I take that "Yes" means you do deny what I said.
So, do you therefore accept that a gay couple's love for each other is just as valid as that of a straight couple?

No it hasn't. All that has been pointed out to me is that you and a few others [ithink[/i it is bollox. Not the same thing at all.






I just love it when people know they are losing an argument and have to resort to personal insult.


I didn't imply the Old Testament was irrelevant to the discussion. What you infer is your own prerogative of course. That you have failed to understand the role of Jesus in being the fulfilment of the Jewish Law simply reveals your ignorance on this subject. So really I would stop now because to those who do have an understanding, you are looking silly.


I understand 'the Word of God' in relation to the Biblical texts as meaning 'God inspired'. In other words, people were inspired by their interaction with their God to write what they wrote. What Pope Francis believes is only relevant to Catholics since the rest of the Christian world doesn't believe popes are valid. So far as Catholics are concerned, you would need to ask them whether they thought 'the Word of God' was a literal copying of God's speech.

Instead of blowing insults out of your backside you may think first whether really you should be writing about something you patently don't comprehend. Had you comprehended, you would have first considered which form of Christianity was under discussion: protestant or Roman Catholic, for example, as a starting point. You might then have phrased your question appropriately to elicit the kind of response you wanted.

You were shown to be utterly and completely [ufactually[/u wrong on the simple matter of who could perform marriages without the aid of a registrar.






Oh, I how lurve the smell of büll in the evening.

I wasn't shown to be anything. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case. So once again, it's just you writing it on an internet message board, which means zip to me.

I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent.

[url=http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/relationships_ni/relationships_living_together_and_marriage_ni/getting_married.htmTry CAB[/url



It doesn't seem to preclude other denominations as long as the officiating person is registered, presumably in the same way that a CoE vicar would be automatically.

1753 is very recent?

As Mintball (and others) have pointed out, your claims are factually incorrect in a number of areas. And let me state again: your 'evidence' in no way shows that the church may legitimately claim to 'own' the concept of marriage. That it controlled marriage in this country up until a couple of hundred years ago no more gives it the right to claim ownership than the descendants of slave owners have the right to claim ownership of the descendants of slaves.



I hate to burst your bubble, dear, but posting a link that's totally irrelevant to your claims does not count as 'winning' an argument.



Again, you're trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant twaddle. Your claim that the biblical definition of marriage is 'one man and one woman' is demonstrably false. Unless you choose to ignore the OT. Jesus' fulfilment of Jewish Law is irrelevant. If God intended that marriage should only include 'one man and one woman', why would he sanction so many marriages that broke this rule? Did he just change his mind?

What makes you and your fellow God-botherers look silly is your selective reading of the Bible. As soon as the inconsistencies in your arguments are pointed out, you all immediately resort to the 'you don't get it' line. It's transparent and it's ridiculous.



No, no. It makes no difference whatsoever whether you believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, or that he 'inspired' the authors of the texts to write them on his behalf. There isn't a single Christian denomination that doesn't consider the Bible to be God's word, however the texts were produced. So if we accept that he as (at the very least) approved the contents of the Bible, what reason could we possibly offer for his sudden change of heart on what should constitute the nature of marriage?

You were provided with evidence by FA – and anecdotal evidence that supported that by me – and yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim (not even anecdotal): just a statement.

To reiterate: you have presented no evidence here for your own case – just your own statements.



How don't have to look far: FA has already provided evidence of this and Jerry has now repeated it, complete with a link.

And the change has not been recent. My father was toting around the registers when he had nine chapels ('parishes') in the Kirkby Stephen district back in the late 1950s. And yes, I am aware that is an anecdote.

Dally, if you read this, may I have an answer please?

Only when he manages to recover [ithat[/i famous off-site book.
The answer will be in there.

You won't get answers from either of them. They've been called on the rubbish they were spouting and they both realise now they can't back it up, so they've disappeared.

For the avoidance of doubt in your seemingly troubled mind:

Yes - I "deny" what you wrote.

I have no sense of superiority over gay people.

I am not sure what "valid" in the context of love means? But, I do not think the term "marriage" should be applicable to gay relationships (to me it's a bit like women wanting to be members of men only clubs rather than setiing up their own).

The situation was clarified for me again by one of my rather naive daughters at the weekend. One of her friends had texted her to say she'd had sex with another girl. My daughter asked Mrs Dally how two women could have sex. Mrs Dally gave a couple of examples and my daughter answered "that's not sex."

I can't wait for "The Only Way Is Dally", the lives and times of a completely baffled family.

So what?
How did that "clarify" anything?
We don't know what the supposed examples were so cannot agree or disagree with your "rather naive" daughter.

After you were put on your backside I'm not surprised.

He'll be getting a kick in the balls off his daughter shortly when he asks her if she's a lesbo.

nah, he'll be too busy complaining she can't get a "strapdictomy" on the NHS.

Clearly 'sex' in the Dally household is a joyless, functional bout of missionary position intercourse that takes place on the third Sunday of every month, and with the minimum of foreplay.

Your weird daughter and her bizarre views on sex aside, there is no difference whatsoever in the love between a man and a woman, and the love between two people of the same sex. It follows then, that there really ought to be no difference in their respective marriages either.

Who cares?
Was it intended to? It was your lack of clarity that was the issue?
Name any example that is sex or "sexual relations" (in the Clintonesque sense).

??

I always thought the union of a man and a woman was the expression of love and the basis of marriage. Indeed, a species is often defined via the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction. I must have missed something given that I am clearly wrong. Could someone please elucidate?

Eh? My "lack of clarity"?, I wasn't even present at your family tut-tutting session.


As you were talking about sex between women, oral and manual sex spring to mind as likely examples (but, as a man, I can't speak for what two women together might prefer).

But, according to you (or your daughter) that isn't sex ... on that you must be in a small minority of opinion.

Was Clinton on oath when he said he hadn't had sexual relations with that woman? If so, maybe he was clear on the legal meaning of his words?

Oh FFS ... you are quoting Clinton as a reliable source of meaning for the words "sexual relations"?

You must be the one person in this country who thought that a blowjob wasn't sexual relations.

Oh, hang on ... maybe your daughter thought it wasn't either.