Sayonara

Take your time. Boom boom.

Virtual relaity has not faded away - it's used extensively in biochemistry, architecture, engineering, underwater/subterranean surveying, surgery, and so on. Afaik it's still a rapidly developing area of computer science. It's only the "home VR" front that withered and died.

There are plenty of vicars and bishops who are out of the closet.

By "church" I do not mean a single stone building. I mean, for example, the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church. People should not have to abandon the faith they have grown up with just to be permitted the right to marry. Now, the church may well have the right to have all sorts of crazy rules, but the fact is that they are hurting their flock, which anyone in their right mind would see as a problem that needs to be fixed. As has been pointed out already, tolerance is a two-way street. Fair enough. In that case there should be no problem with accommodating a long-term worshipper who has recently come out. You really aren't getting us anywhere by repeatedly saying "it's because of the discrimination!", when I am simply saying that I object to the discrimination. Fair enough, but I am not certain you are representing my specific objections in your reasoning. I don't dispute that religions deserve the right to be "left alone", as that implies external influence - I'm talking about them harming their own members and by extension themselves.

True, but if the religion is going to start saying things like "two women marrying is wrong, but someone who has broken a commandment can marry if they like" without justifying it, and abdicating responsibility to scripture, they are simply reinforcing the idea that it's a decision founded in prejudice. * sardony.

BMI turns into utter bollocks very quickly if you put on muscle.

I'm not discussing Adam and Steve meeting resistance from their local vicar, I'm talking about institutionalised prejudices among both church leaders (or "staff" if you like) and the church as in "other worshippers". The issue I have is with this suggestion that someone should be effectively barred from either: a) Living their life as they feel is right, while practicing that religion, b) Entering that religion with the "intention" of being homosexual, or c) Staying in that religion after discovering their sexuality is not compatible with it, ...while any other parties the religion condemns are pretty much left to their own devices. Yes, and the other part of living in a free society is having the right to not let other people's irrational prejudices have a very real impact upon your life. Hence the fact that we have laws expressly prohibiting discrimination in the public and private sectors (although personally I think calling the church part of the "private sphere" is pretty flimsy).

As IMM explained further in her previous post there are several reasons given in the bible why people can not be married, and the same-sex relationship is the only one which the church (and various public groups) chose as actual grounds for refusal. Thus they are making a special case against one arbitrarily selected group, which is the result of prejudice rather than piety.

No.

Dave said: Wikipedia has some info, but doesn't mention density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_fibre

Homosexuality is an act. It's a behaviour that is (partially) governed by a preference. This appears to simply be repetition of what I was replying to, and does not advance the point. If this is not held to be true for the rest of the members of the church (and it rarely is), I don't see why a special case must be made for homosexuals. Spot the recurring theme. Even if a church has based its rules on the most sacred of their beliefs, which have remained essentially unchanged for centuries - and few have - they are still only basing them on an interpretation of what somebody once thought god wanted. I don't know about you, but I for one don't see why that should interfere with my life in a major way.

Multiple options are turned on.

No. The situations are not analagous. Same-sex schools segregate pupils for actual reasons that make sense, not because of an unexplained and ancient distinction. They also are not making a value judgement of any kind. I myself went to an all-boys school, and the girls' school was about a mile away. At no point did I or anyone I knew think "hold on a minute, why can't I go to the girls' school instead?" Even at 12 years old we were sufficiently astute to realise that the curriculum and pastoral care were more easily and efficiently organised if the genders were taught separately. And even if same-sex schools were discriminatory, all you have done is said "hey, I found another example of discrimination being tolerated by society", which doesn't contribute to explaining the issue of prejudice in religous organisations. Because of the teaching method of the school, not because the pupils are judged unworthy of the right to learn. In fact most segregated schools are in fact two schools, at different sites. And as I said above, an extra example wouldn't really help anyone. I don't find any signs that word exists, but at least now I know what you meant. The fact that the bible is selective about who it likes and who it doesn't is the entire problem I am highlighting, so pointing out that it doesn't disciminate against the control group isn't very helpful. Also you'll notice that the argument "marriage is between a man and a woman" relies heavily on a black-and-white interpretation of gender identity which has been medically invalid for the better part of three centuries. Well quite, but the idea that they might be forced to act against their wishes is not what I am advocating. I am trying to explain to you why people have a problem with the bar to marriage, not what ought to be done about it. All well and good, but put yourself in the shoes of a seventeen year old girl who has been going to the same church with her family since she was born, has enough faith for two, and is just realising that she is in love with her female friend. You are unlikely to reconcile your emotional needs with the idea that your church's rules do not discriminate against you.

By not allotting rights based on arbitrary characteristics.

It doesn't matter if it's public, private, deliberated by jury, or shat out of a horse's arse - discrimination is the allotment of rights or lack thereof based on a decision that is drawn from arbitrary characteristics.

You seem to be disregarding the need to belong to the church that is felt by the homosexuals in question, just like you earlier disregarded the need that they may feel for getting married in the first place. I don't see that you have any objective basis on which to decide that such needs can be tossed aside from this discussion, given that these are all questions of pursuing what's important to the human psyche. I don't know what alarcenouce is, but I assume you mean "a larcenous man". If this is so then you have missed the point - if the bible defines the moral barriers to marriage, and therefore theft is grounds for being barred from marriage, then homosexuals are treated in a discriminatory fashion by comparison to theives. My argument does not require them to go against their beliefs, but to justify them.

You think that it's only discrimination if money is involved? Litigation really has destroyed your society

The same rights that anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being discriminated against with the support of a religious philosophy. For example, burglars. "Thou shall not steal" is a commandment, yet burglars are not barred from marriage. So the indignation arises because this makes the objection to gay marriage appear to be special pleading, and the onus falls on the church to show that it isn't.

It's a bad idea to lump all biofuels together. Bamboo is a brilliantly efficient fuel, and wood is still one of the leading renewables. Bring back the steam train!

Something to do with different kinds of muscle fibres I think. I will ask Punchy Dave - he sinks like a stone.

How can you use "I don't see the point" as a basis for objection? Surely it is a basis for holding no opinion?

Apart from civil marriage, which isn't religious at all.

<shhh> Bet Armada Wars goes live before this is ready. </shhh>

I don't really like having to repeat myself but it seems to be necessary.