Zulu-Eleven – Member

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.

Its just self-preservation. They’re just worried that other religions will get competitive about recruiting gayers, and before you know it you’ll have uproar at the first case of Muslamic forced gay marriage

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Junkyard, I would not agree a definition of homophobia necessarily includes discrimination per se

erm. So you’re saying phobia=fear but you’re not afraid of gay people? Whilst you might think fear and discrimination are not linked the rest of the world tends to disagree. Why discriminate? Cause there’s something about “them” you fear. In this case maybe fear of a part gay congregation not producing as much offspring as a 100% straight congregation might? fear the rest of the congregation might catch gayness? Fear they may have to redecorate the churches usual drabness with something a bit more flamboyant? who knows, does seem to be an element of fear in there tho.

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

Not true. Those already married are. 7 year sentence for bigamy under UK law.

7 year sentence for bigamy under UK law.

You see, I’d have no problem with people having multiple marriages assuming all parties consent.

The state’s role should be to legislate to prevent harm, not to prevent freedoms. People should be free to do as they wish, provided those freedoms don’t impact on the rights/freedoms of others.

It makes sense to bar close relatives from marrying, because of the potential harm to children. Though, actually, it’s the incest which should be illegal, rather than marriage itself.

It makes sense to bar those already married from marrying, without the consent of all parties involved.

It does not make sense to bar two people from getting married because both/neither of them has a penis.

In Denmark, under new laws, the state church has to permit same-sex marriage in all its buildings.

I suspect this is bollocks but in any case there’s an easy solution for state churches: get off the public tit and buy your own buildings like everyone else, then do whatever you like.

I am no theologian but Jesus’s teachings are the foundation of the Christian faith and these are reported in the New Testament

You are right those ten commandments ah bolocks to them and that creation thing pah to that….I mean there was no god before Jesus so yes it is obviously the foundation. We do agree you are no theologian 😉

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! )
Wow Flash in positive vibes to tories shocka 🙄
However three small points
1. they aint in govt it’s a coalition
2. The liberals made them include this as part of the coalition deal – they never had this as part of their platform
3. The most political opposition comes from Tories

SO an utter fail what is worse is Flashy knows all this as well the disingenous trickster.
Google section 28 to see what the Tories did to gays ..they are not the “gays” natural partner not now and not ever

Wow Flashjunkyard in positivenegative vibes to tories shocka

they are not the “gays” natural partner not now and not ever

How can you know that? You can’t.

The liberals made them include this as part of the coalition deal

And a lot of other stuff which hasn’t/won’t happen.

they never had this as part of their platform

The most political opposition comes from Tories

And, despite this and the row with the church, callmedave is persevering.
Like the tories/don’t like the tories; some of them deserve some credit for this. They’re doing more than labour ever did. Bitter pill, eh?

There are different interpretations of the term marriage.

Forcing the church do “marry” same sex partners seems crazy imo, what’s the point? Marriage and equality laws don’t need to overlap.

They’re doing more than labour ever did. Bitter pill, eh?

Really? Civil partnerships were introduced by labour, they wanted to introduce legal marriage for same sex couples, but didn’t believe they could get it past church and tory opposition. So they introduced a compromise law that gave far more rights than had previously existed.

Forcing the church do “marry” same sex partners seems crazy imo, what’s the point?

Who exactly is proposing that?

Wrecker you may have a fair point calling my view a polemic but yours is fantasy land

Yes Dave deserves credit for doing exactly what he has to be in power because the libs will leave if he does not. Kudos to that man and his ability to do what is required to remain in power noble principles

They’re doing more than labour ever did. Bitter pill, eh?

legalised homosexuality, civil partnership and lowered the age of consent to the same as straights all in the face of Tory opposition

Again they are not doing anything they are being forced to by the libs

FFS even Flash has the sense to say his glib points then run away
There are many areas for debate on politics so why not list the long catalogue of things the Tories have done to their main mates the gays to get me to change my view? I have after all stupidly evidenced it with reference to their politics and legislative history

Marriage and equality laws don’t need to overlap.

Equality has to overlap with EVERY law, every legal right and every aspect of life, that’s the whole point of equality.

Yes Dave deserves credit for doing exactly what he has to be in power because the libs will leave if he does not.

😆 You think the lib dems would leave over this? 😆

they are not the “gays” natural partner not now and not ever

Are you some kind of “seer”? Are your balls crystal or meat?
And you’re accusing me of fantasy land?

You are right those ten commandments ah bolocks to them and that creation thing pah to that….I mean there was no god before Jesus so yes it is obviously the foundation. We do agree you are no theologian

If you want to acquaint yourself with Jesus’s teachings on the 10 Commandments may I refer you to Chapter 10 of Mark, Chapter 19 of Matthew and Chapter 18 of Luke. Jesus did not ignore the Old Testament, he explained and interpreted it for his followers.

THM is I understand correct about Paul being the NT source for the objections of some Chrisitians to gay marriage, so it is slightly ironic that Mike Tually quotes Chapter 13 of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. I should emphasise I don’t have view from a religious standpoint on gay marriage and have no intention of arguing the Church’s case.

My view is pretty simple – there are significant members of society who are against this and they are not zealots and they hold their views sincerely. Therefore the tolerant should look for a compromise so their views are taken into account whilst providing a way for same sex couples to not be discriminated against before the law. As no one seems to be able to come up with a substantive difference between civil partnerships and marriage, I believe the status quo achieves that balance.

Just to correct a couple of misconceptions

I suspect this is bollocks but in any case there’s an easy solution for state churches: get off the public tit and buy your own buildings like everyone else, then do whatever you like.

The Church owns its own buildings including the school buildings of existing CofE schools so it is not that simple.

So you’re saying phobia=fear but you’re not afraid of gay people?

Do agoraphobics discriminate against open spaces? Discrimination may be caused by a phobia but it does not necessary follow, hence my disagreement with the definition.

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.

If you listen to the government they are not suggesting you will be able to do this. Although, the Church is concerned that once on the statute book the law will force them to do this because of the new law’s interaction with other law. Again, I have no idea who is right but would merely point out that a legal opinion is merely an opinion and if they were always clear cut, there wouldn’t be many court cases.

If you want to acquaint yourself with Jesus’s teachings on the 10 Commandments may I refer you to Chapter 10 of Mark, Chapter 19 of Matthew and Chapter 18 of Luke. Jesus did not ignore the Old Testament, he explained and interpreted it for his followers.

He also doesn’t ever refer to homosexuality but he was very, very clear on divorce: “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Why/how can the church ignore this?

THM is I understand correct about Paul being the NT source for the objections of some Chrisitians to gay marriage, so it is slightly ironic that Mike Tually quotes Chapter 13 of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians.

Wasn’t it just 🙂

My view is pretty simple – there are significant members of society who are against this and they are not zealots and they hold their views sincerely.

I’d say it’s probably a minority of a minority who are anti marriage equality. They may hold their views sincerely, but this does not make the correct or just.

Therefore the tolerant should look for a compromise so their views are taken into account whilst providing a way for same sex couples to not be discriminated against before the law. As no one seems to be able to come up with a substantive difference between civil partnerships and marriage, I believe the status quo achieves that balance.

How about a compromise that churches are free to not have same-sex weddings, while allowing everyone else to get on with their lives? Win-win.

Why/how can the church ignore this?

Forgiveness

How about a compromise that churches are free to not have same-sexx weddings, while allowing everyone else to get on with their lives? Win-win.

The Church does not believe that is the effect of what is on offer, many gays seem to be happy with the status quo so we already have a win-win.

miketually – Member
He also doesn’t ever refer to homosexuality but he was very, very clear on divorce: “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

And isn’t one of the purposes of his mission and the Sermon on the Mount to re-inforce and develop the ideas of the OT, so the view on divorce is even harsher:

…but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mthw 5:28

Well put mefty!

The tolerant should tolerate intolerance? No.

The tolerant should tolerant intolerance? No

….Intolerance based on blind faith, rules that change when it suits and a holy text that appears to be read by many as some sort of multiple-choice, “Choose Your Own Adventure” book.

No one church (or any religious group) should be linked so closely to the state or have such a prominence in public affairs.

You think the lib dems would leave over this?

they are not the “gays” natural partner not now and not ever

Are you some kind of “seer”? Are your balls crystal or meat?
And you’re accusing me of fantasy land?

whilst I admire your trolling ability I would cite the coalition agreement for the first point and the evidence for the second

I await your overwhelleming evidence to persuade me that my view is wrong, so far your sneering is somewhat short of what I require and you have posted no evidence to support your view

PS

You think the lib dems would leave over this?

so you think they would not ?
Are you some kind of “seer”? Are your balls crystal or meat?]

Hoisted up by your own petard etc.
I do so enjoy the playground debate you get on here now shall we let the grown up chat?

whilst I admire your trolling ability

Pot?, kettle?, nondescriptive dark colour?

now shall we let the grown up chat?

awwwww OK. *looks for something else to do*

Tories have always been puffs and perverts.Why do you think they put buggery on the curriculum at dem public schools.

Oh dear.

Pot?, kettle?, nondescriptive dark colour?

nice try it was only your failure to address anything that I said whilst having a go that gave it away that you are still desperatedly trolling

*looks for something else to do*

did not do very well 😉

Oh dear.

Ok you can have that one, yes what a tool

The Church does not believe that is the effect of what is on offer, many gays seem to be happy with the status quo so we already have a win-win.

Really? I have yet to here a representative of any gay organisation say that they are happy to have lesser rights than straight people. If I were a cynical type of chap I might think that is just a complete lie to further your own agenda.

“As no one seems to be able to come up with a substantive difference between civil partnerships and marriage,” there is absolutly no reason to have the two different unions and there for same sex couples should be able to marry.

Actually at least one of my friends is unwilling to enter into a civil partnership as she feels their are personal freedom issues in having her name entered in the big gay list .

Yes, really, but it is anecdotal, interviews on the radio, columns in the newspapers etc. David Starkey, Alan Duncan come to mind.

Ben Bradshaw who is hardly shy about gay rights said:

[Gay Marriage] isn’t a priority for the gay community, which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships, this is pure politics

to further your own agenda

I have a point of view, the reasons for which I have clearly stated, other are entitled to an alternative point of view, I don’t have an agenda but I appreciate that anyone who questions any move justified on discrimination grounds must have one and be a phobe of some sort – and dissenters are regarded as intolerant.

I’m BORED.
Junkyard, when I meet you I’m going to fill you to the brim with all of the man love I can muster. You will be wearing a mask.

I am sure those on here who have met will confirm a ball gag will be of more use to you

I’m BORED.

You will be 😯

I am sure those on here who have met will confirm a ball gag will be of more use to you

Might put one on for fun but I will be behind. Rest assured.

I have a point of view, the reasons for which I have clearly stated, other are entitled to an alternative point of view, I don’t have an agenda but I appreciate that anyone who questions any move justified on discrimination grounds must have one and be a phobe of some sort – and dissenters are regarded as intolerant.

Your not homophobic or intolerant, you just believe that “they” should be denied the same rights that you receive. Thanks for clearing that up.

“As no one seems to be able to come up with a substantive difference between civil partnerships and marriage,” there is absolutly no reason to have the two different unions and there for same sex couples should be able to marry.

If there is no difference, does it really matter what it is called?

Disapointed , nobody has explained why dC, has been making such a fuss over something so easy to do, just tipex out civil parternrshop ion all legal documents and call it marrige.

So easy, and there is absolutely no need to get the COE involved .

So easy, and there is absolutely no need to get the COE involved

Unfortunately, for the tippexed legislation to pass, it needs to get through the Commons (full of homophobic Tories) and the Lords, full of homophobic CofE bishops. There’s no choice but the the CofE to be involved.

It would also create a position where the Queen is head of state of a country that allows gay marriage, while also being head of a church which does now.

In light of the fact that both Jesus and the apostle Paul made it clear that their preference was for Christians not to get married or have sexual relationships at all, I wonder why so many Christians get hung up on marriage and sexuality?

If anyone’s interested in theology I’m a Baptist Minister and have just written an essay on homosexuality and marriage, and would happily email it to anyone that wants.

highlights? lol

Well, a lot’s been said already. Firstly Baptists generally believe that the church and state should be seperate, therefore as far as I’m concerned no faith group should be able to dictate to the government how to define marriage. The four Gospels and therefore Jesus make no mention of homosexuality at all. The few times it’s mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament the words are difficult to translate and the context suggests that even if it is referring to homosexual acts it’s not referring to the types of monogomous same-sex relationships we’re talking about today.

Additionally, marriage in the Bible bears little resemblance to what we’d call ‘Christian marriage’ today. Sexuality is part of the created order and Jesus made it clear that in the afterlife we would be ‘like the angels’ and not get married.

Whilst it’s right that Jesus did say sterner things about adultery than the Old Testament, his actions towards those caught in adultery make it clear that even those Christians who do believe that homosexulaity is a sin should treat people kindly, graciously and respectfully.

In light of the above, I’m continually shocked by how much emphasis some Christians put on homosexuality and just how little emphasis they put on issues that the Bible really does bang on and on about like injustice, inequality, unfairness, greed, intolerance, materialism etc etc…

There you go that’s 4000 words condensed to about 400! Like I say, happy to email the full essay.

My view is pretty simple – there are significant members of society who are against this and they are not zealots and they hold their views sincerely. Therefore the tolerant should look for a compromise so their views are taken into account

Could mean churches, gay marriage, dancing on ice or McDonalds here

If enough of us get together can we get rid of religion?

The Church owns its own buildings including the school buildings of existing CofE schools so it is not that simple.

Great – then the Danish stuff is irrelevant bollocks.

It would also create a position where the Queen is head of state of a country that allows gay marriage, while also being head of a church which does now.

Why is that a problem?

If there is no difference, does it really matter what it is called?

You’re right – from tomorrow all marriages will be civil partnerships.