Scotland has just introduced a bill which will legalise same sex marriages.

Status
Not open for further replies.
FourRingCircus said:
Thank you for such a constructive post. I'll go off now and seek out your book. Nice to find someone who is prepared to counter my own (ignorant?) thoughts with something constructive rather than accusing me of being phobic.(y)

Oh, and I'm sure you will realise that I never once said my view was right. It is/was my view all the same and I can't help that. Happy to learn and capable of humility too.;)
Click to expand...

I have to say, I didn't expect you to respond in that way. I thought you'd do what everyone else on here does and just continue arguing your case.

Kudos to you, my friend. Kudos indeed. Big respect.
 
London Headshots said:
No, that's kind of different to homosexual co-parenting, I guess, though the latter still involves caring and protecting.

I get the feeling you're trying to make some kind of clever point, but I think it went above my head. Or it was stupid; I can't tell which.
Click to expand...

Put it another way then... Do you or the book you referred to suggest animals have gay relationships?

I think you're getting mixed up with regard to animal behaviour as I'm sure they have no concept of sexuality in a human sense. They may well co-habit and try to hump each other regardless of sex but that is not the same thing.
 
Splog said:
Put it another way then... Do you or the book you referred to suggest animals have gay relationships?

I think you're getting mixed up with regard to animal behaviour as I'm sure they have no concept of sexuality in a human sense. They may well co-habit and try to hump each other regardless of sex but that is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Er, yeah, I kind of agree that they have no concept of sexuality in a human sense, too. Given that they aren't, you know, human, and that the entire concept of sexuality is a human, or more specifically, religious construct.

Again, what is the point you are making?

Yes, the book, which only one of us has read, specifically details homosexual relationships and co-parenting in the animal kingdom. There's even an amazing story of animals that aren't instinctively monogamous, entering into monogamous homosexual relationships that last for whole lifetimes.
 
London Headshots said:
Er, yeah, I kind of agree that they have no concept of sexuality in a human sense, too. Given that they aren't, you know, human, and that the entire concept of sexuality is a human, or more specifically, religious construct.

Again, what is the point you are making?

Yes, the book, which only one of us has read, specifically details homosexual relationships and co-parenting in the animal kingdom. There's even an amazing story of animals that aren't instinctively monogamous, entering into monogamous homosexual relationships that last for whole lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Sexuality is a religious construct..... That's a new one :LOL: This book actually talks about animals having Homo-sexual relationships, really? Who wrote it.... Enid Blyton ;)
 
FourRingCircus said:
Show me a gay pairing in nature that adopts/rears anothers offspring and I'll change my mind about that. Just because I've never come across it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'd assume the generally in nature when the parents can no longer \ do not want to continue caring for their young offspring they die or at best are left to fend for themselves. I've no doubt there are some exceptions.

Ultimately adoption is about the child\children and finding a loving home where they can develop and I know of no reason why that cannot be achieved with same sex parents.
 
Splog said:
Sexuality is a religious construct..... That's a new one :LOL: This book actually talks about animals having Homo-sexual relationships, really? Who wrote it.... Enid Blyton ;)
Click to expand...

It probably is a new one for you, you don't seem particularly well educated, if I'm honest. I'd imagine large swaths of knowledge remain permanently inaccesible to you.

Yes, the book talks about animals having homosexual relationships, given that it would be extremely taxing replacing "homo" with the genus of every single species engaged in gay activity.

Do you mind if I don't reply to anything else you post? I've added you to my ignore list, because people like you complete nauseate me.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
It probably is a new one for you, you don't seem particularly well educated, if I'm honest. I'd imagine large swaths of knowledge remain permanently inaccesible to you.

Yes, the book talks about animals having homosexual relationships, given that it would be extremely taxing replacing "homo" with the genus of every single species engaged in gay activity.

Do you mind if I don't reply to anything else you post? I'm going to pop you on my ignore list, because you kind of nauseate me.
Click to expand...

:LOL: :LOL:
 
can i take my tin hat off now :cautious:
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Yes, the book talks about animals having homosexual relationships, given that it would be extremely taxing replacing "homo" with the genus of every single species engaged in gay activity.
Click to expand...

Amusing. You talk about education and then post the above!

Homo- as a prefix comes from the Greek meaning same; as in homogenous. Hence homosexual meaning same sex.

Homo as in Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus comes from the Latin meaning Man and is a stand alone noun.
 
DemiLion said:
Amusing. You talk about education and then post the above!

Homo- as a prefix comes from the Greek meaning same; as in homogenous. Hence homosexual meaning same sex.

Homo as in Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus comes from the Latin meaning Man and is a stand alone noun.
Click to expand...

Don't get too excited, I made the comment I did because he inexplicably hyphenated the word. I took it to mean, given that he's not particularly smart, that he was indeed referring to the genus.

But I know deep down you knew that from the start.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Don't get too excited, I made the comment I did because he inexplicably hyphenated the word. I took it to mean, given that he's not particularly smart, that he was indeed referring to the genus.

But I know deep down you knew that from the start.
Click to expand...

No you didn't.... I tried to help you by hyphenating the word but you totally missed the clues, anyway care to explain your theory on gay animals! ..... :wacky:

Ooops! Sorry, I forgot your ignoring me :LOL: so I guess I'm talking to myself :D
 
As was once said, "marriage is a wonderful institution but who wants to live in an institution?"... :LOL:

Fair play. I'm not mad keen on sexuality being 'in my face' so to speak (gay or straight) but if it's important to gay couples in the same way it's important to 'traditional' straight couples, then good luck :)
 
Welcome back to London Headshots. I've missed you for the last month or so.

(Yes! Seriously! (y))
 
London Headshots said:
Don't get too excited, I made the comment I did because he inexplicably hyphenated the word. I took it to mean, given that he's not particularly smart, that he was indeed referring to the genus.

But I know deep down you knew that from the start.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but if you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would have pointed out the actual error,not the one that you've just made up.

Explained more simply; don't put someone down for their lack of education or intellect if you yourself are making a sodding great howler.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
so here we are, 7 pages after i tried not to start an argument.. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Well, it is about weddings. :D

"Ding, dong the bells are going to chime..."
 
DemiLion said:
Stop it!!

The W word hadn't been mentioned up til now! :D
Click to expand...

We should have our own version of Godwin's Law, which states the first person to mention weddings automatically loses the debate.

Should make the Talk Business section nice and quiet :naughty:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
We should have our own version of Godwin's Law, which states the first person to mention weddings automatically loses the debate.

Should make the Talk Business section nice and quiet :naughty:
Click to expand...

I'd say 'Wedding Photography' would be fairer. B&G should be blacklisted as well!
 
DemiLion said:
Stop it!!

The W word hadn't been mentioned up til now! :D
Click to expand...

I was queuing at at the tills when I read that. The chortle caused a few stares. :D
 
I think it's good news all round although I'm wondering why it's going to take them over 3 years officially allow it?

I came across this quote:

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church said: “The Scottish government is embarking on a dangerous social experiment on a massive scale.”

I think we all know how much "social experimenting" was covered up by the Roman Catholic Church.

And this:

The Rev. Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, a conservative evangelical network within the Church of England, said, “God designed marriage to be the union of one man and one woman, reflecting the union of Christ as bridegroom and the Church his bride. God is not a person with whom even U.K. prime ministers can negotiate a more congenial set of commands.”

wtf? This is why I can't get on board with religion. Times change. The world evolves. If I believed in all that man-made crap then surely the all knowing God would know that times will change and therefore wouldn't expect a set of rules made so long ago to be relevant in an era so far ahead?

I couldn't care less if two guys or two women want to hook up. That's up to them right?
 
, reflecting the union of Christ as bridegroom and the Church his bride.
Click to expand...

so since when has the church been female then ?
 
spoiledphotos-1221359475-55499.jpg


:LOL:
 
Wow, there are some really horrible, misguided individuals on these forums. I didn't expect it of TP. Perhaps I'll stick to the 'in-focus' sections. Lol.
 
gman said:
wtf? This is why I can't get on board with religion. Times change. The world evolves. If I believed in all that man-made crap then surely the all knowing God would know that times will change and therefore wouldn't expect a set of rules made so long ago to be relevant in an era so far ahead?
Click to expand...
Make your mind up is it man made crap or rules from God.

Perhaps there will be a time when being a paedophilia, incest, bestiality and murder and many other things will be acceptable then. After all times change and things progress:wacky:
 
nilagin said:
Make your mind up is it man made crap or rules from God.

Perhaps there will be a time when being a paedophilia, incest, bestiality and murder and many other things will be acceptable then. After all times change and things progress:wacky:
Click to expand...

In times gone by most, if not all, of those were acceptable at some point.... ;)
 
nilagin said:
Make your mind up is it man made crap or rules from God.
Click to expand...

Read it again, the clue is the word "if".

nilagin said:
Perhaps there will be a time when being a paedophilia, incest, bestiality and murder and many other things will be acceptable then. After all times change and things progress:wacky:
Click to expand...

Sorry, you've lost me. Unless this is simply some sick longing you are announcing?
 
gman said:
Read it again, the clue is the word "if".
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, if those are the rules on which the Christianity faith is based, then who are we to say they should get with the times? That is not how it works.

gman said:
Sorry, you've lost me. Unless this is simply some sick longing you are announcing?
Click to expand...

You are the one saying things should keep up with the times, not me.:shrug:
 
nilagin said:
Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, if those are the rules on which the Christianity faith is based, then who are we to say they should get with the times? That is not how it works.
Click to expand...

Religion has never updated? Come on, that's just being naive. Religion has to change in order to survive because as technology and our knowledge of things improve, we become all more aware of just how reliant religion is on faith and fear and very little else.


nilagin said:
You are the one saying things should keep up with the times, not me.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want things to stay how they were then, which leads us back to:

Flash In The Pan said:
In times gone by most, if not all, of those were acceptable at some point.... ;)
Click to expand...

That stuff is not for me I'm afraid.
 
A thread about religion, gone downhill...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top