Quakers might disagree. But you're probably right.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,111
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ December 11 2012, 10:17 PM GMTJust make it legal for hetrosexual couples to have civil partnerships.
Isn't that what Gretna Green and Las Vegas is for? I'm not a religious man, but if you're married by an Elvis impersonator, I'm not sure it's recognised under the eyes of God.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:21 PM GMTNo, it's a compromise and just because it's not an all encompassing gay marriage mardi gras, doesn't mean it's useless.
Homosexuality was only legalised in the 1960s, now gay marriages are recognised by both church and state.
People convert to different religions all the time, especially when marriage is involved. I can't imagine that the Quaker church is that much different to the C of E.
law should not be a compromise, when being gay was legalised it was not a compromise, it was a legal statement. Shall we compromise on any other laws? Make the law solid or wait until you can, anything else is self defeating and faintly ridiculous
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:22 PM GMTIsn't that what Gretna Green and Las Vegas is for? I'm not a religious man, but if you're married by an Elvis impersonator, I'm not sure it's recognised under the eyes of God.
It's recognised by the King
Those are still technically marriages, there's a little sermon, it's all over pretty quickly though. I don't think that people that don't want a service that is part of a religious institution should have to put up with that.
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 10:24 PM GMTlaw should not be a compronise, when being gay was legalised it was not a compromise, it was a legal statement. Shall we compromise on any other laws? Make the law solid or wait until you can, anything else is self defeating and faintly ridiculous
All laws are a compromise. Even the legalisation of homosexuality included a different age of consent to appease opponents.
Quote: Pingl @ December 11 2012, 10:25 PM GMTIt's recognised by the King
Ah-hur-hur. 
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:27 PM GMTAll laws are a compromise. Even the legalisation of homosexuality included a different age of consent to appease opponents.
That was not a compromise, 21 was considered the legal adult age at the time, with time eighteen was recognised as the adult age. As far as I recall eighteen was never mentioned at the time. All laws? murder, rape, theft?
I never really understand why gay people would want to get married in church anyway since God and religion doesn't like them.
Quote: chipolata @ December 11 2012, 10:29 PM GMTI never really understand why gay people would want to get married in church anyway since God and religion doesn't like them.
Hopefully just to piss them off big style
I guess they probably think God does like them, and it's just the idiots in charge of the church that don't.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2012, 10:12 PM GMTYou have totally misunderstood. You are attempting to impose your own views about gay marriage onto religious institutions and I am pointing out that changing laws to force these views through is both arrogant and counter productive.
Aren't the religious institutions imposing their own views on gay people by not letting them get married?
Quote: chipolata @ December 11 2012, 10:29 PM GMTI never really understand why gay people would want to get married in church anyway since God and religion doesn't like them.
God loves everyone
Religion, organised by idiots who use religion and twist it to control and scare people don't like them
Quote: lofthouse @ December 11 2012, 10:32 PM GMTGod loves everyone
I hope not. That'd make him really tedious. I'd prefer a smighty angry god.
Quote: lofthouse @ December 11 2012, 10:32 PM GMTGod loves everyone
Religion, organised by idiots who use religion and twist it to control and scare people don't like them
ever has it been so that is organised religions tragedy and why I will have nothing to do with them
Nope
Were all Gods children
And he loves us all - even the c**ts
Quote: chipolata @ December 11 2012, 10:35 PM GMTI hope not. That'd make him really tedious. I'd prefer a smighty angry god.
Yea I like a bit of Charlton heston cracking the stones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20705535
"Rebekah Brooks, the former head of News International, was paid £10.8m after she resigned, it has emerged.
The figure, compensation for loss of office, appeared in the company's accounts, released on Wednesday.
Mrs Brooks resigned in July 2011 shortly after the News of the World closed because of phone hacking allegations."
This sort of thing just continues to baffle me. I don't understand why people who resign after screwing up are paid massive amounts of compensation. Surely if they tried to sue for loss of earnings they would get nowhere as they a. f**ked up, and b. resigned and were not sacked?