Gay marriage - will divide & rule destroy the family?

[TonyGosling]

Is marriage the union of a man and a woman - or a woman and a woman and a man and a man as well?

Few people object to gay couples having a 'civil partnership'. A public ceremonial demonstration of their private commitment to each other.
But is it appropriate, and should it be legal, for gay couples to go through a Christian marriage ceremony and have that partnership 'blessed' by God?

One can be in favour of gay rights but against gay marriage.


Christian charity worker suspended over opposition to gay marriage ...or...
Christian charity worker suspended over opposition to gay rights
April 12, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6081782.ece

past articles
TIME - Is Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=9501

[Dogsmilk]

You'd think God would have far more important things to worry about than whether gay people are getting married. Who cares?
Besides, if He was that that arsed He wouldn't have deemed fit to make a proportion of he population gay throughout history but expect only heterosexual people to join in union in His sight. That would imply He likes messing with people's heads.
On top of that, an awful lot of contemporary marriages are secular anyway. The last three marriages I've attended (hetero) have been totally devoid of any religious content.

[TonyGosling]

[Dogsmilk]

What point? Marriage becoming more secular has nothing whatsoever to do with whether gay people are getting married or not.
It was increasingly secular way before any gay marriage stuff kicked off and I think it would be hard to find a heterosexual couple who were in any way put off a church wedding by gays being able to tie the knot.
Christian belief has receded in this country. It's as simple as that. Particularly CofE type traditional Christianity - as I understand it, it's those Evangelical guys that are doing best right now.

Which kinda leads me to something else I don't understand. I don't know how many gay people tend to want a Christian flavour to their weddings, but if gay people have secular or even Hindu weddings or something, what business is it of Christians? If you have a secular wedding it's essentially an expression of love with legal implications. The couple could be practicing Satanists and still have a secular wedding if they so wished. Christians don't have the monopoly on weddings and what goes on with secular, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Pagan (though they're not recognised by law I believe), Zoroastrian whatever weddings is none of their business. So why is what gay people do any of their business? Unless they have some kind of problem with gay Christian weddings. Which, if anything, would up the number of Christian weddings going on.
Why do Christians have any right to say who's allowed to get married and who isn't? They don't own the concept.

Mind you, as far as I'm concerned why bother? I've been with my good lady 15 years - what do we need to get married for?

[TonyGosling]

I mean, gosh, it quite clearly does.
It is only because marriage has become so secularised that gay couples might think it possible for their relationship to be blessed by God.
Whatever god is doing the blessing it's clearly not the God of the Bible.
Wheras even 100 years ago gay relationships were illegal... now it appears you can be sacked for expressing the view that God cannot bless gay partnerships.
Or make yourself unemployable for ever.

[Dogsmilk]

[TonyGosling]

It's an opinion, it seems, that some people want to kill off.
Do you think that's acceptable?
Seems to me like someone's having a laugh in bad taste in trying to tell Christians like me what to believe.

If I had beliefs and could not express them I would become mentally ill and I find that imposition offensive.

Someone will always say they are offended by the beliefs of others, particularly if they have a problem they're not prepared to deal with.

Anyway freedom of expression is enhrined in international law and those who want to stop it as a clear mark of oppression.

[TonyGosling]

Nice to see Stephen Fry agreeing with me and millions of other Christians here. Solidarity mate!

[fish5133]

Wait for the lightning bolt!

[Truthout]

[Truthout]

[paul wright]

I think he said the financial corruption is insignificant compared to the warmongering and mass killings founded on lies from a similar source
He also has a profound dislike of media hacks
He ain't all bad

[truthseeker john]

[TmcMistress]

I would add something here, but dogsmilk covered the proper arguments pretty well already.

[eogz]

I completely agree with the genius who said....

"Gay Marriage, I completely support it. Why shouldn't gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as straight people."

Nice.....

Freedom of speech and expressing ones opinion on the other hand is another matter altogether.

[TonyGosling]

Marriage is not the joining of two sticks it's the joining of two people in a God-blessed partnership.
Thankfully most people clearly see that is common sense.
Trying to change the meaning of the word is only going to work for dumbed down people.
As the fundamental basis of 'the family' as an autonomous social unit it's one of the key reserves of culture and therefore being atacked by the New World Order.

Gay couples can't marry because, while gay individuals can be, their gay 'partnership' can't be blessed by God.

[fish5133]

TG wrote

[Truthseeker_34]

In my opinion, the whole marriage the union of a man and a man, woman and a woman, and the promotion of homosexuality within schools etc. This is working towards the UN Agenda 21 and other publications on depopulations.

Of course this would make sense as homosexuals can't reproduce. And the labeling of homosexuals as "gay" is a misnomer as this is not meaning of being "gay". And that the homosexuals even label themselves and believe that "gay" refers to anyone thats a homosexual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
Certainly don't take the information present within wikipedia as gospel

Peace

Truthseeker_34


"They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority." Gerald Massey
________________________

http://thewakeupcall.org.uk/

[TonyGosling]

amazing interview about infiltration of London mosque by Channel 4 undercover reporter with George Galloway

Hilarious George Galloway Interview

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anq7LjMVQwo

[Disco_Destroyer]

[conspiracy analyst]

[TonyGosling]

Government can't rewrite nature and allow gays to wed - O'Brien
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Government-can39t-rewrite-nature-and .6832538.jp
Keith O'Brien said any attempt to redefine marriage would be ‘strenuously opposed'. Picture: Phil Wilkinson
Published Date: 08 September 2011 - By Andrew Whitaker
The leader of Scotland's Catholic community has warned that moves by MSPs to legalise gay marriage will be "strenuously opposed" by the Church.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, in a strongly worded homily delivered at a mass for politicians in Edinburgh last night, claimed that allowing gay people to wed through a civil or religious ceremonies would be a "direct attack" on the institution of marriage.
However, the intervention sparked criticism from MSPs, with the openly gay leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, attacking the Cardinal's remarks as "absurd" and as an attempt to "suppress" the freedom of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
The row came after the SNP government launched a 14-week consultation on allowing gay marriage - a change to the law that currently allows same-sex couples to enter a civil partnership, but bans the ceremony from church or other religious premises.
However, Cardinal O'Brien suggested that supporters of gay marriage wanted to "rewrite human nature" as he appealed to MSPs to oppose the proposed reform.
He said: "The Church esteems the institution of marriage as the most stable building block upon which any family can rest.
"The view of the Church is clear, no government can rewrite human nature; the family and marriage existed before the State and are built on the union between a man and woman.
"Any attempt to redefine marriage is a direct attack on a foundational building block of society and will be strenuously opposed."
There was also a sharply worded statement issued by the Bishops' Conference of Scotland yesterday, which suggested that the Scottish Government's consultation was "an exercise for justifying the campaign demands" of the "vociferous" gay rights lobby.

But Green MSP Mr Harvie attacked the Catholic Church's stance on gay rights and highlighted a Scottish Social Attitudes survey which revealed 60 per cent believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
"It's absurd to suggest that one marriage can undermine other marriages," he said.
"Just as non-Catholics respect Catholic marriages, so it's time for the Cardinal to start respecting the right of every adult to love who they please.
"The Cardinal should also remember that he doesn't speak for all people of faith, or even all Christians.
"There are many faith groups who want to conduct same-sex marriages for their members, and the Catholic Church seems determined to try and suppress their freedom to do so."
SNP MSP John Mason, who faced criticism for lodging a parliamentary motion that said no-one should be "forced" to approve of same-sex marriage, said he wanted "to encourage churches" to get involved in the debate about the proposals..........
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Government-can39t-rewrite-nature-and .6832538.jp

[TonyGosling]

rolling apostasy - amazing the CofE has still not been privatised - surely then they'd make gay marriage in churches legal

Church of England should 'rejoice' over gay marriage, Bishops say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9218079/Church-of-England-sho uld-rejoice-over-gay-marriage-Bishops-say.html
The Church of England should “rejoice” at the prospect of marriage between homosexual couples rather than fear it, senior bishops and clergy have said.
Signatories of the letter to The Times (note they still consider this revolting Murdoch rag as the paper of record), include Dr Jeffrey John, the openly homosexual Dean of St Albans Canon Giles Goddard, chairman of the progressive Anglican group Inclusive Church, five former bishops and the serving Deans of Portsmouth, Norwich and Guildford.
On Friday night church sources dismissed the names as “not surprising”, pointing that none of the signatories were “senior serving bishops”.
In their letter, the group said they welcomed current moves by the Synod’s House of Bishops to “consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality”.
“We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage,” they added.

[TonyGosling]

NOTE: absolutely NOBODY is putting the case against same sex marriage in the MSM.
And we've got to save our FREE PRESS from legislation
How ridiculous.
Marriage, like religious worship, is a sacred institution and has been for thousands of years.
You cannot break that sanctity, however powerful your cult philosophy & grip on the MSM is.

A God-given opportunity

Our general director Steve Clifford writes...
http://www.eauk.org/idea/a-god-given-opportunity.cfm

I still find it hard to believe I’m now the father of two adult and indeed married children. Over the last four years both my son and daughter have got married. They were great days of fun, joy and celebration reflecting their character and that of those they were marrying. I am pleased to report that both Ann and I have managed to survive the experience.

Our church doesn’t own a building, so those getting married usually have a registry office ceremony a few days earlier and then a full-on church wedding using all kinds of different venues. My son Jake was so lacking interest in the registry office bit that he managed to negotiate a discount rate for early on a Thursday morning. As far as he was concerned, it was a bit like picking up a birth or death certificate from the council – he wasn’t sure he needed any ‘civil ceremony’. I did point out to him that God was present on the Thursday morning even in Ealing Town Hall and that He did hear their promises even there.

What I realised was that what really mattered to my children happened a few days later. In the context of worship, prayer, the opening of scripture, surrounded by their family and friends they made their promises to each other and we as a church committed to walk with them in their marriage. Marriage isn’t just about two people making vows to each other, it’s a community event, we were never meant to make it work on our own.

Whatever comes of the re-definition of marriage debate and the government’s proposal to change the law to allow same-sex marriage - a proposal which we are working with others to campaign against, convinced it is not in the best interest of the society we live in - there is another significant debate which needs to happen which is highlighted by these proposals. How do we as a Church inter-relate with this thing called the ‘State’? This is a far-ranging and profoundly significant discussion, impacting on many areas of how we understand British society and participate in it. Over the centuries, in all kinds of areas of life, but notably in the areas of marriage, an agreement has been entered into with the Church delivering a service on behalf of the State; a marriage service.

This isn’t just true of the Anglican Communion but most mainstream denominations. The government has now proposed to move the goalposts by re-defining marriage. Not only would this diminish a key social institution, it would also undermine the partnership of Church and State which has emerged over centuries. This is particularly difficult for the Church of England which is under a legal obligation to offer a wedding to anyone who lives within their parish, regardless of their faith - an obligation which has provided some wonderful gospel opportunities. The excellent submission of the CofE to the marriage consultation highlights this dilemma and points to the untenable position that the established Church would be placed in by such changes.

So as we look to the future and should the government be successful in re-defining marriage, how will we as a Church respond? We might have to find our own words to describe what we mean by marriage - the government having hijacked the historic and biblical definition. Some churches might have to find new ways of celebrating a man and woman committing themselves to each other for life. Maybe the ‘open to all’ in a parish will no longer be available as the government’s moving of the goalposts will have profound implications.

The future will be more like what happens in many mainland European nations and indeed, as with my son’s and daughter’s weddings, we pick up our marriage certificate from the town hall, but then as a Church we celebrate our weddings in a way which reflects our faith without any government interference. In this context, although the historic social institution of marriage as a life-long union between a man and a woman would effectively be dead, there may be an opportunity for the Christian Church to breathe new life into its own God-given form of marriage. Perhaps with a sadness of heart, a God-given opportunity will emerge whereby we as the Church demonstrate with fresh faith and clarity what marriage as God intended it is really meant to be.

[TonyGosling]

apart from one

Farage believes the gay marriage issue will serve his party well by highlighting the impact of the European court of human rights on Britain and by showing Ukip can rally support around a touchstone issue. "Ukip is not a one-issue party," he said. "But the gay marriage case is closely interwoven with the European court of human rights, as is so much of our life. Ukip will be seen to be a party campaigning not just about who governs Britain but about how we think that Britain should be governed."

The intervention by Farage came as Tory associations confirmed that members have resigned over the issue. The Arundel and South Downs Association, whose MP, Nick Herbert, is a leading supporter of the plans, confirmed there had been resignations. Councillor Gordon Marples, deputy chairman of the association, said: "Views are polarised. We have seen people resign on a point of principle. It is contentious. It is a big issue. It is not something I would have sought. I don't have any particularly strong views on it. I just believe in equality and this is the way society is moving."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/11/ukip-david-cameron-gay-m arriage

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Does it really matter that Britain is losing its religion? From a historical point of view, the census results that show a sharp decline in Christian belief are just the latest chapter in a long narrative of ceaseless change. A couple of thousand years ago, these islands were populated by wild men who painted themselves blue and read their fortunes in the entrails of birds. Then we were Celtic Christians, then Catholics, then Protestants, then a colourful mix of social gospels and now, today, a nation of agnostics who scoff at virgin births yet read horoscopes in vain search for a tall dark man. Plus ça change, etc…

But I suspect that something big will be lost when, in say ten years time, we officially become a minority Christian nation. For one, a shared faith brings coherence and consensus. I grew up in a Britain that was united by certain assumptions, most of which have been undone by postmodernity. We were Christian in a vague way (and the Anglican Church's vagueness has fringe benefits, such as tolerance and intellectual curiosity). We all learned the Lord’s Prayer and Have You Heard the Raindrops, and the Births-Deaths-Marriages cycle of Anglicanism gave a sense of Christianity running through everyday life like a thin silken thread. The unpicking of that thread is matched by a growing doubt about our moral history and the superiority of The British Way. Combine these with the physical changes to the high street, the decline of home grown cultural talent (we desperately need a new Steeleye Span), the rise of materialism and the mind-blowing breadth of the internet and you have the recipe for atomisation. We’re not even bonded by the telly that we watch, as the X Factor’s dwindling viewing figures show.

The death of religion also contributes to the slow erosion of the mental landscape. If you deny a child instruction in faith, you reduce their potential for imagination. When I was a kid I was forced to learn the piano. I hated the hours of practice and I particularly hated the miserable old bat who rapped my fingers with a wooden ruler when I struck the wrong note. In my late teens, I stopped playing altogether. But by forcing me to learn the piano my parents had given me an intellectual training that stayed with me for the rest of my life. If I wanted to pursue it or forget it, that was up to me. But thanks to that early experience, I can still read and understand music and so am equipped to fully exploit life. The same goes for religion. Raise a child in a faith and they may reject it later on – but at least they will understand it. But the mental landscape of the future generation raised by largely atheist parents will be sadly barren. No angels, no life after death, no prayer, no sacraments, no sanctity. As Jeanette Winterton put it, reflecting back on a painful childhood of strict religious indoctrination, without the strange “beauty” of religion, she would have been left with “my spray tan and my boob job”.

But most of all I fear that a Britain that is losing its faith is also losing some of its moral vocabulary. Consider the vapid response to the Credit Crunch. It was a crisis caused by greed and yet the obvious Christian Socialist response was absent. Neither the Anglican nor the Roman Catholic Church offered a stinging critique of the bankers, and when the grounds of an Anglican cathedral were occupied by economic protesters, the national church fell back on its lawyers. We are told that we are on a war footing by our Prime Minister, yet the policies that accompany it appeal entirely to self-interest (we are reduced to bribing French millionaires to move here). Corporations destroy our local businesses, refuse to pay a fair rate of tax and are then lauded as wealth creators – even by the Left. Much of the Left has lost its sense of moral outrage. While it happily speaks out for sectional interests like students and union members, it offers no transformative alternative to vulture capitalism and has abandoned its apostolic socialism. For the modern Left, faith and moral judgement are private matters. It’s no coincidence that Tony Blair not only didn’t “do God” but didn’t do socialism either.

Perversely, nothing speaks more to the death of the Christian conscience than the debate about gay marriage. That David Cameron – a Conservative?! – can challenge social traditionalism and win proves that ancient consensus about the most important things in life is lost. But when churches are reduced to being guardians of sexual etiquette, they also confirm their obscurity. Writing even as a theological traditionalist, I find it troubling that my Roman Church – which is historically the church of the poor, the immigrant and the disenfranchised – is increasingly defined by its position on sodomy. Whether one takes that position or not, it’s an odd thing to wear as a badge of honour.

If there is any hope, it surely comes from the Jedi. According to the UK census, 176,632 people now identify themselves as Jedi Knights. This suggests that the British have retained at least one of their unifying characteristics: a sense of humour. And how our craven establishment responds to it, I can’t wait to see. A Jedi wedding in Parliament with Sally Bercow dressed as Princess Leia? Songs of Praise coming live from the Death Star? Lord have mercy…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100193977/britain-will-mi ss-christianity-when-its-gone/

[item8]

[TonyGosling]

A cursory study of those in charge of Europe in the run up to the first world war should make it clear to anyone that these leaders were not followers of Christ.
Part of the fundamental understanding of what is going on in the world today is fakers in the churches, often running them.

Right now factional fighting in the Middle East is being portrayed as people of faith fighting each other.
Why do you think the CIA created Al Qaeda? To co-opt radical Muslims of course.

[item8]

[TonyGosling]

Ultimately it comes down to this

Is God or David Cameron head of the Church?

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbadnjVvx4o