Thu, 24th Apr 2014

Echo News

Hampshire MP under-fire for his support of gay marriage

8:29am Friday 1st February 2013

Hampshire MP under fire for his support of gay marriage

A JOINT attack has been launched by five Hampshire clergymen over their MP’s support for gay marriage.

New Forest MP Desmond Swayne is under fire from ministers in his constituency accusing him of helping “jettison a key part of the Christian heritage” for his support of allowing gay couples to marry which they describe as “misguided”.

A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament.

The five clergymen were Rev Neil Smart from Brockenhurst, Boldre and South Baddesley, the Rev Paul Taylor from Hordle, the Rev David Gooderidge, pastor at Lymington Baptist Church, the Rev John Pawson from Sway, and the Rev James Bruce from Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Minstead.

“We were bemused and disappointed to read the comments of Desmond Swayne about the opposition of so many people to his party’s misguided plan to redefine marriage.

“The proposals, which are to be debated next week in Parliament, were always going to provoke a strong reaction since they seek to jettison a key part of the Christian heritage of our nation without any mandate or real consultation.

“At this time when so many are deeply anxious about family budgets, debt and unemployment, ordinary people want the government to concentrate their time and resources on reviving the economy for everyone’s benefit, not creating widespread controversy about marriage by rushing through legislation about which so many people are deeply unhappy,” they said.

Comments(60)

Comments(60)

Cerdicjute says...
8:51am Fri 1 Feb 13

I must admit I am bemused by the point of Desmond Swayne full stop. Why do the good denizens of this part of the world continue to vote for these parasitical Londoncentric place men? If people seriously want change then it is the status quo that will need to be challenged not more of the same.

Not voting for incomers is a start.

Linesman says...
9:24am Fri 1 Feb 13

I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.

News Fanatic says...
9:32am Fri 1 Feb 13

It is odd that so many heterosexual couples choose to live together without a civil or church union, yet homosexuals want to marry.

cocteaut says...
9:38am Fri 1 Feb 13

"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.

AD1234 says...
9:50am Fri 1 Feb 13

cocteaut wrote:
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.
.............yet.

redsnapper says...
9:55am Fri 1 Feb 13

Vicars and tarts.. does anyone really give two hoots what these groups say?

Just let people do what they want to do and get on with it , instead of having to be lectured to, by the minority groups represented by religion and politics.

thesaint says...
10:13am Fri 1 Feb 13

typical bigots of the church which was formed by king henry so he could marry his FIVE WIFES.no wonder the churchs are empty they are so far out of touch.good luck to desmond .
swayne,

Inform Al says...
10:32am Fri 1 Feb 13

Been married 3 times, I don't see why they shouldn't suffer like the rest of us.

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:35am Fri 1 Feb 13

I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:36am Fri 1 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And no, I'm not religious.

MGRA says...
10:37am Fri 1 Feb 13

thesaint wrote:
typical bigots of the church which was formed by king henry so he could marry his FIVE WIFES.no wonder the churchs are empty they are so far out of touch.good luck to desmond .
swayne,
they are not bigots. they just don't think the word "marriage" should be applied to homosexual partnerships. I have no real opinion either way but I don't see their christian beliefs as bigotted.

Stillness says...
10:45am Fri 1 Feb 13

I guess that "love thy neighbor", "peace and goodwill to all men" and "turn the other cheek" ;-) only apply to the congregation and not preachers. Do as I say, not as I do springs to mind.

The Wickham Man says...
11:01am Fri 1 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
But everyone isn't equal.

kingnotail says...
11:08am Fri 1 Feb 13

"A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament."

Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.

kingnotail says...
11:08am Fri 1 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
"A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament."

Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.
*have

cocteaut says...
11:10am Fri 1 Feb 13

AD1234 wrote:
cocteaut wrote:
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.
.............yet.
The ECHR would beg to differ with you.

cocteaut says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13

MGRA wrote:
thesaint wrote:
typical bigots of the church which was formed by king henry so he could marry his FIVE WIFES.no wonder the churchs are empty they are so far out of touch.good luck to desmond .
swayne,
they are not bigots. they just don't think the word "marriage" should be applied to homosexual partnerships. I have no real opinion either way but I don't see their christian beliefs as bigotted.
The concept of marriage pre-dates these religions by millenia,

They have never owned it.

kingnotail says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13

The Wickham Man wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
But everyone isn't equal.
And who exactly are you better than?

cocteaut says...
11:12am Fri 1 Feb 13

The Wickham Man wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
But everyone isn't equal.
In the concept of the law. They are.

Facewagon says...
11:13am Fri 1 Feb 13

I can understand why some Christians are uncomfortable with the idea of churches marrying homosexuals given the teaching of their religion, but don't see why this should form the basis of denying homosexuals the right to be married outside of church. If the objection is that "marriage" - as opposed - to civil partnership - is of God and should be bound to his "laws" whether it takes place in church or not, then surely this should apply equally to heterosexuals and Christians should be lobbying for non-Christians to be prohibited from marrying.

Christians reasonably expect non-Christians to keep our noses out of their business; why should we not expect Christians to keep their noses out of ours?

Inform Al says...
11:16am Fri 1 Feb 13

cocteaut wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
But everyone isn't equal.
In the concept of the law. They are.
Unless they are the innocent divorced male wishing to have access to much loved children, there's no such thing as equality then.

chavfreezone says...
11:32am Fri 1 Feb 13

Who cares what they think they believe in gods not science bigoted moronic idiots.

Linesman says...
11:33am Fri 1 Feb 13

cocteaut wrote:
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.
Yes! I do know that.

I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.

I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.

If it is not, then what's their problem?

I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.

Scott_OOOSH says...
11:55am Fri 1 Feb 13

Well said! Why would you want to marry in a church, knowing that they stand opposed to it?

kingnotail says...
12:17pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
cocteaut wrote:
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.
Yes! I do know that.

I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.

I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.

If it is not, then what's their problem?

I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.
What about churches that want to hold gay weddings?

rightway says...
12:35pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.

Linesman says...
12:38pm Fri 1 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
Linesman wrote:
cocteaut wrote:
"why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them "


You do know that all that is proposed is for those churches who wish to perform them and civil marriage.

No one is forced to do anything.
Yes! I do know that.

I stated that I could see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.

I question why they want to be married in a church. If it is because of a strongly held belief in that faith, then they would be well aware of that faith's teachings and rules.

If it is not, then what's their problem?

I enjoy a hog-roast, but I would not consider asking a Rabbi to hold one in the grounds of a synagogue or a Mulla to hold one in the grounds of a mosque.
What about churches that want to hold gay weddings?
What about it?

I have not said that they should not.

If you read what I wrote you will see that I was was asking why they, (same sex couples) should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them.

If churches want to change the teaching and rules they have abided by for centuries, then that would be up to them to decide, not the gay-lib movement.

jimbos says...
12:40pm Fri 1 Feb 13

And what mandate do the 26 Bishops in the house of lords have ?

Also why are these religious institutions exempt from tax ? They are not charities.

Inform Al says...
12:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13

rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
You don't happen to be an Argie by any chance?

James Fl says...
1:24pm Fri 1 Feb 13

"since they seek to jettison a key part of the Christian heritage of our nation without any mandate or real consultation."

Ahh got to love a little outright lying/misinformation
. The government both held an extended public consultation period (which turned a result favouring Same Sex Marriage) as well as regular discussion and information sharing with religious groups. The Conservative party also has a mandate for this, since it can be found in their equalities manifesto, released before the 2010 election.

A site online has already totalled the number of MPs for and against gay marriage based on responses from MPs. It shows a very clear result. Gay Marriage will be a reality.

Stephen J says...
1:37pm Fri 1 Feb 13

They say the proposals: "...seek to jettison a key part of the Christian heritage of our nation..." The argument for the separation of church and state in a nutshell.

kingnotail says...
1:48pm Fri 1 Feb 13

rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.

kingnotail says...
1:49pm Fri 1 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.

binghammac says...
2:33pm Fri 1 Feb 13

What would you expect from an individual who spends most of his time licking Cameron's shoes?

R. Joy says...
2:57pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'

Stephen J says...
3:23pm Fri 1 Feb 13

R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
But the clergymen here saying that marriage for all (let's not keep saying gay marriage) is wrong are mostly evangelicals, who, it could reasonably be assumed, have a very scripture-based view of faith. What a muddle!

linstrand says...
3:32pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Why cannot the Gays form their own Church,For example a person could not force people to let then be a member of a Golf Club just because they wanted it
to happen.Your own church could have your own rules
Surely that would be better all round

Linesman says...
3:46pm Fri 1 Feb 13

R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.

James Fl says...
3:59pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
The religious freedom is the freedom for a church to decide whether or not it wishes to wed gay couples. The church has every right to refuse them, the legislation makes this incredibly clear, as does the European Court of Human Rights. Denominations such as the Quakers would welcome gay marriage with open arms and are fighting for the right to be allowed to perform these ceremonies in their churches. Currently, other Christian denominations are fighting against the religious freedom of the Quakers to do it. That's the issue here. Why should churches not have the right to choose?

R. Joy says...
4:13pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.

Stephen J says...
4:34pm Fri 1 Feb 13

R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
There is a very simple way for the Church of England to be forever free of all political interference. And it's one I would wholeheartedly support.

Linesman says...
5:31pm Fri 1 Feb 13

R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
So, what's your problem?

Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.

Be a Quaker.

As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.

A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.

Stephen J says...
5:41pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
So, what's your problem?

Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.

Be a Quaker.

As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.

A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
The problem is that if you're a gay Anglican, the proposed legislation says that the church cannot marry you, no matter what its theological or doctrinal position. It's the law that will say no, not the church. So yes, there is a very definite infringement of religious freedom.

Stephen J says...
5:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
So, what's your problem?

Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.

Be a Quaker.

As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.

A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
The problem is that if you're a gay Anglican, the proposed legislation says that the church cannot marry you, no matter what its theological or doctrinal position. It's the law that will say no, not the church. So yes, there is a very definite infringement of religious freedom.

ReverendPaul says...
7:09pm Fri 1 Feb 13

I am in favor of the opportunity for all people to be treated on an Equal basis in all of their lives. I am a Priest and welcome the opportunity to conduct ceremonies for couples who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other. There are many Gay Christians who wish to exchange vows of love and commitment in the love of Jesus, who himself welcomed all into his ministry. For these Anglicans to say that it is re-assigning the identity of marriage, the marriage laws are not a matter for the church but one for the whole country. Its already been made very clear that the CoE will be outside the new legislation and NO one needs to open their churches up to Gay People and for same sex ceremonies, so cannot see why them make so much fuss. If they want to make a statement maybe they should look at their own churches and why they do not help those in need where they live and why they feel the need to exclude people in loving relationships whilst welcoming the re-marriage of divorced couples and older people who will not want to procreate. Well done to those MPs who are voting with the interests of others and not the minority who are more interested in politics rather than attending to the real needs of the world. I look forward to Opting In to conduct ceremonies for all people just as all people are welcome at my inclusive church. www.st-sebastians-in
clusive-church.co.uk

R. Joy says...
7:15pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
R. Joy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I have no objection to persons of the same sex getting married, but see no reason why they should expect churches to change their teachings to cater to them when there are plenty of Registry Offices that can perform the ceremony.
Linesman, the reason why, is because it is a matter of religious freedom! There is a huge debate within the Church over this, because not every Christian adheres to the same theology on this. The fact is, there are many, many churches who would happily marry same sex couples, and they are currently forbidden from doing so. This is a violation of religious freedom. let alone a violation of civil rights. At present, the Catholic Church's official view is actually one of idolatry; i.e., they are putting the created gender, over and above love, and the creator IS love. 1 John 4:16 '...God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.'
Each Christian denomination has it's own way of interpreting the gospel, and have their own set of rules.

You speak of 'Religious Freedom'. Is it your contention that this 'religious freedom' is a freedom for same sex couples to marry in a church, but not a freedom for the church to say that it is against what we believe and against what we teach?

A violation of Human Rights?

Does the Church have no rights?

Why would same sex couples want to 'marry' in a church, whose teachings are against such a thing, in the first place?

I wonder how many of these couples regularly attend church.
Not a single church will be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry... Just as the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees.

The point is, it is about having the right to marry a couple you wish to, and about same sex couples being granted their civil rights! Oh, and FYI, many same sex couples do attend church... There are many gay Christians, and I am one of them. The Church is actually split over theological beliefs on same-sex marriage. Not everyone within the Church holds the same view. There are many churches, within the Church, who do agree on same-sex marriage. Biblical hermeneutics is not black and white... & many scholars, and theologians (including myself) believe that a correct interpretation of scripture shows that loving same sex relationships are not in anyway condemned.

Each church should (and eventually will) have the right whether or not to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. No one will be forced to do anything against their theological beliefs.
So, what's your problem?

Join a church that agrees with same sex marriage.

Be a Quaker.

As you say, the Catholic Church does not marry divorcees, but I have not heard of any campaign by divorcees complaining that it is against their human rights or their religious freedom.

A civil ceremony is available to same sex couples, and I am quite certain that there are many churches, of more than one denomination, that would be happy to perform a blessing.
Divorcees are still allowed to marry in other churches. Quakers are denied their religious freedom, because of the current state of the law... Gay people are not allowed to marry, full stop.

The problem is, at present, that gay people are denied civil marriage... We are also denied the religious freedom to marry in a church who agrees to perform the ceremony. If one is a gay Christian, they can not even marry in an Anglican church who approves (even once the law is changed). There is (as Stephen J also rightly put it) a definite infringement of religious freedom.

cantthinkofone says...
9:40pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And no, I'm not religious.
I am.

And I agree 100%.

There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.

I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.

And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.

cantthinkofone says...
9:46pm Fri 1 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
"A committed Christian, Mr Swayne recently complained about churchgoers giving him abuse for his view of the issue which is due to be voted on in soon in Parliament."

Sums up the problem I jave with so-called 'christians' perfectly.
I know you wouldn't make such a sweeping judgement on all 'blacks', or 'jews' - or (more topically) gays for that matter.

Not all Christians think and behave alike either.

Ginger_cyclist says...
10:55pm Fri 1 Feb 13

cantthinkofone wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And no, I'm not religious.
I am.

And I agree 100%.

There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.

I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.

And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.
As a Priest above has stated(which backs up my initial thoughts), one of the original "teachings" of Jesus in the bible was to treat everyone as equals, correct? And if I am correct, then why the hell aren't these so-called "Clergymen" practicing what they preach? Why are they treating people unequally? That's like a rehab doctor treating patients and then going home to do drugs themselves or someone telling another person to put a seat belt on but then not doing it themselves.

Inform Al says...
12:01am Sat 2 Feb 13

My view is that it is about time we gave up on all this religious clap trap, the Christian religion has been rewritten many times over the years just to suit those in charge or those who use religion to feather their own nest and the Muslim religion is currently being rewritten by freaks like the Taliban. If any one is stupid enough to want to marry anyone else, anyone, then that is their stupid choice.

andysaints007 says...
1:56am Sat 2 Feb 13

News Fanatic wrote:
It is odd that so many heterosexual couples choose to live together without a civil or church union, yet homosexuals want to marry.
IDIOT

cantthinkofone says...
10:15am Sat 2 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I know of a picture that fits this perfectly, It's one of "Jesus" standing before a group on some rocks and teaching them but on this web picture it's captioned like this: Jesus- "Love others as you would love yourself." Person being taught- "What about homosexuals?"
Jesus- "Did you not listen to me properly?"
To be honest I welcome the idea of homosexuals being able to get married as it's then a major step forward towards EVERYONE being treated as equals.
And no, I'm not religious.
I am.

And I agree 100%.

There are a lot of Christians that have no problem with homosexuality at all. It actually makes me pretty angry (oops) that a group of clergymen think themselves fit to speak for so many, and potentially drive people away from the faith for no good reason whatsoever.

I have one piece of advice for those that oppose gay marriage. Don't marry someone of the same sex.

And then start concentrating on improving yourself instead of opposing the sins that you perceive in others. Whether or not you believe that it's 'right', it's none of your business and not your place to cast judgement. Butt out.
As a Priest above has stated(which backs up my initial thoughts), one of the original "teachings" of Jesus in the bible was to treat everyone as equals, correct? And if I am correct, then why the hell aren't these so-called "Clergymen" practicing what they preach? Why are they treating people unequally? That's like a rehab doctor treating patients and then going home to do drugs themselves or someone telling another person to put a seat belt on but then not doing it themselves.
Yep. I think we're very much on the same wavelength on this one!

Inform Al says...
1:50pm Sat 2 Feb 13

News Fanatic wrote:
It is odd that so many heterosexual couples choose to live together without a civil or church union, yet homosexuals want to marry.
Perhaps it is queer, but we should all be equally able to engage in the misery of marriage.

dango says...
4:45pm Sat 2 Feb 13

stuff religion.

rightway says...
12:02am Sun 3 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.

kingnotail says...
3:08pm Sun 3 Feb 13

rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.

rightway says...
4:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
You suppose wrong.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.

Inform Al says...
4:35pm Sun 3 Feb 13

rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
You suppose wrong.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
You two do not have a civil partnership do you? sounds like you're married from the way you go on, and on, and on.......

kingnotail says...
11:13pm Sun 3 Feb 13

rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
You suppose wrong.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
And making a joke about right-wing dictatorships doesn't make a mockery of people who died under such systems? Yeah I'm being childish by saying 'retard', in response to an equally childish comment.

Inform Al says...
11:42am Mon 4 Feb 13

kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
rightway wrote:
Gay marriage. .
Women voters.
Human rites.
No wonder Britain lost the empire.
Its time for a right wing military dictatorship to restore the balance, only this time not with a woman in charge.
Good luck retard, in a country which hasn't been under a dictatorship since the mid 17th century.
PS Apologies if your post was a joke, because it very much seems that way.
If you have to ask if something is a joke, wouldn't that make you the retard, although I for one would never stoop so low as to use that juvenile expression.
I would say the use of 'retard' is about as highbrow humour as calling for a right-wing dictatorship, so we're equal I suppose.
You suppose wrong.
I cannot see how supposed political beliefs can compare to childish name calling.
To call someone a retard for comic effect only goes to show your own lack of maturity, laughing at those who have learning difficulties only shows your own mental deficiencies.
And making a joke about right-wing dictatorships doesn't make a mockery of people who died under such systems? Yeah I'm being childish by saying 'retard', in response to an equally childish comment.
Yup, convinced you two are in a civil partnership now.

More Echo News