter perceptions. There have to be limits, of course, but I personally think the debate on here falls well within acceptable limits. I don't particularly want to see people villified for articulating opinions like this if they are prepared to hear other sides and engage intelligently with the debate, as kirkstaller has done.

Excellent post .... And I even make a cameo appearance

However, I do agree with others that nobody should be censored for well meaning but ridiculous opinions. An open forum is the best way to tackle misguided people. Unfortunately I suspect Kirkstaller is one of those pious bluddy minded individuals who will never deviate from th their position regardless of the strength of a good riposte .. It will simply shatter the whole basis to the meaning of their life and their perceived reward of a better after life

What age are you in heaven by the way ? Do babies who die stay babies ? at the rapture are all that rise from their graves to be judged already in heaven or hell ?? For paradise and eternal happiness does there not have to be some misery to appreciate the concept of happiness ? Will it not get a little boring ? I was brought up a catholic. I am now a committed atheist/humanist.

Tyke's/Rhinos No. 1 Fan, you make some eloquent arguments, but I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I think this thread has run it's natural course, but, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to correct the way you seem to have misrepresented my faith. I'll keep this relatively short and polite 26.85205078125:10