Wycombe MP expects to vote against gay marriage proposal (From Bucks Free Press)

A VOTER wrote:
What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage?

I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people.

I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.

sai-diva wrote:
About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions.
Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:

sai-diva wrote:
About time we grew up and separated the state from outdated superstitions.
Craig, the government did re write the bible, with the help of King James.

It was translated by a committee - not bad writing considering. (Kipling uses a lot of biblical-sounding or biblically-indebted phrases.)

Mike Henson wrote:
For the same reason as agnostic and atheist heterosexuals get married in church - it's the norm, the expected thing to do, peer pressure.

Why shouldn't they?

Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK

Peter Cyprus wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK

As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.

Mike Henson wrote:
J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven!

A VOTER wrote:
What harm does it do if two people, regardless of gender, want to be together in a marriage?

I think it does more harm if a government stands in the way of any such union of two people.

I'm heterosexual, but I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from being with the person they want to be with, and wish to make that union a recognised and legal union.

bluebanana wrote:
MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

bluebanana wrote:
MP's represent their constituents. So shouldn't he gather the views of his constituents & vote accordingly - not on his own personal opinion?! The fact that he is a christian should be irrelevent.

And if the majority of those constituents are opposed to homosexuality, you'd be prepared to accept that? Not a chance, and you know it.

craig239 wrote:
"I can't understand why anyone would want to get married in church - a ceremony full of fakery and pomposity.
Much prefer a civil ceremony which actually means something"


Your lack of understanding is not a great surprise based on your polarised view

Peter Cyprus wrote:
Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

The Erastus Piggott Poem wrote:
It says in the Erastus Piggott poem.. 'Adam and Eve' not; 'Adam and Steve' ........just leave things as they... it's just not right..... disgusting actually to even think of it....

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote:
Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

tom.marlow2 wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
Nobody has given a good reason why gay people shouldn't get married in church.

We are all human beings and are entitled to be treated in the same way to act otherwise is to discriminate which is an offence in the UK

As I have already said, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals as far as marriage is concerned.

To marry the person they love?

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed!

82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''

Mike Henson wrote:
I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote: When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too. If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false? The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart. As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks. I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people. So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality. I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there? Or alternatively, those who shout loudest....... I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

craig239 wrote:
Mike Get to facts
All saints Marlow in last 12 months 2 gay Vicars.You don't know what your talking about.
Don t say the Church doesn t change
Its another question whether they should have been there

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.

Mike Henson wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.

Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

Mike Henson wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.

Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.

Mike Henson wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote: It seems to me like a number of Wycombe residents should move to Uganda where the government is trying to pass a bill where gay people can be executed! 82.5% of the population in Uganda are Christians.

What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are; this thread is solely about whether homosexuals should be married in church, and you twist it into something far more sinister, implying that there is a desire to see homosexuals dead. It seems there are no depths to which you and your ilk will sink, in order to justify your stance; you are beneath contempt.

Me and my ilk want to see equality regardless of age, creed or sexual persuasion. It's you, your fellow Christians and a church that's losing followers hand over fist, that are trying to prevent the natural rights of every human being on this planet.

Edgar Brooks wrote: "What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are" Aren't Christians supposed to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek? ****** I once took a church going Christian to a business meeting where we happened to park in a muddy area. On leaving the car I slipped over; did he offer his hand to help me to my feet - did he hell!

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
I've just discovered this on the CofE website which is rather disturbing. By Archbishop Rowan Williams Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ and, in common with other Christians, seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught. Central to that relationship is knowing we can trust God. Saint Paul says at the end of the eighth chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome, 'if God is for us, who can be against us?' And this is the heart of faith. How do we know that 'God is for us'? Because Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God - with what God wants and what God is doing - has carried the burden of our human betrayals of God and running away from goodness. He has let himself be betrayed and rejected, executed in a humiliating and agonising way, and yet has not turned his back on us. Death did not succeed in silencing him or removing him from the world. He is alive; and that means that his love is alive, having survived the worst we can do. Ends So, can someone tell me how you can have a relationship with a "human being", born out of a virgin; which seems to suggest he might be of alien parentage and is dead - if you can't see him and touch him he must be dead.

For an allegedly well-educted businessman, your knowledge is woefully short in some areas; though some (one in particular) churches harp on this "virgin" business, it's known that the original word applied, also, to a woman who had "known" only her husband.
Doesn't make the miracle any less for those believers, but it does rather cut the ground from the hysterical cynics.

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.

J B Blackett wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.

That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.

Mike Henson wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.

That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.

When you're dead, you're dead!

J B Blackett wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.

That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.

Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
J B Blackett is absolutely right. In fact I'd go further and say we should keep religion out of everything. If people want to worship a non-existent effigy and follow the teachings of a piece of fiction their ability to get involved in the running of the country has to be questionable. I have been running a business since 1987 and the only problems and bad debts I've encountered are directly attributable to clients who call themselves Christians. This world would be a better place without ANY religion. I pray at the Church of Google because everything it stands for can be proven!

Typical of the claptrap spouted by haters of the Church; in the same way that Christians cannot prove the existence of God, but wish to believe, by the same token you cannot prove that he doesn't exist, but wish to believe, and (worse) wish to force that belief onto others.
I find your assertion that only Christians are bad debtors patently ludicrous; quite frankly, if a business asked for my religion before accepting my custom, I'd walk straight out, and never return. I've had messages from Nigerians, claiming to be Christians, and promising me loads of money, if I'll just let them have my bank details; strangely enough I don't believe them, and, if you want to continue to be a success in business, I'd advise against believing everything you're told.
This world would actually be a better place if those, who profess to believe in their particular god, were to obey the teachings of that deity, instead of twisting the philosophies to suit themselves, and stop behaving in the conceited, self-serving, selfish ways of so many so-called humans.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell; ..........if it exists.

And there you go again, propagating an utter lie; Christians do not despise homosexuals (or lesbians - isn't it wonderful how you have to use the twee word "gay," to describe your friends, rather than the older, more prosaic, words,) it is the sexual act, between men, that they view as abhorrent. Though, of course, you never mention them, since it would lessen the perceived impact of your vitriolic outbursts, lesbians do not figure in this alleged contempt that Christians have; it is a simple case that the church also views marriage between them as impossible.
Like your perverted cheerleader, Sai-Diva, you cannot understand that the Christian religion can forgive the sinner, but not the sin. If, like Kenneth Williams, you feel homosexual urges, but don't indulge, no true Christian will ever despise you, but that doesn't sit well with your rabid desire to portray them as wild-eyed death-dealing extremists, does it?
If anal sex is not unnatural, perhaps you can tell us how many children have been born as a result of it? Are you a product of it? Somehow I doubt it.
I suggest that you should then go and listen to a church-held wedding service, in which you will hear the priest tell you that "marriage is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are born and nurtured."
And that is why the church says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why all your twists, turns, and convoluted thinking can never alter that. To hear you sneering at, and decrying, the Christian religion, then demand that you should be allowed to get married in a building in which that religion is practiced, is a clasic example of the worst of double standards.

Mike Henson wrote:
The adjective "gay" is a respectful way to group homosexuals and lesbians; to the best of my knowledge there is no other suitable word.

According to your interpretation, sexual intercourse should only take place between a man who is married to a woman for the purpose of procreation. What a boring life you must lead.

It therefore follows that adoption of a child by a heterosexual couple is sinful because the child is not a result of their loins?

So a heterosexual couple who perform oral or anal sex are committing a sin just the same as a male homosexual couple?

Lesbians cannot indulge in anal sex so where do they stand - or are you still living back in Victorian times where gay women simply didnt exist?

tom.marlow2 wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Francis Harris wrote:
As a Baptist Minister I have conducted many wedding. What is all this about pomposity and fakery? What pomposity? - I wear normal clothes and the service is serious but simple and straightforward. What is the 'fakery'?

''Til Death do us part''?

I think that will do for starters.

I find that line rather puzzling. I thought one of the underlying tenets of christian (and many other faiths) was that death was followed by eternal life, thus any parting by death is temporary.

Perhaps I have got it wrong. Many of the participants in Stanley Spencer's portrayal of the resurrection in Cookham churchyard don't look to pleased about it.

That's because Marriage to another human (or other) is not permitted in Heaven. It's in the Book
.
Neither is Sex.
.
That would overpopulate the place on an exponential scale , as nobody ever dies who gets there (or is even sent to Hell for everlasting torture).
.
On second thoughts - if you go to Hell , perhaps you have to get married to someone you detested in real life and have sex continually with them for ever and ever. That would be Hell
.
And if you go to Heaven you would be forcibly sterilized or castrated and would thus thenceforth be 'excused duties'.
.
Or - looking on the bright side - perhaps (prior to entry to Heaven or Hell ) all genitalia is removed and nobody is obliged /forced/allowed to indulge.
.
And then eternal Peace will reign - except in Hell which will still unfortunately resound to loud piercing screams and heart-rending groans of agony.
.
Take your pick.
.
So , Sorry there is no choice in the afterlife ; your destiny is at this very moment now in your own hands. Live and choose wisely.

Thank you for clarifying JBB.

Mike Henson wrote:
What keeps me going it that the these Christians, who despise gay people, believes it's un-natural and don't want to allow same sex couples to marry in a church, might end up in hell;
..........if it exists.

J B Blackett wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?

How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.

J B Blackett wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?

How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''

Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.

sai-diva wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

esilvester wrote:
When the haters quote the bible as stating homosexuality as being 'sinful' its usually some nonsense from the old testament. When you quote something else equally outragous back at them they normally claim its irrelevant as it is from the old testament. These double standards stand to only justify their own homophobia or maybe own latent homosexual tendencies.

We must be truly grateful at the number of fully-qualified members of the psychiatric profession, who are willing to enlighten us with their wisdom, and without charge, too.
If everything written in the Old Testament is nonsense, or outrageous, why should a professional, like yourself, quote something you know to be false?
The only double standards, that I see, come from a group of people who deny the teachings of the Church, but want that same Church to "bless" their union, apparently for some spurious respectability that the service would impart.
As for "latent homosexual tendencies" (what a wonderful load of twaddle that expression is,) on the rare occasions that the subject has arisen, among my heterosexual friends (male and female,) the overriding reaction has been an expression of revulsion against the physical act, not those who indulge in it.

Thing is though Ed, Jesus didn't have a bad word to say about homosexuals, or whores, or tax collectors come to that. (he'd have probably drawn the line at bankers tho'). All that hatred comes from the OT, the same place that says it's ok to own slaves,snip bits off of your male offspring, beat your wife, you know the stuff, the stuff rev pete calls ''ceremonial jewish law'' and all us intelligent people call ''b*llocks.

I too am truely grateful that those who seem to know what god thinks are prepared to enlihten us lesser people.
So please tell me who are these people who deny the teachings of the 'accept all'' christian christian church. Those who seek equality.
I'm also glad that when you discuss this with you heterosexual friends that you are all educated and informed enough to be able to dismiss the idea of latent homosexuality, what a clever bunch you must be, plenty of PHD's amongst you is there?
Or alternatively, those who shout loudest.......
I've said it before, if it's male homosexuality that you object to, and the act of anal sex repulses you, I would remind you that it is not only men that indulge in that act, do you want to legislate against heterosexuals that indulge as well?

How could you say such a thing . Please wash your mouth out.

Because it's true, men sometimes like to use the ''back door'', and some women enjoy it too, it is also a very effective contraceptive.
'Go and wash your mouth out''..... price less!

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''

Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.

''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave''
Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then?
Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god.
I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing.
You say
''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists.
Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it.
I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.

Mike Henson wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''

Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing.
And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.

''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave''
Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then?
Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god.
I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing.
You say
''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian."
Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists.
Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it.
I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.

As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on.

Utopia is a world without religion.

Mike Henson wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Edgar Brooks wrote:

sai-diva wrote:

Peter Cyprus wrote: Why do homosexuals, who generally appear to be atheists or agnostics, want to get 'married' in church?

Erm, because contrary to your sweeping generalisaton, there are quite a few christians who are gay.

Not if they're practising homosexuals, they're not; they might like to call themselves Christians, but that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Who are you to determine who has the right to call themselves christian?The views you express on here are quite different to 'what jesus would do''

Ah, the good old Sai-Diva system of "I'll twist your words to suit myself." It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave, and those are the views that I'm putting forward, so I am actually "determining" nothing. And how, precisely, do you know "what Jesus would do?" Were you there? Have you asked him? No, as usual you presume to have all the answers, even when you don't, can't, or (more often) won't understand the question.

''It's the Church who says how a Christian should behave'' Oh so a group of men who determine what makes a christian then? Of course I don't know what jesus would do, I don't have the answer but then neither do you, unless you profess to know the word of god. I do not twist your words, this is called a ''discussion'' something those who 'believe' have trouble doing. You say ''I can't remember ever seeing a march, with the participants yelling, "Proud to be Christian." Really? do you never watch TV,Proud to be christian may not be being shouted but plenty of parades of christians all over the place, from adverts on buses, to the house of lords to the very unpleasant Westboro baptists. Can you please point out where i have insuted you? Again I feel it is the other way around, but I get used to it. I don't hate christianity, how can you hate any philosophy that preaches we should all love our neighbours? It's some christians interpretation of that instruction that bothers me.

As usual sai-diva, you're absolutely spot-on. Utopia is a world without religion.