Gay Marrige and David Cameron

Is the difference between marriage and civil partnership anything more than semantic?

In legal terms minuscle difference, hence the move to gay marriage is not a big issue for seemingly quite a lot of members of the gay community, as they already have the ability to be treated essentially equally under the law.

To some members of various churches, there is a substantive difference hence their concerns. This is not based on homophobia and to suggest it is, is ill educated, there are plenty of gay priests in the CofE.

I therefore don’t see it as a priority for the country and indeed as there is opposition for minimal gain, I think the status quo is probably the best compromise.

Of course it is homophobia. what other possible explanation is there?

Its nothing to do with the church – this is about secular marriage

there are plenty of gay priests in the CofE.

It’s probably a different kind of gay and they wont want to get married….

I therefore don’t see it as a priority for the country and indeed as there is opposition for minimal gain, I think the status quo is probably the best compromise.

Lid Dems disagree and some people voted for them so they are giving it a go.

The problem is mostly those shouting that the world will end like when we gave women the vote.

He wants to marry who?

It’s probably a different kind of gay

What kind would that be then?

There is no such thing as a secular state in the UK, you may think there should be but there isn’t, so the Church has a right to a point of view

This is not based on homophobia and to suggest it is, is ill educated,

Do they want to treat gay people differently from straight people?

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals[
Obviously no one could think that a biblical account of creation and a belief in the Lords word was irrational so lets just debate whether they want to discriminate.

Junkyard, I would not agree a definition of homophobia necessarily includes discrimination per se. Phobia generally is taken to mean fear or hatred and if this defintion is used then the CofE it is not homophobic. If the teachings of a religion are such that you feel unable to treat same sex couples in the same way then you are bound by those teachings and your belief in them to discriminate, this does not mean you fear or hate them, merely than you are unable to treat them in exactly the same way.

miketually – Member
As a bonus, it’s being hinted that bringing about marriage equality might lead to the separation of church and state. So, win-win.

A flounce of unmatchable proportion.

If the teachings of a religion are such that you feel unable to treat same sex couples in the same way then you are bound by those teachings and your belief in them to discriminate, this does not mean you fear or hate them, merely than you are unable to treat them in exactly the same way.

No picking and choosing there in for one in for them all……

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

genghispod – Member

Funny that the CofE gets slated for standing against homosexuality, but the religion that would still stone gays to death is conspicuously quiet, and un-slated.

I don’t really like stating the bleeding obvious, but the C of E is coming under criticism specifically because they’ve decided to make a public stand. Meanwhile, british islam is largely staying out of it, and therefore it’s inevitable that it’ll not attract the criticism that the C of E has brought upon itself.

Is this not simple?

That really did make me chuckle mikewsmith. I mean you pointing out that the C of E believes in Death for Hitting Dad, Death for Cursing Parents, Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God, and so on.

These sort of threads really do attract the most idiotic comments 😀

I mean you pointing out that the C of E believes in Death for Hitting Dad, Death for Cursing Parents, Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God, and so on.

Not saying they do just that the pick n mix approach to whats is currently on the CofE approved list of activities has a little hypocrisy to it.

Defending things that the bile tells people to do or believe in but skipping out bits that don’t fit.

Surely these parts are as valid as others?

These sort of threads really do attract the most idiotic comments

They do really kind of part and parcel with Religion really, OK to believe in whatever but challenging it with a rational argument is right out.

If I get really bored there will be some Life of Brian clips coming up later

Not saying they do just that the pick n mix approach to whats is currently on the CofE approved list of activities has a little hypocrisy to it.

You obviously have no understanding of how the Christian faith has developed, I am no theologian but Jesus’s teachings are the foundation of the Christian faith and these are reported in the New Testament. He broadly taught what was important in the Old Testament, so he did the pick and mixing for Christians and as Chrisitians believe he was the son of god, he was in a pretty good position to do this.

I am no theologian but Jesus’s teachings are the foundation of the Christian faith and these are reported in the New Testament. He broadly taught what was important in the Old Testament, so he did the pick and mixing for Christians and as Chrisitians believe he was the son of god, he was in a pretty good position to do this

I agree – out of interest, where are the direct New Testament teachings of Jesus on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality? By that I mean reported from Jesus’ own lips, rather than discussed in letters from the early church which have found their way into the Bible.

My memory is slightly hazy, but I recall there were only a couple of mentions, and ‘subject to interpretation’ ones at that, to homosexuality in the NT, and none in the Gospels. If this was a priority issue for Christians, wouldn’t it be in the direct teachings of Jesus?

Mike’s point is a reasonable one to make. If you are using the OT teachings on homosexuality as the supporting beam of your modern argument against gay marriage, it’s not inconsistent to ask why we are disregarding the other teachings he is quoting. Either the OT is a sound source of teaching relevant to the modern church or it isn’t.

miketually – Member
As a bonus, it’s being hinted that bringing about marriage equality might lead to the separation of church and state. So, win-win.

A flounce of unmatchable proportion.

It’s funny that the drama queens think that taking their bat and ball handbags home is some sort of terrible threat.

It’s funny that the drama queens think that taking their handbags home is some sort of terrible threat.

In their world it is a terrible threat -probably equivalent to launching a nuclear strike.

They won’t understand that, in the event of “de-establishment”, many people (Non-CofE and possibly CofE) would just shrug their shoulders and carry on with their lives as before.

Others would see it as progress and be quite pleased.

This really hasn’t gone the way the OP intended, has it? 🙂
Not much slagging of callmedave, the underlying current being that forcing this through (excuse the pun) is a positive.

What’s the opposite to homophobic without actually being a gay?
Considering this planet is so overpopulated, the less partnerships which can yield children the better I say! GO ON THE GAYS!

You obviously have no understanding of how the Christian faith has developed, I am no theologian but Jesus’s teachings are the foundation of the Christian faith and these are reported in the New Testament. He broadly taught what was important in the Old Testament, so he did the pick and mixing for Christians and as Chrisitians believe he was the son of god, he was in a pretty good position to do this.

While never mentioning homosexuality outright, Jesus specifically mentions divorce. He said that a divorcee that remarries is committing adultery.

The Church of England allows divorcees to remarry. In fact, the Church of England was set up specifically to allow a divorce.

Our local church is currently being run by an ordained, divorced-and-remarried woman. In the same church, a different ordained person placed a petition against marriage equality in the church.

Jesus specifically mentions divorce. He said that a divorcee that remarries is committing adultery.

Well that’s not very christian of him, is it? 😀

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

This actually happened in Oldham.

But just perhaps DC, could you do something to create work, sort out the ecconomy, reduce vat on fuel,the killing in Syria,and afganistan and other important things to the majority of taxpayers, instead of spending so much time and effort on a name change.

Without love and people seeking each other out to love and hold onto each other for ever, I’d say that all of this is just meaningless. Sort out the economy?..It mostly works, it’s just the banks that are messed up, and I don’t think that govt will really allow it to fail. I don’t notice my life changing hugely, so I might not have the very latest iphone, but I expect I’ll manange. If you think my ability to stand in front of an alter and express love for another woman is trival vs money, then I’d say you’ve got it back to front.

I quite like the fact that a tory govt is saying “yes is the enconomy important, but so is the right to marry some-one you love”.

What’s the opposite to homophobic without actually being a gay?

Tolerance?

Not concerning oneself with the way that other people choose to live their lives, in ways that don’t cause oneself or other people any problems?

I quite like the fact that a tory govt is saying “yes is the enconomy important, but so is the right to marry some-one you love”.

Don’t you be coming round here with those sensible, rational views. That’s not the sort of thing that’s tolerated here…….

😉

(Nice post, emsz! 🙂 )

Yep nice post but it’s a coalition government and this is a lib-dem policy, I reckon Clegg has said ‘this goes through or we go’.

Without love and people seeking each other out to love and hold onto each other for ever, I’d say that all of this is just meaningless.

Good wordz Emz.

If only there was some ancient wisdom concerning love that Christians could turn to for guidance on this:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Perhaps if the CofE leadership could read something like that, they might have a change of mind about whether allowing two people who love each other to get married is good or bad?

*Does curtsey. *

see you later, stuff to do, y’know!

Are same sex marriages the only sort of marriages forbidden under British law?

I thought that we had a whole variety of people who were not allowed to marry each other?

What makes gay people so special?

see you later, stuff to do, y’know!

Yeah, get back in the kitchen! Now!

(JOKE! 😉 )

Are same sex marriages the only sort of marriages forbidden under British law?

I thought that we had a whole variety of people who were not allowed to marry each other?

As far as I know, close relatives are the only non-Gay humans who are forbidden from marrying.

What makes gay people so special?

Nothing. That’s why it’s wrong to discriminate against them.

Perhaps we should ban trolls from marrying?

Best post from Emsz

Thread closed then?

Thread closed then?

Are you new here? 😉

This is ideal argualympian fodder. A chance to bash Christianity AND the Conservatives in one thread? They’ll be at it for days! 🙂

This is ideal argualympian fodder. A chance to bash Christianity AND the Conservatives in one thread? They’ll be at it for days!

Except it’s a Lib Dem policy and the government seem to be coming out of it quite well….

Agree, nice words emsz and I hope that the full right to marry becomes a reality for you and others. But I do differ on the ‘in front of the altar bit’ for a very simple reason. The Church of England takes a moral view on homosexuality, albeit one that is less clear cut than other orthodox religions (what’s new there!). Whether we agree with that stance is not really the point. And frankly, I do not think that homoPHOBIA is the correct definition here. There is no phobia in orthodox religions, merely a different stance that many of us take exception to. If orthodox religions believe that homosexuality is wrong, then I am happy to allow them to maintain that view and to restrict marriage in their places of worship.

Having said that, I do not agree with the CoE view articulated by Lord Carey in the DT today that same sex-marriages pose a threat to the constitution. The whole argument about respecting Canon Law has already been lost and shown not to be a threat with the issue of divorce. But I have sympathy with his views that “Religious bodies will eventually be permitted to conduct same-sex marriage, and how long can it be before a civil right to equal marriage is forced on every denomination? In Denmark, under new laws, the state church has to permit same-sex marriage in all its buildings. Clergy can continue to refuse, but their bishops have to find another celebrant.”

So I guess the question is simple, can religious marriages and civil marriages be ring-fenced (sorry horrible impersonal term) to the satisfaction of most of us. Lord Carey argues no, but I think he is wrong. I see no reason why “marriage” should not be a fully inclusive institution (ok with a min age perhaps!) but equally feel that different religions should have their rights protected. Tolerance for all perhaps?

(p.s. on the NT not the words of Jesus but Paul: “”Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” -Romans 1:27. The bias/moral stance is pretty clear there.)

The “Church of England” has threatened to seperate from the State over the issue.

So. Not all bad news, then…

THM.

thing is, I was baptised, and confirmed, and I bet they’d happily bury me.

The dis-establishment scare (although who would actually be bothered anyway?) is just a red herring and is avoiding the issue of some “theologians” caring too much about how other people choose to live their lives. Women priests/bishops and gay priests/bishops are also long-standing pressing issues in the church.

If it does come to it, though:

The CofE can do what religions in this country and others do. Have a ceremony on their terms and have it recognised either by the presence of a representative of the state or in a separate ceremony.

The CofE (pseudo-protestant, headed by the monarch and conveniently allowed divorce)may have had privileges in the UK for historical reasons , but they are not special and are increasingly irrelevant.

ps. The sky hasn’t fallen-in over other countries that allow ‘gay marriage’

emsz – Member
THM.

thing is, I was baptised, and confirmed, and I bet they’d happily bury me.

😆

Aristotle – you won’t find any self-respecting clergy taking this on board. It’s evidence.

As far as I know, close relatives are the only non-Gay humans who are forbidden from marrying

So, we can take it that the concern there is about genetics/inherited conditions?

so if there is no chance of children (infertility/sterilisation?) then there’s no real practical reason that Brother and Sister shouldnt get married then?

Uncle/Niece perhaps?

How about Adopted Father/Adopted Daughter, thinking Woody Allen here – should they be allowed to marry in the UK? no genetic/health issues involved there.

I know emsz, its bizarre. Try a Quaker wedding – no value judgements, no formality, just love, prayer and joy (at least in my limited experience). Perhaps the most meaningful “services” I have ever attended.

We have probably/definitely all sinned in various respects (and definitions of sin!) but that won’t stop the church from burying us as you say.