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

[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'


[FONT=Verdana,arial]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,

​

[/FONT]

 

[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.".