Archbishop of Canterbury: Government has no right to introduce gay marriage

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Not relating to Muslims directly but this topic has the potential to become a serious issue, so we should be aware of whats happening.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned the Government has no “mandate” to introduce same-sex marriage.

Launching his strongest attack yet on the Coalition’s plans to allow homosexual couples to marry, Dr Rowan Williams questioned the right of ministers to make the change when it had not been included in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat election manifestos. His intervention follows the publication last month of the Church of England’s response to the Government’s consultation on same-sex marriage. The document warned the move would threaten the established status of the Church, labelling the plans “divisive” and “essentially ideological”. This weekend Dr Williams faced a series of questions on the proposals in a meeting of the General Synod, the Church’s governing body, in York.

Asked about discussions between Church leaders and ministers on the plans, Dr Williams said: “Following the Prime Minister’s announcement last autumn there have already been several formal and informal discussions with a number of Government ministers, including the Home Secretary.

“There have also been discussions between Home Office and Church House officials.” He added: “The basis of the mandate for changing the state’s understanding of marriage given the lack of any commitment in the election manifestos of the main parties has been one of the many issues raised in those discussions.”

Asked by Gerald O’Brien, a lay Synod member from Sevenoaks, Kent, if it would be correct to infer that Dr Williams “does not accept that the Government has a mandate to make these changes ”, the archbishop replied: “I think that would be a reasonable inference”.

But Dr Williams also appeared to accept that the Church was fighting a losing battle against the proposals, continuing: “It is only right to note, however, that same sex-marriage now has the official support of all three main parties.” The Church’s official response to the proposals to introduce same-sex marriage has fuelled a growing internal row over homosexuality which surfaced on Friday night as the leadership was also trying to avoid a second split, over the appointment of women bishops.

While some Synod members welcomed the document as a restatement of traditional values, others challenged its theological basis, as well as the right of the Church’s authorities to draw up such a definitive response on their behalf without consultation. Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, also faced demands to release the initial findings of a panel of bishops reviewing the Church’s position on civil partnerships, but he said the report was “confidential”.

Father Ian Stubbs, an Anglican priest from Glossop, Derbyshire, delivered a petition to Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu, signed by almost 4,000 people who object to the church’s refusal to endorse homosexual marriage.

The Government’s proposals — which ministers intend to make law by 2015 — have also been strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Chief Rabbi, and the Muslim Council of Britain.

But other religious groups, including the Jewish Reform and Liberal movements, have backed the plans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-marriage.html

[Ali137]

intersting article

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Gay marriage plans condemned in church services
A letter criticising the Scottish Government for supporting plans to legalise gay marriage will be read out in all of the country's Catholic parishes today.

The Roman Catholic Church has declared August 26 as National Marriage Sunday and is calling on politicians to "sustain rather than subvert marriage". The letter, which will be read in all of Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes, will urge followers to continue to act against efforts to "redefine" marriage. The Scottish Government has said it is right to introduce same-sex marriages, but has stressed no clergy would be forced to carry them out.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland, last week broke off discussions on the issue with First Minister Alex Salmond. In a strongly worded message, the letter will highlight the church's "deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same sex marriage."

It will also announce the launch of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family to co-ordinate a campaign against gay marriage.

Cardinal O'Brien, who has described gay marriage as a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right", said: "The Church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments, politicians or parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality." He added: "With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online presence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage.

"While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society."

The Scottish government has pledged to bring forward a Bill on the issue later this year, and has indicated the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

The Equality Network, which is campaigning in support of same-sex marriage in Scotland, said politicians should stand firm over the plans. Tom French, the charity's policy co-ordinator, said: "It is increasingly clear that the Church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society. "We urge the Scottish Government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT people." "In particular, the Equality Network would be deeply concerned at any attempt to promote an anti-gay agenda in schools. School should be a welcoming environment for all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or their family situation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9500275/Gay-marriage-plans-condemned-in-church-services.html

[Pygoscelis]

I completely agree that the state should have no right to force any church to participate in homosexual marriage ceremonies. I also strongly oppose the church having any sway in what legal rights should be afforded to homosexual couples (as opposed to heterosexual couples). I would like to see all "marriage" broken down into the secular civil union carrying the civil rights (such as visitation rights, custody rights, tax benefits, etc) and the spiritual union, which I am agreeable to being called "marriage", which can be recognized or not by whoever wants to. Would you muslims agree to such a compromise?

Homosexual couples could then get "married" to each other in their own ceremonies and you can simply declare their marriages invalid as far as you are concerned.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Although I agree in principle with the Archbishop, my feeling is that we should be promoting marriage between one man and one woman, before God, until death do we part. As a matter of faith this is the greatest path to aim for between the husband and wife, and the greatest stability for children. If we are talking a matter of faith, then any other path falls short of a greatest good, like divorce, same sex marriage and single parents.

I believe the church and the state should do far more to promote the importance of families, rather than fight against other unions.

In the spirit of supporting families and communities.

Eric

[Santoku]

For once I agree totally with the reverend Doctor.
The bible is specific in its condemnation of homosexuality so a Christian service should be right out.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Cameron accused of 'broken promise' as gay couples told they can marry in church

David Cameron is facing a major clash between church and state and the biggest Tory rebellion since coming to power after announcing a u-turn on religious gay weddings.

He was accused of breaking promises to religious groups as he confirmed that homosexual couples could marry in churches, mosques, synagogues or temples under plans to be unveiled next week.

It represents a reversal of the position set out earlier this year which proposed a blanket ban on same-sex ceremonies on religious premises. Instead those which want to carry out same sex weddings would be able to “opt in”.

Ministers insist a series of “multiple lock” legal safeguards will prevent religious groups which refuse to carry out same-sex marriages facing challenges under human rights laws. But Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said the shift made a “mockery” of the consultation and said the move was “madness” which would “boomerang” on the Conservatives. Letters to constituents passed to The Daily Telegraph suggest that at least 130 Tory MPs are preparing to vote against the plans.

It is understood that the change was triggered by Government legal advice that a complete prohibition would be vulnerable to legal challenge and open the way for further challenges against the Church of England and others.

But writing in The Daily Telegraph today, the Culture Secretary Maria Miller said the Government had also heard persuasive arguments from groups such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism which want to carry out same-sex weddings.

“My own personal view is that we should not stand in the way of this, especially if it means that those that don't want to will be even further protected,” she writes.

“It is a fundamental point of religious freedom that religious bodies should be able to make their own decisions on this issue.”

“For me, far from being a radical departure, this is simply one more in a long line of reforms which have strengthened marriage, ensuring it remains a modern and vibrant institution.”

Mr Cameron said: "Let me be absolutely 100 per cent clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it.”

But the Coalition for Marriage, which gathered more than 600,000 signatures against same-sex unions, said it was “risible” that any legal safeguard would be able to protect churches from challenges at the European Court of Human Rights, forcing them to marry gay couples. Colin Hart, its campaign director, said: “The PM is writing a cheque that he knows will bounce.”

Although David Cameron has promised a free vote on the issue a large number of his own MPs voting against would represent a blow to his prestige. There were also predictions that the bill could potentially be defeated in the Lords and warnings that the Government would be unable constitutionally to force it through under the Parliament Act because the Conservatives did not make gay marriage a firm electoral pledge. Among those who have emerged as likely to vote against are John Randall, the Deputy Chief Whip, and Michael Fallon, the business minister, who wrote to constituents that he was “minded to” vote against.

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, also signalled that he will vote against and Oliver Heald, the Solicitor General also confirmed he “does not support” the Bill.

Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, said that the bill would be “massacred in the Lords” adding: “Arrogant Cameron knows best.”

Both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. Last night the Church of England threw down the gauntlet to the Government insisting that only an “overwhelming mandate” for the change in the consultation results would justify pressing ahead in the absence of any manifesto commitment. But the official announcement next week comes at the worst possible time for the Church of England which has seen its authority battered as a result of the rejection of women bishops. Next week will see the publication of census figures expected to show a drop in religious observance, a bruising Parliamentary debate on women bishops likely to include calls for disestablishment and a meeting between MPs and the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

The previous Archbishop, Lord Carey said last night: “I think it makes a mockery of the Government’s attempt to consult and then review in the light of that consultation.

“Bearing in mind that so many Conservative MPs are unhappy about this, it seems to be madness on the part of the Government to rush through in this kind of way – this is not wisdom.

“I think a lot of people are going to be very unhappy with it and I think it is going to be very boomerang on the Conservatives.”

But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, a leading rabbi of the Movement for Reform Judaism, said: “This is not only very welcome and but is essential for religious integrity.

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9730801/Cameron-accused-of-broken-promise-as-gay-couples-told-they-can-marry-in-church.html

[GuestFellow]

One solution is to eliminate the concept of marriage in the UK. Just have a contract between parties stating the rights and benefits . Now before some members try to stab me, I'm not saying I support gay marriage. The practicable solution here is for parties to draw up a contract, containing terms and conditions that they agree upon. The parties themselves can call their relationship whatever they want whether it is marriage, civil partnership or a union of lovers or whatever crap they manage to conjure.

I do support that churches should NOT be forced to carry out the gay marriage. That's just dumb. >_> Just go create another church and make up a religion and God that suits you. End of story.

Now the government should focus on more SERIOUS issues like unemployment, economy, EU, crime rate, drugs, discrimination, debt, revenue, taxes and bla bla.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon; and thanks for the update;

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

You could use this argument to say God created all of us with the freedom to murder, but does God want us to exercise this choice?

In the spirit of praying for families.

Eric

[Independent]

It is understood that the change was triggered by Government legal advice that a complete prohibition would be vulnerable to legal challenge and open the way for further challenges against the Church of England and others.

This looks like the heart of the issue. The Government is concerned that international human rights legislation (to which it has signed up) would make banning such unions illegal. Of course, this legislation also applies to other countries who will take different actions. But the UK is an exceptionally legalistic culture. If it signs to a law, it means to keep to it. It's the same reason the UK refuses to sign many EU laws, which other countries sign, but have no actual intention of keeping.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update. A Leader from the Daily Telegraph.

Culture wars are an unwelcome American import

David Cameron is using the gay marriage debate to pit his modernist credentials against traditionalists

If David Cameron hoped to assuage critics of gay marriage by offering additional legal protection to the Church of England and other religious bodies, then he will have been taken aback by the reaction in the Commons yesterday. Dozens of Conservative MPs made clear their deep unhappiness with the way this matter has been handled, and they clearly represent a sizeable number of traditionalist Tory voters. After all, there was no great public clamour for same-sex marriage: many imagined that the inequality of treatment had been properly dealt with in 2005 by the introduction of civil partnerships.

What we appear to be witnessing is the import from America of “culture war” politics, where a leader seeks to parade his modernist credentials by pitting them against the values of people judged to be out of step with mainstream opinion. Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, most of them are in his own party; but perhaps he thinks there is a political advantage to be had by picking a fight with his bedrock supporters.

In trying to meet the concerns of critics, the “quadruple lock” protection is unexpected to say the least: the Church in England and Wales is to be banned from offering gay weddings. Not only would this write an anti-gay measure into statute but, bizarrely, it would prohibit the Church from carrying out same-sex marriages in future should it wish to do so, whereas other religious denominations will be able to opt in.

Since Labour will almost certainly try to remove this proposed exemption, the established Church will be drawn deeper into unnecessary controversy. Furthermore, by denying heterosexuals access to civil partnerships, the legislation will create a new inequality once gays can marry. So, while the Government may hope that the measure is human-rights-proof, it would be a surprise if it were not challenged in the Strasbourg court.

Nor do the religious protections address another matter that vexes critics – namely the redefinition of marriage, understood by every human society through the ages to be a legal relationship between people of opposite sexes. Many Tory MPs and voters will simply not be reconciled to this, and neither will the churches, which have not even begun to organise against the Bill. They have millions of followers, and should they target vulnerable Conservative seats – as happened to Labour when the Roman Catholic Church forced the last government to retreat over faith schools’ admissions quotas – Mr Cameron may come to rue the day he embarked on this reform. Sad to say, but in a country that prides itself on its tolerance, he risks sowing division where none previously existed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9737733/Culture-wars-are-an-unwelcome-American-import.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, a leading rabbi of the Movement for Reform Judaism, said: “This is not only very welcome and but is essential for religious integrity.

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

This keeps troubling me from your last post, God did not create homosexuals to make babies together, so there is your inequality, it is not a religious inequality, because it comes from God.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

You could use this argument to say God created all of us with the freedom to murder, but does God want us to exercise this choice?

I have noticed this comparison made a number of times here now. At first I thought it was just being made as a slippery slope or logical examplar, etc. But now I am wondering, does Islam hold Murder and Homosexual Sex as equally bad? Why is murder always brought up in these threads where homosexuality is discussed on this forum?

As to the topic, I stand by what I wrote above. I would still like to know if you guys would find the compromise I suggested acceptable to you. I think it would fix this issue pretty nicely and not infringe on anybody's rights.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

I have noticed this comparison made a number of times here now. At first I thought it was just being made as a slippery slope or logical examplar, etc. But now I am wondering, does Islam hold Murder and Homosexual Sex as equally bad? Why is murder always brought up in these threads where homosexuality is discussed on this forum?

I mentioned both murder and homosexuality on this thread, and I am Catholic, so I was not speaking on behalf of our Muslim brothers and sisters here. I guess putting murder and homosexuality together might seem extreme, I could just have said that God has given us the freedom to steal from each other, it does not mean we should.

Homosexual couples could then get "married" to each other in their own ceremonies and you can simply declare their marriages invalid as far as you are concerned.

If we declare their marriage invalid, it seems to imply it is wrong, and if it is wrong then we should openly oppose it.

Marriage as it stands today seems to be a failed institution, divorce is at an astronomical level and children are deeply disturbed when their mum and dad split up. The government should be openly promoting the union of one man and one woman in marriage for life. If families have a firm foundation, communities become more stable and the nation benefits.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And the consequences become apparent, final update, Ill leave it for a bit after this

Scottish parents 'cannot withdraw children from all gay marriage lessons'

Parents face being forced to allow their children to learn about gay marriage regardless of their religious beliefs, under Scottish ministers’ plans to legalise the practice.

The Scottish Government said they will forbid parents removing children from all lessons where gay marriage is discussed, even in primary school, as this could harm “a child’s right to receive an education”. The Lord Advocate will also issue new guidelines on prosecuting opponents of same-sex marriage who have been deemed to have committed a breach of the peace or displayed “threatening or abusive behaviour”.

Among the other provisions in a public consultation on the draft Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill are:

• A retrospective change to the legal definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’ to include same-sex couples.

• An ‘opt-in’ system for celebrants and religious groups that want to conduct gay marriages.

• Measures aimed at protecting from legal action celebrants who refuse.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said the proposals struck the right balance between making a “proud step forwards for equality” for gay people and defending freedom of speech and religion. They have support across the Holyrood chamber and the first gay marriages are expected to take place in 2015, but the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland said they feared there were “inadequate safeguards” for those who disagree.

Faith aspects of the curriculum in Roman Catholic schools will continue to be determined by the church, while the consultation said state schools have to inform parents about “sensitive aspects of learning”. However, ministers are to issue updated guidance on teaching gay marriage in sex education lessons. They said it was not “appropriate” that gay marriage and homosexuality should “never be raised in primary schools”.

Existing exemptions covering sex education and religious lessons will remain, but parents will not be allowed “to withdraw children from any lesson where same sex marriage, civil partnerships or homosexuality might be mentioned.” According to the consultation paper, the move would breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects their right to an education. The document noted that gay marriage could “arise in lessons in a variety of situations” before concluding: “It would not be feasible to provide for parents to withdraw their children from all lessons where these issues might arise, sometimes very briefly.”

Ministers have ruled against introducing specific statutory protections for teachers and other public sector workers, such as NHS chaplains, opposed to the change. The consultation argued it would set an “unwelcome precedent”.

Neither do they want instant disciplinary action for teachers who refuse to teach gay marriage, with councils advised to discuss the issue and take into account religious beliefs. However, the consultation warned staff they must follow the profession’s code of conduct on “equality and diversity”. This states they must act in accordance with the law in a “non-judgemental” manner regardless of their personal “values and beliefs”.

Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, is to issue new guidelines for prosecuting opponents of same-sex marriage. This will not affect individuals “expressing views” but could include anyone thought to be using inflammatory or offensive language.

The draft Bill changes the legal definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’ to include gay couples and has the affect of applying this to all existing legislation. The consultation states the “intention is that, where possible, opposite- sex marriage and same-sex marriage should be treated in the same way.”

A spokesman Scotland for Marriage, a church-organised group protesting the change, said: “For Alex Salmond to keep his word and protect the civil liberties of traditional marriage supporters, legal protections have to go beyond churches and marriage celebrants.

“Teachers, parents, school kids, NHS chaplains and others in everyday life must not be penalised for backing traditional marriage.”

Rev Alan Hamilton, convener of the Church of Scotland's legal questions committee, said that, unless the organisation's General Assembly decided otherwise, it would oppose same-sex marriage.

He added: “What we fear will be inadequate safeguards for religious bodies and ministers and people of faith who view this as being contrary to their beliefs.”

Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, of the Scottish Catholic Church, described the change as “unwise and unnecessary” and called for laws to be changed to prevent “the unjust penalisation of anyone who disagrees” with gays marriage.

But Alex Neil, the Scottish Health Minister, said: “We are introducing same sex marriage in Scotland because it is the right thing to do.

“We are striving to create a Scotland that is free, tolerant and fair and I am pleased to say there is support across the chamber for this significant step.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9740898/Scottish-parents-cannot-withdraw-children-from-all-gay-marriage-lessons.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Existing exemptions covering sex education and religious lessons will remain, but parents will not be allowed “to withdraw children from any lesson where same sex marriage, civil partnerships or homosexuality might be mentioned.”

A Muslim student can opt out of lessons on Christianity, but if that same Muslim student also had strong views on same sex marriage, he would be forced to attend, this does not seem fair.

But Alex Neil, the Scottish Health Minister, said: “We are introducing same sex marriage in Scotland because it is the right thing to do.

This is sad.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

As to the topic, I stand by what I wrote above. I would still like to know if you guys would find the compromise I suggested acceptable to you. I think it would fix this issue pretty nicely and not infringe on anybody's rights

I think religion is very vocal about the things it opposes, in the past it was divorce now it is abortion and same sex marriage. All these things will happen regardless of religious views.

I think rather than oppose these things religion should promote a greatest good and I have to say we seem fairly quiet on promoting a faithful marriage for life. I think that whatever people’s views on partnerships might be, there is recognition that a traditional loving marriage for life is the best way to bring up children.

Both politicians and religious leaders seem to lack direction in promoting a greatest good definition of marriage, just my thoughts

In the spirit of praiong for families

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

Do you believe that same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights as opposite sex couples? By this I mean things like hospital visitation, spousal benefits in insurance, end of life or substitute decision making, etc. I say these things should flow from civil union, not marriage. So give all couples civil union, and reserve "marriage" for the religious, and have it bring no civil rights with it, and only be a recognized spiritual union. I see this very much as a separation of church and state issue. The state h as no business forcing the church to marry homosexuals, or to force parents to recognize homosexual marriage as marriage, as we see in the example above. And likewise, the church has no business telling the state who should have legal rights. Do you disagree with this?

[GuestFellow]

^ Sounds very practicable for now.

[glo]

Do you believe that same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights as opposite sex couples? By this I mean things like hospital visitation, spousal benefits in insurance, end of life or substitute decision making, etc. I say these things should flow from civil union, not marriage. So give all couples civil union, and reserve "marriage" for the religious, and have it bring no civil rights with it, and only be a recognized spiritual union. I see this very much as a separation of church and state issue. The state h as no business forcing the church to marry homosexuals, or to force parents to recognize homosexual marriage as marriage, as we see in the example above. And likewise, the church has no business telling the state who should have legal rights. Do you disagree with this?

As somebody who attends an Anglican Church and is very fond of the Church of England in many ways, I agree.

I am surprised that the Church of England has been given the clear instruction NOT to be allowed to marry homosexual people, when other denominations and faith groups have been given the freedom to follow their own conscience and make their own decision.

What seems strange at the moment is that anybody can come to any Anglican church in the UK and ask to be married - regardless of whether they are Christian or not - and the vicar is legally obliged to marry them. The only requirement they need is to live in the parish or to have been christened in the church when they were a child.

So a vicar in the church of England has to marry any heterosexual couple who asks, even if they are not practicing Christians; but he has to turn away homosexual couples, even if they are practising their faith. That doesn't seem right to me.

[glo]

As an add-on, for me the vows and promises made to each other BEFORE GOD are much more important and meaningful than any vows made before the law. I am sure that my Muslim friends can relate to that.

Because my husband does not believe in God, we only ever married in a Registry Office. That means we both have certain legal rights and we have made promises to each other in front of human witnesses - but for me something is missing without seeking God's blessing on the union too.

[جوري]

is that anybody can come to any Anglican

Does 'anybody' make use of that allowance? in fact it is nice in theory but folks who seek a union before God, usually seek it through their own religious mediums not someone else'. God already stated in his books (if you follow the Abrahamic) faith that is, on what that union means and it means a marriage between man and woman. It doesn't aggrieve me either way what the Anglican or any other church does so long as they don't try to export their ever evolving views and values to other regions.

best,

[Pygoscelis]

I have been dating a somewhat lapsed Catholic girl for th past six months, and when pondering a future marriage I would have no problem with doing it in her family's church (or even letting them believe I converted). Would you have preferred this sort of thing instead of at city registry? Or would your knowing your husband doesn't truly believe in the spiritual aspect m feel empty? Or maybe actually make it worse (an insult to God or something?)

[GuestFellow]

^ Wait...I'm pretty sure you said before you were dating a Muslim women, a very liberal one. O_o

[جوري]

pyg is a fool for love :p

[GuestFellow]

^ Asslamu Aliakum,

Do you remember it too? I think it was a topic in the clarification section...

[glo]

Does 'anybody' make use of that allowance? in fact it is nice in theory but folks who seek a union before God, usually seek it through their own religious mediums not someone else'.

Well, you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding', despite not being Christians or at least not practising Christians. It is still considered a 'traditional' wedding - you know, being driven to the church in a limo, the flowers, walking up the aisle, pictures taking outside the church ...

Of course, people who are active in another faith marry within that faith.
But many non-religious people still marry in church ...

Whether it's sense of tradition or to please the spouse/in-laws, I don't know ...

[glo]

I have been dating a somewhat lapsed Catholic girl for th past six months, and when pondering a future marriage I would have no problem with doing it in her family's church (or even letting them believe I converted). Would you have preferred this sort of thing instead of at city registry? Or would your knowing your husband doesn't truly believe in the spiritual aspect m feel empty? Or maybe actually make it worse (an insult to God or something?)

The post I wrote this morning got lost, so I'll try again, Pygo.

At the time of our marriage I wasn't a practising Christian myself, so it didn't much matter then.
But in answer to your questions, no, I would not want my husband to go through any process which he did not believe in or felt uncomfortable with. Besides, I know he would not agree to it either, because it would feel hypocritical to him to pretend to be part of something that he doesn't believe in.

I really appreciate that in him, because it shows that he has respect for the faith of others and for how important it is to them.

Having said all that, I would dearly have a our marriage blessed in church one day. But that will only EVER happen if my husband comes to believe himself.
Until such a time I bring my marriage to God in prayer, and I have a sense of divine protection and blessing that way.

[Pygoscelis]

^ Wait...I'm pretty sure you said before you were dating a Muslim women, a very liberal one. O_o

lol That was over a year ago. We broke it off about 8 months ago, when she took a job overseas.

[جوري]

you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding'

Can you show me the number of known practicing Jews/Muslims/etc. who prefer a 'fancy church wedding'? Everyone has a nice tradition in their own culture.… This is just a nice in theory thing that makes the church on paper appear more accommodating & appealing than it actually is.

best,

[glo]

Can you show me the number of known practicing Jews/Muslims/etc. who prefer a 'fancy church wedding'? Everyone has a nice tradition in their own culture.…

best,

Did you read my whole post??
I wrote this:

Well, you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding', despite not being Christians or at least not practising Christians. It is still considered a 'traditional' wedding - you know, being driven to the church in a limo, the flowers, walking up the aisle, pictures taking outside the church ...

Of course, people who are active in another faith marry within that faith.
But many non-religious people still marry in church ...

I have highlighted the sentences which relate to your question. I hope that clarifies it.

[جوري]

I have highlighted the sentences which relate to your question. I hope that clarifies it.

That's neither congruent with your previous statement of the church being open to all, nor does it take care of my query in a practical sense, i.e the numbers.. Yes many things are nice in theory!

best,

[glo]

That's neither congruent with your previous statement of the church being open to all, nor does it take care of my query in a practical sense, i.e the numbers.. Yes many things are nice in theory!

best,

Look, with the Church of England being a state church, its clergies are "responsible for the spiritual well-being of all citizens". That's not me saying that, that's the CoE saying that.

In that sense everybody and anybody (literally, not just figuratively speaking) can approach a clergy in the CoE and ask to be married (or baptised or buried, for that matter).
So, if a Muslim couple came to our local church and asked to be married, then our vicar would have the legal duty to do so.

Of course you are right, people who adhere to another faith would not consider a wedding in a Christian church - which is what we both commented on above. But in theory they are entitled to it.

So both of my statements are true!
Anybody can have a wedding in a CoE church, but in reality not everybody does.

With regards to your question about how many Jewish/Muslim couples would have a wedding in a Christians church, I don't know. I expect not many, if any at all. Have you tried googling it?

However, I know of a Muslim couple who once approached our previous vicar to ask for a burial of their still-born baby. So perhaps it is not that far fetched ...

[جوري]

What seems strange at the moment is that anybody can come to any Anglican church in the UK and ask to be married - regardless of whether they are Christian or not

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement for ''anybody can come to any Anglican church in the UK and ask to be married'' as a proof that anybody can come to any anglican church and be married for something other than lip service to make the church accommodating to things that apparently stand well in theory and not for practical purposes. All I have asked for, is that this statement be backed up with real life examples of practicing Muslims or practicing Jews or practicing Mandeans etc etc. going to Anglican churches to get married!

best,

[sister herb]

Anybody can have a wedding in a CoE church, but in reality not everybody does.

Thanks about this information; sounds interesting and a little different like in here - here even man or woman has to be member of church before priest can bless they marriage (but they need to take also civil marriage before marriage is legal). I know some muslims here whose have let priest to do so in the church - as respect the faith of they wife. And because imam told them it is ok as showing respect for they wife.

Oops... of topic.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

The Government has no mandate to redefine the meaning of marriage

Support for the institution of marriage as the union between a man and a woman


SIR – As parliamentarians from different political parties and none, we are united in supporting the institution of marriage defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. We recognise the value of a loving and committed relationship and we respect civil partnership, but affirm the distinctive value of marriage reflecting the complementarity of a man and woman often evidenced in parenthood.

At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage. It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government. These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

Instead the Government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans. The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world. We believe that the Government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.

We recognise these are issues of conscience which will be given free votes in Parliament. We will be seeking legal guarantees of the same freedom of conscience for our constituents and religious organisations to teach, preach and express a traditional view of marriage.

We are sceptical that the proposed protections will prevent the erosion of liberties of religion and conscience. The proposed redefinition of marriage is unnecessary, given the legal rights established through civil partnerships. We understand some parliamentarians support freedom for same sex couples to marry, but we support a freedom from the state being able to redefine the meaning of marriage.

David Burrowes MP (Conservative)
Joe Benton MP (Labour)
David Davis MP (Conservative)
Mary Glindon MP (Labour)
Lord Hylton (Crossbench)
Nigel Dodds MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative)
Jim Dobbin MP (Labour)

(Plus a whole host of other Mps)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/l...-marriage.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Found an interesting debate on this subject, very illuminating. The most interesting part from me Was Peter Hitchens response, particularly at the end

Part 1



Part 2

[جوري]

I am curious which part you found illuminating per Hitchen' speech? I just listened to it and he echoes the views of allowing liberals everywhere!

:w:

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Oh come on sister that’s a bit harsh, not all liberals are that bad, just most of them :p

Anyway on the subject, No that’s not what I take from it,

For the record Peter Hitchens is against the redefinition of marriage. He follows traditional Conservative views on marriage.

His first response (part 1) was answering the question why David Cameron is so keen on this issue. In a sense he’s right about this issue being used as a stick to beat the traditionalist wing of the party, so it can become ‘trendy’ and ‘modern’. In his second response he speaks of how liberals have become so dominant they have pretty much taken over the ideological system and there so confident they can impose through various means their ‘vision’ of a ‘good society’ regardless of what other people think.

In his last response (Part2) he talks about those Those who hold contrary (traditional moral views etc) are being systematically marginalised, not only that but in the coming years they could even be prosecuted. Don’t be surprised that expressing the view that marriage between a man and women will preclude you from getting certain jobs (particularly in the state sector) or even be considered a hate crime.

And in the future I wouldn’t be surprised that (Anglicans particularly since they are the state church) will be pressured into hold gay marriages. With implications for other faiths.

Interesting times ahead.

[جوري]

Oh come on sister that’s a bit harsh, not all liberals are that bad, just most of them

You'll forgive me but if you've been following the so-called liberals of Egypt you'd be praying for a plague to take them in a slow and painful manner.

For the record Peter Hitchens is against the redefinition of marriage. He follows traditional Conservative views on marriage.

wasn't Hitchens the first speaker? the guy who was mocking the story of creation not that I blame him on the part where God 'rests'.

The bottom line that one should take home is in a secular society which reflects the views of a very vocal minority and is very allowing anything and emphasis on thing can get married, but the state if it has indeed separated church has absolutely no jurisdiction over what goes on there save to dispense with the name calling, 'ignorant, backwards, unprogressive, low smarts, poor socio-economic, bigoted, fundi' well you know the drill!

:w:

[سيف الله]

Salaam

No that was Will Self, oh yeah hes a liberal no about about that.

No Peter Hitchens begins in Part 1 at 6:05
Part 2 at 2:20

[جوري]

I see I misunderstood the introductions... :jz: for sharing that, because I was confused as to why you'd find that particular fellow illuminating

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

MCB opposes the discriminatory gay marriage law


The Muslim Council of Britain is appalled to see the utterly discriminatory provision of the new gay marriage legislation proposed by the government. Farooq Murad, the Secretary General of the MCB said, “We find it incredible that while introducing the bill in the House, culture secretary Maria Miller could keep a straight face when offering exemption for the established Church while in the same breath claiming, ‘fairness to be at the heart of her proposals’.

The government announced that, the Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, with other religious organisations able to opt in to holding ceremonies.

Mr. Murad added, “ It is not just the ‘Church of England and Church in Wales’ who "explicitly" stated strong opposition’ as Mrs. Miller says, the Muslim Council of Britain along with most other faith groups also made equally strong representation”. He said “no one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law. It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions." The MCB is seeking an urgent meeting with the Culture Secretary to express the concerns of the Muslim community on the proposed legislation.


Notes to Editors

The Muslim Council of Britain is the UK's largest Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national,
regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=511

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another comment piece

Re-defining marriage?

With British society ever more liberal and irreligious, legalising same-sex marriage was expected

The political furore over UK Government plans to allow same-sex marriage betrays realities on the ground that show fewer couples are married than ever before, greater numbers co-habiting and an increase in people classifying themselves as single. At the same time the Church’s claims of defending the concept of marriage appear pretty misplaced when the numbers calling themselves Christians has dropped off significantly while the number of people with no religion at all has nearly doubled.

Initial results from last year’s census show that for the first time ever, the majority of Britons were unmarried in 2011. The percentage of married couples fell from 51% to 47%. Over a third (35%) of the population classed themselves as single, an increase of 5% in 10 years. Christianity saw a drop-off in membership, with a 12% decrease between the censuses of 2001 and 2011, and 14m people now consider themselves without a religion – up from 7.7m in 2001.

These are the social trends that provide the context to Government plans for same-sex marriage under equalities legislation. With British society becoming ever more liberal and irreligious – indeed trends that are reflective of societal tendencies across the western world – legalisation to legalise same-sex marriage was to be expected.

A quote from the Home Office Factsheet on Equal Marriage legislation exemplifies this:

As society has changed, so it [marriage] has changed, and become available to an increasingly broad range of people. In fact, if the history of marriage in this country tells us anything, it is that its defenders have had at times needed to be reformers.

Thus perversely the Government suggests it is defending the concept of married life by legislating same-sex marriage.

While the British Government has made certain provisions that mean no religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, history shows exemptions in law are invariably challenged. And although the Government claims the exemptions allow freedom of religion, establishing same-sex marriage legislation explicitly priorities the right to gay marriage over clear religious injections against it.

This liberal extremism is an inevitability for Muslims living in places like Britain. Therefore as Muslims we must have a strong sense of our own values; what are the lines we will not cross, otherwise we will slowly be overtaken by liberal pressure to trade away our own identity.

Additionally, the census also revealed that of all religions Islam saw the biggest growth in the country with additional 1.2 million Muslims to 2.7 million Muslims in 2011 – 5% of the population – up 1.8 percentage points in the past decade. Increasing numbers are therefore seeing the break down of marriage, family values and irreligiousness in Britain as a spur to find an alternative in Islam. A strong Muslim community that lives and upholds the values of Islam in an uncompromising way, challenging wrongs and standing up justice can only further this Da’wa (call to Islam).

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/re-defining-marriage

[Pygoscelis]

Future generations will look back at this as we look back at the last generation's hubub over inter racial marriage.

[جوري]

I doubt it. Marriage is a timeless thing and so is religion. discrimination based on skin color is never a divine injunction.

Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)[49:13]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Ya ayyuha alnnasu inna khalaqnakum min thakarin waontha wajaAAalnakum shuAAooban waqabaila litaAAarafoo inna akramakum AAinda Allahi atqakum inna Allaha AAaleemun khabeerun

49:13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

It is all summed right there, we're made of male and female, not from male and male, not from white male and white female, we were created in Nations & tribes to learn of one another, and all that distinguishes us before God is righteousness.

And I'll go so far to tell you that all the debauchery of our parents' generation didn't pave the way for even more allowing generations, rather more conservative ones it completely backfired, hence all those rising out of the so-called Arab springs are voting for 'Islamists'


Al-A'raf (The Heights) [7:27]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Ya banee adama la yaftinannakumu alshshaytanu kama akhraja abawaykum mina aljannati yanziAAu AAanhuma libasahuma liyuriyahuma sawatihima innahu yarakum huwa waqabeeluhu min haythu la tarawnahum inna jaAAalna alshshayateena awliyaa lillatheena la yuminoona

7:27 O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.

best,

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Our Bishop also wrote a strongly worded letter to David Cameron, I have highlighted the bit at the end.

Dear Mr Cameron
From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.
You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.
By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.
Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.
More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.
I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?
I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.
Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth

In the spirit of praying for families.

Eric

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Gay marriage plans are totalitarian, says Archbishop of Westminster

David Cameron's plans to allow homosexuals to marry are undemocratic and totalitarian, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has said.


Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, used his sermon at Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve to accuse ministers of acting to legalise same-sex marriage in defiance of public opinion. The Coalition has said it will change the law to allow homosexual couples to marry. It says churches that do not wish to hold same sex marriages will not have to, and the Church of England will be excluded from the legislation. The plans have been criticised by dozens of Conservative MPs, and campaigners opposed to the new law say there is no public support for the change. Roman Catholic leaders have been among the fiercest critics if the plan.

Archbishop Nichols said that the Government consultation on the plan had shown that respondents were "7-1 against same-sex marriage". He told worshippers that the Government has no mandate for the change and had not followed the proper rules of British democracy.

"There was no announcement in any party manifesto, no Green Paper, no statement in the Queen's Speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation," he said.

In an apparent reference to the totalitarian state described in the novel 1984, he added:

"From a democratic point-of-view, it's a shambles. George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre, I think the process is shambolic." The Coalition is wrongly promoting homosexuality and other sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage, he suggested. "Sometimes sexual expression can be without the public bond of the faithfulness of marriage and its ordering to new life. Even governments mistakenly promote such patterns of sexual intimacy as objectively to be approved and even encouraged among the young."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9765509/Gay-marriage-plans-are-totalitarian-says-Archbishop-of-Westminster.html

[Pygoscelis]

Why do these people get all up in arms about the free choices made by others? They are making it explicit that no church official is being forced to marry gay couples. Seriously, I find it very hateful and alarming when people seek to force their views (bigotry really) on others. If somebody doesn't support gay marriage, then they shouldn't get married to their own gender. Nobody is forcing them to. They have no business telling others who they can love, or who they can marry. That this priest tries to play victim here and cries "1984" oppression over the government recognizing equal rights to a formerly oppressed group, is insanely ironic.

[glo]

Just for clarification, the Archbishop of Canterbury represents the Church of England, the Archbishop of Westminster represents the Roman Catholic Church.

[جوري]

Seriously, I find it very hateful and alarming when people seek to force their views (bigotry really) on others

Do you not see that this can be easily turned around? People don't usually make their sexuality and choices known & forcefully so or are vocal about it unless they've something to prove or in this case ashamed of- Why are they trying so hard to seek approval in an institution where the laws are already defined? If they're happy with a 'civil wedding' then this shouldn't be an issue at all and this topic shouldn't even exist!

Nobody is forcing them to. They have no business telling others who they can love

And no one has done that, that's your own addendum and imagination (I haven't seen the last vid) but have seen the first and there's no such mention!


best,

[ardianto]

Why do these people get all up in arms about the free choices made by others? They are making it explicit that no church official is being forced to marry gay couples. Seriously, I find it very hateful and alarming when people seek to force their views (bigotry really) on others. If somebody doesn't support gay marriage, then they shouldn't get married to their own gender. Nobody is forcing them to. They have no business telling others who they can love, or who they can marry. That this priest tries to play victim here and cries "1984" oppression over the government recognizing equal rights to a formerly oppressed group, is insanely ironic.

No, Pygo, that priest didn't play victim, but he's doing what becomes his duty. Religious leaders are different than political leaders who can change the law only to accomodate what people want. Religious leaders have responsibility toward God and have duty to make sure that the believers are always follow God's law.

One of my customer is a gay (he is non-Muslim), he lives near my home with his 'boyfriend'. Sometime he came with his 'boyfriend'. But I never want to disturb their life. What they are doing is their business.

Mostly of people cannot tolerate gay marriage because it's against religious value and normal family value. But actually, people in many places can tolerate gay relationship, as long as those gays do not try to 'drag' other people to follow their life style.

Other people have given tolerance with let gay relationship. But why gay people cannot give tolerance to other people who want to maintain normal family life value in society which family means a father, a mother, and kids?. Why can't gay people just love each other, live together with their partners, and be happy in their own happiness?.

Pygo, there's no parent who want their kids become gays. Do you know? how broken their hearts when they know their kids become gays?. If gay marriage becomes a kind of legal marriage, so the kids would learn to choose the kind of marriage that they want, with opposite gender or with same gender. If a boy prefer same gender marriage, he would learn to love the male, and in the future he would choose to marry a man although he also attracted to women.

[glo]

There's no parent who want their kids become gays. Do you know? how broken their hearts when they know their kids become gays?

A though question for those of us who have children - if one of our children told us that they were homosexual, would we love them and care for them any less?

[Pygoscelis]

Do you not see that this can be easily turned around? People don't usually make their sexuality and choices known & forcefully so or are vocal about it unless they've something to prove or in this case ashamed of

Heterosexual people make their sexuality and choices known all the time. The moment you introduce your husband or boyfriend or state or confirm that you have one, you are making your sexuality and choices known.

Why are they trying so hard to seek approval in an institution where the laws are already defined?

Are they? I read this as legislators ALLOWING religious institutions to marry homosexuals to each other, not forcing them to.

By the way, in most places that have marriage and civil unions for gays, civil unions do NOT carry all the legal status and benefits that marriage does. People are often left out of spousal benefits, etc. That is one reason to push for marriage for homosexuals instead of mere "civil union".

Really though, I still say the better solution is to split the church and state aspects of marriage for all. Everybody should have a civil union, which carries all the legal benefits and responsibilities, and then "marriage" can be left to be declared and recognized by whoever wants to, with spiritual meaning, but no legal status.

[Pygoscelis]

A though question for those of us who have children - if one of our children told us that they were homosexual, would we love them and care for them any less?

Is this a serious question? That this even has to be asked is frightening. But I know there are people in this world who would disown them or in extreme cases maybe even have them killed. I expect and hope that nobody on this forum thinks that way, but I have been surprised before.

If gay marriage becomes a kind of legal marriage, so the kids would learn to choose the kind of marriage that they want, with opposite gender or with same gender. If a boy prefer same gender marriage, he would learn to love the male, and in the future he would choose to marry a man although he also attracted to women.

And what of the lady who is all out homosexual and has no attraction to men? Should she be denied marriage altogether? Even if there is a religious figure willing to marry her to another woman? Just because you and your religion don't like her choice?

[GuestFellow]

Has anyone got a headache over this topic? CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS STILL OCCUPYING THE HEADLINES WHEN WE HAVE MORE SERIOUS ECONOMIC PROBLEMS! :skeleton: IT'S LIKE ARGUING OVER WHETHER THE LEFT BICEP IS BIGGER THAN THE RIGHT ONE WHEN BEHIND YOU A VOLCANO ERUPTED.

[جوري]

Heterosexual people make their sexuality and choices known all the time. The moment you introduce your husband or boyfriend or state or confirm that you have one, you are making your sexuality and choices known.

Not at all- & no one assumes that it is a 'sexual choice' since there's so much more to marriage than sexuality!
If this were the case with homos then they'd be content with friendship & not turn it into a spectacle!

Are they? I read this as legislators ALLOWING religious institutions to marry homosexuals to each other, not forcing them to.

Semantics as if giving a choice to folks who have already defined for you what the rules of their religion constitute and then bullying them with another set of words to make them appear something they're not!
Believe me I have written enough papers to know what choice of words makes all the difference.. would you rather anorexigenics or diet pills to describe your prescription? Given, let's both rid the words of the sugar coating and call things for what they're!

By the way, in most places that have marriage and civil unions for gays, civil unions do NOT carry all the legal status and benefits that marriage does. People are often left out of spousal benefits, etc. That is one reason to push for marriage for homosexuals instead of mere "civil union".

That's their problem to deal with on a state level not a religious level. I don't approve of gay marriages nor find such relationships healthy to comment on what they should or shouldn't have.

[glo]

Pygo, there's no parent who want their kids become gays. Do you know? how broken their hearts when they know their kids become gays?

A tough question for those of us who have children - if one of our children told us that they were homosexual, would we love them and care for them any less?

Is this a serious question? That this even has to be asked is frightening. But I know there are people in this world who would disown them or in extreme cases maybe even have them killed. I expect and hope that nobody on this forum thinks that way, but I have been surprised before.

Pygo, I asked the question specifically in response to ardianto's comment.

I think it's an important question to ask, and for some the answer may not be as easy as you might hope for or like.

But I reckon that it is easy for some people to stand up and shout against homosexuality, as long as they are strangers they are talking about. People they have nothing to do with. People they cannot and don't have to relate to.
My question (or challenge, if you like), is for those people to seriously consider how they would feel or respond if it was their own child.
It may not be a tough question for some, but for others it will be.

[ardianto]

A though question for those of us who have children - if one of our children told us that they were homosexual, would we love them and care for them any less?

I would still love them and care for them. But it doesn't means I would support their choices to make relationship with same gender partner. I would not push them into big sin.

Attracted only to same gender actually is not a sin. But have 'special relationship' with same gender is a sin. It becomes a big problem for homosexual people who are religious enough, because the only choice is live celibacy. It's very hard because they still have desire to love and be loved too.

This is the time for us as parents to give support to our homosexual children to make them always strong to live in life like this.

[ardianto]

And what of the lady who is all out homosexual and has no attraction to men? Should she be denied marriage altogether? Even if there is a religious figure willing to marry her to another woman? Just because you and your religion don't like her choice?

Why can't she just live together with her partner without getting legal marriage?. Like I've said, I know a gay who live together with his 'boyfriend', and I never disturb their life.

But request other people to legalize same gender marriage?. Wait, wait. Like I've said too, "If gay marriage becomes a kind of legal marriage, so the kids would learn to choose the kind of marriage that they want, with opposite gender or with same gender. If a boy prefer same gender marriage, he would learn to love the male, and in the future he would choose to marry a man although he also attracted to women.".

[جوري]

is for those people to seriously consider how they would feel or respond if it was their own child.

I doubt very much children who are raised upright would make such a disappointing choice!
You make it seem like people can't help who they bed- It is really a sign of the time to reduce mankind to nothing more than a mere animal acting on the basest of instincts without forethought or consequence!
You consistently advocate for the devil and his choices.. if your religion is so allowing that's your business but I really wish you'd desist with these inane hypothetical!

[Pygoscelis]

Semantics as if giving a choice to folks who have already defined for you what the rules of their religion constitute and then bullying them with another set of words to make them appear something they're not!

Only they haven't. Not all of them anyway. There are priests who will do marriage ceremonies for gay couples. And earlier we had a thread here about muslims who are ok with it too. The state wants to give them that choice. Why seek to deny it?

[Pygoscelis]

Why can't she just live together with her partner without getting legal marriage?

Why should they? Just because it bothers you and your religion? Would you say the same to a heterosexual couple? Would you be upset if I somehow stopped muslims from marrying other muslims? Why can't they just live together with their partners without getting legal marriage?

As I stated above, marriage comes with certain legal rights and responsibilities, not all of which are covered by being boyfriends/girlfriends or civil unions. Why should they be denied these benefits? Why should they let your views stop them from doing what they want? This isn't a theocracy.

[جوري]

Only they haven't. Not all of them anyway. There are priests who will do marriage ceremonies for gay couples. And earlier we had a thread here about muslims who are ok with it too. The state wants to give them that choice. Why seek to deny it?

You don't seem to understand that the religious institution is a done deal and not open to new renditions, at least as far as Islam is concerned, I don't find Christianity stable in ideology, tenets or beliefs although I am sure orthodox beliefs are prevalent amongst the corpus of those practicing. Individual objections are irrelevant here and always negligible!

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

I wonder why muslims should worry can gays marry in the UK. The UK is not islamic country at all!

^o)

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Salam alaykum

I wonder why muslims should worry can gays marry in the UK. The UK is not islamic country at all!

^o)

Because I live there! :p

More seriously though this is an important issue that we Muslims will have to deal with eventually. We have to be ready for all eventualities.

Look at the sorry state of Christianity in Europe, we don't want to end up like them do we?

[جوري]

Muslims will have to deal with eventually.

We've to deal with it right now with the rise of the so-called leftists in Egypt and other places who are looking to change the very identity Islam.

:w:

[sister herb]

Salaam



Because I live there! :p

More seriously though this is an important issue that we Muslims will have to deal with eventually. We have to be ready for all eventualities.

Look at the sorry state of Christianity in Europe, we don't want to end up like them do we?

Salam alaykum

But this is about Archishop opinion and he is not muslim at all.

I think you shoud worry opinions of imam not priest.

[GuestFellow]

Waliakum salaam,

UK has always been a country where many people indulged in immoral acts. There are people that are drunk on the streets, commit fornication and adultery, eat pork, drink alcohol, mix with opposite genders, wear revealing clothes and do all sorts of inappropriate stuff.

If your going to speak out against homosexuality, then speak out against other immoral practices too. Not much of a point to just speak out against homosexuality whilst other sins are being openly performed.

[جوري]

seems the Archbishop of Canterbury is having a devil of a time handling the gay marriage fiasco without being labeled something or another, you expect him to tackle stuff that's the very fabric of their culture that it has become the norm that I fear the ramifications of their identity crisis without it.
Yeah- ok good luck with that.

:w:

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Salam alaykum

But this is about Archishop opinion and he is not muslim at all.

I think you shoud worry opinions of imam not priest.

Its worth listening to them because despite our (sometimes serious) differences we do have areas of common agreement. We shouldn't be sectarian about who we listen to and learn from.

Waliakum salaam,

UK has always been a country where many people indulged in immoral acts. There are people that are drunk on the streets, commit fornication and adultery, eat pork, drink alcohol, mix with opposite genders, wear revealing clothes and do all sorts of inappropriate stuff.

If your going to speak out against homosexuality, then speak out against other immoral practices too. Not much of a point to just speak out against homosexuality whilst other sins are being openly performed.

No man, this thread isn’t about what homosexuals do in their own lives, that’s their own business.

Its about how the change in the law is going to affect us and the rest of society. Which have potentially serious implications for the future.

I think the debate so far in this thread has been civil enough.

On the question of other topics and issues of the day, sure lets start another thread and talk about it. Don’t want to derail this thread.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

Why should they? Just because it bothers you and your religion? Would you say the same to a heterosexual couple? Would you be upset if I somehow stopped muslims from marrying other muslims? Why can't they just live together with their partners without getting legal marriage?

Two Muslims getting married to each other will not change the way anyone thinks about the meaning of marriage. Yet the acceptance of something called 'gay marriage' most certainly will. As the Bishop of Portsmouth wrote in his letter:

Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.


Posted by Eric H here: http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1558560

Why do these people get all up in arms about the free choices made by others? They are making it explicit that no church official is being forced to marry gay couples. Seriously, I find it very hateful and alarming when people seek to force their views (bigotry really) on others. If somebody doesn't support gay marriage, then they shouldn't get married to their own gender. Nobody is forcing them to.

We are not simply talking about the free choices that people make in their private lives. Here the discussion is about choices made by others whose consequences will impact the whole of society. If nobody speaks out about them, then everyone will be affected.

The Prophet Muhammad

said: "The likeness of the man who observes the limits prescribed by Allaah and that of the man who transgresses them is like a group of people who get on board a ship after casting lots. Some of them are in its lower deck and some of them in its upper (deck). Those who are in its lower (deck), when they require water, go to the occupants of the upper deck, and say to them: `If we make a hole in the bottom of the ship, we shall not harm you.' If they (the occupants of the upper deck) leave them to carry out their design they all will be drowned. But if they do not let them go ahead (with their plan), all of them will remain safe". [Al-Bukhaari]

There are many other texts in Islam all highlighting the responsibility to speak out against evil.

If your going to speak out against homosexuality, then speak out against other immoral practices too. Not much of a point to just speak out against homosexuality whilst other sins are being openly performed.

:salamext:

Those other sins you have mentioned are already acceptable in such a society, whereas the institution of a 'gay marriage' is something that has still been subject to debate and criticism - and from faiths other than Islam. If we have a chance to stop this from happening, should we not do what we can to oppose it?

We must speak out against what is wrong, sinful, and displeasing to Allah in society around us. Our scholars, leaders and preachers have a responsibility to take this lead. If we do not enjoin what is right and forbid what is evil, then what sort of protection do we hope for? We need to speak up for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our hereafter. We need to speak out for the sake of orphans who may find themselves being adopted by gay couples. Adultery, homosexuality, fornication are wrong and displeasing to God, and can never be right. There is no compromise in this. We do not want to be unjust to anyone but we should exercise our right to express what our religion teaches, and what is our duty to convey. Perhaps as a result of our speaking up and breaking this unworthy silence, Allah, we hope, will protect our future generations from the immorality that is so loathsome to our faith. Let us have faith, hope and trust in Allah, for Allah alone is our Protector.

Adapted from: http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thou...urbing-silence

[GuestFellow]

No man, this thread isn’t about what homosexuals do in their own lives, that’s their own business.

:sl:

It's related to the topic. There would not be this discussion if people did not thought homosexuality was acceptable.

Its about how the change in the law is going to affect us and the rest of society. Which have potentially serious implications for the future.

Serious? I doubt it if you compare to what will happen if the government does not resolve the economic crisis.

If you feel I'm derailing the topic, then do not respond to my statements. I think they are related but on a wider perspective. It's like a distraction compared to more serious issues.

:salamext:

Those other sins you have mentioned are already acceptable in such a society, whereas the institution of a 'gay marriage' is something that has still been subject to debate and criticism - and from faiths other than Islam. If we have a chance to stop this from happening, should we not do what we can to oppose it?

We must speak out against what is wrong, sinful, and displeasing to Allah in society around us. Our scholars, leaders and preachers have a responsibility to take this lead. If we do not enjoin what is right and forbid what is evil, then what sort of protection do we hope for? We need to speak up for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our hereafter. We need to speak out for the sake of orphans who may find themselves being adopted by gay couples. Adultery, homosexuality, fornication are wrong and displeasing to God, and can never be right. There is no compromise in this. We do not want to be unjust to anyone but we should exercise our right to express what our religion teaches, and what is our duty to convey. Perhaps as a result of our speaking up and breaking this unworthy silence, Allah, we hope, will protect our future generations from the immorality that is so loathsome to our faith. Let us have faith, hope and trust in Allah, for Allah alone is our Protector.

Adapted from: http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thou...urbing-silence

:wa:

Oppose it, but oppose the other sins too. That's all I'm saying. It's like speaking out against robbery but completely ignoring murder. :/
It looks slightly odd if you put all your energy from opposing a certain conduct but then ignoring others...

[Muhammad]

Oppose it, but oppose the other sins too. That's all I'm saying. It's like speaking out against robbery but completely ignoring murder. :/
It looks slightly odd if you put all your energy from opposing a certain conduct but then ignoring others...

I agree with you - all of these issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the key reason why this issue is being focused on is because it's a change that the government is making now, whereas those other issues have been in place from before. We don't want an extra thing to add to the list. On top of this, it seems to be a new level of immorality that we have not known before.

[GuestFellow]

I agree with you - all of these issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the key reason why this issue is being focused on is because it's a change that the government is making now, whereas those other issues have been in place from before. We don't want an extra thing to add to the list. On top of this, it seems to be a new level of immorality that we have not known before.

:sl:

I don't think what we are facing here is something new. Homosexuality was acceptable during the Greeks and Roman times...well to a certain extent. I think all these sins are interlinked to one another. I have heard of stories where men engage in homosexuality because they were drunk. The link here is alcohol and homosexuality. Partying at night is another way where young teenagers experiment.

[Pygoscelis]

Two Muslims getting married to each other will not change the way anyone thinks about the meaning of marriage. Yet the acceptance of something called 'gay marriage' most certainly will.

Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman.

That isn't actually true, but even if it was, it is just an appeal to tradition so far. Just because something has been one way for a long time, doesn't mean it shouldn't change. If it did then there would be no democracies, we'd all be ruled by kings and warlords, blacks would be slaves, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote or own property.

Also, the meaning of marriage for people has been changing over and over for a long time now. Women used to be viewed as property, sold from the father to the husband. And then there is the issue of Poligamy (completely changes the meaning of marriage, no?) which we'll not get into here, other than to say that the whole "Marriage is between one man and one women" conflicts with poligamy as much as it does gay marriage. A lot of people also see marriage as being a relationship "under God" and that makes me wonder if they would oppose atheists being married.

And just because some new idea or fair treatment conflicts with your religion doesn't mean you should get to deny it to others who want it. The Quakers and Amish live in their traditional ways, by candlelight and everything, but they don't deny the rest of us electricity to our homes, or cars to drive around in.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations.

He makes it sound like we are going to force his congregation into gay marriages. Allowing gays to marry doesn't make your marriage invalid. Nobody is forcing you to marry your own gender. You can go right on marrying opposite gender and having all these same things he speaks of here.

The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage, since that exists just as much, or more so, in places where gay marriage isn't allowed.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality?

That would be an argument against homosexuals raising children, wouldn't it? I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage.

We are not simply talking about the free choices that people make in their private lives. Here the discussion is about choices made by others whose consequences will impact the whole of society. If nobody speaks out about them, then everyone will be affected.

Knowing that some guys down the street are married to each other doesn't in any way threaten my (future) marriage.

[جوري]

Quick note from my phone here - to remind you that this is a conversation about the institution of marriage within the definition of religion not that state!
It's also interesting to note that Islam allowed for all those freedoms I.e women voting a just system, freedom from slavery etc. etc. and that it's secularism and/or erroneous ideologies that perpetuated them!
No one had a right to take away a woman's voice to tote giving it back to her and not a mere 100 yrs ago.
The problem indeed arises from what's borne of man's imagination for it's subject to imperfection, conflict and limited by ability and circumstance!
We're meant to follow a divine plan for Allah :swt: didn't create us to forget about us rather to illuminate a d guide the way!

[GuestFellow]

Quick note from my phone here - to remind you that this is a conversation about the institution of marriage within the definition of religion not that state!

:wa:

It's interesting you say that. It goes along with the separation of state and religion. Religion cannot interfere with the state but the state cannot interfere with religion. Therefore, those that support this form of governance cannot force "religious" institutions to accept homosexual marriages.

[glo]

I would still love them and care for them. But it doesn't means I would support their choices to make relationship with same gender partner. I would not push them into big sin.

I understand what you are saying, ardianto.

Is your concern that legalising and condoning same-sex-marriage would make it more attractive to people? Or even encourage people to 'try it out'?

[Muhammad]

:wasalamex

I don't think what we are facing here is something new. Homosexuality was acceptable during the Greeks and Roman times...well to a certain extent.

It is true that homosexuality is not something completely new - we know the story of the people of Prophet Lut (as). But in our context, we are specifically talking about equating the union between such people with marriage. This is a new development in the society in which we live. What was previously not acceptable in our society is now changing.

[GuestFellow]

:wasalamex

It is true that homosexuality is not something completely new - we know the story of the people of Prophet Lut (as). But in our context, we are specifically talking about equating the union between such people with marriage. This is a new development in the society in which we live. What was previously not acceptable in our society is now changing.

:sl:

I do agree that the acceptance of homosexuality is different now compared to the past. Now some homosexual couples want to be seen the same as heterosexual couples. This explains why they desire their union to be known as marriage.

The only practicable solution here is to scrap the idea of marriage and replace it with some sort of contract between the couple stating the rights and conditions that they share. Then these couples can call their relationship whatever they want. I think this will work in the UK temporarily.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

That isn't actually true, but even if it was, it is just an appeal to tradition so far. Just because something has been one way for a long time, doesn't mean it shouldn't change. If it did then there would be no democracies, we'd all be ruled by kings and warlords, blacks would be slaves, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote or own property.

Conversely, change does not always mean progression to better standards. But the argument is much more than appeal to tradition. As Ansar Al-'Adl once put it:

Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

Also, the meaning of marriage for people has been changing over and over for a long time now. Women used to be viewed as property, sold from the father to the husband. And then there is the issue of Poligamy (completely changes the meaning of marriage, no?) which we'll not get into here, other than to say that the whole "Marriage is between one man and one women" conflicts with poligamy as much as it does gay marriage.

Neither of the examples you mention illustrate a change in the meaning of marriage. The issue of women being inherited says more about women's rights, not about their union with their husband. Likewise with polygamy, it is completely dissimilar to gay marriage. In a polygamous marriage, the union is still between man and woman. It is this complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex that is the key point here. The societal repercussions are also completely different as in a gay marriage there is no contribution, whereas polygamy solves the problem of disparity in the proportion of women to men.

And just because some new idea or fair treatment conflicts with your religion doesn't mean you should get to deny it to others who want it.

As explained before, it is more than a conflict with religion.

He makes it sound like we are going to force his congregation into gay marriages. Allowing gays to marry doesn't make your marriage invalid. Nobody is forcing you to marry your own gender. You can go right on marrying opposite gender and having all these same things he speaks of here.

The point is about the repercussions on society as a whole, not that we think our own marriages will be forced or invalid. In a society where the foundation of family life is in such disarray, introducing this concept of same-sex marriage will only serve to worsen the problem. The point raised about challenges faced by children is not merely the dilemma of homosexual couples, rather by seeking to celebrate and normalise such marriages, it poses a challenge for all who live in such a society. It raises concerns for the future, regarding what will be taught in schools. It raises concerns about children being fostered and adopted by homosexual couples. And the whole issue raises concerns about what rights will be pushed for next - gay rights organisations may then decide they be allowed to access all the rights permitted to heterosexual couples. It would only be a matter of time before an Imam could be prosecuted for refusing to conduct a marriage for a gay couple. We need to stop looking at this issue as if it is something confined to particular households. We must understand the potential consequences and look at the wider picture.

[Pygoscelis]

:wa:

It's interesting you say that. It goes along with the separation of state and religion. Religion cannot interfere with the state but the state cannot interfere with religion. Therefore, those that support this form of governance cannot force "religious" institutions to accept homosexual marriages.

I agree, and nor should they prevent or ban religious groups or individuals from accepting homosexual marriage. Here they appear to be allowing it for most, but banning it for a particular group, and that's not cool. As far as the government is concerned it should be allowed for everybody. Religious institutions and individuals can then decide if they wan to do it or not, and if a central religious body can not control its members (and preachers choose to do it for example) then that should be their own internal matter to deal with and you could claim they are not "real" followers of the faith or whatever.

[Pygoscelis]

:sl:

I do agree that the acceptance of homosexuality is different now compared to the past. Now some homosexual couples want to be seen the same as heterosexual couples. This explains why they desire their union to be known as marriage.

The only practicable solution here is to scrap the idea of marriage and replace it with some sort of contract between the couple stating the rights and conditions that they share. Then these couples can call their relationship whatever they want. I think this will work in the UK temporarily.

Yes, this is my solution as well. The civil rights should be specifically laid out and accepted (instead of implied vaguely by telling people they are getting married), and the spriritual aspect of it should be split completely from these rights and obligations, so then people can recognize or not recognize "marriages" as they see fit. I see no problem with letting the word "marriage" be used for the spiritual union part. I have floated this idea here a few times and few have supported it. I have floated it amongst homosexual activists and not all of them support it either. But I think is the rational course of action.

[Pygoscelis]

Hi Muhammad, you make the best case of anybody else responding to this topic from your side of the fence, and I appreciate the quotes you are posting, so I will respond to them.

Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

He starts with an argument from authority and religion, I'll not touch that, because from my perspective it bares no weight, and as I said before you shouldn't be allowed to force your religious views on others.

He then mentions procreation, which is a common argument against gay marriage. I don't understand this position, as we don't deny infertile couples the right to marry and we don't split marriages after couples failed to produce children and become too old to have more. We also don't have any shortage of humans on this planet, so I don't understand why anybody would be terribly concerned about keeping birth rates high. They are already increasing exponentially.

He then speaks of health risks from homosexuality. By denying marriage to homosexuals, do you think we are somehow stopping gay promiscuity? Assuming for the sake of argument that such health risks are dire, then why would we want to stop homosexuals, often said to be promiscuous, from engaging in a vow to be monogamous with one partner for life? The risk of STDs drops dramatically when sex is kept monogamous.

He then makes the argument for family stability. I already covered this one. It is an argument against gays adopting children, not against them marrying. Of the gay couples I know, none of them actually have any children. And I am not aware of any studies showing children raised by gay parents being any more violent, hateful, sociopathic, etc than those raised by parents of opposite gender.

He ends with the extremely hateful and bigoted statement that "homosexuals consume from society but contribute nothing in return". This one I don't even understand. Homosexuals are just as capable of doing good works for society as anybody else. They are not some corrupt subhuman group.

And the whole issue raises concerns about what rights will be pushed for next - gay rights organisations may then decide they be allowed to access all the rights permitted to heterosexual couples.

Why shouldn't they be? When you seek to deny equal treatment under the law to a group of people, I think the onus is on you to show why, and I think you'd better come up with some very strong evidence. The best I seen so far is the argument that they'd want to adopt children and do a poor job of raising them. I have not seen evidence that such children turn out criminal. They may not turn out muslim of course and hold that set of valuesl, but will they be a danger to society? Prove it. If you do prove it, then this can be weighed as a factor when considering letting gays adopt kids, just as income level, age, and parenting skill maybe should be.

It would only be a matter of time before an Imam could be prosecuted for refusing to conduct a marriage for a gay couple. We need to stop looking at this issue as if it is something confined to particular households.

Are these Imams forced to conduct marriages for non-mulims now? Do they get to choose who they want to marry to each other or is this forced on them by the state? If it is forced on them then I agree it should not be.

[ardianto]

Is your concern that legalising and condoning same-sex-marriage would make it more attractive to people? Or even encourage people to 'try it out'?

Yes. I predict it from what I've seen in my life.

[Muhammad]

Hello Pygoscelis,

Thanks for your responses.

He then mentions procreation, which is a common argument against gay marriage. I don't understand this position, as we don't deny infertile couples the right to marry and we don't split marriages after couples failed to produce children and become too old to have more. We also don't have any shortage of humans on this planet, so I don't understand why anybody would be terribly concerned about keeping birth rates high. They are already increasing exponentially.

As Ansar said, it highlights how homosexuality is in conflict with the nature of humanity. The natural way, by the very design of our creation, is for a man and woman to marry and procreate. Same-sex couples cannot enter this complementary relationship known as marriage. The fact that some couples are infertile does not negate the norm, rather their immense sorrow and distress further shows the value and natural desire to procreate.

He then speaks of health risks from homosexuality. By denying marriage to homosexuals, do you think we are somehow stopping gay promiscuity? Assuming for the sake of argument that such health risks are dire, then why would we want to stop homosexuals, often said to be promiscuous, from engaging in a vow to be monogamous with one partner for life? The risk of STDs drops dramatically when sex is kept monogamous.

It is an assumption that instituting marriage will reduce promiscuity. Amongst heterosexuals, whilst marriage has long been an acceptable option, promiscuity is very common. Furthermore, by legalising and accepting gay marriage, homosexuality in general becomes normalised and may even become encouraged. This may then increase the health hazard rather than help reduce it.

He then makes the argument for family stability. I already covered this one. It is an argument against gays adopting children, not against them marrying. Of the gay couples I know, none of them actually have any children. And I am not aware of any studies showing children raised by gay parents being any more violent, hateful, sociopathic, etc than those raised by parents of opposite gender.

The issue of family stability applies regardless of whether the same-sex couple adopt children or not, because their very inability to conceive children of their own is a failure to build a family. There are various other problems: a family should contain both a father and mother - each have unique yet complementary roles required to bring about harmony within their marriage as well as upbringing of their children. As both 'parents' are of the same gender, this changes the family dynamics completely. Another aspect of family stability is the impact this may have on a larger scale - if increasing numbers of people choose same-sex marriages, that breaks down family stability on a societal level, especially if children raised by those couples show increased tendencies to be homosexual themselves (and some studies have shown this).

On the issue of proving whether same-sex couples do a poor job of raising children - this would be difficult to investigate because problems can be far more subtle than open criminality.

He ends with the extremely hateful and bigoted statement that "homosexuals consume from society but contribute nothing in return". This one I don't even understand. Homosexuals are just as capable of doing good works for society as anybody else. They are not some corrupt subhuman group.

I understood his statement to be in reference to, 'it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father,' and the other issues surrounding family instability. I doubt he was referring to good works in general.

Why shouldn't they be? When you seek to deny equal treatment under the law to a group of people, I think the onus is on you to show why, and I think you'd better come up with some very strong evidence.

What I meant here is the next step - currently it is proposed that religious figures will not be forced to conduct such marriages. Later this could change. In response to your statement though, 'equal treatment', whilst sounding appealing, is not all that straightforward. What would happen if, for example, people began rallying for rights to have incestuous marriages? These people and others could use the same argument of equality. The reality is though, that giving everyone what they want isn't always the best thing to do. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

At this point it's also worth noting that the issue of same-sex marriage is a minority issue. A High Court judge told the Times Newspaper: 'So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown...' 'He added that the breakdown of marriages and its impact on society affects 99.9% of the population, which is where more investment and time should spent.'

Are these Imams forced to conduct marriages for non-mulims now? Do they get to choose who they want to marry to each other or is this forced on them by the state? If it is forced on them then I agree it should not be.

Currently I don't think so. But the question is how changes made today will lead to further changes in future.

[Veritas]

Salaam

Another update

Gay marriage plans condemned in church services
A letter criticising the Scottish Government for supporting plans to legalise gay marriage will be read out in all of the country's Catholic parishes today.

The Roman Catholic Church has declared August 26 as National Marriage Sunday and is calling on politicians to "sustain rather than subvert marriage". The letter, which will be read in all of Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes, will urge followers to continue to act against efforts to "redefine" marriage. The Scottish Government has said it is right to introduce same-sex marriages, but has stressed no clergy would be forced to carry them out.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland, last week broke off discussions on the issue with First Minister Alex Salmond. In a strongly worded message, the letter will highlight the church's "deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same sex marriage."

It will also announce the launch of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family to co-ordinate a campaign against gay marriage.

Cardinal O'Brien, who has described gay marriage as a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right", said: "The Church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments, politicians or parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality." He added: "With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online presence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage.

"While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society."

The Scottish government has pledged to bring forward a Bill on the issue later this year, and has indicated the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

The Equality Network, which is campaigning in support of same-sex marriage in Scotland, said politicians should stand firm over the plans. Tom French, the charity's policy co-ordinator, said: "It is increasingly clear that the Church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society. "We urge the Scottish Government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT people." "In particular, the Equality Network would be deeply concerned at any attempt to promote an anti-gay agenda in schools. School should be a welcoming environment for all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or their family situation."

I completely support the stance of the Catholic Chirch, and every other church for that matter, that rejects the push of the illuminati controlled British Govetent pushing same sex marriage in to the steeple as a means of population control and to destroy the family unit.

[Veritas]

Hello Pygoscelis,

Thanks for your responses.

As Ansar said, it highlights how homosexuality is in conflict with the nature of humanity. The natural way, by the very design of our creation, is for a man and woman to marry and procreate. Same-sex couples cannot enter this complementary relationship known as marriage. The fact that some couples are infertile does not negate the norm, rather their immense sorrow and distress further shows the value and natural desire to procreate.

It is an assumption that instituting marriage will reduce promiscuity. Amongst heterosexuals, whilst marriage has long been an acceptable option, promiscuity is very common. Furthermore, by legalising and accepting gay marriage, homosexuality in general becomes normalised and may even become encouraged. This may then increase the health hazard rather than help reduce it.

The issue of family stability applies regardless of whether the same-sex couple adopt children or not, because their very inability to conceive children of their own is a failure to build a family. There are various other problems: a family should contain both a father and mother - each have unique yet complementary roles required to bring about harmony within their marriage as well as upbringing of their children. As both 'parents' are of the same gender, this changes the family dynamics completely. Another aspect of family stability is the impact this may have on a larger scale - if increasing numbers of people choose same-sex marriages, that breaks down family stability on a societal level, especially if children raised by those couples show increased tendencies to be homosexual themselves and some studies have shown this).

On the issue of proving whether same-sex couples do a poor job of raising children - this would be difficult to investigate because problems can be far more subtle than open criminality.

I understood his statement to be in reference to, 'it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father,' and the other issues surrounding family instability. I doubt he was referring to good works in general.

What I meant here is the next step - currently it is proposed that religious figures will not be forced to conduct such marriages. Later this could change. In response to your statement though, 'equal treatment', whilst sounding appealing, is not all that straightforward. What would happen if, for example, people began rallying for rights to have incestuous marriages? These people and others could use the same argument of equality. The reality is though, that giving everyone what they want isn't always the best thing to do. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

At this point it's also worth noting that the issue of same-sex marriage is a minority issue.

A High Court judge told the Times Newspaper: [/URL]'So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown...' 'He added that the breakdown of marriages and its impact on society affects 99.9% of the population, which is where more investment and time should spent.'

Currently I don't think so. But the question is how changes made today will lead to further changes in future.

Sorry to be pedant, but the latest British census showed 1.0% of the population identified themselves as homosexual. That's still a very tiny minority.

The figure bandied about in the USA is about 3% ... still a tiny minority.

It is incredible the attention the issue is given for such a small percentage of the population.

[glo]

Sorry to be pedant, but the latest British census showed 1.0% of the population identified themselves as homosexual. That's still a very tiny minority.

The figure bandied about in the USA is about 3% ... still a tiny minority.

It is incredible the attention the issue is given for such a small percentage of the population.

Exactly because it is such a small minority we should not feel threatened by homosexuality. Sexual orientation is not catching. It's not like if we condone it, in 20 years time we'll ALL be homosexual ...

I disagree with your notion that the needs of minority groups should not matter. Is that what you are saying?
If you lived in a community with a 3% minority of anybody - be that black people, Muslims, people with disabilities or homosexuals - are their views, needs and rights not relevant or important??

[GuestFellow]

I disagree with your notion that the needs of minority groups should not matter. Is that what you are saying?

I think he is referring to the attention this group in particular receives. I would not rely on statistics to give us an estimate of how many homosexuals there are in the UK. Some prefer to keep their sexuality to themselves and it's not clear that statistic includes bisexuals.

It's a small group and the issue is not significant compared to other issues. Why it is receiving so much attention is unusual. There are other minorities that need help such as gypsies, but they are frequently ignored by the mainstream media and the government.

[Veritas]

I have had people challenge the 1% statistic from the UK, on the basis that people would lie. Why? It was a census. The data goes nowhere. Why would people lie about their sexuality in confidence?

Yes, I am talking about the significance of the issue of gay marriage in the West. It is clearly pushed by the MSM, and their NWO agenda. The amount of airtime given to this issue to completely disproportionate to the actual issue at hand.

It is principally a US issue though, due to militant right wing Christians fighting with rabid ultra left gay militants. This issue is of much greater significance in the US than the 50 million who don't have access to health care or the 30 million who live on food stamps.

Is a bedroom issue really more important than people being able to go a hospital when sick or being able to eat?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Gay Marriage Laws are divisive, wrong and undermine freedom to worship, claims Fox

David Cameron is dabbling in ‘social engineering’ by pushing through gay marriage laws that are ‘divisive, ill-thought through and constitutionally wrong’ a former Tory cabinet minister has warned.

Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary and a figurehead of the Tory Right, also warned the European courts would force the Church of England to conduct the same-sex ceremonies despite guarantees from the Prime Minister that it would not be compelled to do so.

In a letter this week to about 60 constituents who had voiced concern about gay marriage, Dr Fox told them that he would be voting against the proposals. He said that they would undermine the freedom of worship.

The European Court of Human Rights would ‘drive a coach and horses through the legislation’ on equalities grounds, he warned. The Government proposals explicitly state that churches will not be forced to host the ceremonies against their will.

Mr Cameron is already facing huge opposition to his places among his MPs and ministers. All MPs have been given a free vote on the issue, meaning that they will not be forced to vote in favour.

Explaining his views on homosexuality, Dr Fox wrote ‘As a doctor I believe same-sex relationships are a variant of the spectrum of human sexual behaviour and should be treated with tolerance and respect. Prejudice dressed in any other clothes is still the same.’

‘But he said the row about gay marriage has led to ‘the alienation of may loyal and in many cases, lifelong supporters of the Conservative Party.’

‘The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small if vocal minority is not a good basis in which to build a tolerant and stable society and should be reasons in itself to think twice.’

‘What makes the position worse is the way that the legislation looks as though it was made on the hoof to deal with the political problem du jour’.

He said that the safeguards stopping the Church of England from conducting the ceremonies were ‘absurd’ and would be defeated in the courts.

‘Banning the Church of England from what would be an otherwise legal activity is anomalous and absurd’ he said’ ‘If the ‘exemption’ is, as stated, because the Church had made clear their objection to same sex marriage then why not exempt the Catholic Church, which has been even clearer in its opposition. The idea of making certain practices illegal for one Christian Church but not others risks further splintering Britain traditional religion at a time when many Christians feel they are under threat on a number of secular, political and cultural fronts.’

Dr Fox, who left the Cabinet in 2011 after a scandal over access to Government he gave a friend, challenged Mr Cameron over a lack of action over growth and pushed him to promise and EU referendum. He is now set to lead the charge against gay marriage.

‘This smacks of a form of social engineering of which Conservatives should be instinctively wary’ he said ‘I think talk of attempts to purposefully antagonise traditional Conservative is far-fetched. However, I believe these proposals are divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong.’

Source: The Times

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And antother

Government 'powerless to protect teachers from sack over gay marriage'

Michael Gove fears that the Government could be powerless to stop primary school teachers being sacked for refusing to teach gay marriage, it emerged last night.

The Education Secretary issued formal reassurances that teachers and other staff who hold traditional views on marriage should not be punished for refusing to promote same-sex marriage at work.

But a senior source in Mr Gove's department said the UK was not “in control” and that the ultimate decision might “inevitably” be taken at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

It comes as the Coalition prepares to publish a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry.

David Cameron believes that gay marriage is a fundamental issue of equality and is determined to make it law.

But he is facing a backlash from within his own party and churches who believe it would undermine the institution of marriage by redefining it.
Government lawyers have devised a so-called “quadruple lock” of legal protections which they believe will prevent religious groups which do not wish to carry out such weddings being forced to do so.

But opponents claim that individual workers – such as teachers, hospital chaplains or other officials – could be dismissed legally from their jobs if they take what they consider to be a stand on grounds of conscience over the issue. In a formal legal opinion commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage campaign group, the human rights barrister Aidan O'Neill QC concluded schools could be within their rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.

He added that parents who object to it being taught would also have no right to withdraw their children from lessons.

It is understood that legal advice supplied to the equalities minister Maria Miller has offered reassurances that staff would be protected and that no one should be forced to “promote or endorse” gay marriage against their beliefs. Last night a spokesman for the Department for Education added: “Teachers will not be forced to teach views about gay marriage which are against their conscience.

“Schools will not acquire a power to dismiss teachers who refuse to teach views about gay marriage which are against their conscience.”

Aides added that while Mr Gove is in favour of the reform he also “strongly supports” the right of teachers to disagree. But a senior source said that, despite the reassurances, the final decision on such questions might ultimately be taken by the court in Strasbourg.

“We have had legal advice, the problem is that there is this inherent uncertainty about such matters,” he said.

“These are all under the control of nine guys in Strasbourg, it is just fundamentally uncertain because Britain isn’t in control of this.”

The admission comes days after the ECHR ruled that a local council was within its rights to require Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, to formalise civil partnerships even though she said it amounted to forcing her out of her job. Mr Gove is expected to tell schools that they do not have the power to “attack” teachers for their views on marriage and that the Government would oppose any council which tried to discipline a teacher over the issue. But sources said that they could not rule out "some extreme local authority trying something" and that councils would be able to “go all the way to Europe” in search of support.

Miss Ladele challenged her treatment by Islington Council at an employment tribunal in Britain and won arguing that she was objecting on grounds of conscience. But the council overturned the decision on appeal in a ruling which was then upheld in Strasbourg last week. Speaking in the Commons yesterday, the Tory MP Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in parliament, insisted that the established Church had not sought “special” provisions making it illegal for it to carry out gay weddings.

“The Church of England isn't asking for any special treatment or protection under this legislation, the issue is simply that the Bill should be drafted to ensure that the Church of England has the same freedoms as all other churches and denominations to decide these matters for itself.,” he said.

“Of course that has to reflect the somewhat unique legal position of the Church of England.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9825341/Government-powerless-to-protect-teachers-from-sack-over-gay-marriage.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

So the Gay Marriage law has passed its first hurdle easily enough,

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/134317989-mps-approve-gay-marriage-england-wales.html

damaging though it was to David Camerons Conservative party (More than half voted against), mind you wont bother him too much.

Interesting commentary on this debate by Peter Hitchens

Stalingrad Revisited - some responses to comments

Here are a few responses to contributors on the subject of same-sex marriage. First, I am told by someone ‘ I'm quite looking forward to gay marriage passing and seeing Mr Hitchens reaction when absolutely nothing happens in consequence. Don't worry though, I'm sure he'll find some way to fuel his persecution complex anyway.’

Has this contributor read a word that I wrote? I think not.

Then there’s Mr ‘L’Eplattenier, who notes ineffably :’ Mr Hitchens does not present us with a single argument against gay marriage. He says compassionate changes in the law would have been sufficient but does not enlighten us on why giving gay people full equality is wrong in his view.’

Again, has he paid any attention? My first 'Stalingrad' article does not offer an argument against homosexual marriage as such, because I believe this argument is a waste of time, a ballet on the head of a pin, while an enormous social change – the slow death of heterosexual marriage - goes on unobserved, unexamined and criticised . That is the whole point of the 3,000 plus words which I wrote , and which he presumably read, or at least allowed his eye to pass over, before commenting.

Mr L’Eplattenier sets himself up as an intelligent contributor, and he can obviously write clear, literate English. Can he read it? He seems to have come here looking for something he did not find, and been disappointed. Thus his pitiable collapse into baseless personal abuse of his opponents at the end: ‘I cannot help but wonder why all these opponents of the new law are presenting us with such feeble (or sometimes non-existent) arguments if it is not because the real reason they are against it is a deeply seated underlying homophobia.’ Wonder away, Mr L, but unless you can prove this charge, your evidence-free ad hominem wonderings will continue to sound like someone who is one or two propositions short of an argument.

In this he is much the same as the persons on Twitter who , on the passage of the Bill last night, speculated on how I would be enraged, in tears etc. If they’d read what I wrote, they’d have known that I was absolutely unmoved.

I am however, interested. And I’ll come on to one or two aspects of interest in a moment.

First I will deal with contributors who feel that I should hurl myself into this doomed battle.

One Mr Noonan, asked : ‘"How do you square your view that homosexual marriage is a minor issue with the fact (reported by a leading legal expert today) that 40,000 Christian school teachers will be compelled by law to promote gay marriage or face the sack? It is simply a misunderstanding to say that changing the meaning of marriage only affects homosexuals. It affects the whole of society.’

Because the restrictions on what teachers and other public servants can say in public and on public premises already exist, and have existed for many years. This law will, I acknowledge, probably move the ratchet a little further on. But in how many schools (state or private) does Mr Noonan imagine it is possible to state in class that marriage is preferable to non-marriage, without facing serious discipline?

The adoption under the Equality Act of ‘Equality and Diversity’ as the official ideology of the country, with the keen support of the trades unions (the only bodies which might be able to defend individuals against persecution on this matter) has placed the seal upon this. Speech on such matters is already unfree, thiough the censorship is enforced by threats to the offender's livelihood, rather than to his physical liberty. For some odd reason, people seem to think this threat isn't serious.

Note also the case of the foster parents Eunice and Owen Johns who were rejected for fostering by Derby council, because they would not agree to tell any child that homosexuality was positively a good thing. Note, they were not required to silence any doubts they had, which would have been bad enough. They were required actively to endorse the new ideology, and the courts supported this decision, right up to the High Court which said on March 1st 2011 that homosexual rights "should take precedence" over the rights of Christians in fostering cases.

Mr Blades chides me thus : ‘Some people just want to fight same sex 'marriage' because it's right to do so regardless of whether it's possible to win. This issue isn't just about politics or conservatism but about standing for Christian morality and in those kinds of battles sometimes it's just necessary to make a public stand no matter what your enemy does or says or thinks. Personally speaking, if you don't want to get involved then I'd rather you just kept quiet instead of shouting from the sidelines and discouraging those of us who are fighting. ‘

What are these ‘sidelines’? On what way am I on them? I expose my reputation, and quite often my person, to opponents all the time. I would be more deeply engaged in national politics, were it possible for me to be. I have many times explained here why it is not possible( see 'Standing for Parliament' in the index if this discussion is new to you).

But apart from that, what if you don’t just *lose* the battle ( which of course the conservatives have done, and will continue to do, on this subject)? For you will lose it. You have lost it. It is over already.

What if you also weaken your own side by allowing yourself to be made to look foolish and prejudiced, for no good reason? What if you waste, time, energy, resources, money prestige and emotion on a doomed cause, which are irrecoverable and cannot be sued elsewhere or in future? Aren’t you then guilty of self-indulgence, making yourself feel good about yourself without serving the cause you claim to embrace?

A friend of mine ( I hope he won’t mind me mentioning this ) recently called me to ask for advice on taking part in a university debate on this subject. My main advice (offered jokingly since I knew the friend wouldn’t pay any attention) was ‘don’t go’. What happened? Why, the opponents of same-sex marriage were treated like pariahs, and voted down derisively, losing so heavily that the Christian, conservative moral cause was left dead on the field of battle. What was the point of this? Does ‘going down fighting’ achieve anything for posterity?

Sometimes maybe. But I don't see how it does in this case. We are obliged to fight intelligently,. as well as courageously. Christ himself was known to sidestep tricky arguments from the Pharisees. Read the exchange which ends with ‘ Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’.

Oh, and to those who glibly maintain that children are happy when their parents break up, or at least not unhappy, I draw their attention to the terrible, heartbreaking messages sent by Chris Huhne’s son, Peter, to his father, and made public as a result of his court case. I have seldom seen a more frightening and raw example of the damage that adults can do when they break their promises in front of their children.

Mr Colin Johnstone’s summary of my position seems to me to be broadly correct.

I’ll add here one or two points about the Bill which seem to me to be interesting. Some opponents of it now say that the Blair Government, when it implemented Civil Partnerships, claimed that this was not in fact a step towards same-sex marriage. This doesn’t appear to me to be true .

Check the House of Commons Hansard for the 12th October 2004 (this is now gratifyingly easy to do) and read what happens as Jacqui Smith, then Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (note this is now a much more senior position, with a cabinet seat) , introduces the Second Reading of the Civil Partnerships Bill . Mrs Smith is taking interventions from opponents of the Bill:

‘Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): The Minister has several times used the word "equality". Will she be very specific? Is the equality that she seeks that whereby a homosexual relationship based on commitment is treated in future in exactly the same way as marriage in law?

Jacqui Smith: If the right hon. Lady looks at the Bill, she will see that, in the vast majority of cases, it is the Government's intention that those people who enter into a civil partnership will receive the same rights and take on the same responsibilities as those that we expect of those who enter into civil marriage.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): It would surely be much fairer to Members on both sides of House if the Government came clean and announced that they support gay marriage. Why will they not do so?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me make the important point that civil partnerships under the Bill mirror in many ways the requirements, rights and responsibilities that run alongside civil marriage. I recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand and feel very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage. The Government are taking a secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples. As others have said, that is the appropriate and modern way for the 21st century.’

Pretty clear, I think(Miss Widdecombe later thanks her for her clarity). And of course those who are now in Civil Partnerships will be able to convert them (presumably for a small fee) into marriages once the Act is law, clear evidence that there is no significant difference between the two.

This is not, in fact, a major change in law, only in terminology and so in the culture wars over language and its permissible use. Even then, as I point out above, it is not that significant, as the Equality Act 2010 pretty much expunged what was left of our former Protestant Christian system (this Act was based on the EU’s four major equal Treatment Directives, which, as sometimes needs to be pointed out, were directives, not suggestions).

The legislation’s principal purpose is to isolate and rout the remnants of the Tory Party’s moral conservative wing, so that, after the Tories lose the next election, which they are bound to do, the defeat will be blamed on their obduracy in face of Mr Cameron’s enlightened heroism. They will then be howled down, Michael Gove or Boris Johnson (bafflingly seen as a figure of hope by so many conservatives) will take up the mantle of David Cameron, and the transformation of the Tory Party into a sky blue pink twin of New Labour can be completed. As usual, the political reporters of the British media, who aren’t interested in politics and so don’t understand it, are quite unable to grasp what is actually going on.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/02/stalingrad-revisited-some-responses-to-comments.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Some letters on the issue

No 1 priority: Gay Marriage or the Economy?

Sir, What is David Cameron for? Saving this economically imperilled nation, which is experiencing the deepest recession for a hundred years, or acting as an instrument of social change (‘Cameron reels from huge revolt on Gay vote’ Feb 6th).

He knows that he has little chance of achieving Growth before the general election, and continuing in government post 2015 depends on keeping the Liberal Democrat’s onside. Unable to build a legacy of economic success he seems intent on being remembered for his social liberalism and interpretation of being fair. Coerced by the Liberal Democrat’s, he is bringing fundamental change to our society in ways that are not understood by his Conservative Cabinet colleagues or the rank and file of his party. They see their country becoming a place that they hardly recognise

John Barker
Prestbury Cheshire

Sir, As we delight in the long overdue Bill that will provide equality for gay couples in Britain, we must note the current miserable state of the Conservative Party. The bill will continue to make its passage through Parliament at a high cost to the Tories. The 136 Tory Mps who opposed the Bill have not only let down their electorate but exposed deep rooted cracks within the party.

Laura Ellman
London N12

Sir, I agree with Andrew Adonis that ‘true followers of Jesus Christ never had it easy’ (opinions, Feb 5) but why does he , like many others, continue to paint Jesus as an all embracing liberal who loves and accepts everything and everybody? If you read the gospels carefully you will observe that he was tough, challenging, and to some of his hearers offensive. He was utterly convinced of the need to obey Gods word, and he did not expect everyone to agree with him. He said that it would be a minority rather than a majority that would follow him. Tough love means saying ‘No’ to some things. I hope and pray that Justin Welby will demonstrate some of that love.

The REV Geoffrey Boland
Bournemouth

Sir, What was perhaps most interesting in the letter by three QCs (Feb 4) was the clarification by the European Court of Human Rights that there was ‘no obligation upon states to provide access to same sex marriage, let alone that they must do so on identical terms’. This rather punctures the argument that respect for human rights must necessarily trump long established beliefs in the unique status of the marriage of man and woman. The QCs go on to express their conviction that it was ‘inconceivable that the Court would require a faith group to conduct same sex marriage in breach of its own doctrines’. I would question the weight of such assurances. There are now no Catholic adoption societies because the law as now promulgated and interpreted denies the Catholic Church in England the right to entrust foster children only to conventionally marked couples.

What price the QCs belief in the inviolability o the right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 9 of the Convention) when it has in this instance been trumped so absolutely – and carelessly – by superior claims of gay rights?

Patrick Tobin
Wotton, Isle of Wight

Sir, Now the urgent and burning question of same sex marriage has been resolved, will this Government get back to dealing with the boring humdrum and seemingly unimportant matters of the economy, the NHS, etc, etc, etc

David Larkin
Hailsham, E Sussex.

Source: The Times Feb 7th 2013

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Police chaplain 'forced out after criticising gay marriage'
A police chaplain says he was forced out of his post after criticising the Government’s plans for gay marriage on his personal website, MPs have been told.

Rev Brian Ross said he was summoned to a meeting with a senior officer and told that postings on his blog on the subject of marriage did not fit with the force’s equality and diversity policies.

Campaigners against same-sex marriage claimed that the case was “just the start of things to come”.

They said it backed up warnings that chaplains in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces as well as teachers and other public servants could be dismissed legally from their jobs if they take what they consider to be a stand on grounds of conscience over the issue. Ministers have repeatedly insisted that no one should be sacked from their job for voicing opposition to same-sex marriage and have built in special “protections” for clerics into the Government’s Marriage Bill.

But in a written submission to a committee of MPs revising the bill in the House of Commons Rev Ross claimed that his case was “typical of the kind of situation that could, and would, arise” once gay marriage becomes law.

Rev Ross, 68, former Church of Scotland minister and RE teacher from Motherwell, served as a volunteer chaplain to Strathclyde Police for three years after retiring. He maintains a blog called “CrazyRev” in which he posts Bible verses and his thoughts on current affairs from a traditionalist Christian point of view.

Last year, as the subject of same-sex marriage became a hot topic north and south of the border, he made a series of postings accusing David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond of acting without an electoral mandate by attempting to change what he called the “God-ordained institution of marriage as between a man and a woman”. But he claims his postings upset senior officers in the force and led to him being stripped of his position.

“This was a role that I enjoyed immensely, and I was extremely active in regular visitation, and in identifying myself with officers and staff,” he explained.

“ I submitted a monthly article to the different divisional bulletins, and attended all of the force, and divisional, events as invited.

“The result of my endeavours was that I gained the trust of those I sought to serve, and was being used by some in pastoral situations.”

He went on: “Just before the summer, a particular senior officer in one of the divisions read my personal blog and objected to my expressed support for traditional marriage as, it was claimed, it went against the force's equality and diversity policies.

“I was summoned to a meeting, the end result of which has been that my services have been dispensed with.

“This, I would emphasise, is before any legislation has been placed on the Statute Book.”

Strathclyde Police said Rev Ross eventually stepped down after being asked to comply with its equality policies but added that were a number of other “concerns” about how he operated. It is understood that he was also accused of wearing the wrong uniform and visiting people without making arrangements in advance.

"Whilst the force wholly respects the Rev Ross's and, indeed any employees' personally held political and religious beliefs, such views cannot be expressed publicly if representing the force, as it is by law an apolitical organisation with firmly embedded policies which embrace diversity and equality," a spokeswoman said.

She added: “A number of parameters were set which would allow him to remain in position.

“These included adhering to an appropriate dress code and methods of conducting his chaplaincy and finally, compliance with the force's equality and diversity policies.

“However, after consideration, it would appear that the Reverend chose not to continue in his role as a force chaplain."

Last year Adrian Smith, a housing trust official from Trafford, Greater Manchester, was stripped of his managerial rank for writing on Facebook that he thought same-sex weddings in churches were “an equality too far”.

He later won a High Court challenge but was nevertheless not reinstated. Colin Hart, campaign director for the Coalition For Marriage, said: “This is just the start of things to come.

“We have already seen Adrian Smith have his wages docked and get demoted in Trafford.

“Now we have this appalling case of Rev Ross, Chaplain to Strathclyde Police being forced out because he backs the traditional definition of marriage.

"We have consistently warned that ripping up the current definition would lead to all sorts of consequences including people getting sacked and forced out of their jobs because of their beliefs.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9901134/Police-chaplain-forced-out-after-criticising-gay-marriage.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Police chaplain 'forced out after criticising gay marriage'

Very sad, and he was a volunteer too.

In the spirit of praying for marraige.

Eric

[سيف الله]

Salaam

An update

More than 500 imams in landmark gay marriage protest

More than 500 imams have joined forces to protest against David Cameron’s plans for gay marriage in an unprecedented intervention from the British Muslim community.

Leaders representing tens of thousands of worshippers at mosques across the country, have signed a joint letter to The Sunday Telegraph accusing the Government of attacking “the cornerstone of family life”

It is the first time that Muslim leaders have made a collective intervention on the issue and underlines the strength of feeling among ethnic minority voters.

Organisers said Muslim opposition should be seen as a challenge to David Cameron’s claims to be acting in the interests of “equality” and “diversity”. In the letter – published as MPs prepare for their final Commons debate on the Government’s same-sex marriage bill – they quote the Koran and say they are fulfilling a “sacred trust to God” by airing their views. Echoing comments by Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy, they describe marriage as a “sacred contract between a man and a woman” which they say “cannot be redefined”.

They also voice concerns about the status of teachers in faith schools and claim Muslim parents will be “robbed” of the opportunity to bring their children up in line with the faith.

Organisers acknowledged that the Muslim voice had been virtually “silent” on the issue thus far but said they now felt compelled to speak. Imam Suliman Gani, of Tooting Mosque in south London, who led efforts to gather the signatures, said Muslim leaders “salute” the Christian clergy who had been vocal opponents of the Government on the issue.

He said many imams had been wary of airing their views publicly because of the negative way Islam is often portrayed, leaving them believing they would be ignored.

But, significantly, he said that because Christianity appeared to be under “attack”, Muslim leaders felt compelled to enter the fray.

Referring to a letter published in The Daily Telegraph earlier this year, he said: “There were 1,000 priests who signed a letter – yet they have been ignored so we felt we had to do this.

“I salute those priests who have taken a stand.” He added: “The Muslim community will take this issue very, very seriously because now the Government has interfered with family. “To us that is like taking children away from their mother: it will definitely have an effect on Mr Cameron’s vote.

“We cannot understand how it was possible that this was introduced so fast – but we cannot give up.

“We celebrate diversity, we want to have a peaceful coexistence with all people but our main concern in the mosques is the way the Government is changing the definition of marriage and what impact that will have on the children.”

The letter has been signed by 505 imams and mosque chairmen from London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Luton, Preston, Blackburn, Burnley, Dewsbury, Newcastle, Bradford, Huddersfield and Nottingham among other cities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

[Pygoscelis]

“We celebrate diversity, we want to have a peaceful coexistence with all people but our main concern in the mosques is the way the Government is changing the definition of marriage and what impact that will have on the children.”

Are there really mosques being told they have to marry gay muslims to each other?

[Abz2000]

It's the next step obviously,
First it's normalisation, then accusations of discrimination, then maybe even threats of imprisonment for not complying.

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

From the book, they thought they were free.

I vividly recall the queen's speech hinting at the transition from bonding through faith in God to. On ding by sporting events lol, another inconsequential step, but an obvious step in throwing off the shackles placed on the wh0re by the scriptures and achieving license to practise her vices. When is she gonna make an opt-in for marrying pigs in churches and mosques?
I mean, according to their logic, if God created people with the inclination to back shaft pigs, He would surely not prevent them from uniting in the sacred marriage bond.

[GuestFellow]

Are there really mosques being told they have to marry gay muslims to each other?

Nah. Might happen though.

You do have mosques that permit gay Muslims marrying each other but I think that's in America or Canada.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Speaking of potential court cases.

First couple consider legal challenge to Church’s gay marriage opt-out

A millionaire couple who made history as Britain’s first gay surrogate parents are planning a legal challenge against the Church of England’s refusal to conduct same-sex weddings.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 44, said he and his partner Tony, 49, believe the “only way forward” for them may be to challenge the Church in court for denying them the right to marry.

The couple, who have been in a civil partnership for seven years and have five children through surrogacy, describe themselves as practising Christians who regularly attend their local parish in Danbury, Essex. Mr Drewitt-Barlow said that while he welcomed the passing of legislation for same-sex marriage, provisions exempting churches from performing the weddings meant they still felt discriminated against.

He told the Essex Chronicle: “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”

The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, which received royal assent last month, contains a so-called “quadruple lock” of legal provisions designed to protect churches which chose not to conduct same–sex weddings from being sued.

But the Coalition For Marriage, which led opposition to the Act, said Mr Drewitt-Barlow’s comments show that churches are bound to face litigation.

Despite government reassurances, opponents believe that even if a legal challenge under the Equalities Act were to fail in British courts, it could potentially succeed at the European Court of Human Rights. Although some religious groups including Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism say they will opt-in to conducting same-sex weddings when the Act comes into force next year, the largest denominations including the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church have made clear they will not.

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: "It is like someone giving me a sweetie with the wrapper on and telling me to suck it

"I am a Christian – a practising Christian – my children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church in Danbury.

"I want to go into my church and marry my husband … The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.”

Colin Hart, campaign director for the Coalition for Marriage said: “The ink is not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation.

“We warned Mr Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn’t possibly keep.

“He didn’t listen, he didn’t care, he’s the one who has created this mess - Mr Cameron's chickens are coming home to roost.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10219802/First-couple-consider-legal-challenge-to-Churchs-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

Speech on the consequences of redefining marriage

[Pygoscelis]

Two things.....

1. Quakers are cool with gay marriage? Didn't expect that.

2. This goes way to far and underlines the lack of separation of church and state in the UK. Churches should not be told who they must do marriages for, just as they should not be allowed to dictate who can be married by the state or by other religions. I would encourage the separation of marriage (spiritual) and civil union (legal rights attached) and have the religions have exclusive domain over the one and the state have exclusive domain over the other.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

2. This goes way to far and underlines the lack of separation of church and state in the UK. Churches should not be told who they must do marriages for, just as they should not be allowed to dictate who can be married by the state or by other religions. I would encourage the separation of marriage (spiritual) and civil union (legal rights attached) and have the religions have exclusive domain over the one and the state have exclusive domain over the other.

Sadly I am divorced and remarried in a registry office, I do not feel I have the right before God, to demand that I should have been allowed to remarry in a Catholic Church, but I do feel accepted in the church, despite my failings.

In the same way, I feel that gay couples should feel welcomed in the church, but they do not have the right before God to demand a church wedding, otherwise the church is not following the teachings of God.

The watering down of marriage laws, including divorce, seem to accept all kinds of relationships as being equal, we now have a huge number of people dependant on social services and the benefit system.

I do believe a loving relationship between one man and one woman for life; is the best and greatest way for children, parents all their relations, the community and the country.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon; thanks for sharing,

The video was very powerful, marriage is mentioned about three thousand times in English law, husband is mentioned about a thousand times, wife about nine hundred times, husband and wife together about three hundred and fifty times. Any attempt to change these laws will be a minefield, many other good points.

Speech on the consequences of redefining marriage

[/QUOTE]

Blessings

Eric

[Trumble]

Any attempt to change these laws will be a minefield, many other good points.

I can't see why; all that has happened is that, legally, the 'husband' and 'wife' can now be of either sex. All that requires is a change of personal pronouns. In the very few occasions where there might be conflict (such as who gets maternity and who gets paternity leave, perhaps?) necessary changes only involve a little common sense and another grammar change. Beyond that, the sexes are supposed to be equal according to the law, anyway.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble; nice to see you around,

Beyond that, the sexes are supposed to be equal according to the law, anyway

The law is not able to make two men conceive a baby, so the law cannot make them equal.

In the spirit of searching for God in marriage

Eric

[Trumble]

The most the law ever does is state conditions where two people should not conceive a child; nowhere (mercifully) does it require that they should - whether they are a married couple or not. Whether those people are biologically incapable of doing so is therefore irrelevant in law regardless of them being same-sex or a conventional couple where one or other is infertile.

A couple that cannot have children have the same legal status as a couple that choose not to have children. What possible legal reason could there be to distinguish between them?

For the record, I certainly agree that this involves a legal redefinition of marriage. I just don't have any problem with that, a legal marriage only takes three signatures to come into being and often little more to end. A religious marriage involves rather more and although there is obviously overlap I do not regard them as the same thing. It's only labels. I don't find it hard to understand why gay couples might have felt short-changed by being denied the word 'marriage' in favour of alternatives such as 'Civil Partnership'. IMHO, though, distinction will still enter language (but not law) from the other end with common use of the phrase 'religious marriage', or more specifically 'Christian marriage', 'Islamic marriage', etc. And everybody's happy whether religious, humanist, secular, straight or gay.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Judge Sir Paul Coleridge quit because of lack of ‘support’ over marriage stance

Sir Paul Coleridge, the High Court judge who set up the Marriage Foundation, discloses he decided to step down from the bench because of opposition to his stance on marriage

A senior High Court judge has disclosed he is stepping down because of opposition from within the judiciary to his support for traditional marriage.

Sir Paul Coleridge, who founded the Marriage Foundation think-tank, was placed under investigation after questioning the Government’s decision to focus on pushing through same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a “crisis of family breakdown”.

The prominent family division judge announced last month that he is to retire early from the bench in April next year, saying he wanted to concentrate on his foundation which works to bring down the divorce rate. But he has now disclosed that the lack of “support” he received from the legal profession for his stance on marriage was a crucial factor in that decision.In an interview with The Tablet he said that he could have continued in his role for several more years had it not been for this.

Sir Paul, 64, could still face censure from the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office (JCIO) for his outspoken stance on marriage.

He angered gay rights campaigners and MPs last December when he gave an interview describing same-sex marriage as a “minority issue”.

The remarks triggered fresh complaints to the JCIO which only weeks earlier had warned him to keep a “lower profile” after speaking out about his concerns over the decline of marriage. He told The Tablet that the complaints were central to his decision to stand down.

“I could have struggled on … if I had got more solid support,” he said.

“But after April, I will be freer to be outspoken.”

He also said that “hundreds” of judges were too afraid to voice support for his foundation publicly because they thought it might harm their careers.

In a speech last month Sir Paul acknowledged that his interventions on family values had “upset” the senior judiciary. The JCIO answers to is the body set up to assist the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice handling disciplinary matters involving judges. In an interview with The Times last year Sir Paul said: “So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown.

“It’s gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage ... but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue. We need a much more focused position by the Government on the importance of marriage.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10485276/Judge-Sir-Paul-Coleridge-quit-because-of-lack-of-support-over-marriage-stance.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon; thanks for sharing;

It seems gay rights are pushing the boundaries in so many ways, try doing a Google search of 'gay couple sue' and see what comes up

Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.

In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.

“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.

“We feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

Earlier this month, Drewitt-Barlow said he and his civil partner, Tony, would go to court to force gay weddings on churches.

He said at the time, “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us.”

He added, “It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.

“As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

A government bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.K. cleared Parliament earlier this year, and the first same-sex weddings are expected in 2014.

The legislation allows churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, and it specifically protects the Church of England.

However, top human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill says protection for the Anglican Church is “eminently challengeable” in court.

A copy of O’Neill’s legal advice was sent to the prime minister in January, but Mr. Cameron nevertheless proceeded with the legislation.

http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding

In the spirit of praying for the sanctity of marriage,

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

That is pretty ridiculous to demand a church be forced to perform a ceremony. Looks like a case of people finally getting equal treatment under the law and then testing the limits and trying to get special treatment. Reminds me of affirmative action crapola.

[dcalling]

I don't know this should be an issue to the church or not (do agree that government should not force private entities to do stuff that they don't want). In the Bible the old testimonies, there are verses that states God don't like same sex acts. However in the new testimony, Jesus told us not to punish other sinners unless yourself is sinless. Also the biggest rules are love God and love your neighbor. In that sense the people of the book might need to leave the Gays alone.

I have not finished the Quran yet, but I have not yet found any reference about Gays in Quran yet (in the Bible it is a tiny section too, easy to miss, one of my church members pointed it out to me when I challenged him to give the specific verse). But I remember saw a youtube video that a Muslim claim Gays are not liked by God, just like the old testimony.

[muslimah bird]

On the subject of gay marriage , the world 2nd most populous country india has reinstated ban on gay marriagehttp://www.nation.com.pk/international/12-Dec-2013/india-s-top-court-reinstates-gay-marriage-ban?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp aign=Feed%3A+pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online%2F24hours-news+(The+Nation+%3A+Latest+News)