Brighton councillor claims to be accountable to God above Greens (From The Argus)

How does her conscience allow her to
Work with green colleague Ben Duncan who tweeted that a planned church school was a cult. A party of
Confusion and contradiction and intolerance.

because she wouldnt do it . your not allowed to do it. yet another reason not to vote green . you only have your self to blame brighton

The worship of sky fairies should be kept out of government.

So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

To suggest that her firmly held belief that the grammatical term marriage means the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife, as recognised by law for millennia, is in any way homophobic is absurd.

Vigilia wrote:

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

To suggest that her firmly held belief that the grammatical term marriage means the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife, as recognised by law for millennia, is in any way homophobic is absurd.

Seconded. Exactly why we now have a term unheard of just a generation ago - political correctness! Same as objections to calling black bin-bags just that!

"To suggest that her firmly held belief that the grammatical term marriage means the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife, as recognised by law for millennia, is in any way homophobic is absurd."

ill educated twaddle. The meaning of marriage has been changing for milllenia.

Try reading the bible.

It has dozens of definitions for marriage.

Sorry for all this confusion everyone. People may have mixed up me with some sort of God. I'm not sure what to make of religion. It does seem to be splendidly twisted. An innocent child dies from malaria or dysentry every 7 seconds - wow, it must be quite a buzz to worship any kind of creature that lets that kind of sick and twisted stuff happen for so long. Maybe god feels obliged to keep on letting babies rot to death because his followers have already made up a load of reasons why it's so important that this depravity continues?

So, maybe if the followers stopped making sicko excuses up for child suffering god can stop doing it without losing face?
I'll never know - it all seems a bit too twisted to me and I don't want to be associated with something so seemingly nasty.

However, I can only speak as a sky pixie and I would like to say that I really don't mind who marries whoever. It's really not important.

If two perfectly nice people, whether they both be receivers of swollen goods or not, decide to show committment to each other then who am I to dictate what shape each of their genitals are? If marriage was mainly for procreation then I would have prevented all those chinless twerps who are firing blanks from getting hitched to women with bigger beards than mine.

So, gay marriage is all good and well; hypocrisy is greater than ever in politics; and most people don't really give a toss about this issue. However, gay marriage will lead us inexorably towards gay divorce. Be warned. -That could get seriously messy. Not sure what to do about that.

Anyway, while your entirely pointless leaders work that out I'll just go tinker with a supernova that will wipe out 3 billion zorgon fluff people (they stopped slaughtering a zigzwot for me once a week so I have to smite the bloomin' lot of them).

and please stop using my name and god interchangeably - we're totally different. I will not smite the innocent...unless you can all arrange for the council meetings to slaughter a zigzwot for me during prayers?

By the way, prayers before council wicker parties and sacrificing goats etc may lead to confusion in transport policy decisions. Try beheading a goldfish for guidance on issues of money? Smoking camel dung during after-prayer sanctimony may lead to construction of pointless cycle lanes.

Sky Pixie tired of being called God says.etc........
You have said everything I believe.This woman, if she happens to believe in one of the 2000 gods and says he is good then he would love people tolive their lives and not be stoned,or starved to death. Has she a private line to this god. She should read the bibles and ask herself if she thinks women should be burned as witches still.SIlly woman.

cocteaut wrote:
"To suggest that her firmly held belief that the grammatical term marriage means the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife, as recognised by law for millennia, is in any way homophobic is absurd."

ill educated twaddle. The meaning of marriage has been changing for milllenia.

Try reading the bible.

It has dozens of definitions for marriage.

The correct spelling is millennium not millenium. The latter is a common error, formed by analogy with other similar words correctly spelled with only one n, such as millenarian and millenary. The differences in spelling are explained by different origins. Millennium was formed by analogy with words like biennium, while millenary and millenarian were formed from the Latin milleni

I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary to the work of myth and fiction you recommend, my friend.

Sky Pixie tired of being called God wrote:
Sorry for all this confusion everyone. People may have mixed up me with some sort of God. I'm not sure what to make of religion. It does seem to be splendidly twisted. An innocent child dies from malaria or dysentry every 7 seconds - wow, it must be quite a buzz to worship any kind of creature that lets that kind of sick and twisted stuff happen for so long. Maybe god feels obliged to keep on letting babies rot to death because his followers have already made up a load of reasons why it's so important that this depravity continues? So, maybe if the followers stopped making sicko excuses up for child suffering god can stop doing it without losing face? I'll never know - it all seems a bit too twisted to me and I don't want to be associated with something so seemingly nasty. However, I can only speak as a sky pixie and I would like to say that I really don't mind who marries whoever. It's really not important. If two perfectly nice people, whether they both be receivers of swollen goods or not, decide to show committment to each other then who am I to dictate what shape each of their genitals are? If marriage was mainly for procreation then I would have prevented all those chinless twerps who are firing blanks from getting hitched to women with bigger beards than mine. So, gay marriage is all good and well; hypocrisy is greater than ever in politics; and most people don't really give a toss about this issue. However, gay marriage will lead us inexorably towards gay divorce. Be warned. -That could get seriously messy. Not sure what to do about that. Anyway, while your entirely pointless leaders work that out I'll just go tinker with a supernova that will wipe out 3 billion zorgon fluff people (they stopped slaughtering a zigzwot for me once a week so I have to smite the bloomin' lot of them). and please stop using my name and god interchangeably - we're totally different. I will not smite the innocent...unless you can all arrange for the council meetings to slaughter a zigzwot for me during prayers? By the way, prayers before council wicker parties and sacrificing goats etc may lead to confusion in transport policy decisions. Try beheading a goldfish for guidance on issues of money? Smoking camel dung during after-prayer sanctimony may lead to construction of pointless cycle lanes.

Possibly one of the funniest things I've ever read on the Argus. Some pedant was deflecting by having her spelling bee so I've quoted with nothing to add but thanks.

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

Ridiculous attitude... What is the matter with you people that can't accept that others might disagree with you so have to scream things like homophobe or racist at them?? I am an atheist who is totally OK with gay marriage and don't get religion at all but can accept not everyone shares my view. I have no time for fascists like you that are determined to destroy free speech.

Sorry Tengri, but the religions you defend are quite clear - gays are damned to hell. Atheists are not apologists for such beliefs as simply free speech. Some gay people have been murdered and others have taken their own lives because of intolerance and hatred fuelled by religious dogma that remains largely unchallenged . Gay people are discriminated against - most religions actively support this approach. Some of their suffering is very real. Standing against this is not 'destroying free speech'.

You have clearly got confused with righteous arguments about free speech and whether it's OK to discriminate against someone purely on the grounds of their sexuality or race. I'm an atheist and It's not about tolerating everyone and calling people who are willing to make a stand against wilful ignorance and predjudice 'facists'. Please refrain to referring to yourself as a muppet until you realise that.

Disgraceful woman. She's there to represent her constituents, not her own (deeply flawed) "conscience". Bigots like that shouldn't be allowed to pass bye-laws on other people.

I see from here page on the council website http://present.brigh
ton-hove.gov.uk/mgUs
erInfo.aspx?UID=1044
2 that she is on the Southern Regional Flood & Coastal Committee. In light of her recent voting record, I can only assume she is planning to build an ark, whilst letting the rest of us drown.

Would people really prefer a totalitarian atheist state? Would you prefer a state where people were forbidden from putting personal conscience before party loyalty? There have been plenty of Godless totalitarian states so perhaps some of the witty people on here could name their favourites?

She is just yet another homophobic bigot who is hiding behind religion.

The bible also enourages women to be treated as second class citizens and adulterers and other minor sinners to be stoned - why aren't the bible bashers pushing for these too??

What utter brainwrong tripe, Cyril. You seem to have some bizarre inverse logic going on. Perhaps you think we want people like Ms Summers to be forced into lesbian marriages against her will? We do not. We want it to be legal for individual gay people who want to marry each other to do so. I don't see how it is any of Ms Summers' business, to be blunt.

Love is LOVE !!!!....WTF????

tengri wrote:

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

Ridiculous attitude... What is the matter with you people that can't accept that others might disagree with you so have to scream things like homophobe or racist at them?? I am an atheist who is totally OK with gay marriage and don't get religion at all but can accept not everyone shares my view. I have no time for fascists like you that are determined to destroy free speech.

What on earth are you talking about? It's not illegal for people to say what they think about marriage. Neither is it illegal for people to then come on the Argus and say what they in their turn think about those views. What IS illegal is for two gay people to get married!

The questions which have to be asked are: did this councillor tell the electorate she was a devout Christian when standing for election and that her beliefs would influence her position? If not she has gained a seat in a disingenuous manner.
Also she is there to represent her constituents not her own beliefs.
This council seems particularly flawed and muddled. She is in the wrong job and should stand down.

I think Phelim MacCafferty should also stand down for the appalling weasel speak:

"Greens believe she is entitled to hold her view but this does not reflect the position...of the Green Party...".

Er, yes it does, Phelim, or are you suggesting she didn't actually vote, or is she not a councillor for the Greens?

Since did people become "entitled" to be homophobic in any case? Why should it be acceptable to hold prejudice against something using the excuse that "your religion" tells you to? If Hitler had been a Moslem, would that have made the Holocaust OK?!?

More doubts about the character of councillors. Its surprising the type of people that manage to become elected as councillors. So few people bother to vote and much fewer really scrutinise the candidates. Its about time the whole system was looked at.

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

You are intolerant. Her views plainly reflect questions of definition of what marriage is for. What it was invented by humans for.

Not homophobia. You are a bully to suggest it is so.

Bromine Chambers wrote:
Disgraceful woman. She's there to represent her constituents, not her own (deeply flawed) "conscience". Bigots like that shouldn't be allowed to pass bye-laws on other people.

If the BHCC councillors who voted on Thursday had been representing their constituents, do you really believe they would have been able to support the Notion of Motion. No. They probably felt obliged under fascistic P.C. pressure to support it because it carried the least level of consequence from voters.

Cllr Summers voted with sincerity.

Somewhere along the way, the valid search for equality and acceptance morphed into something altogether different. Historic anger turning into a backlash against the non-LGBT world?

I see this in so-called 'Pride' events where parading sex in ways heterosexual people would not be allowed to do demonstrates a wish to dominate rather than a wish for equality.

I wonder if resentment is not the motive behind the demand for gay marriage. Civil partnerships should have all the rights and obligations of married people and then true equality would be achieved.

The Greens are appearing like a nasty and tolerant party, who only want people who share a narrow interpretation of their dogma - almost like a religion in fact. If Christina was a Muslim do you think she would be getting so much abuse from her fellow party members?

Actually SaveHOVE civil partnerships should be for all those who are not members of a church, therefore, equality would be for straight couples to be allowed to enter into civil partnership.
The number of people who get married in church by paying the vicar a few quid and have never been to church in their life and have no idea what a church service is about is ludicrous.
It's time that we accepted that marriage is linked to Christianity and anyone who is not a practising Christian should be on the same footing as gay couples.
Next you will be saying se* is for reproductive purposes only but of course, I am sure you have treated yourself to some non reproductive pleasure even if it was with yourself.

Marriage linked to Christianity? Good grief ... what an utterly inane piece of nonsense.

Then again, Christianity has been hijacking and claiming for its own, by repackaging, many a notion and tradition. So why should we expect it to behave any differently now.

mimseycal, as this councillor has linked her Christian faith to the marriage issue one has to accept that she is saying that marriage is part of Christianity.
However, as most poeple's marriages end up broken, I don't think really anyone has the right to tell people what marriage is for.
People have more allegiance to football teams or soap tv than their partners.
We don't seem to be able to keep our knickers on in this country.

The comments show that religion and politics should never be mixed.

The definition of a bigot is "A person blindly and obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others". It seem to me that anybody calling somebody else a bigot is by definition a bigot themselves.

The ridiculous irony is that if more people went gay, we could finally get the population down a bit and save the environment! Perfect for the Green Party. All this population explosion is exacerbated by ludicrous religions stigmatizing homosexuality and making contraception illegal, forcing people into unnecessary breeding.

Not bothered about gays getting married, just been listening to radio 4,about female circumcisionon young girls before marriage, now that is worrying, it appears the uk is the place that doesn't do much about it in the EU.

SteveUK wrote:

Vigilia wrote:

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

To suggest that her firmly held belief that the grammatical term marriage means the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife, as recognised by law for millennia, is in any way homophobic is absurd.

Seconded. Exactly why we now have a term unheard of just a generation ago - political correctness! Same as objections to calling black bin-bags just that!

I am actually amazed at the intolerance shown in this thread.

I cannot abide the Green Party and struggled with myself before I could admit that I think that Cllr Summers was rather brave to have voted with her conscience rather than kowtowing to the diktat of an increasingly intolerant party and its supporters.

Ok, so she didn't agree with the majority, but is that cause to vilify her (and the meaning of the word 'democracy' with her)?

Retired Loon in Brighton wrote:

Sky Pixie tired of being called God wrote:
Sorry for all this confusion everyone. People may have mixed up me with some sort of God. I'm not sure what to make of religion. It does seem to be splendidly twisted. An innocent child dies from malaria or dysentry every 7 seconds - wow, it must be quite a buzz to worship any kind of creature that lets that kind of sick and twisted stuff happen for so long. Maybe god feels obliged to keep on letting babies rot to death because his followers have already made up a load of reasons why it's so important that this depravity continues? So, maybe if the followers stopped making sicko excuses up for child suffering god can stop doing it without losing face? I'll never know - it all seems a bit too twisted to me and I don't want to be associated with something so seemingly nasty. However, I can only speak as a sky pixie and I would like to say that I really don't mind who marries whoever. It's really not important. If two perfectly nice people, whether they both be receivers of swollen goods or not, decide to show committment to each other then who am I to dictate what shape each of their genitals are? If marriage was mainly for procreation then I would have prevented all those chinless twerps who are firing blanks from getting hitched to women with bigger beards than mine. So, gay marriage is all good and well; hypocrisy is greater than ever in politics; and most people don't really give a toss about this issue. However, gay marriage will lead us inexorably towards gay divorce. Be warned. -That could get seriously messy. Not sure what to do about that. Anyway, while your entirely pointless leaders work that out I'll just go tinker with a supernova that will wipe out 3 billion zorgon fluff people (they stopped slaughtering a zigzwot for me once a week so I have to smite the bloomin' lot of them). and please stop using my name and god interchangeably - we're totally different. I will not smite the innocent...unless you can all arrange for the council meetings to slaughter a zigzwot for me during prayers? By the way, prayers before council wicker parties and sacrificing goats etc may lead to confusion in transport policy decisions. Try beheading a goldfish for guidance on issues of money? Smoking camel dung during after-prayer sanctimony may lead to construction of pointless cycle lanes.

Possibly one of the funniest things I've ever read on the Argus. Some pedant was deflecting by having her spelling bee so I've quoted with nothing to add but thanks.

I loved this piece too......GENIUS....

I remember Patrice Muamba coming out of Hospital ' “What happened to me was really more than a miracle. I asked God to protect me....I am walking......"
So... Waste of time all those Doctors and nurses and all the equipment then...and what was God thinking striking you down to start with?
We have the Council we deserve..I fear with the influx of unemployable students rising and the benefit scrounging losers growing monthly, we are stuck with them, as we are with useless Police Force and this Paper.

Everybody - Chill out! It isn't the end of the world......yet!!!

Anything good is attributed to a good god but when evil happens it is a chap called the devil.
So thats why their god has never appeared he must be so embarrassed.Anyway can we ask this counciller how she behaves in her marriage and get away with it,no.

we all believe in different gods ,and we are free to do so ,but when this person was looking for votes did they tell people that they felt gays were from a lesser god or they would only support people with the same believes as them ,if not they should stand down !

So Brighton has at least one Councillor with a conscience and the courage of her convictions.. Hooray!

Even if you disagree with her stance, this is to be applauded. - and whoever decreed that we all have to think the same?

There are some quite bigoted, judgmental posts on here, mainly from people who think this woman's wrong. ("Two wrongs don't make a right" is the homily that springs to mind)

For the record I too think she's wrong, but I applaud the Greens for allowing people to vote freely on matters on conscience. I hope she isn't censured by her party in any way shape or form.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The questions which have to be asked are: did this councillor tell the electorate she was a devout Christian when standing for election and that her beliefs would influence her position? If not she has gained a seat in a disingenuous manner.
Also she is there to represent her constituents not her own beliefs.
This council seems particularly flawed and muddled. She is in the wrong job and should stand down.

This. Absolutely.

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
There are some quite bigoted, judgmental posts on here, mainly from people who think this woman's wrong. ("Two wrongs don't make a right" is the homily that springs to mind)

For the record I too think she's wrong, but I applaud the Greens for allowing people to vote freely on matters on conscience. I hope she isn't censured by her party in any way shape or form.

This. Is. Spot. On!

Of course gays are the reason we have floods and children die from poverty,at least thats what I have read on the internet, nice religions eh..
Let us bring up thse subjects as wrong including child abuse not the way respectable people decide to live their lives ..

Bromine Chambers wrote:
Since did people become "entitled" to be homophobic in any case? Why should it be acceptable to hold prejudice against something using the excuse that "your religion" tells you to? If Hitler had been a Moslem, would that have made the Holocaust OK?!?

Why is it when someone doesn't agree with a proposal regarding LGBT everyone screams 'homophobic.'

You argue like a 5 year old child - Nothing would have made the Holocaust ok...

Try understanding that sometimes people have priniciples that they need to stand by.

Strangely my councillor never consulted me on which way he should vote and I'm sure no other councillors did - if they had there would have been more than one vote against.... but then according to you they would have been homophobic as well.

but then maybe you have no principles or concience and just let every thing just waft by without making a stand for anything......

I'm just surprised by a councillor acting according to their conscience, rather than mindlessly following party orders. I don't happen to agree with her but as she doesn't represent me she has no need to have any interest what I think.

I am not homophobic. I am arachnaphobic because I have an unreasonable fear of spiders. I do not have an unreasonable fear of the gay community

Greens so its okay for Phelim to make his outrageous remarks with no disciplinary procedure, its okay for the other idiot to call the C of E school a cult its okay for Sue shanks to call hersellf a "Militant" atheist and openly explain that she " and be on the commitee for equality and exclusion.
Greens bye bye things get worse by the day.

tengri wrote:

fred clause wrote:
So basically her faith means shes homophobic and thats ok with her green chums what a classy party.

Ridiculous attitude... What is the matter with you people that can't accept that others might disagree with you so have to scream things like homophobe or racist at them?? I am an atheist who is totally OK with gay marriage and don't get religion at all but can accept not everyone shares my view. I have no time for fascists like you that are determined to destroy free speech.

Well said Tengri

What ever this lady's conscience is the seriously worrying part of what she has said is " I am accountable to God above all political parties." So in effect what she has said is that she will not accept any democratic decision or in fact any democratic authority that she feels does not conform to her rather strange mythology. The Green Party have no choice but to expel her from the party - not because she has religious views and not because she is using these views for thinly veiled homophobia, but because she has publically stated that she cannot accept any democratic decisions that she feels may offend her god. You cannot have individuals employed in the democratic process who do not believe in democracy and its authority. End of story - she has to go.

So "equality" doesn't extend to religious freedom? So no Christian can believe their Holy Book? Christians must change their beliefs to suit others life-styles and all in the name of "equality". Ok thanks for verifying you hypocritical The Green Party is. I did vote for them before, won't be doing so again!

fedupwithlies wrote:
What ever this lady's conscience is the seriously worrying part of what she has said is " I am accountable to God above all political parties." So in effect what she has said is that she will not accept any democratic decision or in fact any democratic authority that she feels does not conform to her rather strange mythology. The Green Party have no choice but to expel her from the party - not because she has religious views and not because she is using these views for thinly veiled homophobia, but because she has publically stated that she cannot accept any democratic decisions that she feels may offend her god. You cannot have individuals employed in the democratic process who do not believe in democracy and its authority. End of story - she has to go.

So you will NOT accept someone's religious rights, and yet do so in the name of equality and democracy?
Hmm, hypocritical much????
Your phobia isn't even thinly veiled is it?
Maybe you should "go" as you so eloquently phrase it, as tolerance and acceptance is fine, as long as we all act tolerant and accept whatever YOU happen to stand for. Hmm??..Big surprise there!!!

She was voted in by the people of Brighton: Hence she is serving on their behalf - not god's.
Had god voted her in on his own, it would be a different matter.
If she wants to force her god's views on others , should she not be looking for a position in a church?

fedupwithlies wrote:
What ever this lady's conscience is the seriously worrying part of what she has said is " I am accountable to God above all political parties." So in effect what she has said is that she will not accept any democratic decision or in fact any democratic authority that she feels does not conform to her rather strange mythology. The Green Party have no choice but to expel her from the party - not because she has religious views and not because she is using these views for thinly veiled homophobia, but because she has publically stated that she cannot accept any democratic decisions that she feels may offend her god. You cannot have individuals employed in the democratic process who do not believe in democracy and its authority. End of story - she has to go.

Jackboot Johnnie in full flight. Hitler tried to define what should be a proper German and expelled the rest. It is intolerance dressed up as equality, no better, to pillory and hound Christina Summers for her vote.

Notices of Motion inhabit the back end of Full Council agendas and don't always even get their moment if main business over-runs time available.

Is gay marriage lobbying about running the council? It is debating forum material, not a local governance matter. Notices of Motion often include non-council issues that are voted on. They merely take the political temperature on various issues.

Oh dear, as a lifelong Green voter I find this very worrying. She definitely has to go. How can you be a Green Christian when the Bible says God gave dominion to man over all the Earth?
Christianity is incompatible with Green beliefs.

OK Folks, Goodwins Law has now been officially invoked and I declare this debate OVER!

OK Folks, Goodwins Law has now been officially invoked and I declare this debate OVER!

I'm really surprised at the some of the vitriol been poured out by some commenters. The issue under debate was the subject of a vote. Ms Summers exercised that right. Do Green party members really want elected reps that are unable to act independently or a party that stifles minority views? Isn't that the type of behaviour that has significantly undermined people's confidence in elected reps of the main UK parties i.e. their lack of independence from the will of the central party machine? I fear that if those who are agitating for this councillor's expulsion get their way it sets a bad precedent. I'm also saddened that adjectives such as "homophobic" are being bandied instead of getting into a real debate on the points Ms Summers actually cited as the basis for her decision. Does Ms Summers have a track record of homophobic statements and behaviours? It should be possible to have a debate about issues without accusatory and insulting terms being thrown around, surely?

Mellottie wrote:
OK Folks, Goodwins Law has now been officially invoked and I declare this debate OVER!

...and invoked over a relatively petty cause

The above comments, amount to a public display of human ignorance on parr with the Jeremy Kyle show.

I am a Christian and lead a church, I believe in principle, gay people should be allowed to 'get married', as by doing so they will have redefined the term and institution of marriage anyway. As long as we (Christians) remain clear on 'what is marriage' according to the scriptures, and teach and model this in our churches and beyond, then others will make their choice so let them have their marriage.

I do believe though, a decision now is premature as it will lead in legal cases being launched against the church in the future - and this is an issue. We are supposed to just take the governments word for it that it will never happen? I don't think anyone trust politics that much! Do they?

I say to my beloved Christian brothers and sisters, don't worry, Our God has given freedom to obey or rebel against God. It is not for us to judge but to pray for our LGBT neighbours whom we are to love.

But I am shocked by the monumental and clearly demonstrable ignorance of so many who have spoken against Christina Summers.

First, by all means disagree with her, democracy should allow freedom of speech. But havebthe basic courtsy to recognise, Although Christina voted against it I am sure she respects the outcome of the vote, she spoke with grace and respect, something that her opponents on this message board seem to lack, perhaps you can learn from her grace.

Second, According to the Bible, marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman which God Himself designed, ultimately to reflect the love of Christ for His bride the church. This is not homophobic because it is not primarily about people, it is about God in whose image we are all made. This is why Christians (like me) can support what is being called 'Gay marriage' but can never pretend it is what is best for society or ''marriage as God intended', neither can it fulfil God's purpose for marriage, that is to reflect the love of Christ for the church according to the Bible.

This is a religious conviction. And by the way, Christianity is not a private affair for one to keep to ones self. That notion is again based on ignorance.

There is God. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and the Bible is God's final revelation and testimony concerning Jesus His Son. Jesus has called all who would follow Him to disseminate the message of grace, forgiveness and warning of a day of accountability before God to all and sundry.

It would be quite easy to end Christianity if it is not true - just demonstrate it is not true intelligently, by giving good reason to disbelieve the resurrection. But if you are not prepared to do that or you cannot do that, then stop complaining about Christina Summers who believes Jesus is risen, and lives and reigns - and with very good reason! If she is correct, then you need to listen to her. If she is not and you know it, then tell her by speaking to her - and me!

But I suspect people prefer to shoot their mouths off like children shouting out rude names and then running away with their fingers in their ears.

Whatever, ignorance is sad indeed.

jrebera wrote:
The above comments, amount to a public display of human ignorance on parr with the Jeremy Kyle show.

I am a Christian and lead a church, I believe in principle, gay people should be allowed to 'get married', as by doing so they will have redefined the term and institution of marriage anyway. As long as we (Christians) remain clear on 'what is marriage' according to the scriptures, and teach and model this in our churches and beyond, then others will make their choice so let them have their marriage.

I do believe though, a decision now is premature as it will lead in legal cases being launched against the church in the future - and this is an issue. We are supposed to just take the governments word for it that it will never happen? I don't think anyone trust politics that much! Do they?

I say to my beloved Christian brothers and sisters, don't worry, Our God has given freedom to obey or rebel against God. It is not for us to judge but to pray for our LGBT neighbours whom we are to love.

But I am shocked by the monumental and clearly demonstrable ignorance of so many who have spoken against Christina Summers.

First, by all means disagree with her, democracy should allow freedom of speech. But havebthe basic courtsy to recognise, Although Christina voted against it I am sure she respects the outcome of the vote, she spoke with grace and respect, something that her opponents on this message board seem to lack, perhaps you can learn from her grace.

Second, According to the Bible, marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman which God Himself designed, ultimately to reflect the love of Christ for His bride the church. This is not homophobic because it is not primarily about people, it is about God in whose image we are all made. This is why Christians (like me) can support what is being called 'Gay marriage' but can never pretend it is what is best for society or ''marriage as God intended', neither can it fulfil God's purpose for marriage, that is to reflect the love of Christ for the church according to the Bible.

This is a religious conviction. And by the way, Christianity is not a private affair for one to keep to ones self. That notion is again based on ignorance.

There is God. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and the Bible is God's final revelation and testimony concerning Jesus His Son. Jesus has called all who would follow Him to disseminate the message of grace, forgiveness and warning of a day of accountability before God to all and sundry.

It would be quite easy to end Christianity if it is not true - just demonstrate it is not true intelligently, by giving good reason to disbelieve the resurrection. But if you are not prepared to do that or you cannot do that, then stop complaining about Christina Summers who believes Jesus is risen, and lives and reigns - and with very good reason! If she is correct, then you need to listen to her. If she is not and you know it, then tell her by speaking to her - and me!

But I suspect people prefer to shoot their mouths off like children shouting out rude names and then running away with their fingers in their ears.

Whatever, ignorance is sad indeed.

@jrebera: are you including my comment amongst the 'public display of human ignorance on parr with the Jeremy Kyle show'? My view is practically identical to yours...

XBrightonian wrote:

jrebera wrote:
The above comments, amount to a public display of human ignorance on parr with the Jeremy Kyle show.

I am a Christian and lead a church, I believe in principle, gay people should be allowed to 'get married', as by doing so they will have redefined the term and institution of marriage anyway. As long as we (Christians) remain clear on 'what is marriage' according to the scriptures, and teach and model this in our churches and beyond, then others will make their choice so let them have their marriage.

I do believe though, a decision now is premature as it will lead in legal cases being launched against the church in the future - and this is an issue. We are supposed to just take the governments word for it that it will never happen? I don't think anyone trust politics that much! Do they?

I say to my beloved Christian brothers and sisters, don't worry, Our God has given freedom to obey or rebel against God. It is not for us to judge but to pray for our LGBT neighbours whom we are to love.

But I am shocked by the monumental and clearly demonstrable ignorance of so many who have spoken against Christina Summers.

First, by all means disagree with her, democracy should allow freedom of speech. But havebthe basic courtsy to recognise, Although Christina voted against it I am sure she respects the outcome of the vote, she spoke with grace and respect, something that her opponents on this message board seem to lack, perhaps you can learn from her grace.

Second, According to the Bible, marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman which God Himself designed, ultimately to reflect the love of Christ for His bride the church. This is not homophobic because it is not primarily about people, it is about God in whose image we are all made. This is why Christians (like me) can support what is being called 'Gay marriage' but can never pretend it is what is best for society or ''marriage as God intended', neither can it fulfil God's purpose for marriage, that is to reflect the love of Christ for the church according to the Bible.

This is a religious conviction. And by the way, Christianity is not a private affair for one to keep to ones self. That notion is again based on ignorance.

There is God. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and the Bible is God's final revelation and testimony concerning Jesus His Son. Jesus has called all who would follow Him to disseminate the message of grace, forgiveness and warning of a day of accountability before God to all and sundry.

It would be quite easy to end Christianity if it is not true - just demonstrate it is not true intelligently, by giving good reason to disbelieve the resurrection. But if you are not prepared to do that or you cannot do that, then stop complaining about Christina Summers who believes Jesus is risen, and lives and reigns - and with very good reason! If she is correct, then you need to listen to her. If she is not and you know it, then tell her by speaking to her - and me!

But I suspect people prefer to shoot their mouths off like children shouting out rude names and then running away with their fingers in their ears.

Whatever, ignorance is sad indeed.

@jrebera: are you including my comment amongst the 'public display of human ignorance on parr with the Jeremy Kyle show'? My view is practically identical to yours...

No, I don"t think so, I meant the posts generally. I think it is sad people speak out so strongly, branding someone whom they don't know without taking the time to try to understand. I don't personally know, her, but believe she has genuine integrity.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
How does her conscience allow her to
Work with green colleague Ben Duncan who tweeted that a planned church school was a cult. A party of
Confusion and contradiction and intolerance.

Taunts of homophobic towards this person are illogical.

You can believe that elephants are not spiders without being arachnophobic.

This vitriol will undermine our rights to freedom of speech.

Thankfully us gays have a vote and god doesn't.

Christians have been persecuting homosexuals for far too long. They are losing this right and won't go quietly. Much the same as how they defended the slave trade and the prohibition of mixed race marriages.

If you want to make a religious argument, start by proving God exists, then prove that you know what god wants you to do. The bible is true because it says so in the bible, is rather childish.

matt.freshfield wrote:
Thankfully us gays have a vote and god doesn't.

Christians have been persecuting homosexuals for far too long. They are losing this right and won't go quietly. Much the same as how they defended the slave trade and the prohibition of mixed race marriages.

If you want to make a religious argument, start by proving God exists, then prove that you know what god wants you to do. The bible is true because it says so in the bible, is rather childish.

I agree, thankfully gay people do have the vote. You don't believe God exists, I do, so let's both admit, if He doesn't exist, none of it matters as all ultimately ends in heat death and this whole debate is ultimately absurd, as is any meaning to our existence. On the other hand, if God does exist, then true, He does not have the vote, but He does have the last word. The force of logic is inescapaeable!

Prove He exists? I can't prove anything, neither can you. But just because I cannot prove something does not mean it is not true.

Though I cannot prove God exists, I can give evidence and demonstrate it is rational to believe God does exist, and wise to put trust in Him. I assume you know the difference between proof and evidence?

I'd be very happy to give evidence too.

Regarding Christians persecuting Gay people, sadly you are right, historically - but the whole of society did. However, it is not true that Christians have lagged behind in stopping the persecution of gays.

it is not persecution to suggest Gay people should not be allowed to marry. To automatically yell 'persecution' just because someone opposes you is childish. The issues need to be addressed and dealt with.

It depends on the reason. The reason Christians object is not that they are ant-gay, but because they are pro-marriage according to the scriptures.

That is why, as a Christian I am not anti-gay marriage, because by marriage in this context, what is meant is clearly the union of two people who love one another committing the rest of their lives. So I am not against that, and neither are most Christians, but that is not what marriage is (curently or historically) here is the problem ...

There has been a total failure to recognised that marriage has, historically in the west, been very much part of Christian society and world view. But now society has rejected Christianity without having the guts to admit it, on the one hand, whilst people like Cameron still claim we are a Christians society, and on the other hand we are still using the 'Christianised' terms like 'marriage'.

Christians, naturally, still see marriage according to the Bible, which teaches that marriage is one man and one woman, therefore a gay couple can never marry. That is not 'persecution' but 'definition'. So to a Christian, it is like a gay couple saying, 'We want to be called a hetersexual couple'.

So in fact, the government are trying to redefine marriage by legislation according to this new definition, while leaving the old definition in place - in other words, they have not said "The Bible is wrong, we reject it".

Basically, the government need to be honest and come out of the closet and say, 'We are not a Christian society, we reject the Bible as determinitive', we will build our own society' because that is the issue.

This legislation strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. To redefine marriage is to redefine God, either as a distorted version of the biblical God, or it redefines God as 'man' in the sense that 'man' becomes the ultimate sovereign of this world.

Christina Summers, and I and many other Christians, neither believe in a distorted version of the God of the Bible, nor will we except 'man' as our God.

However, this needn't cause a problem because the Bible teaches us to live in accordance with the law of the land, something Christina Summers and Christians are pleased and thankful to do.

The Law as it is, is the law, there is due process for changing it, Christina has acted lawfully, honestly and with integrity. And whatever the outcome, Christians will abide by the law - so long as it does not call us to defy God.

Christians oppose this lobby for new legislation without there being clear protection for us as Christians to retain our view and practise.

So yes, Christian society can be said to have persecuted Gay people - just like everyone else. Just like they did black people - along with everyone else - and by the way, I am sure there were gay people who persecuted black people too.

However, it was largely because of authentic Christianity that redemption came for black people. William Wilberforce was a thoroughly Christian politician who fought tirelessly, courageously and successfully for the abolition of slavery.

Martin Luther King - remember, He was a Christian and was motivated by his faith, a commission of God to lead his heroic passive stand.

So, stop yelling 'persecution' and 'homophobia' just because we disagree. Better to talk and reason.

So prove God exists? If you genuinely mean that, I can give evidence, unless of course you are just shouting the odds and running away with your fingers in your ears. It is not very practical to offer evidence in these posts - though I will try to do so if you want.

Prove I know what He wants? If God does exist, then the Bible is, in my view, on evidence which I am willing to share, the ultimate contender as God's revelation of Himself and His will and purpose.

mimseycal wrote:
Marriage linked to Christianity? Good grief ... what an utterly inane piece of nonsense.

Then again, Christianity has been hijacking and claiming for its own, by repackaging, many a notion and tradition. So why should we expect it to behave any differently now.

Mmmm, if you live in a glass house,mdon't throw stones. There is a good argument that Christianity did not hijack marriage, it has it's roots in Judaism. So with that in mind, when exactly did Christianity hijack marriage and from whom?

Second, isn't this very debate because of an attempt to hijack marriage from its Judeo-Christian homeland?

Like it or not, historically marriage was part of Christian society.

fredaj wrote:
The worship of sky fairies should be kept out of government.

Agreed, but are you saying Jesus was a sky fairy? Christians follow what He said.

fredaj wrote:
The worship of sky fairies should be kept out of government.

Also, religion is part of a world view, if you don't have religion you have something in its place like secular humanism. atheism etc. Everyone brings their deeply held convictions to politics. The most bias are those who don't think they are bias. Christina Summers is clearly aware of, and up front about her bias convictions and how they shape her actions. Therefore we can be confident she is more able to see things more objectively.

I didn't hear anyone in the debate saying, "as a secular humanist, it is logical to lobby government to establish gay marriage", I wonder if they even recognise they are secular humanist and that it shapes and defines their convictions and actions.

It appears that what you really mean is "only certain bias views should be allowed into politics" and I imagine they will happen to match yours.

Sky Pixie tired of being called God wrote:
Sorry for all this confusion everyone. People may have mixed up me with some sort of God. I'm not sure what to make of religion. It does seem to be splendidly twisted. An innocent child dies from malaria or dysentry every 7 seconds - wow, it must be quite a buzz to worship any kind of creature that lets that kind of sick and twisted stuff happen for so long. Maybe god feels obliged to keep on letting babies rot to death because his followers have already made up a load of reasons why it's so important that this depravity continues?

So, maybe if the followers stopped making sicko excuses up for child suffering god can stop doing it without losing face?
I'll never know - it all seems a bit too twisted to me and I don't want to be associated with something so seemingly nasty.

However, I can only speak as a sky pixie and I would like to say that I really don't mind who marries whoever. It's really not important.

If two perfectly nice people, whether they both be receivers of swollen goods or not, decide to show committment to each other then who am I to dictate what shape each of their genitals are? If marriage was mainly for procreation then I would have prevented all those chinless twerps who are firing blanks from getting hitched to women with bigger beards than mine.

So, gay marriage is all good and well; hypocrisy is greater than ever in politics; and most people don't really give a toss about this issue. However, gay marriage will lead us inexorably towards gay divorce. Be warned. -That could get seriously messy. Not sure what to do about that.

Anyway, while your entirely pointless leaders work that out I'll just go tinker with a supernova that will wipe out 3 billion zorgon fluff people (they stopped slaughtering a zigzwot for me once a week so I have to smite the bloomin' lot of them).

and please stop using my name and god interchangeably - we're totally different. I will not smite the innocent...unless you can all arrange for the council meetings to slaughter a zigzwot for me during prayers?

By the way, prayers before council wicker parties and sacrificing goats etc may lead to confusion in transport policy decisions. Try beheading a goldfish for guidance on issues of money? Smoking camel dung during after-prayer sanctimony may lead to construction of pointless cycle lanes.

"I don't want to be associated with something so seemingly nasty" as a God who allows terrible human suffering, or Christians who believe in such a God?

But if you say there is no God, then at least recognise ...

1) Humans are the prime cause of most (not all) suffering, being greedy, refusing to share wealth etc. why do you think we have armed forces? Because the threat of individuals and whole nations rising up against us is a real one. So, humans, are without question as seemingly nasty as this God as they do it!

Why do you carry keys and have locks on your doors? Because you cannot trust other people - because you know what they can be like.

2) In fact, before pointing the finger and judging God, it is wise to see, we have all contributed to this world of pain and suffering, and injustice, every one of us, you included. We have all been hurt and we have all hurt other people. We are all both victims and perpetrators. Many an average person has acted wickedly toward those they should love most, our wives by betraying them by glaring at **** (objectifying people) or going after other women. Our children when we emotionally brutalise them by not loving and taking care of their mother whom they love (and visa-versa of course). So, Don't be too quick to point the finger at God for not punishing you and I for hurting others and allowing others to be hurt because we are selfish.

3) The Church globally does more to alleviate suffering than any other movement or organisation. So however bad people are, Christians are doing more to alleviate suffering.

So, if you must associate with seemingly twisted and nasty people, which according to you the human race must be - Christians are pretty good by that count. So perhaps you should associate with them.

jrebera . That was a lot of long posts but quite balanced and informative. Worth the read while there is not much going with my neutral religion of football. Better than some of the bigoted comments from the gay side of the argument.

Retired Loon in Brighton wrote:
Sorry Tengri, but the religions you defend are quite clear - gays are damned to hell. Atheists are not apologists for such beliefs as simply free speech. Some gay people have been murdered and others have taken their own lives because of intolerance and hatred fuelled by religious dogma that remains largely unchallenged . Gay people are discriminated against - most religions actively support this approach. Some of their suffering is very real. Standing against this is not 'destroying free speech'.

You have clearly got confused with righteous arguments about free speech and whether it's OK to discriminate against someone purely on the grounds of their sexuality or race. I'm an atheist and It's not about tolerating everyone and calling people who are willing to make a stand against wilful ignorance and predjudice 'facists'. Please refrain to referring to yourself as a muppet until you realise that.

Wrong, religions - at least Christianity does not condemn people to hell. "Christianity" does not have a single collective, representative voice, so you are plain wrong.

Perhaps you mean there are some Christians who condemn gays to hell. I'm sure there some, those that do reflect the same degree of ignorance as your Statment does.

Perhaps you mean the church of England condemns Gays to hell. No - it does not. Just read their offical Statment on the subject on their web site.

Or maybe you mean the Bible teaches that God condemns Gay people to hell?

Then you would be half right. Actually the Bible teaches that the default position of all people in relation to God is that we all stand condemned. All! Not just gay people, straight too.

The reason we are all in that default position is because we have all rebelled against God. Most of us have done so unwittingly, unintentionally, but it is also true, we have consciously rebelled against what we believe to be right - every time our conscience tells us some thing is wrong and we ignore it we are do this.

It understandably seems unfair that we should be condemned when we didn't know, but for those who didn't know, God will judge according to our conscience - what we did know, and on that count we are all guilty.

However, God has made a way for us to be re-united with God and to be back in right relationship with Him, and we do this by Trusting Jesus as Lord and responding to Hisinvitation to all people to come to him for free and full forgiveness and a new life which He helps us to live by giving us His Spirit.

In the end, if we turn our backs on His Lordship and His free and full forgiveness, then there is no forgiveness.

So, the issue is the Lordship of Jesus. Anyone who accepts Jesus as Lord will have to give up certain things. For some it will be possessions, for some it will be an adulterous relationship, some it will be gay sex, others it will be certain dreams, for some it will mean singleness etc.

The issue is, accepting Jesus as Lord or not.

Are we here buy some kind of accident of nature or is there a God. Hmm

There is nothing homophobic about this Councillor's opinion, as much as I do disagree. But nobody seems to get her major mistake in her line of thinking. As an elected Councillor she is responsible to the citizens of Brighton and Hove. Her believe and religion is her private matter. I do hope she will not be elected again as her understanding of a working democracy is basically wrong!

fedupwithlies wrote:
What ever this lady's conscience is the seriously worrying part of what she has said is " I am accountable to God above all political parties." So in effect what she has said is that she will not accept any democratic decision or in fact any democratic authority that she feels does not conform to her rather strange mythology. The Green Party have no choice but to expel her from the party - not because she has religious views and not because she is using these views for thinly veiled homophobia, but because she has publically stated that she cannot accept any democratic decisions that she feels may offend her god. You cannot have individuals employed in the democratic process who do not believe in democracy and its authority. End of story - she has to go.

The very Christianity that Christina Summers represents (as far as I can tell) has been the most profound and essential force in establishing democracy in the first place (Remember the USA?), the adage 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' comes to mind, and 'do not devour the one who gave you birth'.

Also, you have made a wrong assumption. In saying her claim that she is 'accountable to God above the green party' as meaning she will not accept a democratic decision that offends her God is wrong.

As part of the democratic process she has lawfully voted according to democracy. Her point was, within the democratic process she will not bow to party-political pressure as if it were above God.

She will accept the outcome of the democratic process, but she wants to affect that process.

The Bible teaches that Christians are to obey the Law of the land unless it contradicts His commands. We are talking about things like 'do not murder, do not lie, do not commit adultery, do not worship other Gods.

The one law Christians would not obey, is legislation that seeks to silence Christian expression. In that case we would become like the underground church in China. Apart from that, you have no cause for concern.

ProudWolf wrote:

Bromine Chambers wrote:
Since did people become "entitled" to be homophobic in any case? Why should it be acceptable to hold prejudice against something using the excuse that "your religion" tells you to? If Hitler had been a Moslem, would that have made the Holocaust OK?!?

Why is it when someone doesn't agree with a proposal regarding LGBT everyone screams 'homophobic.'

You argue like a 5 year old child - Nothing would have made the Holocaust ok...

Try understanding that sometimes people have priniciples that they need to stand by.

Strangely my councillor never consulted me on which way he should vote and I'm sure no other councillors did - if they had there would have been more than one vote against.... but then according to you they would have been homophobic as well.

but then maybe you have no principles or concience and just let every thing just waft by without making a stand for anything......

Excellent point.

Bromine Chambers wrote:
What utter brainwrong tripe, Cyril. You seem to have some bizarre inverse logic going on. Perhaps you think we want people like Ms Summers to be forced into lesbian marriages against her will? We do not. We want it to be legal for individual gay people who want to marry each other to do so. I don't see how it is any of Ms Summers' business, to be blunt.

Well, it is her business because she is an elected councillor in order to vote on such things. If it ismnotmher business then it is no other councillors business so the law will remain as it is.

If it is as simple as you say there would be no problem. But sadly it is not as simple as you say, even if you want it to be.

championshipgull wrote:
Are we here buy some kind of accident of nature or is there a God. Hmm

Out of nothing at all, comes nothing at all! But there is existence. That we exist bids the question, where did we/everything come from? How did we /it all get here?

Ultimately out of absolutely nothing at all?

Michael Inkpin-Leissner wrote:
There is nothing homophobic about this Councillor's opinion, as much as I do disagree. But nobody seems to get her major mistake in her line of thinking. As an elected Councillor she is responsible to the citizens of Brighton and Hove. Her believe and religion is her private matter. I do hope she will not be elected again as her understanding of a working democracy is basically wrong!

She is the only one who represented the Christians of Brighton and Hove, are Christians to have no representation. Actually she will have also represented the majority of Muslims too. And what she believes is not just a private matter. Eg, If a councillor is a nazi privately, I want to know, it affects their politics, everyone's conviction do.

Thumper Hove wrote:
She is just yet another homophobic bigot who is hiding behind religion.

The bible also enourages women to be treated as second class citizens and adulterers and other minor sinners to be stoned - why aren't the bible bashers pushing for these too??

That's easy to answer -you are wrong.

Bromine Chambers wrote:
Since did people become "entitled" to be homophobic in any case? Why should it be acceptable to hold prejudice against something using the excuse that "your religion" tells you to? If Hitler had been a Moslem, would that have made the Holocaust OK?!?

'prejucice' means to prejudge, this is not about judging people, it is about the definition of 'marriage'. As it stands, 'marriage' is the covenantal union of one man and on woman. So gay people cannot marry because they are not one man and one woman - goodness me, how hard is this to understand?

What you want to do is redefine marriage.

Gay people can be in a covenantal relationship - it's called Civil Partnership.

There are no gods,get used to it. Cant keep making the word god an answer for everything. I have never heard from a god and if he-orshe-did show themselves I would ask why such hatred comes from religion. We dont need religion to be good, we are good or not good thats the answer. Gods cannot be good when, children die, have cancer, christains kill muslims. Protestents in Ireland through religion hate. Catholics abuse by priests on children. One has just been found guility of wanting a boy killed because he was going to tell on him..
Stop using excuses for evil through any god or gods.

elainepkils wrote:
There are no gods,get used to it. Cant keep making the word god an answer for everything. I have never heard from a god and if he-orshe-did show themselves I would ask why such hatred comes from religion. We dont need religion to be good, we are good or not good thats the answer. Gods cannot be good when, children die, have cancer, christains kill muslims. Protestents in Ireland through religion hate. Catholics abuse by priests on children. One has just been found guility of wanting a boy killed because he was going to tell on him..
Stop using excuses for evil through any god or gods.

Can you tell me all about the anatomy of an ant - how it's brain functions etc? Thought not. There is a lot you don't know isn't there? For every one bit of knowledge you do know, there are billions of bits of knowledge you don't know.

So I can't think why I would think you are an authority when you don't know much about much at all. I really don't mean to insult you - it is just true - for all of us.

So, maybe God exists in the realm of knowledge and experience you know nothing of - isn't that possible?

You have to at least answer 'maybe'. If you say He doesn't exist in the realm of knowledge and experience you know nothing about, then you claim to know all about what you know nothing about. o dear, you are in a bit of a mess!

You have never heard from God? What on earth makes you think you should have heard from God? Remember, in the scheme of things, in this great universe, you and I are infinitesimally small specs of dust - why do you thnk God should have bothered with you? Maybe God doesn't have anything to say to you because, maybe you have already made up your mind? You are closed.

The question about religion and hatred you would ask God is reasonable. But the answer is simple and the Bible tell us the answer. But you can work it out for yourself.

Hatred comes from people with or without religion. No-one needs religion to be full of hatred just as no-one needs religion to do good do they? We humans can do hatred and good all on our own.

"God cannot be good when children die ...". I understand that Statment. But you said "God does not exist, get used to it", but why? If God exists then obviously he let's children die - if that makes Him nasty in your eyes, then God is nasty in your eyes. Tell me, why can a God who let's children die not exist?

"Christians kill Muslims" etc. True, People who call themselves Christians kill Muslims on occasion. So do Atheists kill people too. That just tells us people do bad, bad stuff, like abuse children (such as Catholics as you mention). Of course, people from all walks do sick stuff. That is because they are sick.

But Jesus said...

"Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not do .... and ... in your name" and I will answer them, "depart from me, I never knew you", a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, thus by their fruit you will know them"

So, people who call themselves Christians do sick stuff, but according to Jesus, they just call themselves Christians.

People are good and bad - get over it.

And anyway, who said God is the answer for everything? What are you talking about??? - people are the answer for most evil - not God.

Begging ya pardon but what happened to a free vote for all Yes, No, Sustain if Christina Summers opinion is agents that her free spirited opinion not every body is going to agree but is this a country whereby we now have to vote yes to something we disagree to just because the marguerite wont it is this a free country or a governed state we must obey the marguerite…
Scrolling down and I read this ridiculous post “So basically her faith means she’s homophobic” this has nothing to do with being homophobic what her party do as a hull is there own opinion but every person has a right be they homophobic or other wise that’s haw we have democratic debates if every one agreed 100% hull heartedly we would not have FREE to chose to live our lives the way we as inveigles wish to live, what happened what have we become if we can not allow full hearted democratic debates without slanderous hatful banter from those that say we must obey.

I have looked at The Green Party Manifesto and find no specific policy on so called same-sex marriage. In section 8 there is a general reference to equality for all which most parties probably adhere too. There appears to be no party whip on this particular issue, so in common with long held practice in Britain, each proposal on such an important issue as this should be a matter of conscience. So what are the Brighton Greens playing at! Christina Sommers appears to be paying the price for democracy.
This will not do Caroline Lucas' party any good!

brendan123 wrote:
I have looked at The Green Party Manifesto and find no specific policy on so called same-sex marriage. In section 8 there is a general reference to equality for all which most parties probably adhere too. There appears to be no party whip on this particular issue, so in common with long held practice in Britain, each proposal on such an important issue as this should be a matter of conscience. So what are the Brighton Greens playing at! Christina Sommers appears to be paying the price for democracy.
This will not do Caroline Lucas' party any good!

Can *anything* do Caroline Lucas' party any good? This merely shows that they are like the Lib Dems - anything for power....

Is there any specific policy on any person black white gay transgender or strait witch is not equal, if a man can marry a woman be that woman was once a man or a woman marrying a man that once was a women why can’t same-sex get marred, who made it law that only man and women can legally marry and have we learnt anything over there center’s about our churches and the people that run them, O’ its OK for them to soling our young children, its OK for them to hide and protect there ministers from legal prosecution and yet they have the audacity to tell use its agented god law that we allow same-sex marriage pardon me but what god gave them the right to soling our young children would not god be ashamed of there activities as he was with the
Israelites and lets not forget god made use in his image so was he really a gay transgendered cross dressing man, the thing is we’ll never know because so many over the century’s have made up there own minds to the person he was so should we not allow these men these woman marry the person they truly love what harm would they bring to our unholy churches or our children.