[dimtimjim]

I couldn't get my right foot out at a junction and ended up keeling over...

Ooh, nasty. Curse of the commited cylist.

This might help...?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UNIVERSAL-EASY-FIT-STABILISERS-FOR-ANY-CHILDS-BIKE-WITH-12-TO-20-WHEELS-/380461467066?pt=UK_SportGoods_CyclAcces_RL&hash=item58954545ba

[dimtimjim]

DOUBLE POST, sorry.

Annoying me so far today, the snow. And not so much the snow, more the fact no fecker from reception has turned up to turn our phone system off 'night ring' (whereby a really annoying fire alarm type bell rings every time someone rings up to say 'stuck in traffic'). It really loud and irritating. Grrrrr.

[The Deadly]

MP's who oppose same sex marriages are annoying me. Not because they oppose it but because they can't offer a valid argument to oppose it. I'd rather they stood up and said "I just don't like gays".

I hope the bill passes to allow same sex marriages. It shouldn't even need to come to a vote as its just common sense to allow it.

[DevilsDuck]

Think of the children!

[Nicola_Red]

I'm so happy Commons has backed the bill. It's so personal to so many of my friends, and to me too given that I identify as bi, even though I'm now in a hetero relationship.

[The Deadly]

Ah the Bill passed. Good news for gay people and bad news for the hard line Christians and anti gay.

Personally I find Christianity infinitely more offensive than homosexuality.

[chrysostom]

I'm Catholic by birth, and quite a few of my beliefs are based on that.

None of them advocate paedophilia, abuse or homophobia.

Just because some people use Christianity as an excuse for their outdated & bigoted beliefs, doesn't mean everyone should assume that we're all like that.

[Boboff]

But this is what Cameron gets you know.

Most people now under 50, just plain and simple acknowledge that your sexual preference is just that... yours, and is no one else's business.

Andy is correct, it's not about Christians, those people are wankers and would have taken to any organised body to justify there wanky views. The quicker the Anglican Church, then some centuries later the Catholic Church, accept than men and women are equal, gays and straights, black whites and coffee coloureds, disabled, gingers and dwarfs are all human and should be judged on merit rather than appearance, the better.

[DevilsDuck]

gingers.

Too far

[Nicola_Red]

Only a ginger can call another ginger ginger.

[Latina]

Personally I find Christianity infinitely more offensive than homosexuality.

If that is on the basis of a lot of its members having an issue with homosexuality, then there are other religions you could place in there too. And of course, people without religion at all.

I'm the same as Andy - I was brought up Catholic (in fact I still go to church most weekends), but I was never taught anything homophobic by the Church, and I don't let my religion get in the way of my support of gay rights.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who thinks the Catholic Church will come around to the idea of gay marriage is in for a long wait. The reason being that there is a water-tight logic in there, namely that any sexual relations outside of (their type of) marriage is a mortal sin. But what people forget is that the same logic applies to anyone who has sex outside of marriage, regardless of sexuality.

What bugs me is that the Catholic Church should understand that, according to their own rules, this change in law wouldn't affect them in the slightest. (Although, according to a report from my mum, there is at least one good priest out there who does, and gave a sermon on the matter a few weeks ago)

[The Deadly]

Religion on the whole is more offensive to me than most things in life but that's a whole other can of worms.

You are right in saying the Catholic Church won't come round to the idea of gay marriage. They won't do that because as with most religions they are backward thinking and vile. That's not to say people who are Catholics are vile, I have friends and family members who are normal, well informed people but the higher ups and leaders of certain religions are most certainly evil people who have their own disgusting agendas.

[Latina]

Well, one of their agendas is the production of as many catholics as possible, and gay relationships and pesky birth control get in the way of that.

Believe me, it's not easy being a liberal Catholic. I could evaluate more, but my head will start hurting.

[The Deadly]

All religions should be more liberal and then they would attract a bigger number of non believers. It's in their best interest to modernise and move away from the Stone Age views the men at the top hold so dear.

[chrysostom]

If they modernise, then they are admitting that their rules aren't infallible - which would lead to a lot of people doubting their status as messengers from God, and in turn reducing their integrity.

Not to mention that modern trends aren't necessarily good for society. It's not as easy as saying 'Get with the times, Grandad'.

For example, no sex before marriage is about the sanctity of sex & it's intrinsic link to reproduction - combined with promotion of monogamy and reducing the spread of sexual diseases, as well as the exercise of restraint and self control.

It's something that I've not stuck to, but as a social ideal I think is admirable, and sensible.

Homosexual relations are strictly non reproductive sex, so in the eyes of the Church is seen as going against their ideals. Something that I don't agree with, but I can understand why the religion is taking it's time before deciding how to adapt.

As an aside, Religion for Athiests by Alain De Botton is a wonderful read, and helps put the good side of organised religion out there.

[Boboff]

Gay couples are more and more seeing having children an important part of their relationship, as indeed it should be if that is what they choose.

Talk of stoneage is a little dense as that was like 75,000 years before the 2000 years of Christianity or 1500 years of Islam.

Religion and sexuality are a personal choice.

We are all * wimps really who have life so easy, we have the choices to do, or be, what ever we want, we should be grateful, as I reckon we will be seen by history as one of only a handful of generations who have that choice.

[MK Chris]

No doubt my shitty local MP voted against it. I absolutely despise him.

Find out here. Mine voted for, which I expected, because although a Tory, he is gay.

[The Deadly]

I'd be interested to know if any openly gay MP's abstained or voted against.

[Yudster]

My MP, Bernard Jenkin, voted for - which if I am honest, is a shock to me. He is such a piece of shit.

[The Deadly]

My MP voted "both". What does that mean?

[chrysostom]

Bi marriage?

[Latina]

For example, no sex before marriage is about the sanctity of sex & it's intrinsic link to reproduction - combined with promotion of monogamy and reducing the spread of sexual diseases, as well as the exercise of restraint and self control.

It's something that I've not stuck to, but as a social ideal I think is admirable, and sensible.

I feel the same. It's just one of those things. In an ideal world (to some), everyone would find their ideal partner and be able to make babies with them. In such a world there would be no infidelity, no heartbreak, no STIs, no abortions...

But human nature isn't like that, and never will be. However, I believe that society (including organised religion) has played a part, albeit with limited progress, in preventing humankind from going too far in the other direction.

[The Deadly]

Bi marriage?

Nope apparently he is just an idiot who marked his ballot paper twice. Five other MP's did the same thing. Jumped up little twerp.

[chrysostom]

The equivalent of a spoiled ballot perhaps?

[The Deadly]

The equivalent of a spoiled ballot perhaps?

The official definition for it is voting twice on the same paper but I guess it could include spoiled papers. It would be no surprise to me if he did actually vote twice, he's not the brightest.