Gay rally.

[Stouffer]

From the bbc.

 

Faith rally over gay rights law

 

Peers are to debate a motion to annul the regulations

Religious groups are to stage a protest calling for a halt to laws banning discrimination against gay people in the provision of goods and services.

Christians, Jews and Muslims will take part in the rally at Parliament.

 

The Sexual Orientation Regulations, they say, limits their right to live according to beliefs. Gay rights groups called it "scaremongering".

 

The rally will happen as Lords debate a call to scrap the law, which is already in force in Northern Ireland.

 

The current government plan is for the regulations to also come into force in England and Wales.

 

The ban on discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality would mean hotels could be prosecuted for refusing to provide rooms for gay couples.

 

Religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions. Equally, gay bars would not be able to ban straight couples.

 

Barrister Thomas Cordrey, of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, said the regulations did not "strike the correct balance" between two competing rights.

 

He said: "Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong.

 

We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must

 

"It is a fundamental matter of freedom of conscience."

 

And rally organiser Ade Omooba said unless changes are made the law could replace discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation with discrimination on religious grounds.

 

Critics say the regulations could mean a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer being legally forced to print a flyer for a gay night club or a teacher breaking the law if he or she promotes heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.

 

But Peter Tatchell, spokesman for gay rights group OutRage!, told BBC News: "People are still free to hold their beliefs, to live their lives according to their own morality and... their own religious beliefs. The law proposed does not change that one iota.

 

"All it does is extend to lesbian and gay people the same protection against discrimination as is already existing to protect women, black people and Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith."

 

Equality Act campaigner Angela Eagle MP told the Today programme: "We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must.

 

"What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'. Actually it's also wrong and it's been illegal since the 1970s to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no blacks', or in fact 'no Catholics' or 'no Protestants. That is right, proper and moderate."

[RedinSweden]

I thought this was going to be a Cannonball Run for benders thread.

[sh#t waffle]

I thought this was going to be a Cannonball Run for benders thread.

 

Me too. I skim read it but could see no mention of Colin McRae. Boo.

[RedinSweden]

Me too. I skim read it but could see no mention of Colin McRae. Boo.

 

Colin McGay

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Colin McGay

 

simple but brilliant.

 

 

cant help but find stuff like this funny.

[Stu Monty]

Today in BIBLENEWS:

 

None of the four apostles (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John) agree on what happened to Jesus after he rose. They all tell a completely different story, but all stories say that all the disciples were present at the meeting after (Which was apparently held in four completely different locations?). They also can't agree on the geneology from Jesus to David. One has it at about twenty generations another has it at forty.

 

So basically; none of it stacks up.

 

Tune in next week for more BIBLENEWS!

[RedinSweden]

simple but brilliant.

 

 

cant help but find stuff like this funny.

 

Thanks. Here are some more:

 

Richard Bums

Stig Blokekissed

Tommi Nakedmen

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Thanks. Here are some more:

 

Richard Bums

Stig Blokekissed

Tommi Nakedmen

 

these also rule.

what about Sterling Toss.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Cant be arsed starting a new thread and I think this is funny so its getting put on the most obscure one running at the moment....

 

[RedinSweden]

these also rule.

what about Sterling Toss.

 

not rally though

[RedinSweden]

Cant be arsed starting a new thread and I think this is funny so its getting put on the most obscure one running at the moment....

 

 

ace.

[madstock]

Thanks. Here are some more:

 

Richard Bums

Stig Blokekissed

Tommi Nakedmen

 

 

Xavier Ponce

Toni Uphill-Gardenmeister

Petter Sodomyberg

Dani Sordo-my

 

etc..

[Paul]

Putting my Victor Mature hat on for a minute, I thought it was so utterly and depressingly ironic when I heard that there was going to be a combined Christian, Jewish and Islamic protest over introducing a law against bigotry based on sexual orientation. The only thing these fuckers could actually agree about was their right to be cunts to gay people.

[rafasredmen]

Putting my Victor Mature hat on for a minute, I thought it was so utterly and depressingly ironic when I heard that there was going to be a combined Christian, Jewish and Islamic protest over introducing a law against bigotry based on sexual orientation. The only thing these fuckers could actually agree about was their right to be cunts to gay people.

yeah, thought the same thing today listening in work. Fucking outrageous, they're the first up in arms if anyone discriminates against them.

[G Richards]

Today in BIBLENEWS:

 

None of the four apostles (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John) agree on what happened to Jesus after he rose. They all tell a completely different story, but all stories say that all the disciples were present at the meeting after (Which was apparently held in four completely different locations?). They also can't agree on the geneology from Jesus to David. One has it at about twenty generations another has it at forty.

 

So basically; none of it stacks up.

 

Tune in next week for more BIBLENEWS!

 

The Gospels do not disagree on what happened to Jesus after he rose. They are four different eye witness accounts, each presenting parts of the whole story. It's a relatively simple exercise to harmonise their accounts.

 

BTW - this is how things work today. If four people witnessed something and gave a statement, there would be four different accounts of what happened. Granted, you would expect most of the salient points to be in each account (as in the case of the Gospels), but there would be variables in terms of what was remembered and emphasised in each account.

 

Genealogy thing - Matthew's account follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke's account follows Mary's line. Both Gospels have their own reasons for citing the genealogy as they do, and it is to do with intended first century audience.

 

Neither Mark nor John mention any genealogy. The emphasis of their accounts is different again.

[G Richards]

As for the rights of gay people, I'm all for their civil liberties and basic human rights to be respected, as with anyone else.

 

What we must bear in mind are the human rights of religious people too. Gay rights should not trample all over their freedoms, and that is all the church is trying to say.

[Dirk]

As for the rights of gay people, I'm all for their civil liberties and basic human rights to be respected, as with anyone else.

 

What we must bear in mind are the human rights of religious people too. Gay rights should not trample all over their freedoms, and that is all the church is trying to say.

 

In essence, you're saying it's somebody's human right to be prejudiced. Why should religious prejudice be tolerated whereas non-religious prejudice shouldn't be tolerated?

[wiiksie]

As for the rights of gay people, I'm all for their civil liberties and basic human rights to be respected, as with anyone else.

 

What we must bear in mind are the human rights of religious people too. Gay rights should not trample all over their freedoms, and that is all the church is trying to say.

So how do the two groups (which seem pretty mutually exclusive to me) become compatible then G?

[Dropkick]

The Gospels do not disagree on what happened to Jesus after he rose. They are four different eye witness accounts, each presenting parts of the whole story. It's a relatively simple exercise to harmonise their accounts.

 

BTW - this is how things work today. If four people witnessed something and gave a statement, there would be four different accounts of what happened. Granted, you would expect most of the salient points to be in each account (as in the case of the Gospels), but there would be variables in terms of what was remembered and emphasised in each account.

 

Genealogy thing - Matthew's account follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke's account follows Mary's line. Both Gospels have their own reasons for citing the genealogy as they do, and it is to do with intended first century audience.

 

Neither Mark nor John mention any genealogy. The emphasis of their accounts is different again.

 

Made me think of Rashomon. Maybe Stu Monty would find it interesting. It is a film about five persons' contradictory accounts of an event.

[G Richards]

Made me think of Rashomon. Maybe Stu Monty would find it interesting. It is a film about five persons' contradictory accounts of an event.

 

I haven't seen that.

 

On an illustrative note, read any four match reports on a single 90 minute spectacle called a Liverpool match. Most of the salient points would be the same (score, goalscorers, bookings etc.) but if the match reports were, say, 2,000 words, there would be various nuances brought out and differing details highlighted. This would in no way mean that there were four different matches. It would not mean that the four hacks were making it all up either. And that's limiting things to a 90 minute spectacle, never mind events that happened over a much longer time span.

[G Richards]

In essence, you're saying it's somebody's human right to be prejudiced. Why should religious prejudice be tolerated whereas non-religious prejudice shouldn't be tolerated?

 

I don't think prejudice of any sort is the right way to behave.

[G Richards]

So how do the two groups (which seem pretty mutually exclusive to me) become compatible then G?

 

That's a tricky question, and I'm not a lawyer, so my answer will not be very good I'm afraid. But thinking out loud at around midnight, I'd say that it's unlikely that the two groups will be compatible. This does not mean that there should be no attempt at mutual understanding. I would have thought that there will have to be compromise on both sides in order to get along and make something work.

 

The gay community should certainly not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. For example, if a gay couple wanted to get a room at a guesthouse/hotel, and the manager declined that, simply because he had a problem with homosexuality, then I would say that is not on. If he is offering a public service (rooms to let), then they should be open to all.

 

But I would have a problem if the law prohibits a church, for example, from using its own facilities as it sees fit. If the law rode roughshod over that, then it would be going in a direction I (and most of my colleagues) would find difficult to adhere to. Further to that, the government would potentially be shooting themselves in the foot, given that the church provides all sorts of care and services to various segments of the community.

[Uncle_Meat]

Me too. I skim read it but could see no mention of Colin McRae. Boo.

 

 

In a bizzare incident of art imitating life, I recall a rumour going around the Ford mechanics a good few years ago about Mcrae getting jiggy with Nicky Grists gristle.

 

 

Allegedly.

[Stu Monty]

The Gospels do not disagree on what happened to Jesus after he rose. They are four different eye witness accounts, each presenting parts of the whole story. It's a relatively simple exercise to harmonise their accounts.

 

BTW - this is how things work today. If four people witnessed something and gave a statement, there would be four different accounts of what happened. Granted, you would expect most of the salient points to be in each account (as in the case of the Gospels), but there would be variables in terms of what was remembered and emphasised in each account.

 

Genealogy thing - Matthew's account follows the line of Joseph (Jesus' legal father) while Luke's account follows Mary's line. Both Gospels have their own reasons for citing the genealogy as they do, and it is to do with intended first century audience.

 

Neither Mark nor John mention any genealogy. The emphasis of their accounts is different again.

 

Hmm. Mathew's Geneology has the average age if each generation being 40 years. Which is complete bollocks basically.

 

Not one of the four apostles agrees on what the inscription put over christ, which you'd think would be pretty simple to get right.

 

Only Mathew mentions the Herod episode, none of the others felt a baby massacring king was of note obviously.

 

Not one of them agrees with another when it comes to how they were informed of Jesus rising, not of where the angels were sitting when they went into the tomb.

 

I'm rushing this as I have to go to work but if any alibi were riddled with the inconsistencies of the story given it would be laughed out of court.

[G Richards]

If I had the time I'd like to respond point by point. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but it sounds highly agenda driven and low on scholastic merit. I'm afraid it sounds as reliable as a Prentice report on all things Liverpool.