At a time of potential economic meltdown, you might think the BBC had other issues to devote itself to but gay marriage is so important to the BBC that it is rarely far from the headlines. Today sees the Church of England warn that Government proposals for gay marriage would dilute an institution “vastly” important to a healthy society.
Responding to a consultation on the issue in England and Wales, the Church said the legislation was “shallow”.
Well, the BBC was not going to take that one lying down, so to speak. I caught some COE cleric being given the Spanish Inquisition on BBC TV News this morning by Bill Turnbull. Bill’s ever so clever question was to demand to know where it says in the Bible that gay weddings should not be performed in Church. The answer, as he well knew, is that does not make any reference to gay weddings since in Christian terms the concept is oxymoronic. To the BBC it is matter of faith that the State shall compel the Church to accept things which go directly against its teachings. This totalitarianism is dressed up in the clothes of equality and advanced vigorously at every opportunity by the State broadcaster. This is all part of the danger BBC bias represents, it actually undermines vast chunks of the stuff that hold our society together.
Of course, Dez (I think) claimed here that churches won’t be forced to accept performing homosexual marriages if they don’t want to. It was of course a lie, we all knew that the anti-Christian bigots would get their way to undermine the Church’s teaching by this compulsion.
I’m not a Christian, or any other religion, but I believe that all religions should be allowed to practice to their own beliefs as long as it does not affect other people. I believe that if Churches want to perform gay weddings then that should be allowed to, just as I am not against gay marriage per se.
But the lack of tolerance by the gay mafia is disgusting. I would also like to see how far they get when trying to force gay marriages in Islam.
I mentioned Dez at the top, if it wasn’t him then it was one of the other indistinguishable mono-neuronic sheep on here.
The European Council on Human Rights have made it abundantly clear, that IF the law were to change to allow homosexuals to marry in civil services, then they would support a challenge against the church’s ban of religious homosexual marriages on the grounds of homosexual discrimination.
The homosexual lobby is simply lying when it claims that churches would not be affected or that churches would have an opt-out.
This is why we should NOT adopt this crazy law, or if we do, we must pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights altogether and go back to the English Bill of Rights for protection.
geyza: “The European Council on Human Rights have made it abundantly clear, that IF the law were to change to allow homosexuals to marry in civil services, then they would support a challenge against the church’s ban of religious homosexual marriages on the grounds of homosexual discrimination.”
No they haven’t.
Excelent blog post here, which takes the COE claims seriously, but shows how misleading they are:
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/06/12/will-the-european-court-to-force-churches-to-perform-gay-marriages/
At a time of potential economic meltdown, you might think the BBC had other issues to devote itself to but gay marriage is so important to the BBC that it is rarely far from the headlines.
Had the BBC not reported on the CoE report, had it simply ignored it, would you have said that was the right approach to take?
The fact that the CoE wrote a report, the fact that the media has reported the CoE stand, and the fact that you have dedicated 1/3rd of your posts today to the topic, shows that it is an important subject that is occupying people’s thoughts and concerns.
Two of my children have just been made redundant. The Middle East is in ferment. Real problems beset this country and the world and we waste time on this.
A Mickey Mouse country with a Mickey Mouse government and media. Except Mickey Mouse often behaved more sensibly.
Well, except this is a site that focuses on the bias within the BBC, and the BBC have selected this issue as it’s number one headline on the ‘home’ and ‘uk’ tag. So this site doesn’t respond to the news, just to the focus that the BBC puts on ‘non-news’.
I do not have a problem with the BBC covering this item, as the newspapers have and it is a cause which the Church of England wish to gain exposure over.
What I object to is the one-sided, intolerant and incorrect reportage from the BBC on this.
Well, the bible doesn’t say that gays shouldn’t marry in church, but the issue is covered in other ways like :
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
So lesbians are OK then? Thank Allah for that!
somoene once wisely pointed out when asked if homosexuals believe in God
“yes they do indeed-it’s just that their god is between their legs”
Re-posted from the open thread as it is relevant here:
The BBC is attacking the evil homophobic bigots in the Christian Church again this morning.
When will the BBC ever give Islam’s reaction to the proposals for homosexual marriage any coverage at all?
As a Catholic friend of mine just said to me,
“I am not 100% opposed to homosexual marriage in church, I just think that, for the sake of diversity, we should wait until homosexual marriages take place inside a mosque inside Saudi Arabia. I think that it is time for the Islamic faith to take the lead in this important issue. When that happens, I am sure that the Christian church will follow suit”
Where is the BBC’s coverage of Islamic homosexual tolerance? Or lack thereof?
just refer back to peter tatchell, only last week
actually on preventing insult/offence being railroaded through statute, he actually tried
to bring up abhorrent islamic intolerance of gays
full stop, on R4 today,(he was repeatedly asked to expand … so he did so),
within a few seconds, he was simply cut off ….
a “we ll have to leave it there” palava ensued
the heirachy of subservience must go like this
Islam + useful idiots
rich tapestry of multi culti diversity –
homosexuality –
christianity
judaism
white
white christian
english white christian
At the bottom of that list:
Hard working, independently wealthy English, white heterosexual Christian conservative male.
Such a person can be treated like Satan in this country.
Peter Tatchell is the only lefty taking on Radical Islam. Whatever you think of him, he has more balls than the rest of these metro trendy leftys put together.
He won’t have any when the caliphate is established.
Yet again, the BBC slamming gayness down our throats.
they can stick homosexuality up their arse
oh wait……..
Except arses weren’t designed for that sort of thing which leads to all sorts of medical problems that the Beeb never seems to mention when celebrating an alternative lifestyle.
Yes it must hurt like buggery … :p
“It must be awful, being a homophobe. Having to spend all that time obsessing about what gay people might be doing with their genitals. Seeing it in your mind, over and over again, in high-definition close-up. Bravely you masturbate, to make the pictures go away, but to no avail. They’re seared onto your mental membranes. Every time you close your eyes, an imaginary gay man’s imaginary penis rises from the murk, bowing ominously in your direction, sensing your discomfort. Laughing. Mocking. Possibly even winking. How dare they, this man and his penis? How dare they do this to you?
Obviously you can’t fight the big gay penis in your head. It has no physical form, so you can’t get a grip on it, much as you’d like to. You’d love to grab it and throttle it until it splutters its last. That might bring you closure. But no. So you do the next best thing. You condemn homosexuals in the real world. Maybe if they could just stop all this “being gay” business for 10 minutes, you’d get some respite from that scary headcock. It might shrivel away completely, leaving nothing behind. Except maybe a nice bit of bum.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/15/charlie-brooker-gay-video-game
Wow, you are one sick puppy.
Have you never heard the phrase ‘to hurt like buggery’ then? Perhaps it is verbotten in your circle?
Or perhaps you are one of those people who don’t like jokes about certain subjects? You do know what :p means don’t you?
And those images? Do they trouble you much? You either have a very vivid imagination or, well, that’s your life you are decribing, not mine. Or perhaps you have started an attachment and this is a clumsy approach? Sorry, I’m spoken for.
Are you in or out of the closet? Out is much better I’m told. Maybe all those cocks in your head will just wither away then. Or is that just too much like real life for you, cocks withering on sight. Is that it? Too much unspent sexual pressure? Have a wank dear boy or a cup of tea if you can’t get it up.
Not that I care what people do in private. But then I’m right wing and tolerant of people who don’t share my viewpoint. They can do as they please.
But you don’t feel that way do you? Tolerance is not allowed in your ideal world is it?
Or is it too much repressed guilt maybe? Ashamed of being gay are you? No need. It’s OK to be gay.
Muslims talk in their mosques about killing all homosexuals. They give out leaflets in muslim areas saying the same thing. The christian religion maybe against homsexuality but it doesn’t say these things against gay people. Why doesn’t IBBC report this? Gay people needed to realise when they radical muslims can and they will they start doing the same here that they do in IRAN. Will IBBC report that?
The christian religion maybe against homsexuality but it doesn’t say these things against gay people.
Since lojolondon cited Leviticus 18:22, what about Leviticus 20:13?
The New testament cancels out the old testament in Chiristanity.
The New testament cancels out the old testament in Chiristanity.
In its entirety? Are you certain about that?
So the citing of Leviticus 18:22 above was irrelevant to this debate?
Some stuff in the new testament cancels out some stuff in the old testament. Do you know any new testament scriptures that say kill homosexuals?
“Bill’s ever so clever question was to demand to know where it says in the Bible that gay weddings should not be performed in Church.”
To clarify, I was merely pointing out that the bible does not specifically ban weddings from being performed in church, but by saying that ‘sodomites are unclean’ for example, I thought that covered the question….
No — and I am the least qualified person to get into a debate on scripture. But if Leviticus can be cited to support one argument, surely it can be cited to support another?
Some stuff in the new testament cancels out some stuff in the old testament.
This is the bit I have never understood. How are you supposed to know which bits are ok and which have been over-taken? Some would disagree with you on this and say it is all the literal word of god, others say different. I am unqualified to take a position on this, and merely seek consistency.
How are you supposed to know which bits are ok and which have been over-taken?
Trust in God dear boy.
Some would disagree with you on this and say it is all the literal word of god, others say different
Welcome to the world of sectarianism.
However very few Christians want to stone gays to death or hang them from cranes. This cannot be said for others which was the original point I think.
One of the things I’ve noticed about this exchange is you’ve managed to avoid replying to Earls’ main point, which was regarding the Muslim position on homosexuality.
Because Islam is not the established church of this country, the CoE is. What Islam has to say on the matter is as relevant to the debate on same sex marriage in the UK as what the Zoroastrians have to say (I have no idea what their stand is).
It is the religion of a not insubstantial and growing population of the country, who are now form a majority in Leicester (and soon some other owns and cities).
I reckon what they have to say is very important indeed, especially as they hold an extremist anti-gay position.
According to a 2010 ONS report, 4% of the population was Muslim, 71% Christian and 21% had no religious affiliation. Is 4% really “not insubstantial”? That equates to about 2.5m people. Brian Matthew’s show Sounds Of The 60s gets around 3.5m listeners and no one would suggest we court their views on Gay Marriage.
There are a lot more Catholics in the country than Muslims and that church holds robust views on homosexuality.
But since the only religious body that has any bearing on this topic is the CoE, as the established church, what others think, while of interest, isn’t really relevant.
Institutionalised homphobia by any other group, no matter how small, would be perpetually targeted by the left.
Imagine the EDL had a homophobic agenda….
Yours is just typical Leftist evasion, masking your support for Islam. The question is, why this support? It should be anathema to so many of the ideologies you hold dear.
Very, very strange.
masking your support for Islam
Where have I supported Islam? In the context of this thread what Islam believes is as relevant as what the Jews, the Buddhists, the Catholics and every other religion and sect with the single exception of the CoE.
That is not supporting Islam, it is simply saying it isn’t relevant to this thread.
Judeo-Christian religion has had a number of reformations since the Old Testament was written. I know of no Christian who would welcome the execution of homosexuals.
Now tell me, how many reformations over the centuries has Islam had?
Matthew IX:4-6:
“Haven’t you read,” (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Corinthians VI:9-11:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy I:8-11:
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Romans I:24-27:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (oo er missus)
Case closed.
As bible believing christian, I hate the things god hates. You can’t go wrong doing that.
Why did you dismiss that Leviticus quote by saying that the New Testament cancels out the old, then? Were you unaware of these passages and just believed because you were told to by someone else?
Awaiting an answer with interest.
The Old is complementary to the New.
In my understanding, the passage in the New that most demonstrates that that Christ’s first coming signalled the transitory passing from the age of judgement to the age of Grace is when He invited ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
Not that there was not grace in OT times. When Joseph believed that Mary was pregnant through adultery, Scripture tells us “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly” Matt 1:19 (NIV) If I understand it correctly, OT law allowed for her to be stoned to death.
I always call to mind this Scripture when weighing up to follow my liberal inclinations on how apply by trenchantly conservative Christian beliefs.
Gays need to ask why they are criticising Christianity not Islam. Interesting article below.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/50460/muslim-wanna-be-cop-sues-nypd-denied-job-after-saying-gays-are-criminals/
BBC 5 Live gave a very easy ride to a spokesperson from Stonewall this morning. Any and all opposition that there may be to their point of view and their demands were of course rooted in ‘homophobia’.
There is no argueing with the left when the backstop arguement is always a ‘phobia’. I suppose that’s why the BBC don’t bother? Same reason the BBC support the Palestinians against Israel. One side of the debate is just a little too scary for them to challenge.
The left still as spineless as ever.
You just made me think, the beeb doesn’t mention Palestinian homophobia. I bet it would mention Israeli homophobia though…..
the problem with the lot of them is they have lost their sense of theophobia
they don’t fear God……..silly mistake!!
Biggest mistake to ever make is upset god. Eternal damnation awaits them, these left/Cultural marxists freaks.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for any Beeboids to point out that the back when Civil Partnerships were first discussed, we were assured that this was the Stoneheads ‘last territorial demand’ after which they’d all retire to run an antique shop with a close friend. Why believe them now when they say they won’t use the law to force churches to hold these services? Wouldn’t that be the type of thing real journalists would ask?
Ditto, don’t expect any Beeboid to ask the Stoneheads whether or not they think Christians should have the right to demand the owner of the Blue Oyster Bar allow them to perform a mass there and provide the catering.
And if not, why not?
But no: the Church of Beebotopia apparently takes a dim view of anyone performing acts of journalism.
Militant homosexuals will NEVER be satisfied with their gains. They will always demand more from society.
That’s the problem with single issue and special interest groups. They don’t want equality, they want SUPER equality. They’ll never be happy until their rights outweigh everyone else’s
This seems vaguely apropos:
This afternoon’s play on R4 – Kicking the Air: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jqjlk
“Facing deportation from the UK, a young Iranian student, Reza Mostafai, claims asylum on the grounds that he is gay, fearing for his safety if he is returned to his homeland. With the help of his barrister Fiona and best friend Lulu, Reza must try and find a way to prove his sexuality in time to halt his removal. Can they find someone to come forward to testify to the truth of Reza’s claim?
“Christine Murphy’s debut radio drama is a powerful and shocking story of one man’s desperate attempt to prove his homosexuality.”
R4 drama is nothing if not agenda-driven (score 5 points for identifying each box ticked), but this almost seems beyond parody, and I just don’t think radio drama has anywhere to go after this.
This has the makings of a good sit-com.
It needs a good title though …
How Gay is My Iman?
Dhimmi, Dhimmi, Dhimmi?
‘Does My Bomb Look Big In This?’
‘That Was Another Mohammed’
Sadly, I was posting plotlines from Radio 4 drama on this site several years ago.
It’s actually a useful technique – it enables them to drip .opinions and propaganda into the ears of primarily middle class listeners who don’t realise they are slowly having their worldviews changed.
Gramsci would have loved it. and Goebbels would have wept that he didn’t think of it first.
The BBC is OBSESSED with homosexuality.
I was listening to the World Service last night – at 1.30am on came an announcer saying there would be a discussion with a Christian who had tried to “cure” gay people, but had eventually had to come to terms with his own homosexuality.
Instant switch-off.
I now see that thew World Service had devoted a full 30 minutes to interviewing this man. Now c’mon, BBC, this is bloody ridiculous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00sxt13/Outlook_11_06_2012/
Large numbers of BBC people see it as a soapbox from which to preach to all the people who pay their wages.
I think the vast majority of us do not agree with homosexual marriage and yet this makes no difference to the state. That tells us something, the state is out of control and the Church is in great danger. I for one, will NEVER recognise same sex marriages and hold those responsible for allowing this to happen in complete contempt.
I think the vast majority of us do not agree with homosexual marriage
Depends on who you mean by “us”:
A 2004 Gallup poll found that 52% supported gay marriages in the UK.
A 2009 by Populus poll for The Times reported 61% of the UK public agreed with the statement ‘Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships’
A 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that 78% of Scots supported same-sex marriage
A 2012 ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph found the public backed Same Sex Marriage by a margin of 45% to 36%.
A 2012 ComRes Poll for Catholic Voices found seven out of 10 British people believe that marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
Polls can be manipulated to make them same what you want. if you took a poll of death row in America about capital punishment. You most likely find most would be against it.
What are the figures for how many people agree with gay marriages IN CHURCH ? I have no objection to civil partnerships – or even “marriage” in a Registry office. But IN CHURCH – sorry, that just feels totally wrong. And it demeans “normal” marriages in Church.
Most people and most gays don’t want it. Its the militant gays and the cultural marxists who want it. Another step in the cultural marxists plans to destroy society so they can get their global marxist world government.
In the consultation paper: “The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-sex couples.
That would appear to preclude religious organisations from conducting same-sex services even if they wanted to.
That is strange, because every time they take a poll about capital punishment in the UK, the majority has always been for it!!
Fair point. Harris Interactive, shows 54 per cent of people back the death penalty while 30 per cent are against it.
However there are legal obstacles to the Death penalty. I realise that many will see this as a win-win, but the death penalty and membership of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights are incompatible.
if you took a poll of death row in America about capital punishment. You most likely find most would be against it.
Gallup’s annual Crime Survey finds that 65% of Americans continue to support the use of the death penalty
And it has already been shown that the ECHR is likely to be used to enforce church marriage equality, should the law be changed – thus entirely refuting your argument.
I base my statement on peoples views that are expressed to me on this issue and not on spurious polls. We all know how pollsters work, load the question, get the desired result.
Also I might add that sex with a member of the same gender goes against God and nature and although a small minority are afflicted with an abnormal desire to partake in such practices, the vast majority of humanity do not, and do not condone it either. Bearing this in mind, it is hardly likely that a majority of us would approve of ‘Gay Marriage’.
I base my statement on peoples views that are expressed to me
Then you are entitled to say “I think the vast majority of people I know” are opposed to gay marriage. That does not mean the vast majority of the population at large are. As has been shown they are generally in favour.
Also I might add that sex with a member of the same gender goes against God and nature
Given that there is general support for the proposal among the population at large that would suggest that most people do not share your view.
Seems we are about to get a lot of “incoming” from the BBC on how Alan Turing single-handedly saved us all in WWII and went on to invent the computer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jqjl5/The_Turing_Solution/
This sort of stuff annoys me because it belittles the work of the other 4,000 people at Bletchley Park and the people who really *did* invent the first computers.
Yeah, but he was gay when it was illegal. so he must have been the hero….
Yet the militant homosexual fascists would have you believe that they are still a persecuted group in danger???? They have equality in law. FULL equality. They are only wanting this damaging marriage thing to attack people who are different from themselves. They are Ecclesiophobic, heterophobic bigots who revel in their own intolerance.
I found the Turing programme interesting and fairly balanced. I really don’t think there is any doubt that the man was a genius – and achieved many good things in his fairly short life.
Plus – he was a Brit, out in front of what became the computer age.
I only wish the BBC would give us more science programmes – as part of its core mission to educate and inform. There have been several series of “Hut 33”, pretty weak comedy ostensibly about Bletchley Park. But precious little time given to real science.
For any geeks here – as a result of the Turing programme I was googling his ACE computer developed at the National Physical Laboratory – and found this exposition of how Donald Davies and his team at NPL then developed the first ideas of packet transmission of computer data, which is became basis of the Internet and also voice-over-the-Net a la Skype. Again – some real British scientific/technical achievements that are largely ignored by the BBC.
http://www.npl.co.uk/turing/
This YouTube piece could easily be turned into a BBC documentary :
I read the comments on the page – and thought there was a bit of a slant, so I counted them up – 11 for gay marriage, 1 neutral and 2 against.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318
A good reminder that half the job of slanting the news is censoring the comments!
I remember when civil partnerships were first being mooted the air was heavy with assurances that this didn’t mean ‘marriage’ nor would it ever be called so.
This is yet another case of the zealous pursuit of ‘rights’ by a tiny minority and it’s difficult to see where it will end.
I was in favour of gay rights as they were first set out but, as with other zealous groups (the anti-smoking lobby come to mind – look where we are with that now despite the early ‘assurances’) they never know when to stop. Three things started to make me resent their endless demands:
1. Their forced closing down of Catholic adoption agencies. There were only four of them (I think) amongst approx 400 and they took on many of the most difficult cases. Hey, but sod the rights of the vulnerable kids.
2. The spiteful and underhand hounding of Christian guest house owners who could not come to terms with homosexual practices under their roof.
3. The point at which it became legal for two women to have their names on a birth certificate.
But the law is the law, and in the eyes of minorities, there is no room for compromise.
I’m afraid gays, or at least the militant ones, have ironically become the new intolerants. They must have lost a lot of sympathisers whilst on their ‘journey’.
Funny how “gay only” guest houses are still allowed to operate openly. More prejudicial heterophobia in practice in English law, I guess.
They must have lost a lot of sympathisers whilst on their ‘journey’.
You have hit the nail on the head there. I used to be far more relaxed about Gays than I am now. Once they (the militants) decided to get in my face so to speak, it hardened my views and lessened my tolerance. The trouble with our Christian history is that we are a tolerant people compared to a lot of others and that has enabled militant activists of all hues ( Gays, Islamists, Tree Huggers) to gain ground far easier than they would elsewhere.
I think you’ll find many “ordinary” gay couples are just as sick of the likes of Stonewall and other gay militants as the rest of us. Whilst I am straight, I’ve known quite a few gay couples due to my job and they absolutely hated the militants who they thought gave people like themselves a bad name. They just wanted to be able to get on with their lives and with their neighbours.
I can believe that.
Seems sometimes like minorities are driving the agenda in this country.
The BBC is concerned with Gay marriage because it is a huge issue in America rather than in Britain.
Huge issue? In 32 States where gay marriage has been on the ballot, every single time it has been rejected by the voters.
I didn’t say that a majority supported it. Wouldn’t you define being on the ballot in 32 states a huge issue?
Really wish that those who get so aerated about this non-issue had REAL problems to solve for us all.
We all know that this Trojan Horse of an issue has been bussed in from Americas coasts, just to put Obama in the light of liberal enlightenement. So Romney can be seen as a bigot by comparison.
This was not a story or an issue until a few months ago, when the liberati here decided to stick “The Church” in the stocks.
The whole circus will go to Brussels and Strasbourg without a doubt-which is what the likes of Stonewall and the BBC require. The complainants will win and the Church will be shown to be as flaccid and cringing as the likes of Summerskill and Tatchell say.
The gay lobby said that there`d be no pressure to force gay marriage, after their civil partnership victories…hah!
Wish the bloody church would wake up and fight back-or are we relying on Islam to fight our battles for us?…God help us if that`s the case.
Useful by-product for them all will be the fatal schism between Church and State that will be opened up…years of constitutional niceties scotched for the sake of the likes of Bryant and Bradshaw…hideous!
A lesbian author in the states was on a speaking engagement in New York. As a known lesbian she was asked what she thought of New York having same sex marriage. Everyone in attendance thought they knew her answer but she shocked them all by explaining that she always felt that the best part about being homosexual was that you didn’t have to go in the service and you couldn’t get married. She professed shock that members of the gay community were fighting to give up these two “freedoms”.
Sadly I can’t recall her name as I’m fairly sure her talk was out on Youtube.
So is ‘equality’ our religion now? I’ve just been on the BBC website and to be fair it is a very emotive topic. But I thought it rather strange the amount of hostility shown towards the Christian religion in the comments allowed through by the moderators. I also failed to understand the arguments of many people that no one should listen to the church on this matter because ‘they are in a minority”
I thought ‘minorities’ were always to be respected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-18413976
The religion of peace at work again-not that the BBC would mention that……
Sodomy is not an attractive concept to most people. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. The statistics quoted about various groups approving homosexual “marriage” do not make it “right”. History shows us that the minority are frequently proved to be right in the long -term and a firm belief in biblical teaching is an excellent foundation for marriage between a man and a woman. The BBC is one of the most un-Christian institutions that passes comment on these matters. Having lost most of its previous moral authority it is now unfit to comment.
david: “Sodomy is not an attractive concept to most people.”
Any sort of sex with you is not an attractive concept to most people.
Your point? ;p
I’d take issue with that but I must admit I do ask the Mrs to refrain from eating sweetcorn for a couple of days before hand. I hate having to pick it off afterwards. 🙂
Some things puzzle me. Are all homosexuals leftwing? Are some of them conservatives? Are some of them atheists or Christian? Are all of them atheist leftwingers/liberals?
Listening to the BBC I rather assume the last category. It is very confusing.
Another thought occurs to me. If gay marriage is a cause so dear to the liberal elite does opposition to it make one a conservative or merely a bad person? Or is a conservative by definition a bad person.
Great play is made of how this cause is a righteous cause in the name of the new liberal God of equality. Equality of this and that. Equality of outcome and equality of every lifestyle and belief. Funny how the liberal media /political elite manages to take a most unequal share of the ,material goods of this world. But then I suppose equality is only to be sought provided it does not mean living on a council estate and driving ( if really lucky ) a 15 year old Mondeo. You don’t get the Audi or the Merc or the smart N. London post code by sticking to your liberal principles.
from my experience as a gay man, most gays say they are left wing, (but like to live a ‘right wing’ lifestyle). Most are hypocrites and do not believe in monogamy. I’ve never met a gay couple who are monogamous.
if you’d like to see the mindset of left wing gays, i’d suggest you view the forums on http://www.outeverywhere.com they really do talk a load of bollocks
Dave s: “Some things puzzle me. Are all homosexuals leftwing? Are some of them conservatives? Are some of them atheists or Christian? Are all of them atheist leftwingers/liberals?”
This 2009 survey of “PinkNews” readers finds 39% support for the Conservatives and 29% for Labour.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/06/02/pinknewscouk-survey-greens-tipped-for-euro-elections-but-tories-on-top-for-next-general-election/
Compared to the General election result:
36% Conservative, 29% Labour.
It is, of course, a minuscule sample size.
But your question is as nonsensical as asking if all the people who prefer Brunettes have different political/religious opinions to those who prefer Blondes.
Thank you Dez for the information. My question was not really very serious. I just find the whole matter quite bizarre and indicatative of the lack of reality gripping our political and media classes.
Off topic: I see that some more followers from that ‘enriching’ religion of ‘peace’ have been up to their disgusting tricks again. Is this headline news on the BBC as it bloody-well should be?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158239/Sex-grooming-trial-Girl-14-groomed-raped-gang-men-drugs-den.html
Yes, to the majority, gay marriage is not an important issue. But to the BBC it is the most serious concern on the planet followed by something called the Leveson enquiry(again). The BBC has gone beyond a point where it can ever be taken seriously. Minority issues are headline news, major issues are too complicated for the delicate audience to grasp. I flilpped between Sky news and the comedy channel called BBC news 24 the contrast was astounding.
The BBC is a cultural marxist organisation that is anti-everything that gave them the life they had today. The religion of peace would made short order of the BBC when it has the chance. Definately mental illness by any definition.
Earls Court: “The BBC is a cultural marxist organisation that is anti-everything that gave them the life they had today.”
Where were you born Mr Court?
Was it in an NHS hospital by any chance?
[I posted this earlier but it doesn’t seem to have shown up. Apologies if appears twice]
To return to David Vance’s original post.
“you might think the BBC had other issues to devote itself to but gay marriage is so important to the BBC that it is rarely far from the headlines.
It certainly seems like a very important issue for this blog.
There is little doubt that if the BBC had given (whatever you deemed to be) too little coverage to the COE opinion this morning then you’d be tying your XXXL sized, modesty knickers into even more, thick, bulbous knots.
So what is it that you are desperately moaning about?
Ah, Yes. Bill Turnbull asked a question.
A question you didn’t like.
OH MY GOD! THE HORROR!
The horror here being Dez’s excited imaginings of other people’s undergarments. Heh heh.
The militant gay minority (which the BBC are conveying as the majority) are very vocal and hostile towards harmless and peaceful Christians, to the point of intimidation at times it seems. Curiously, though, when was the last time you saw a bunch of gays outside a mosque venting their anger and gay rights? The BBC is strangely quiet on the Muslim community’s well-known anti-gay stance; whenever there be a debate on this, Muslims are conveniently left out.
If the BBC’s beloved Stalinist, equality groupspeak is to have any credibility, then I expect them to be holding Britain’s Muslims to account on this as well (but we all know this won’t happen because of their abject fear of being bullied by certain members within the religion of ‘peace’).