Hampshire MP under fire for his support of gay marriage (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Hampshire MP under-fire for his support of gay marriage
8:29am Friday 1st February 2013 in News
Desmond Swayne
A JOINT attack has been launched by five Hampshire clergymen over their MP’s support for gay marriage.
New Forest MP Desmond Swayne is under fire from ministers in his constituency accusing him of helping “jettison a key part of the Christian heritage” for his support of allowing gay couples to marry which they describe as “misguided”.
A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament.
The five clergymen were Rev Neil Smart from Brockenhurst, Boldre and South Baddesley, the Rev Paul Taylor from Hordle, the Rev David Gooderidge, pastor at Lymington Baptist Church, the Rev John Pawson from Sway, and the Rev James Bruce from Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Minstead.
“We were bemused and disappointed to read the comments of Desmond Swayne about the opposition of so many people to his party’s misguided plan to redefine marriage.
“The proposals, which are to be debated next week in Parliament, were always going to provoke a strong reaction since they seek to jettison a key part of the Christian heritage of our nation without any mandate or real consultation.
“At this time when so many are deeply anxious about family budgets, debt and unemployment, ordinary people want the government to concentrate their time and resources on reviving the economy for everyone’s benefit, not creating widespread controversy about marriage by rushing through legislation about which so many people are deeply unhappy,” they said.
Comments(60)
Linesman
says...
9:24am Fri 1 Feb 13
News Fanatic
says...
9:32am Fri 1 Feb 13
cocteaut
says...
9:38am Fri 1 Feb 13
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
AD1234
says...
9:50am Fri 1 Feb 13
cocteaut wrote:.............yet.
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
redsnapper
says...
9:55am Fri 1 Feb 13
Just let people do what they want to do and get on with it , instead of having to be lectured to, by the minority groups represented by religion and politics.
thesaint
says...
10:13am Fri 1 Feb 13
swayne,
Inform Al
says...
10:32am Fri 1 Feb 13
Ginger_cyclist
says...
10:35am Fri 1 Feb 13
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
10:36am Fri 1 Feb 13
Ginger_cyclist wrote:And no, I'm not religious.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
MGRA
says...
10:37am Fri 1 Feb 13
thesaint wrote:they are not bigots. they just don't think the word "marriage" should be applied to homosexual partnerships. I have no real opinion either way but I don't see their christian beliefs as bigotted.
typical bigots of the church which was formed by king henry so he could marry his FIVE WIFES.no wonder the churchs are empty they are so far out of touch.good luck to desmond .
swayne,
Stillness
says...
10:45am Fri 1 Feb 13
The Wickham Man
says...
11:01am Fri 1 Feb 13
Ginger_cyclist wrote:But everyone isn't equal.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
kingnotail
says...
11:08am Fri 1 Feb 13
Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.
kingnotail
says...
11:08am Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:*have
"A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament."
Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.
cocteaut
says...
11:10am Fri 1 Feb 13
AD1234 wrote:The ECHR would beg to differ with you.
cocteaut wrote:.............yet.
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
cocteaut
says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13
MGRA wrote:The concept of marriage pre-dates these religions by millenia,
thesaint wrote:they are not bigots. they just don't think the word "marriage" should be applied to homosexual partnerships. I have no real opinion either way but I don't see their christian beliefs as bigotted.
typical bigots of the church which was formed by king henry so he could marry his FIVE WIFES.no wonder the churchs are empty they are so far out of touch.good luck to desmond .
swayne,
They have never owned it.
kingnotail
says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13
The Wickham Man wrote:And who exactly are you better than?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:But everyone isn't equal.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
cocteaut
says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13
The Wickham Man wrote:In the concept of the law. They are.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:But everyone isn't equal.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
Facewagon
says...
11:13am Fri 1 Feb 13
Christians reasonably expect non-Christians to keep our noses out of their business; why should we not expect Christians to keep their noses out of ours?
Inform Al
says...
11:16am Fri 1 Feb 13
cocteaut wrote:Unless they are the innocent divorced male wishing to have access to much loved children, there's no such thing as equality then.
The Wickham Man wrote:In the concept of the law. They are.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:But everyone isn't equal.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
chavfreezone
says...
11:32am Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman
says...
11:33am Fri 1 Feb 13
cocteaut wrote:Yes! I do know that.
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.
If it is not, then what's their problem?
I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.
Scott_OOOSH
says...
11:55am Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail
says...
12:17pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:What about churches that want to hold gay weddings?
cocteaut wrote:Yes! I do know that.
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.
If it is not, then what's their problem?
I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.
rightway
says...
12:35pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Linesman
says...
12:38pm Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:What about it?
Linesman wrote:What about churches that want to hold gay weddings?
cocteaut wrote:Yes! I do know that.
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "
You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.
No one is forced to do anything.
I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.
If it is not, then what's their problem?
I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.
I have not said that they should not.
If you read what I wrote you will see that I was was asking why they, (same sex couples) should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them.
If churches want to change the teaching and rules they have abided by for centuries, then that would be up to them to decide, not the gay-lib movement.
jimbos
says...
12:40pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Also why are these religious institutions exempt from tax ? They are not charities.
Inform Al
says...
12:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13
rightway wrote:You don't happen to be an Argie by any chance?
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
James Fl
says...
1:24pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Ahh got to love a little outright lying/misinformation
. The government both held an extended public consultation period (which turned a result favouring Same Sex Marriage) as well as regular discussion and information sharing with religious groups. The Conservative party also has a mandate for this, since it can be found in their equalities manifesto, released before the 2010 election.
A site online has already totalled the number of MPs for and against gay marriage based on responses from MPs. It shows a very clear result. Gay Marriage will be a reality.
Stephen J
says...
1:37pm Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail
says...
1:48pm Fri 1 Feb 13
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
kingnotail
says...
1:49pm Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
binghammac
says...
2:33pm Fri 1 Feb 13
R. Joy
says...
2:57pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Stephen J
says...
3:23pm Fri 1 Feb 13
R. Joy wrote:But the clergymen here saying that marriage for all (let's not keep saying gay marriage) is wrong are mostly evangelicals, who, it could reasonably be assumed, have a very scripture-based view of faith. What a muddle!
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
linstrand
says...
3:32pm Fri 1 Feb 13
to happen.Your own church could have your own rules
Surely that would be better all round
Linesman
says...
3:46pm Fri 1 Feb 13
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
James Fl
says...
3:59pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:The religious freedom is the freedom for a church to decide whether or not it wishes to wed gay couples. The church has every right to refuse them, the legislation makes this incredibly clear, as does the European Court of Human Rights. Denominations such as the Quakers would welcome gay marriage with open arms and are fighting for the right to be allowed to perform these ceremonies in their churches. Currently, other Christian denominations are fighting against the religious freedom of the Quakers to do it. That's the issue here. Why should churches not have the right to choose?
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
R. Joy
says...
4:13pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Stephen J
says...
4:34pm Fri 1 Feb 13
R. Joy wrote:There is a very simple way for the Church of England to be forever free of all political interference. And it's one I would wholeheartedly support.
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Linesman
says...
5:31pm Fri 1 Feb 13
R. Joy wrote:So, what's your problem?
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.
Be a Quaker.
As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.
A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
Stephen J
says...
5:41pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:The problem is that if you're a gay Anglican, the proposed legislation says that the church cannot marry you, no matter what its theological or doctrinal position. It's the law that will say no, not the church. So yes, there is a very definite infringement of religious freedom.
R. Joy wrote:So, what's your problem?
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.
Be a Quaker.
As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.
A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
Stephen J
says...
5:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:The problem is that if you're a gay Anglican, the proposed legislation says that the church cannot marry you, no matter what its theological or doctrinal position. It's the law that will say no, not the church. So yes, there is a very definite infringement of religious freedom.
R. Joy wrote:So, what's your problem?
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.
Be a Quaker.
As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.
A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
ReverendPaul
says...
7:09pm Fri 1 Feb 13
clusive-church.co.uk
R. Joy
says...
7:15pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:Divorcees are still allowed to marry in other churches. Quakers are denied their religious freedom, because of the current state of the law... Gay people are not allowed to marry, full stop.
R. Joy wrote:So, what's your problem?
Linesman wrote:Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.
R. Joy wrote:Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.
Linesman wrote:Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?
A violation of Human Rights?
Does the Church have no rights?
Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?
I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.
Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.
Be a Quaker.
As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.
A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
The problem is, at present, that gay people are denied civil marriage... We are also denied the religious freedom to marry in a church who agrees to perform the ceremony. If one is a gay Christian, they can not even marry in an Anglican church who approves (even once the law is changed). There is (as Stephen J also rightly put it) a definite infringement of religious freedom.
cantthinkofone
says...
9:40pm Fri 1 Feb 13
Ginger_cyclist wrote:I am.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:And no, I'm not religious.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And I agree 100%.
There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.
I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.
And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.
cantthinkofone
says...
9:46pm Fri 1 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:I know you wouldn't make such a sweeping judgement on all 'blacks', or 'jews' - or (more topically) gays for that matter.
"A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament."
Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.
Not all Christians think and behave alike either.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
10:55pm Fri 1 Feb 13
cantthinkofone wrote:As a Priest above has stated(which backs up my initial thoughts), one of the original "teachings" of Jesus in the bible was to treat everyone as equals, correct? And if I am correct, then why the hell aren't these so-called "Clergymen" practicing what they preach? Why are they treating people unequally? That's like a rehab doctor treating patients and then going home to do drugs themselves or someone telling another person to put a seat belt on but then not doing it themselves.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:I am.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:And no, I'm not religious.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And I agree 100%.
There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.
I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.
And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.
Inform Al
says...
12:01am Sat 2 Feb 13
andysaints007
says...
1:56am Sat 2 Feb 13
News Fanatic wrote:IDIOT
It is odd that so many heterosexual couples choose to live together without a civil or church union, yet homosexuals want to marry.
cantthinkofone
says...
10:15am Sat 2 Feb 13
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Yep. I think we're very much on the same wavelength on this one!
cantthinkofone wrote:As a Priest above has stated(which backs up my initial thoughts), one of the original "teachings" of Jesus in the bible was to treat everyone as equals, correct? And if I am correct, then why the hell aren't these so-called "Clergymen" practicing what they preach? Why are they treating people unequally? That's like a rehab doctor treating patients and then going home to do drugs themselves or someone telling another person to put a seat belt on but then not doing it themselves.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:I am.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:And no, I'm not religious.
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And I agree 100%.
There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.
I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.
And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.
Inform Al
says...
1:50pm Sat 2 Feb 13
News Fanatic wrote:Perhaps it is queer, but we should all be equally able to engage in the misery of marriage.
It is odd that so many heterosexual couples choose to live together without a civil or church union, yet homosexuals want to marry.
dango
says...
4:45pm Sat 2 Feb 13
rightway
says...
12:02am Sun 3 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
kingnotail
says...
3:08pm Sun 3 Feb 13
rightway wrote:I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
rightway
says...
4:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:You suppose wrong.
rightway wrote:I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
Inform Al
says...
4:35pm Sun 3 Feb 13
rightway wrote:You two do not have a civil partnership do you? sounds like you're married from the way you go on, and on, and on.......
kingnotail wrote:You suppose wrong.
rightway wrote:I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
kingnotail
says...
11:13pm Sun 3 Feb 13
rightway wrote:And making a joke about right-wing dictatorships doesn't make a mockery of people who died under such systems? Yeah I'm being childish by saying 'retard', in response to an equally childish comment.
kingnotail wrote:You suppose wrong.
rightway wrote:I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
Inform Al
says...
11:42am Mon 4 Feb 13
kingnotail wrote:Yup, convinced you two are in a civil partnership now.
rightway wrote:And making a joke about right-wing dictatorships doesn't make a mockery of people who died under such systems? Yeah I'm being childish by saying 'retard', in response to an equally childish comment.
kingnotail wrote:You suppose wrong.
rightway wrote:I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
kingnotail wrote:If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
kingnotail wrote:PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
rightway wrote:Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
Cerdicjute says...
8:51am Fri 1 Feb 13
Not voting for incomers is a start.