I notice the supporters of bigotry and religion have spectacularly failed to reply to a single question posed about how they justify using the bible to promote homophobia, given it's twisted views in other areas that they choose to ignore.

Comes across as kinda avoiding the issue.

Again, Leviticus, the bible section oft quoted as being anti homosexual is also anti women, children and common sense.

How do you intellectualise ignoring certain sections and focusing on the ones you find handy to support your views?

Cheers Bob! Yes, a good discusion - and for the most part, I think, quite civil (if you'll excuse the pun!), which isn't always easy on such topics!

@Ian1. Looks likes we'll have to agree to agree! Thanks for the interesting back and forth.

Dave, I think the situation in Northern Ireland is that it's population regard the English as having invaded part of their country. The indigenous population are, traditionaly Catholic and the English, traditionally protestant. I might be wrong, but hd Northern Ireland been invaded by a Catholic country, I don't think things would be much different. The "religion" thing is, I believe, a side issue.

@ Not Me. Yes that sounds fair enough to me! If I was that priest, I wouldn't want to drink anywhere I didn't feel welcome!

@ Me, The "their club their rules" was actually me quoting Bob T. Since you mention it, however, no, there are no "rules" that say Catholics have to castrate gay people. If it's true, then it was, indeed a terrible thing that happened back then, and I trust that the perpetrators will be brought to justice by the usual means.

With regard to "discrimination" against "some people who want to get married in church", I hope my previous answer to Bob T has made it clear that provided any people who want to do ANYTHING in ANY church (be that getting married or anything else), are prepared to subscribe to the beliefs and values held by that church and abide by its rules, I wouldn't have a problem at all. If they don't, then I'd assume they wouldn't want anything to do with that church anyway? There are plenty of faiths besides mine, whose beliefs and values I don't subscribe to and as such, I'd never DREAM of making any imposition on them.

Bob, that's most encouraging - thanks. I've not had a chance to read the consultation document fully, but it does appear, at first glance, to offer the safeguards I was looking for. Throughout this thread I (hope!) I've made it clear that I've no objection to gay marriage provided it can be differentiated from "straight" marriage in some way. This doesn't QUITE do that, but it does seem to clearly differentiate between a "Civil" and a "religious" marriage. As things currently stand, a "marriage" in my church is not automatically recognised by the state anyway(I'd need a registrar present) and in any case, my own understanding of "marriage" is that it can't be ended by a divorce. This is already an area where it differs from "civil" marriage. That being the case, I THINK (but will take a while to mull over it, if I may!) that I'd have no objection. Basically, provided I have the freedom to solemnize my marriage according to my beliefs AND there are safeguards to prevent any group seeking to impose its own definition of marriage on those who share my faith, then I think it would only be fair to let them solemnise theirs in their own way. What I have to do to make the state regard me as being "married" in the civil sense is of little interest to me. It's "giving to Caeser what belongs to Caesar" but beyond that and the various financial implications, it doesn't really mean anything to me - it's the religious ceremony I regard as important.

Oddly, I'm actually wondering if, perhaps, the proposed safeguards for faith groups go a bit too far! It seems that NO religious ceremony would be allowed to solemnise a marriage between same sex couples. I have to say that if there was a religious group that COULD support such marriages, I'd have thought they ought to be allowed to? I think I heard a Quaker on the radio the other day syaing they'd like to (might have got that wrong), but if they do, I don't see myself as having any right to object.

Religion,which is based on the bible causes trouble worldwide. Look at Northern Ireland for instance. As regards reading too much into whats quoted in the bible,surey thats what the Christians do :)

"their club, their rules"!

Let's follow that through then. Hypothetical situation.... A gay couple run a pub, they want to get married in church but the priest says "no, our club, our rules, no gays allowed". If the same priest walks into their pub and asks for a drink gets refused on the grounds that he's a Christian "their pub their rules..." the media and public would be up in arms over religious discrimination. Where's the difference? We are talking about discriminating against someone because of a lifestyle choice.

@Helen. I would find it very hard to be respectful of a belief system that condemns billions to burn in hell for eternity for not believing in something for which there is no evidence.