Sussex MPs under fire over gay marriage

First published in News by , Crime reporter

MPs have been accused of “lacking integrity” over their views on gay marriage.

East Worthing and Shoreham MP Tim Loughton and Crawley MP Henry Smith both signed a letter accusing the coalition of acting without a mandate in relation to the issue.

They poured scorn on the Government’s consultation process and Mr Loughton has now commented on the issue on his own website.

He said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”.

He said: “What has particularly annoyed me in this whole debate is the tendency for certain elements of the lobby in favour of gay marriage instantly to caricature anyone who is against as homophobic.

“In my case, certainly nothing could be further from the truth and as Minister for Children and Youth I particularly value the work I have done with LGBT young people and community groups.”

The Argus made repeated attempts to contact both Mr Loughton and Mr Smith to discuss this further but was unable to.

James Ledward, editor of Brighton-based G-Scene magazine, said: “I find it interesting that these elected politicians are now talking about needing a mandate to drive any change. They lack integrity.

“Did the Government have a mandate to scrap the primary care trusts when they were elected? Was that in their manifesto?

“To take the moral high ground on this issue while ignoring how they have behaved in the past says so much about the value beliefs of these individuals.”

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:30pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Morpheus says...

It's great to see the equality brigade at each others throats. Equality gives rights to homosexuals and to religious organisations, but it is incapable of resolving their differences or deciding which equality is more important than another.
It's great to see the equality brigade at each others throats. Equality gives rights to homosexuals and to religious organisations, but it is incapable of resolving their differences or deciding which equality is more important than another. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals. Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Thu 27 Dec 12

mustaphaLeeko says...

It's all a load of nonsense anyway in my opinion!

Who would want to get married in Churches run by organisations that have hated gay people for centuries and tried to cure them?

Despite the fact some of them "like" their choir boys!

Mind you, they seem to think women are second class too, where are all the women Bishops, and women on the ruling synods???

Bunch of loons the lot of them!

It's about time that the role of the Church in the house of lords disappeared too.

Rant over!
Feel free to worship whoever you please, I shall worship the Great Pot Noodle, Chicken & Mushroom flavour. X
It's all a load of nonsense anyway in my opinion! Who would want to get married in Churches run by organisations that have hated gay people for centuries and tried to cure them? Despite the fact some of them "like" their choir boys! Mind you, they seem to think women are second class too, where are all the women Bishops, and women on the ruling synods??? Bunch of loons the lot of them! It's about time that the role of the Church in the house of lords disappeared too. Rant over! Feel free to worship whoever you please, I shall worship the Great Pot Noodle, Chicken & Mushroom flavour. X mustaphaLeeko
  • Score: -1

8:30pm Thu 27 Dec 12

fredaj says...

If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.
If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it. fredaj
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Thu 27 Dec 12

sussexram40 says...

The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view. sussexram40
  • Score: 1

9:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12

censored says...

sussexram40 wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
That would make infertile couples' marriages, late-life marriages and marriages between people who choose not to have childred equally nonsensical, no?
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.[/p][/quote]That would make infertile couples' marriages, late-life marriages and marriages between people who choose not to have childred equally nonsensical, no? censored
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only?
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only? What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage? And what happens if a couple are infertile? Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all. may as well be the wizard of oz. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: -1

9:50pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Isaac Rinkfern says...

The Lought isn't homophobic, but he seems to think that God is and supports this idea. He also was against same sex couples adopting and was pretty vociferous on that too. He likes young gay people, but apparently if they want to settle down and live a "normal" life, he has a problem with it.
Seems that he is also unable to read "gay" letters too, as apparently he claims that the letters he has received have been "overwhelmingly on the anti side".
Maybe more people should write to him making it clear that the majority of people don't support the church dictating law.
The Lought isn't homophobic, but he seems to think that God is and supports this idea. He also was against same sex couples adopting and was pretty vociferous on that too. He likes young gay people, but apparently if they want to settle down and live a "normal" life, he has a problem with it. Seems that he is also unable to read "gay" letters too, as apparently he claims that the letters he has received have been "overwhelmingly on the anti side". Maybe more people should write to him making it clear that the majority of people don't support the church dictating law. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: -1

9:51pm Thu 27 Dec 12

fredaj says...

sussexram40 wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.[/p][/quote]You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts. fredaj
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

The Church is not dictating the law it is representing the views of most of the people of this country. Most of the views above are just puerile anti Christian abuse. No positive arguments at all just snide comments.
The Church is not dictating the law it is representing the views of most of the people of this country. Most of the views above are just puerile anti Christian abuse. No positive arguments at all just snide comments. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 1

10:29pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Most people in the UK don't go to church so its all rather irrelevant.
Most people in the UK don't go to church so its all rather irrelevant. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Tring says...

Quote: He said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”. Unquote

Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to.

Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other.

Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though.
Quote: He [Laughton] said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”. Unquote Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to. Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other. Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though. Tring
  • Score: 0

7:36am Fri 28 Dec 12

greenpaws says...

Each church, congregation and minister are different.

I wouldn't expect any church employee to be forced to marry me in a gay marriage. However, those individual churches and vicars who choose to should be allowed. Canon law should not dictate over all.

In cases of belief I ask what is the harm?

Gay marriage would not change anything for people already married or who will get married in the future.

The current ban of gay marriage does though effect many people as it restricts people.

I do not believe the creation of religion was homophobic but interpretations and preachings often have been which de facto make opposers homophobic whether they're conscious of this or not.

We restrict people from murder due to the harm of another, gay marriage has no harm to another so the state should not prevents it. I'd go further, it's not the state's business to deny any couples to marry but only to provide the framework for couple to do so.
Each church, congregation and minister are different. I wouldn't expect any church employee to be forced to marry me in a gay marriage. However, those individual churches and vicars who choose to should be allowed. Canon law should not dictate over all. In cases of belief I ask what is the harm? Gay marriage would not change anything for people already married or who will get married in the future. The current ban of gay marriage does though effect many people as it restricts people. I do not believe the creation of religion was homophobic but interpretations and preachings often have been which de facto make opposers homophobic whether they're conscious of this or not. We restrict people from murder due to the harm of another, gay marriage has no harm to another so the state should not prevents it. I'd go further, it's not the state's business to deny any couples to marry but only to provide the framework for couple to do so. greenpaws
  • Score: 0

8:04am Fri 28 Dec 12

sussexguy says...

Why on earth do gay people want to be married in a church anyway? Surely a civil marriage is enough, providing all the legal requirements for the couple and there are plenty of ways to celebrate the union without having to resort to a religious ceremony. Religious organisations should be allowed to carry out their practices in a manner that suits them, however much the secular society may not approve. Providing they are not harming anyone else, it is entirely up to them to decide on how these are carried out. It is no business of politicians, who seem to be obsessed with bowing down to the demi-gods in Brussels, and the neurotic self-absorbed, so called liberal minded individuals always out to stir up mischief. They should just all shut up and mind their own business.
As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile?
Why on earth do gay people want to be married in a church anyway? Surely a civil marriage is enough, providing all the legal requirements for the couple and there are plenty of ways to celebrate the union without having to resort to a religious ceremony. Religious organisations should be allowed to carry out their practices in a manner that suits them, however much the secular society may not approve. Providing they are not harming anyone else, it is entirely up to them to decide on how these are carried out. It is no business of politicians, who seem to be obsessed with bowing down to the demi-gods in Brussels, and the neurotic self-absorbed, so called liberal minded individuals always out to stir up mischief. They should just all shut up and mind their own business. As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile? sussexguy
  • Score: 0

8:42am Fri 28 Dec 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

sussexguy wrote:
Why on earth do gay people want to be married in a church anyway? Surely a civil marriage is enough, providing all the legal requirements for the couple and there are plenty of ways to celebrate the union without having to resort to a religious ceremony. Religious organisations should be allowed to carry out their practices in a manner that suits them, however much the secular society may not approve. Providing they are not harming anyone else, it is entirely up to them to decide on how these are carried out. It is no business of politicians, who seem to be obsessed with bowing down to the demi-gods in Brussels, and the neurotic self-absorbed, so called liberal minded individuals always out to stir up mischief. They should just all shut up and mind their own business.
As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile?
But of course it is the business of politicians to create legislation to protect us and for that reason we should allow them to get on with it.

You are probably right about Jimmy, perhaps he applied to the church but couldn't get in?

My final point is that if there truly was a god then we would only have the one, rather than the four thousand or so that seemingly operate, Furthermore there would be no street drinking homeless people as god would have them all be banged up to ensure they did not make the streets look an eyesore.
[quote][p][bold]sussexguy[/bold] wrote: Why on earth do gay people want to be married in a church anyway? Surely a civil marriage is enough, providing all the legal requirements for the couple and there are plenty of ways to celebrate the union without having to resort to a religious ceremony. Religious organisations should be allowed to carry out their practices in a manner that suits them, however much the secular society may not approve. Providing they are not harming anyone else, it is entirely up to them to decide on how these are carried out. It is no business of politicians, who seem to be obsessed with bowing down to the demi-gods in Brussels, and the neurotic self-absorbed, so called liberal minded individuals always out to stir up mischief. They should just all shut up and mind their own business. As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile?[/p][/quote]But of course it is the business of politicians to create legislation to protect us and for that reason we should allow them to get on with it. You are probably right about Jimmy, perhaps he applied to the church but couldn't get in? My final point is that if there truly was a god then we would only have the one, rather than the four thousand or so that seemingly operate, Furthermore there would be no street drinking homeless people as god would have them all be banged up to ensure they did not make the streets look an eyesore. Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

9:07am Fri 28 Dec 12

lordenglandofsussex says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Most people in the UK don't go to church so its all rather irrelevant.
That is true and makes homosexuals hypocrites for wanting to marry in a church. They are a tiny minority and there are more important issues affecting this country that need sorting out.

Cameron and his band of nitwits are just barking up the wrong tree and come the next election he will pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Most people in the UK don't go to church so its all rather irrelevant.[/p][/quote]That is true and makes homosexuals hypocrites for wanting to marry in a church. They are a tiny minority and there are more important issues affecting this country that need sorting out. Cameron and his band of nitwits are just barking up the wrong tree and come the next election he will pay for it. lordenglandofsussex
  • Score: 0

9:32am Fri 28 Dec 12

Plantpot says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
The Church is not dictating the law it is representing the views of most of the people of this country. Most of the views above are just puerile anti Christian abuse. No positive arguments at all just snide comments.
Totally go along with this.
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: The Church is not dictating the law it is representing the views of most of the people of this country. Most of the views above are just puerile anti Christian abuse. No positive arguments at all just snide comments.[/p][/quote]Totally go along with this. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

9:37am Fri 28 Dec 12

Plantpot says...

Would also say that I would prefer to live in a society with strong family values where the marriage of a man and a woman is seen as the pinnacle of domestic arrangements and for kids to be born into a strong, supportive, secure environment.
Would also say that I would prefer to live in a society with strong family values where the marriage of a man and a woman is seen as the pinnacle of domestic arrangements and for kids to be born into a strong, supportive, secure environment. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

9:38am Fri 28 Dec 12

monkeymoo says...

If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever).... Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!? monkeymoo
  • Score: 0

9:49am Fri 28 Dec 12

Plantpot says...

monkeymoo wrote:
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
Yawn
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever).... Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?[/p][/quote]Yawn Plantpot
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 28 Dec 12

Morpheus says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only?
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only? What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage? And what happens if a couple are infertile? Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all. may as well be the wizard of oz.[/p][/quote]Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 28 Dec 12

Morpheus says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only?
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only? What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage? And what happens if a couple are infertile? Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all. may as well be the wizard of oz.[/p][/quote]Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

10:15am Fri 28 Dec 12

Angryoldman says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals. Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?[/p][/quote]You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies. Angryoldman
  • Score: 0

10:27am Fri 28 Dec 12

Angryoldman says...

monkeymoo wrote:
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
It wasnt Adam and Eve. It was Adam and Steve.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever).... Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?[/p][/quote]It wasnt Adam and Eve. It was Adam and Steve. Angryoldman
  • Score: 0

11:00am Fri 28 Dec 12

rfairweather@tiscali.co.uk says...

Putting the words MPs and integrity in the same sentence is something of an oxymoron.
Putting the words MPs and integrity in the same sentence is something of an oxymoron. rfairweather@tiscali.co.uk
  • Score: 0

11:16am Fri 28 Dec 12

lordenglandofsussex says...

Angryoldman wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies.
I don't agree with that.

Peter Thatchell and his chums are behind the scenes helping to whip up this storm- be there no doubt about that.
[quote][p][bold]Angryoldman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals. Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?[/p][/quote]You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies.[/p][/quote]I don't agree with that. Peter Thatchell and his chums are behind the scenes helping to whip up this storm- be there no doubt about that. lordenglandofsussex
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 28 Dec 12

julesgemini says...

Religions are and have always been obsessed with sex and reproduction how else does it survive. Gays present a threat to it's existence. I'm sure God would be happy with gays keeping the population under control though and getting married when people love each other!
Religions are and have always been obsessed with sex and reproduction how else does it survive. Gays present a threat to it's existence. I'm sure God would be happy with gays keeping the population under control though and getting married when people love each other! julesgemini
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Old Ladys Gin says...

Tring wrote:
Quote: He said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”. Unquote

Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to.

Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other.

Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though.
Yes but the churches lose valuable revenue by not conducting marriage.
I think that may have as much to do with it as anything else.
[quote][p][bold]Tring[/bold] wrote: Quote: He [Laughton] said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”. Unquote Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to. Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other. Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though.[/p][/quote]Yes but the churches lose valuable revenue by not conducting marriage. I think that may have as much to do with it as anything else. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Old Ladys Gin says...

Nice but dim Tim has done what he usually does, go with the line of least resistence and most likely to get him another minor cabinet job.
Nice but dim Tim has done what he usually does, go with the line of least resistence and most likely to get him another minor cabinet job. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12

BURIRAM says...

fredaj wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
I thought to have kids you had to have sex and who would do that without being married. Never heard of such a thing.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.[/p][/quote]You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.[/p][/quote]I thought to have kids you had to have sex and who would do that without being married. Never heard of such a thing. BURIRAM
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Fri 28 Dec 12

monkeymoo says...

Plantpot wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
Yawn
Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question?
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever).... Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?[/p][/quote]Yawn[/p][/quote]Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question? monkeymoo
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Fri 28 Dec 12

anonymous coward says...

@sussexram40 "The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought."

I wish someone had told me that earlier! All those years of buying condoms when all I had to do was not get married.
@sussexram40 "The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought." I wish someone had told me that earlier! All those years of buying condoms when all I had to do was not get married. anonymous coward
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Plantpot says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
Yawn
Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question?
No.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever).... Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?[/p][/quote]Yawn[/p][/quote]Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question?[/p][/quote]No. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Fri 28 Dec 12

clubrob6 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag
e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals. Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?[/p][/quote]Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring. clubrob6
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag

e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring.
That's a very one dimensional view, why should you believe marriage is OK for straights and not gays?
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals. Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?[/p][/quote]Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring.[/p][/quote]That's a very one dimensional view, why should you believe marriage is OK for straights and not gays? Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Fri 28 Dec 12

gusset snatcher says...

Same sex ceremonies recorded in 2010 are just 2.3% of the total amount of heterosexual marriages, which have been in decline since 1972. The 2006 British Social Attitudes survey found two-thirds of
respondents thought there was 'little difference socially between being married and living together as
a couple'
So what's all the fuss about. I too believe it's being used as a smokescreen to detract attention from more important issues, like the impending collapse of the Eurozone and the dire state of the economy.
Same sex ceremonies recorded in 2010 are just 2.3% of the total amount of heterosexual marriages, which have been in decline since 1972. The 2006 British Social Attitudes survey found two-thirds of respondents thought there was 'little difference socially between being married and living together as a couple' So what's all the fuss about. I too believe it's being used as a smokescreen to detract attention from more important issues, like the impending collapse of the Eurozone and the dire state of the economy. gusset snatcher
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Fri 28 Dec 12

imnotpc says...

what a load of old bol***ks lol people are not interested in this tripe anymore its so boring yawn yawn zzzzzzzzzzz its time to move now
what a load of old bol***ks lol people are not interested in this tripe anymore its so boring yawn yawn zzzzzzzzzzz its time to move now imnotpc
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions.
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions. The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal. Civil partnerships aligned these rights. The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses. However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays. If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't. I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Fri 28 Dec 12

hubby says...

In these enlightened days I would like to think that most reasonably minded people would be able to accept Gay marriage.
However I would also like to think that all people are entitled to an opinion.
Even MP's.
In these enlightened days I would like to think that most reasonably minded people would be able to accept Gay marriage. However I would also like to think that all people are entitled to an opinion. Even MP's. hubby
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Vigilia says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions.
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
Precisely.

This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon.

We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony.

When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower.

Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions. The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal. Civil partnerships aligned these rights. The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses. However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays. If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't. I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.[/p][/quote]Precisely. This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon. We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower. Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture. Vigilia
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Fight_Back says...

I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway !

Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.

MP's from any party have even less right to do so !

It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway ! Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married. MP's from any party have even less right to do so ! It's time we started to burn church people at the stake ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

vigilia, there are people here who believe marriage is purely about a service in church.
Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church.
Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change.
However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage.
vigilia, there are people here who believe marriage is purely about a service in church. Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church. Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change. However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway !

Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.

MP's from any party have even less right to do so !

It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway ! Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married. MP's from any party have even less right to do so ! It's time we started to burn church people at the stake ![/p][/quote]Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose? Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Vigilia says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
vigilia, there are people here who believe marriage is purely about a service in church.
Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church.
Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change.
However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage.
Once again, precisely.

This whole nonsense is purely semantic.

I'm Redbrick but would have hoped that those who were intellectually gifted to attain Oxbridge educations would see it as such. The whole argument is about nothing but grammar and vocabulary. No man or woman can conceivably "marry" another man or woman.

Politicians, at local or national level, have become so obsessed with minority issues that they no longer represent their electorates. No politician is placed in a position of legislative power to indulge his personal, or party political, idiosyncrasies. They are there to represent the hopes, aspirations and wishes of the democratic majority.

The question of homosexual "marriage" is simply absurd.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: vigilia, there are people here who believe marriage is purely about a service in church. Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church. Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change. However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage.[/p][/quote]Once again, precisely. This whole nonsense is purely semantic. I'm Redbrick but would have hoped that those who were intellectually gifted to attain Oxbridge educations would see it as such. The whole argument is about nothing but grammar and vocabulary. No man or woman can conceivably "marry" another man or woman. Politicians, at local or national level, have become so obsessed with minority issues that they no longer represent their electorates. No politician is placed in a position of legislative power to indulge his personal, or party political, idiosyncrasies. They are there to represent the hopes, aspirations and wishes of the democratic majority. The question of homosexual "marriage" is simply absurd. Vigilia
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Fri 28 Dec 12

funkyyoyo says...

sorry ill stick to what i was taught from the good bible, adam and eve, not adam and steve !!!
sorry ill stick to what i was taught from the good bible, adam and eve, not adam and steve !!! funkyyoyo
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Fri 28 Dec 12

funkyyoyo says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway !

Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.

MP's from any party have even less right to do so !

It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose?
lol
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway ! Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married. MP's from any party have even less right to do so ! It's time we started to burn church people at the stake ![/p][/quote]Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose?[/p][/quote]lol funkyyoyo
  • Score: 0

8:13am Sat 29 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I believe this nonsense is a smokescreen to prevent the vote on fix hunting which will probably sink the Tories and to take the focus off a possible interest rate rise next year and a continual failing of the economic recovery plan.
I believe this nonsense is a smokescreen to prevent the vote on fix hunting which will probably sink the Tories and to take the focus off a possible interest rate rise next year and a continual failing of the economic recovery plan. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

11:48am Sat 29 Dec 12

Ilyich says...

Bible of Christian people very clear about taking day off on Sunday. Would prefer to see MPs address the sacrilege and threat to moral state of nation posed by Asda, Tesco et al in ignoring this direct edict from bibble to rest. Direct command to not go to work at least one day a week one of the most sensible parts of the whole thing.
Bible of Christian people very clear about taking day off on Sunday. Would prefer to see MPs address the sacrilege and threat to moral state of nation posed by Asda, Tesco et al in ignoring this direct edict from bibble to rest. Direct command to not go to work at least one day a week one of the most sensible parts of the whole thing. Ilyich
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Ilyich wrote:
Bible of Christian people very clear about taking day off on Sunday. Would prefer to see MPs address the sacrilege and threat to moral state of nation posed by Asda, Tesco et al in ignoring this direct edict from bibble to rest. Direct command to not go to work at least one day a week one of the most sensible parts of the whole thing.
Obviously failed to provide any benefit to you, given your ramblings.

I'll have one of whatever he's on springs to mind! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Ilyich[/bold] wrote: Bible of Christian people very clear about taking day off on Sunday. Would prefer to see MPs address the sacrilege and threat to moral state of nation posed by Asda, Tesco et al in ignoring this direct edict from bibble to rest. Direct command to not go to work at least one day a week one of the most sensible parts of the whole thing.[/p][/quote]Obviously failed to provide any benefit to you, given your ramblings. I'll have one of whatever he's on springs to mind! :-) Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Sat 29 Dec 12

imnotpc says...

Vigilia wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions.
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
Precisely.

This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon.

We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony.

When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower.

Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture.
exactly...and very well said.Its about time something was said for the poor old majority for a change.This is just plain old boring filth and noone gives a toss.Please can we move on now
[quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions. The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal. Civil partnerships aligned these rights. The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses. However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays. If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't. I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.[/p][/quote]Precisely. This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon. We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower. Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture.[/p][/quote]exactly...and very well said.Its about time something was said for the poor old majority for a change.This is just plain old boring filth and noone gives a toss.Please can we move on now imnotpc
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Levent says...

fredaj wrote:
If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.
What a surprise!!
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.[/p][/quote]What a surprise!! Levent
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Sat 29 Dec 12

Levent says...

fredaj wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.[/p][/quote]You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.[/p][/quote]That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs? Levent
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Mon 31 Dec 12

Take it Personally says...

fredaj wrote:
If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.
LOL me too
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.[/p][/quote]LOL me too Take it Personally
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Tue 1 Jan 13

fredaj says...

Levent wrote:
fredaj wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs?
But marriage isn't just for people who use one particular book for their terms of reference, is it?

You are free, religiously or otherwise, not to marry if you are not planning to have children or because you are infertile or because you are too old meanwhile though, everyone is equally free to marry or not marry for their own reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Levent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.[/p][/quote]You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.[/p][/quote]That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs?[/p][/quote]But marriage isn't just for people who use one particular book for their terms of reference, is it? You are free, religiously or otherwise, not to marry if you are not planning to have children or because you are infertile or because you are too old meanwhile though, everyone is equally free to marry or not marry for their own reasons. fredaj
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree