Your right is absolute.

Homosexual "marriage" is of course not an option, yet, but this country led most of the world in recognising that homosexual couples should be given some legal entity and that is all that the civil registry ceremony offers, a legal title.

.... And there lies the key. Why such reverence for a book written by scientifically unenlightened men ?
Which version of the bible incidentally ? And do YOU take it all literally or are you selective with it so that it sits better with your own personal comfort or agenda ?

Anyways each to their own....

.....as for the chimps, as long as there is mutual adult ~consent~ go for it

What has science got to do with it?

I do take what could be labelled as a 'literal stance' on the Bible, but it is actually impossible to read the whole thing literally. The Bible is a compendium of many books, of different genres, written by different authors over 1500 years. For example, the NT uses a lot of imagery and metaphorical language, (especially the Book of Revelation, which is just mindbending stuff if taken literally) and when John referred to the 'lamb' it is clear that he was not referring to a literal animal, but Jesus Christ.

A good Bible believing church can help guide you through Bible study, if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Its actually quite a good book to read, as a historical book, I find myself sitting around in hotel rooms from time to time (quite legitimately I add) and sometimes idly flick through the Gideons book that seems to be obligatory in most hotels (what do muslims think of that ?), you can actually find some interesting stories in there.

Incidently my wife works in a hotel and their group is driven by what idiots write on TripAdvisor (personally I'd ignore most of the rubbish that gets put on there), the other day someone gave the hotel a one star rating because there was no bible in the room, FFS, if you're so desperate and upset at no access to a bible then bring your f'kin own with you.

What a load of nonsense. As an active Christian with a gay spouse, I find these attitudes offensive. You are as likely to change your race or any disabality you may have through the Holy Spirit as you are your sexual inclination.

Well done to the club for supporting any campaign to combat such archaic thought.

The likelihood of something happening is not relevant. In any case, the Bible does not command us to change our inclination, but to resist temptation. As a Christian, you should know that homosexual acts are sinful. I'm not saying this out of hate, but love (Ephesians 4:15 & 2 Timothy 4:2).



People are free to believe whatever they want. I really do hope that the club is not going to enforce the 21st Century, politically correct dogma of telling people what to think.

Like I said in a previous post, bullying is not on. But the club (and the government) cannot tell people what to think.

Simply science continues to compell bible believers to wriggle and reinterpret their dogma.

Thanks for the offer but I prefer to read books on evolution, geology and other such factual books. Jejune stories about Noah and his ilk I prefer to leave to others.

You object to equal status for homosexuals I object to state, tax funded catholic schools presenting books to impressionable kids that make statements like " we know " that god made us and the earth.
My primary school teacher, wife, struggles every day with that one and tends to insert the more accurate " some believe ".

And yes ....securing a job was the motivation rather than "supporting the catholic ethos ".... Our taxes should not be used for such, or any other, indoctrination.

Will you attend any games where the shirt is worn ?

Both quotes are from letters from early church leaders to contemporary worshippers. We no longer live in those times.

I have no problem with your "dislike" of homosexuality. I agree that people shouldn't be told what to think and I agree with your stance on bullying. What I take offence at is the suggestion that being gay is a "changable" condition. I assume you're only attracted to people of the opposite sex. You won't change to fancying those of the same sex so why would the reverse be true?

But are you not also attempting to tell people what to think, sin being an essentially social construct?

Furthermore, I notice you have found two biblical references to explain why you are expressing your views, but no scriptural basis for the views themselves.

I am not religious or gay myself, but I certainly find the bible an interesting text, both culturally and historically. The Old Testament (Leveticus in particular) has clear prohibitions on homosexuality, but even the New Testament advises that we should not be bound by Old Testament law (an indication perhaps that the early Christian church was more aware of it's need to adapt to changing social structures than today's?). Furthermore, to accept Leveticus' prohibition we must presumably accept the immorality of eating fat, eating pork, wearing clothes sewn of more than one cloth, cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping your beard?

So, assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't recognise all of those acts as sin, we should perhaps discount the proscriptions of the Old Testament.

As far as I know, no gospel or any other part of the New Testament claiming to be the word of Christ makes any specific reference to homosexuality, without delving too much into the gospels, which are not plausibly all Christ's teaching as they are quite mutually contradictory. Rather, Christ's primary conern appears to have been with love, tolerance and forgiveness. I would see homosexuality as entirely consistent with those aims.

I was also interested to read that you regard the legal status of homosexual civil partnerships as a "swindle." In what regard? Do you accept that the law of this country is essentially secular, and as such requires more than a scriptural justification (even if you can find one) for outlawing a practice?

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't hold these views, indeed I think it's important that people are allowed to express and discuss these matters and taboos do nobody any favours, but I do think if you seek to persuade others of them, this sort of challenge is important. Apologies that you're being asked to respond to a lot of questions here, but I think your view is not as common, nad certainly not as commonly expressed as it might once have been, which makes it interesting but also leaves few to defend it.

I think you're both looking at things too literally. Perhaps read the bible stories as just that. As McF has said, Kings and Queens have and still do use religion to control the masses. Why do you think it's called the King James Bible?

The stories of Jesus' are moral ways of living. The underlying theme is to treat other people how you wish to be treated - equally, with love, respect and forgiveness. Matthew 25: 31-46 sets the bar to what is morally right. The fact that the bar is compared against Jesus is only because he was revered. Personally, I think it's more about being at peace with ones self and others and leading a moral life, rather than entering the gates of heaven.

Apply this theory to people of any sexual orientation and you should be quite happy to let it be.

Whether people are born gay, or choose to be gay is a difficult one. I don't think people are born gay. I think childhood is a very influential time and can affect much more than just the sexual orientation of somebody.

Well that's me up the Kyber pass on Boxing Day. Not only will I not be able to wear my new Champions limited editions shirt, I won't be able to indulge in my usual growler and peas with mint sauce from the Wilsons van! Furthermore I'm going to be looking like a cross between JJB anf Eric Grothe Snr come Grand Final. Pesky religion.

Firstly, can I congratulate you for holding a relatively informed view on dispesationalism. Most non-Christians are very ill-informed when it comes to such matters.

I agree, we are not bound by the law of the Old Testament, because Jesus fulfilled it. However the New Testament does tell us that homosexual relations are wrong. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians are quite clear that such deeds are sinful. Moreoever, beyond the NT, it is clear from the OT that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. We need only look at Genesis 1&2 to see that this is God's plan for us.

I'll repsond to your point about civil partnerships later tonight, I'm snowed under at work at the moment

You are choosing your interpretation. Such a vast and varied book with such a huge amount of vague stories and metaphors and contradiction which is on its umpteenth translation cant be interpreted in anyway you want. You are choosing to view homosexuality as a sin. You are hiding behind your religious justification. The words and condemnation you are using are yours and you bear the responsibility of them. God hasn’t told you to be a homophobe, you have chosen to be so and using God as a justification.

If you wanted, you’re religion and your interpretation of it could just as easily take the opposite view.

From my religious background, (though I'm not what you'd call a practising Christian, I still have my beliefs) I think the position that the CofE had in recent years about gay members of the Clergy was that they were fine to be homosexual, but that engaging in sexual activities outside of wedlock was considered a sin. The place this gets inconsistent is that there is no possibility for a homosexual man to marry his partner. Its almost like saying that its ok to eat Pork, but only with you right hand (thereby depriving amputees, stroke victims etc who may otherwise be totally religious, the fair opportunity to eat something everyone else can through no fault of their own)

I think the root of this is that the modern church (I'm only really familiar with CofE) probably accepts the evidence that people are born straight or gay, but religion in general is a very slow moving thing, and I wouldn't expect it to catch up with something like Gay marriage any time soon.

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: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for
the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of
mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)"[/i

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 [uhuge[/u 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 Christianity:

a. God made me
b. God made the moral laws of the universe, and a church to enforce them
c. God is benevolent and loving

So god made me, he made me gay, in direct contradiction of his own moral laws, and he then encouraged is followers at various points in history to kill/torture/imprison/abuse/exclude me. Given he is also supposedly omniscient he knew all this would happen, so the three premises' of kirkstaller's belief are contradictory.

either

a. God didn't make me, and therefore doesn't exist

or

b. Homophobes are wrong when they say 'god made homosexuality a sin'

or

c. God is a malevolent prick who has designed me specifically so his followers can have someone to bully.

A, B, or C kirkstaller. Make your choice.

3. 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 [ufundamentally believe there is something wrong with those people who display that trait, whatever it should happen to be.[/u 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.