MP calls for churches to be stripped of licences for refusing to marry gays (From The Argus)

Reverend Philip Wells is outrageous in suggesting there is a danger that gay couples might 'demand it as a right'. We live in a country that upholds the principals of equality and opposes discrimination. It is the right of gay people under these principals to 'expect as a right' to have access to everything straight couples are. Well done Mike Weatherley.

How can anything be stipped. This is all well and good but there is another equality issue. Why are straight people discriminated against. Why can't they have civil partnerships also

Also this only seems to be aimed at local christian churches... There are many other religions that would refuse gay marraiges, why is there no mention of them?
You can't bang on about equality, but only try changes the practices of one of many groups.
Would they approach a mosque and try convincing them to start holding same sex unions?
Same old story of one rule for one, another for the rest. True Equality will sadly never be more than a dream...

Seems the vicars are being stripped of making their own choices,next the government will be re writing the bible

A Civil Partnership is legal partnerships, not marriages. It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples.
It is not a marriage. So why should it be in a church?

I beleive in freedom of choice, where people can choose to have a relationship with a man, but at the same time a church should be able to choose what bookings it is able to take and make independent decisions. I'm sure there are plenty of churches that will though so just use them instead. Or a registry office.

Mr Weatherley is basically too stupid to realise that his daft idea would further hasten the demise of the Church of England. If the CofE clergy don't want to conduct marriages in church, shut up and leave them alone or they will head for the Catholic Church in large numbers. Think back to the early 80s when ordained woman were first discussed openly - recruitment of CofE clergy to Catholicism doubled overnight.

Everyone has rights and if these rights clash with anothers rights an understanding of each others rights should be reached. It is no good trying to enforce these types of rights on others.
Understanding and Respect for each other is much more important and seems to have been lost in our modern world

Will the same MP be attacking the Islamic Mosques likewise?

Sorry but you can't have one rule for one faith and none for another!

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
Will the same MP be attacking the Islamic Mosques likewise? Sorry but you can't have one rule for one faith and none for another!

There is absolutely no danger whatsoever of this dopey MP or the gay community criticising or, even attempting a debate with the Islamic faith on this subject !

This country is heading back to the Victorian age under this government. Yesterday I was reading they wanted to bring back some forms of corporal punishment at schools. They're making the rich richer and the poorer. I don't think it's wrong to allow same sex couples to undertake their civil union in the confides of a church. As long as they stick to the law what's the harm?

The sooner this government is out the better.

Acceptance is a two way street. I'm sorry but you can't just expect the church to renounce its beliefs, whether you think they are right or wrong.

If the church does not want to conduct a marriage because it's contravenes their beliefs then THEY have that right. The couple who want to get married will then have to find another venue.

I find it very hard to believe that many gay couples would even want to marry in a church.

This just seems to be another ploy by a politician to get his name in the paper.

Looks like his plan worked.

gmgc81 wrote:
This country is heading back to the Victorian age under this government. Yesterday I was reading they wanted to bring back some forms of corporal punishment at schools. They're making the rich richer and the poorer. I don't think it's wrong to allow same sex couples to undertake their civil union in the confides of a church. As long as they stick to the law what's the harm? The sooner this government is out the better.

I'm not sure how your first three sentences are relevant but might i point out that you are in agreement with the Conservative MP. He believes that Churches should perform same sex marriages, just as you do

@ Hooitness - maybe gay christians would like to get married in churches; as much as it causes discomfort for the C of E they have quite a lot of gay members these days.

Of course there was a time when mixed race marriages wouldn't be allowed so I don't really think we should allow the churches to decide given their track record.

In contrast to some comments here its worth also pointing out that the MP dosn't actually target churches, he's talking about all religious institutions according to this report. No need to let facts get in the way of a good rant againt other faiths though, is there?

Jacobdog wrote:
@ Hooitness - maybe gay christians would like to get married in churches; as much as it causes discomfort for the C of E they have quite a lot of gay members these days.

Of course there was a time when mixed race marriages wouldn't be allowed so I don't really think we should allow the churches to decide given their track record.

In contrast to some comments here its worth also pointing out that the MP dosn't actually target churches, he's talking about all religious institutions according to this report. No need to let facts get in the way of a good rant againt other faiths though, is there?

@Jacobdog. That just about sums it up. I was going to make very much the same points myself when I read yours.

This is a non issue. Catholic and CofE priests are licensed to carry out the civil marriage ceremony, that is integrated into their religious ceremonies. I don't know which other religions have this facility granted to them. What Mike Weatherley is suggesting, is that the churches would lose their licence for the civil ceremony, if they refuse to marry gay people. So, the effects of this withdrawl of the licence could be a) people of a religious persuasion undergo their religious ceremony and don't bother with the civil one b) people of a religious persuasion undergo their religious ceremony and do the civil one separately or c) just do the civil one. The CofE and Catholic churches aren't threatened in any way.

agree wholly with quedula, jacobdog and nick Brighton.

The only part of the article that actually quotes the MP says nothing about declaring war on churches "As long as RELIGIOUS GROUPS can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples there will be inequality. "

I dont think any religion should be used as an excuse for discrimination in refusing to uphold what has been law for the last 5 years.

And I believe the Quakers have been performing same sex marriage ceremonies for the last couple years now so this isnt anti-religious. Its anti discrimination.

Come on now The Church has had its way for too long. Dont pay taxes,have money hidden in Banks whilst thousands starve to death, so what right have they to be judge and jury..
I thought their bible says that god loves us. so what has the Church got toback this up.

Come on now The Church has had its way for too long. Dont pay taxes,have money hidden in Banks whilst thousands starve to death, so what right have they to be judge and jury..
I thought their bible says that god loves us. so what has the Church got to back this up.

If I read GordonMuppet's comment properly I can only assume that you are mentally deficient and very lucky to live in a society that tolerates village idiots.

Indigo - Religious rights are 'qualified' rights under EU and UK legislation, unlike rights against discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexuality and so on. Therefore when a religious belief clashes with another right then it loses. An example would be refusing goods and services such as hotel or guesthouse accomodation to gay people or mixed race couples; or as seems to be argued in this case - refusing to undertake civil ceremonies in a licenced premesis on religious grounds.

Of course as a previous poster suggested, churches that are uncomfortable with offering this service could cancel their civil ceremonies licence and only perform religious ceremonies. This may be an inconveniance for religious institutions but already takes place in some circumstances - I have a friend who had a civil ceremony in a town hall in London followed by a religious ceremony with her husband in Nigeria.

As a member of the clergy with a licence to marry, I would be quite happy to conduct a service for a same-sex couple. But I also would not be happy if I was told I HAD to do it. I reserve the right to refuse to marry any couple, gay or straight (although it hasn't happened yet). I am not a government employee, I answer to a higher power.

LordofEngland......t
otally agree with your post.
I am a hetrosexual male, love females.
If I, On the other hand was in a relationship with a male and wished to have a civil partnership service in a mosque......The muslims would never allow this.
I find it confusing that the government accept the word of the bible in a court of law, yet do not accept it. in a church, where civil partnerships are concerned.
I am not a religious person but does it not say in the bible .....man shall not lay with man.

gmgc81 wrote:
This country is heading back to the Victorian age under this government. Yesterday I was reading they wanted to bring back some forms of corporal punishment at schools. They're making the rich richer and the poorer. I don't think it's wrong to allow same sex couples to undertake their civil union in the confides of a church. As long as they stick to the law what's the harm?

The sooner this government is out the better.

Well said. I was thinking the same thing that this government reminds me of Mrs.Thatcvhers when she set us back years to the days of inequality.

Cookie - It says a lot of things in the bible but that doesn't make them right or true.
There are a lot of contradictory texts, especially in the old testament.
It does seem that 'God' mellows slightly when he has kids.

elainepkils wrote:

gmgc81 wrote: This country is heading back to the Victorian age under this government. Yesterday I was reading they wanted to bring back some forms of corporal punishment at schools. They're making the rich richer and the poorer. I don't think it's wrong to allow same sex couples to undertake their civil union in the confides of a church. As long as they stick to the law what's the harm? The sooner this government is out the better.

Well said. I was thinking the same thing that this government reminds me of Mrs.Thatcvhers when she set us back years to the days of inequality.

I dont logically think you can compare what this MP is trying to do in promoting equality and the enforecement of the law with Thatcherite 'inequality'!

Indeed Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and the Greens are supportive of gay marriage (according to wiki!) so whatever political pursuasion you are I don't think you can accuse a conservative of harking back to the years of Thatcher for supporting gay equality, unless you want to accuse all the other parties of being Thatcherites too!

I applaud Mike Weatherley for making a stand for equality. I would be very easy for him to have just stayed quiet and appeased the homophobes.

Equality is for all, gay people should have the right to marry, and also heterosexual should also have the right to join by civil partnership (which they are also prevented from doing).

I did have to laugh however at the nutjobs that compared Mike Weatherley's comments to Thatcherism or harking back to Victorian times. Have they understood what he is saying before spouting their nonsense? (somewhat the opposite of Victorian/Thatcher ideas!)

Absolutely agree, Thumper. This has nothing to mdo with Thatcher,this government or anything else. It's just the bandwagon jumpers who hijacvk any thread to slag off. They'll be blaming the government next time it rains and claim Thatcher made the weather worse

tenerifeisland wrote:
Seems the vicars are being stripped of making their own choices,next the government will be re writing the bible

I'm an atheist, but exactly the same thought entered my mind. Mike Weatherley seems to want to re-write the bible. If we have religious freedom then the church must be allowed to do what the bible teaches.

I am pretty sure gay people don't marry - they enter into a lawful contract. No vows are exhanged etc. It's only dressed up as marriage.

Either way, would anyone want to be married by someone who didn't want to be doing it? The current situation is the only workable one - you allow the clergy to choose, and those wishing to get married by a clergyperson choose one that they can work with. A religious wedding service is not just a matter of turning up (as may be the case at a civil ceremony), there is a lot of preparation that goes into it if it is to be done well, and if the two parties aren't comfortable with each other, neither side is going to be happy.

Morpheus wrote:

tenerifeisland wrote:
Seems the vicars are being stripped of making their own choices,next the government will be re writing the bible

I'm an atheist, but exactly the same thought entered my mind. Mike Weatherley seems to want to re-write the bible. If we have religious freedom then the church must be allowed to do what the bible teaches.

Well said my fellow underworlder ;-).

Can't help that the arguement would go, 'well you allowed the bible to be rewritten, so therefore what you believe doesn't matter to you'. Bit of a no win situation.

On the issue at hand, one wonders why Mr Weatherley didn't mention these feelings he had about churches in Brighton when he sat in one for some one of the hustings (and gave very positive vibes towards churches in the town). Playing to the audience per chance? An MP doing that, never! lol

Any clergyperson who is so uncomfortable with gay or lesbian people is unfit for office and should be disbarred. Not only is their attitude entirely unacceptable but their belief that it is in some way sanctioned or required by God that we (gay and lesbian people) should be treated differently on account of our sexual orientation is a blasphemy. The Christian religion, for example, proclaims equality before God for all. No if's and but's. Any public activity undertaken in the name of any religion that does not uphold this belief in word and deed should be denied legal protection or public funds. So I agree with the Mike Wetherley MP. In fact, I would go further and strip religions of their right to almost automatic Charitable status until they have proved they are genuinely and verifiably committed to equality for all, and have taken every possible measure to banish homophobia.

Unfortunately religions by their very nature are discriminatory. They seldom welcome people of different views of beliefs. Religion has had a grip on the country and government far too long and it’s time to remove all the benefits these religions receive in law. There is a church school on the edge of Haywards Heath that actually dictates they will only employ people that belong to a church. What makes it even more amazing is that they preach a religious ethos to the pupils yet treat their staff appallingly. The Head doesn’t even know employment law let alone understand it ! Religion should really be banned – it has a disgusting history of conflict, persecution and suppression.

I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

Richard Kirker wrote:
Any clergyperson who is so uncomfortable with gay or lesbian people is unfit for office and should be disbarred. Not only is their attitude entirely unacceptable but their belief that it is in some way sanctioned or required by God that we (gay and lesbian people) should be treated differently on account of our sexual orientation is a blasphemy. The Christian religion, for example, proclaims equality before God for all. No if's and but's. Any public activity undertaken in the name of any religion that does not uphold this belief in word and deed should be denied legal protection or public funds. So I agree with the Mike Wetherley MP. In fact, I would go further and strip religions of their right to almost automatic Charitable status until they have proved they are genuinely and verifiably committed to equality for all, and have taken every possible measure to banish homophobia.

Richard, I find it intriguing that in the name of equality for all, you discriminate against those that don't agree with you. Yours is not the only view in the church (as you very well know) and it is rather arrogant of you to assume that you are 100% correct and everyone must agree with you. As it happens I agree with your view but your intolerance towards those that do not is also something that would make be question someone's fitness for the clergy.

Richard, I find it intriguing that in the name of equality for all, you discriminate against those that don't agree with you. Yours is not the only view in the church (as you very well know) and it is rather arrogant of you to assume that you are 100% correct and everyone must agree with you. As it happens I agree with your view but your intolerance towards those that do not is also something that would make be question someone's fitness for the clergy.

Fight Back wrote:
I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

So let me get this straight. You want the school to be more Christian? That would be better? But then you want to ban religion because you are blinkered and can only see the negative side of it, not the incredible amount of good it does? I'm confused...

JoeBlow wrote:

Fight Back wrote:
I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

So let me get this straight. You want the school to be more Christian? That would be better? But then you want to ban religion because you are blinkered and can only see the negative side of it, not the incredible amount of good it does? I'm confused...

I was pointing out what hypocrites religious people are !

Fight Back wrote:

JoeBlow wrote:

Fight Back wrote:
I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

So let me get this straight. You want the school to be more Christian? That would be better? But then you want to ban religion because you are blinkered and can only see the negative side of it, not the incredible amount of good it does? I'm confused...

I was pointing out what hypocrites religious people are !

Funny because I was thinking you were pointing out that while it was a 'religious' school, the people you were referring to clearly weren't 'religious' and were behaving more like the non-Christians that you somehow think we all should be. And apparently that's a bad thing.

cookie_brighton says...
2:58pm Fri 2 Sep 11

LordofEngland......t

otally agree with your post.
I am a hetrosexual male, love females.
If I, On the other hand was in a relationship with a male and wished to have a civil partnership service in a mosque......The muslims would never allow this.
I find it confusing that the government accept the word of the bible in a court of law, yet do not accept it. in a church, where civil partnerships are concerned.
I am not a religious person but does it not say in the bible .....man shall not lay with man.

- The bible doesn't say this at all. You need to read your bible again - though I'm making the unlikely assumption that you actually own one!

Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!

There is more fact in the 'Emperor's new clothes' than the bible and if you have read the former and are still contributing the inane comments above, or believe any of it is relevant then clearly you just don't get it!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Richard Kirker wrote:
Any clergyperson who is so uncomfortable with gay or lesbian people is unfit for office and should be disbarred. Not only is their attitude entirely unacceptable but their belief that it is in some way sanctioned or required by God that we (gay and lesbian people) should be treated differently on account of our sexual orientation is a blasphemy. The Christian religion, for example, proclaims equality before God for all. No if's and but's. Any public activity undertaken in the name of any religion that does not uphold this belief in word and deed should be denied legal protection or public funds. So I agree with the Mike Wetherley MP. In fact, I would go further and strip religions of their right to almost automatic Charitable status until they have proved they are genuinely and verifiably committed to equality for all, and have taken every possible measure to banish homophobia.

Richard, you're being rather selective with what you say about Christianity. Please if you are going to start citing what Christianity proclaims, do the decent thing and fully cite it rather than manipulate it to your own liking. Yes Christianity proclaims everyone is equal before God, but it is actually referring to everyone being imperfect/fallen/(wh
atever word you chose to use) rather than that everyone should be treated equally. Indeed, if you knew your bible well you would know that Paul quite happily says that Christians shouldn't make a fuss about being treated unequally to their detriment.

fretlessbass wrote:
cookie_brighton says... 2:58pm Fri 2 Sep 11 LordofEngland......t otally agree with your post. I am a hetrosexual male, love females. If I, On the other hand was in a relationship with a male and wished to have a civil partnership service in a mosque......The muslims would never allow this. I find it confusing that the government accept the word of the bible in a court of law, yet do not accept it. in a church, where civil partnerships are concerned. I am not a religious person but does it not say in the bible .....man shall not lay with man. - The bible doesn't say this at all. You need to read your bible again - though I'm making the unlikely assumption that you actually own one!

My bible does. Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination.

Number Six wrote:

fretlessbass wrote:
cookie_brighton says... 2:58pm Fri 2 Sep 11 LordofEngland......t otally agree with your post. I am a hetrosexual male, love females. If I, On the other hand was in a relationship with a male and wished to have a civil partnership service in a mosque......The muslims would never allow this. I find it confusing that the government accept the word of the bible in a court of law, yet do not accept it. in a church, where civil partnerships are concerned. I am not a religious person but does it not say in the bible .....man shall not lay with man. - The bible doesn't say this at all. You need to read your bible again - though I'm making the unlikely assumption that you actually own one!

My bible does. Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination.

There is no debate here, everything is wrong. end of!

I love how homophobes quote one particular passage (in the Old Testament), they seem to forget that the bible also thinks its Ok to be violent, treat women as slaves, sex outside marriage etc etc. They don't like quoting those aspects of the bible. Its not a pick and choose book (or fairy story).

Also, being gay is not purely about sex, so the quote about lying with another man is invalid anyway. I knew I was gay from a very early age, but was a virgin until I was 24.

Thumper, don't misinterpret my post as being homophobic. I was merely pointing out fretlessbass's error. That does not mean I agree with it. As a matter of fact I'm an agnostic and think the bible is a mass of contradictions, not to be taken seriously

Gordonmuppet wrote:

Indigatio wrote:
Everyone has rights and if these rights clash with anothers rights an understanding of each others rights should be reached. It is no good trying to enforce these types of rights on others. Understanding and Respect for each other is much more important and seems to have been lost in our modern world

Everyone has rights---yep like social handouts--nothing earned is not worth having --gays what a waste of space--go join another planet

I'll second that. And if this is Mike Wetherlys way of thinking I cannot think of a better excuse for not supporting the Tories in the future.

Bladesboy Returns wrote:
Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!

There is more fact in the 'Emperor's new clothes' than the bible and if you have read the former and are still contributing the inane comments above, or believe any of it is relevant then clearly you just don't get it!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how many people say things like this without being aware that the Bible contains much history that is beyond dispute. You may not agree with some of the stories (which are perhaps the few bits that many have even heard these days) but there is a ton of well-documented and established history as well.

JoeBlow wrote:

Bladesboy Returns wrote:
Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!

There is more fact in the 'Emperor's new clothes' than the bible and if you have read the former and are still contributing the inane comments above, or believe any of it is relevant then clearly you just don't get it!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how many people say things like this without being aware that the Bible contains much history that is beyond dispute. You may not agree with some of the stories (which are perhaps the few bits that many have even heard these days) but there is a ton of well-documented and established history as well.

Complete nonsense;grow up.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

JoeBlow wrote:

Bladesboy Returns wrote:
Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!

There is more fact in the 'Emperor's new clothes' than the bible and if you have read the former and are still contributing the inane comments above, or believe any of it is relevant then clearly you just don't get it!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how many people say things like this without being aware that the Bible contains much history that is beyond dispute. You may not agree with some of the stories (which are perhaps the few bits that many have even heard these days) but there is a ton of well-documented and established history as well.

You are as stupid and as naive as Weatherley.

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong; fact. Christianity is founded on the teachings of the Bible; fact. Seikhs are allowed to carry weapons, wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets, as their religious freedom over rules the laws of the land as just one example. Why are Christians an exemption to be targetted by the law? Why are Christians being discriminated against and that is thought to be ok?

I thought wrote:

JoeBlow wrote:

Bladesboy Returns wrote:
Frankly my dear, I don't give a ****!

There is more fact in the 'Emperor's new clothes' than the bible and if you have read the former and are still contributing the inane comments above, or believe any of it is relevant then clearly you just don't get it!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It's funny how many people say things like this without being aware that the Bible contains much history that is beyond dispute. You may not agree with some of the stories (which are perhaps the few bits that many have even heard these days) but there is a ton of well-documented and established history as well.

You are as stupid and as naive as Weatherley.

I'd offer to turn the 'other cheek', however given the audience, probably wiser not to.

LOL

Wake up and smell the coffee!

moggolith wrote:
The Bible says homosexuality is wrong; fact. Christianity is founded on the teachings of the Bible; fact. Seikhs are allowed to carry weapons, wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets, as their religious freedom over rules the laws of the land as just one example. Why are Christians an exemption to be targetted by the law? Why are Christians being discriminated against and that is thought to be ok?

Actually the bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong. Homophobes latch onto and misquote elements of the bible to suit their own agenda. This is not just 'christians', other idiots misquote the Koran and other religious texts to justify hateful actions.

They also never quote about not judging others, etc......hypocrites. It is usually the case that the more someone claims to be 'Christian' the less christian they are to others.

Thumper Hove wrote:

moggolith wrote:
The Bible says homosexuality is wrong; fact. Christianity is founded on the teachings of the Bible; fact. Seikhs are allowed to carry weapons, wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets, as their religious freedom over rules the laws of the land as just one example. Why are Christians an exemption to be targetted by the law? Why are Christians being discriminated against and that is thought to be ok?

Actually the bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong. Homophobes latch onto and misquote elements of the bible to suit their own agenda. This is not just 'christians', other idiots misquote the Koran and other religious texts to justify hateful actions.

They also never quote about not judging others, etc......hypocrites. It is usually the case that the more someone claims to be 'Christian' the less christian they are to others.

Much is wrong here Thumper. Your views are quite wrong and so are a number of those of the many contributors, for a range of reasons.

Also, why do you feel the need to personalise your comments, who gives a **** about your sexual orientation and when you lost your virginity; were you hoping to gain additional support for your ill thought through argument through this personalised approach?

I'd urge all members of minority groups to save their energy by stopping trying to convince the uninterested majority that their views are legitimate. A story book is unlikely to help anyone; however on a personal level if you get the chance take a look at the emperor's new clothes, it may assist with your urgently needed education.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Hmm, spot the homophobe!!

We live in a democracy, people are allowed different views, and who says your view is the only correct one??

Thumper Hove wrote:
Hmm, spot the homophobe!! We live in a democracy, people are allowed different views, and who says your view is the only correct one??

Thumper read my earlier post. Leviticus is clear on this point, it calls it an abomination. I wasn't misqouting, I typed directly from the bible on my desk. Now I'm not religious and I certainly don't take the bible particularly seriously but you do yourself no good service by sticking you head in the sand and denying what is there in black and white for all to see

Thumper Hove wrote:
Hmm, spot the homophobe!!

We live in a democracy, people are allowed different views, and who says your view is the only correct one??

Thumper

The only 'xxxxx-phobe' that could be laid at my door is towards mindless minority type people who go to extreme lengths to inflict their views on and create disruption for non-receptive others.

Go live your life as you choose - I do - and in the process recognise what's right and what isn't and don't try to make people believe the latter is OK, when its not. Simple really, hence my suggestion that you read the Emperor's new clothes, where you will find a number of parallels to the lies you seemingly are living at present.

Hope that helps

Kind regards

Bladesboy

ps not sure what Number Six is on about, seems to have very extreme views

Number Six wrote:

Thumper Hove wrote:
Hmm, spot the homophobe!! We live in a democracy, people are allowed different views, and who says your view is the only correct one??

Thumper read my earlier post. Leviticus is clear on this point, it calls it an abomination. I wasn't misqouting, I typed directly from the bible on my desk. Now I'm not religious and I certainly don't take the bible particularly seriously but you do yourself no good service by sticking you head in the sand and denying what is there in black and white for all to see

It makes no sense for you to be quoting (or rather somewhat mis-quoting) parts of the Old Testament if you claim that you don't believe in it anyway.

Perhaps you should look up the interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 rather than just spout it rather stupidly with no knowledge of its meaning.

The most common interpretation is that Leviticus was referring to 'homosexual temple prostitution', namely a Canaanite ritual where it was thought all forms of sex, not only gay, but rape and incest was considered 'normal' as a blessing to the Gods. Incidentally he also referred to this being a similar abomination as adultery, theft, drunkery, fornicators or being greedy, none of whom will enter the kingdom of God.

Naturally it is only the homophobes that take out of context a passage from Leviticus.

Also even if you take the passage to mean whatever you would like it to mean, it is only condemning gay sexual practices that are similar to male/female practices. Even the most ill-educated tend to recognise that being gay isn't just about sex.

This is hard work. What part of " I wasn't misqouting, I typed directly from the bible on my desk." eludes you? I'm not interested in interpretation, that's meaningless. You can interpret anything you want the way you want. As it happens I'm on your side. I merely think that shouting "that isn't what it says, and even in it does say that it really means something else is not very productive. However, I think i shall leave you to scream "homophobe"at anyone who takes a different point of view.

Number Six wrote:
This is hard work. What part of " I wasn't misqouting, I typed directly from the bible on my desk." eludes you? I'm not interested in interpretation, that's meaningless. You can interpret anything you want the way you want. As it happens I'm on your side. I merely think that shouting "that isn't what it says, and even in it does say that it really means something else is not very productive. However, I think i shall leave you to scream "homophobe"at anyone who takes a different point of view.

What is even more challenging is drawing your attention to the fact that the so called bible is a mix of fiction and opinion i.e. one person's (maybe more) view on how to do things. No mention of football, golf, beer I expect.

Get a copy of the Emperor's new clothes, read it and then wake up and smell the coffee, please!

Thumper Hove wrote:

Number Six wrote:

Thumper Hove wrote:
Hmm, spot the homophobe!! We live in a democracy, people are allowed different views, and who says your view is the only correct one??

Thumper read my earlier post. Leviticus is clear on this point, it calls it an abomination. I wasn't misqouting, I typed directly from the bible on my desk. Now I'm not religious and I certainly don't take the bible particularly seriously but you do yourself no good service by sticking you head in the sand and denying what is there in black and white for all to see

It makes no sense for you to be quoting (or rather somewhat mis-quoting) parts of the Old Testament if you claim that you don't believe in it anyway.

Perhaps you should look up the interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 rather than just spout it rather stupidly with no knowledge of its meaning.

The most common interpretation is that Leviticus was referring to 'homosexual temple prostitution', namely a Canaanite ritual where it was thought all forms of sex, not only gay, but rape and incest was considered 'normal' as a blessing to the Gods. Incidentally he also referred to this being a similar abomination as adultery, theft, drunkery, fornicators or being greedy, none of whom will enter the kingdom of God.

Naturally it is only the homophobes that take out of context a passage from Leviticus.

Also even if you take the passage to mean whatever you would like it to mean, it is only condemning gay sexual practices that are similar to male/female practices. Even the most ill-educated tend to recognise that being gay isn't just about sex.

ps you think you have problems, you should take a look at the article about some fat woman that's on this site.

Almost enough to make you believe in the immaculate conception

Note for Mr Ridgway: for
'impede on religious freedom' try 'impinge on religious freedom'.

Note for Mr Ridgway: for
'impede on religious freedom' try 'impinge on religious freedom'.

Instead of whining about the perceived injustices imposed by politically correct unbelievers on faith communities with a genuine conscientious objection to encouraging sodomites to satirise traditional marriage, why not go for a complete separation of church and state, by ignoring the entire gay agenda in the places of worship? It's not a criminal offence for a church without a "licence" to conduct a wedding ceremony that does not create a marriage that the British government recognises as a marriage for tax purposes. Perhaps it's time for Christian churches to start misinterpreting Romans 13 teaching about submission to the authorities, to create the false doctrine that marriage isn't a noble institution ordained by God after all, but a tax perk ordained by the British government, for those willing to jump through various hoops set out in recent statute law. I, for one, would be only too delighted to make vows to my "common law wife" in church, vows that (in our case) would attract a "couple penalty" if the vows complied with the red tape of The Marriage Act, which is why we are couple who remain two singles for tax and benefit purposes to this day.

The church wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to teach that sex outside "marriage" AS DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT, even if this be a parody of marriage as defined by God, amounts to fornication. Christian African American slaves once formed their own churches, and conducted their own wedding ceremonies that the states of the USA did not recognise. It might be time for Christian people in the UK to take a leaf out of their book.

Gay christians?

Are you serious?

The church hates you, and you want to be a part of their little gang?

Wow.

Hooitness wrote:
Gay christians?

Are you serious?

The church hates you, and you want to be a part of their little gang?

Wow.

Hates them! Are you serious half the Clergy are uphill gardeners.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I for One do not want to enter into the theological argument about whether he was a Vampire or a Zombie.

I heard a Choirboy was run over in Portland Road and as he lay there a kindly woman said "Shall I call the Priest?" and he replied, "NO! call an Ambulance I am in no mood for sex"

I wonder if The Argus trolls out these articles regularly to get their circulation figures up?

Doesn't it show how backward we all still are that someones sexuality or whether they choose to get "married" in a pointy building with a bell, or a town hall actually really matters?

Time for us all to grow up I think!

Fight Back wrote:
I should add that one parent at this school wanted to set up a bursary scheme for families that couldn't afford the fees - she got completely blanked by all the other parents who didn't want their nice "religious school" ruined by people that couldn't afford the fees - so christian !!!!!

THE LAW !!!
New Immigration Laws: PLEASE read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programmes.


Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land.... Options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our prime minister
or his policies. These will lead to imprisonment and deportation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Too strict?......


The above laws are the current immigration laws of the Muslim countries !


These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be our laws??
THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
And, because I make This statement
DOES NOT
Mean I'm against immigration!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE,
IN MY COUNTRY!
Welcome!

To come through legally:

1. Get a sponsor!
2. Get a place to lay your head!
3. Get a job!
4. Live By OUR Rules!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
And
6. Learn the LANGUAGE like immigrants have in the past!!!
AND
7. Please don't demand that we hand over our lifetime
savings of welfare benefits to you.

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone,
Then
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

When will The British People stop giving away
THEIR RIGHTS?
We've gone so far the other way...
Bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the
BRITISH Citizen
that's being offended!
WAKE UP BRITAIN If you agree.... Pass this on.
If you don't agree.. Delete it!!

And this has what to do with gay marriages exactly?

this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter.

Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Sa11yB wrote:
this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter.

Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Complete load of tosh. If you want to create and gain support for some form of argument you may do better if you construct it in a manner that engages your audience. Until then and for clarity your comments are worthless.

Bladesboy Returns wrote:

Sa11yB wrote: this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter. Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Complete load of tosh. If you want to create and gain support for some form of argument you may do better if you construct it in a manner that engages your audience. Until then and for clarity your comments are worthless.

But not as worthless as yours. All you have done is attacked this post without any logic or expalnation. How/why is SallyB' post a load of tosh. In what manner Provide argument and examples.Clarity> Seems perfectly clear to me. What part eludes you?

Number Six wrote:

Bladesboy Returns wrote:

Sa11yB wrote: this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter. Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Complete load of tosh. If you want to create and gain support for some form of argument you may do better if you construct it in a manner that engages your audience. Until then and for clarity your comments are worthless.

But not as worthless as yours. All you have done is attacked this post without any logic or expalnation. How/why is SallyB' post a load of tosh. In what manner Provide argument and examples.Clarity> Seems perfectly clear to me. What part eludes you?

As I am confident you know, it is not for me to position my thoughts to create a clear position on this. I have simply read the comments and found them to be without substance and commented accordingly. Feedback as they say is "the breakfast of champions" and on that note please be advised your comments are noted as worthless and no further interest will be shown towards these and any future ones. For you own benefit.... "Wake up and smell the coffee" you waster

I don't expect much from someone who spouts meaningless American cliches and you don't disappoint. I'll leave you to stew in your own intellectual sterility

Bladesboy Returns wrote:

Sa11yB wrote: this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter. Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Complete load of tosh. If you want to create and gain support for some form of argument you may do better if you construct it in a manner that engages your audience. Until then and for clarity your comments are worthless.

My dear Bladesboy, I hardly see how it is my problem if you fail to follow or be engaged by a logical and legal dissection of the situation.

Sa11yB wrote:

Bladesboy Returns wrote:

Sa11yB wrote: this comments section apppears to have been totally hijcked by religious people totally ignoring the fact the argument is about the government's legal obligation to ensure where it issues licences for a legal (NOT RELIGIOUS) ceremony it do its duty in ensuring that other rights are not cut across. Someone pointed out very early on that religious rights in EU and UK law are qualified rights which, when they are found in opposition to other rights (such as that not to be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation) religious rights are legally deemed subservient. At no point does the MP declare war on Churches or get into a theological tussle of what the bible says or doesnt say. indeed all religious groups would remain free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, simply unable to perform the legal ceremony. Do not at all see how this apparently 'threatens the moral fabric of society' - if you want to perform a legal ceremony all religious institutions remain bound indiscriminately by EU and UK law on this matter. Other than this wholly dispassionate argument above, I think most right minded people might begin to understand how ludicrous the whole debate is if you just considered that the tables were turned and it was straight people who were being told they couldnt get married in a gay society. Discrimination remains just that, whether or not you package it up in the words of whatever deity you believe in.

Complete load of tosh. If you want to create and gain support for some form of argument you may do better if you construct it in a manner that engages your audience. Until then and for clarity your comments are worthless.

My dear Bladesboy, I hardly see how it is my problem if you fail to follow or be engaged by a logical and legal dissection of the situation.

Emperor's new clothes; Read it and then hopefully Number 6 and you will 'smell the coffee'.

Just for complete clarity I am fully supportive of all relationships, however believe that if there was a 'god' then it would have provided a more diverse range of support services for all to enjoy, rather than a restricted range leading to discrimination and bigotry.

Accordingly the whole church business seems a waste of time for those who don't fit the selected footprint. Hope that helps and number 6, you are a waster