:o

I would say life, relationships and masturbation age you! :hugesmile:

True but while a celibate life with no one in it to share the joys and the woes may not exactly help you live forever, it will certainly seem it.

Swings and roundabouts I guess - but I seem to remember some studies that concluded that married men were less stressed than single ones - but the opposite applied for women! I can see why!

Yeah true, but then again there are other studies that conclude the exact opposite often borne out by the fact married men die earlier than married women or single men.

Is it even worth posting?

The latest in a series of LT's 'look!, homos aint perfect!'.

People seem to forget that Churches are their own 'private' organisations. They can make their own rules and decide what they want happening or don't want.
Annoying lesbians trying to make some kind of 'stand' against the Church is really... well annoying.
So I can understand why the Church asked them to leave.

I'm not sure it's 'overtly sexual' but then again as lesbians their hands would be their version of penises. So in that sense it was like they were rubbing their wieners together.

What stand are the women actually making, oh yes thats right the right to worship the god they believe in, in a church they find convenient or like.

Yeah it must be so sickening to see two women holding hands, which are substitiute penises eh?

Doesnt the same absurd argument hold when in a heterosexual relationship if for example maybe the man cant get an erection or the woman finds intercourse painful.

Maybe they should just ban everyone in the congregation from holding hands, in fact whhy stop there why not ban any form of human contact during the services , you never know what sort of venal thoughts skin to skin contact can bring on in some sinners.

Ask yourself how the local Gay nightclub would react to a couple of Christians singing some hymns at the bar each week?

these 2 silly women were making a fool of themselves and deserve to be chucked out.

I feel very sorry for her children

They would probably just ignore them or laugh at them, gays tend to be a lot more tolerant of people than the average christian community.

Yes so surely a quiet word asking them to refrain from all the lovey dovey stuff in church as it may offend others probably would have been the best course of action. The at least that church could have defended itself by saying they had followed every conceivable option that allowed them to stay as members.

Yeah any publicity that opens children up to be picked on is quite bad, maybe all parties concerned should have thought about the ramifications of their actions before deciding on their particular course of action.

No they do not have this right. The Church has the right to accept or reject members.
They are private orgs.

I don't get to join the Montreal Canadians ice hockey team and then decide I like to shoot on my own teams net or remove my helmet and they must accept it.
Thats a private club with their own rules. They can make me leave.

Not sickening but just awkward and unappealing. I have seen Japanese girls rubbing their boobs together and thought it had a certain artistic beauty in its own way.

No. Using your comparison we would suppose the lesbians were still touching their (version or equivalent) of penises. If they got hand arthritis (or some hand impairment) and had to play 'footsies' - then that would be like the husbands hand.
Obviously.
Uh no.
No need to do that. You allow hand shakes. Some allow hugging (the side-hug being a sort of christian specialty),
and,
they may allow married couples to hold hands.
They just 'ban' gay contact.
A lot of Churches would not allow any gays together in their Church regardless of any touching.
It's their right and its because they consider it against their religion.

The problem is they are not without contradiction. You say they have a right to allow or reject who they want, right, but what about 'Judge Not'?

Just not very Christian, IMO.

So just to be clear here - you think there is a Christian 'rule' and it says 'Judge Not'?

And how would that work anyways? Like if a bunch of scallies were throwing brick through the windows the Christians may WISH to say something about it but you come along and AHA.. hhaah... 'Judge not!'.

How would anyone even live?
If a contractor over-charged them 2 billion pounds they would 'judge not'?
I take money from the collection plate but before they can say anything aha... 'Judge not'.

Or is it possible you don't know what your talking about?
I think that would be the better explanation for your 'contradiction'.
Yes, I am pretty sure they DONT work that way or have that rule.

Well I mean it's not like they're born again Christians, they've been attending mass their whole life, they know how the Catholic church feels about gays, they knew what to expect and they still decided to risk it.

Yeah I seem to recall a tale from the good book where Jesus stepped in on a stepping and said something along the lines of "Let he is without sin cast the first stone". John chap 8:7 Its generally taken to mean Judge not lest you be judged on your own failings. Unless of course you know better than a whole ****load of theologians

(What the NT didnt tell us was that jesus got twatted in the head by a stone then looked up and said Mother you *******ing bitch!)

Angry little fella, aren't you kid.

If you want to compare getting overcharged by six billion pounds and two women holding hands, be my guest.

Like Shasown said, he who is without sin and all that. It was one of the cornerstones of Christ's teaching. You know, the guy that features heavily in Christianity. Heck, they were not even mounting a protest in the church. They wanted to actually be involved in what the church goers were and they said 'no thank you'. Again, you could be right, it's just not very Christian. Simple as.

At the end of the day those people in that church and people like you are all the same. You may get bogged down in logistical meanderings about society and spirituality in threads like these but at the end of the day, you just don't like the homos all that much, do you.

There is so much ignorance going on in this thread it's quite sad.

How it's it AT ALL the lesbians fault? All they were doing was holding hands in church, much like any straight couple would. What is so wrong with that? And how the **** is holding hands like having sex for them? That's one of the dumbest things I'd heard in a long time.

And I don't see what the big deal is with the one woman going through a divorce with her husband whilst in a relationship with a woman. The woman was obviously a lesbian but she married a man because she thought she would "grow out of it" or the feelings would go away, just like pretty much all homosexuals do when they marry a straight person. But it didn't and she was unhappy. So she got a divorce and found a woman she loved. What is so wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, but like Gary said, they knew what the church was like and what to expect.

The very fact they ran to the papers, allowed themselves to be pictured tells you all you need know about "the only lezzer in the village" type here

pathetic. another example of people who think that their individual sexual preferences somehow an identity.

a couple of sad women who could do with growing up and taking their responsibilities seriously as well as getting a new wardrobe, some hair advice and a trip to specsavers

It wasnt the Catholic Church

Note the word Anglican? That indicates it is a member of the Anglican Communion of churches as in CofE.

Very true but its also an excellent example of Christian Hypocrisy.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/cha...reet-preacher/

some good news

Yes very good news for religious bigots and homophobes up and down the land.

How nice of him to "forgive" the police. What was he forgiving them for? Following the law of the land and doing their jobs?

I agree. People should be free to be as stupid as they want.

alright no need to speak to me like I'm a ******. I misread, my point still stands.