Well, the BBC has some interesting coverage of SNP plans to legislate for “gay marriage” in Scotland. I was entertained by the way the BBC breathlessly informs us about the “rainbow” coalition that supports Salmond and co on this one. Yes, those folks at Amnesty, The Pagan Society, the Unison – ALL support the idea that gay people should have “the right” to a religious based marriage ceremony. It tells us that “some” some big religious groups are against the idea of redefining marriage – I’m wondering which religious groups favour abolishing marriage? The BBC also skirts round the essential issue of what happens from a legal perspective if this law is introduced and then a Church refuses to facilitate a gay couple wanting a Church service. I wonder why? The BBC relentlessly shills for the abolition of marriage and its replacement by this new radical arrangement, designed to appease Stonewall and other extreme activists.
THE GAY GORDONS…
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC also omits to mention which other religious group might not endorse the “right” to gay marriage. Looking forward to a mosque being taken to court for refusing to conduct a gay marriage but expect I shall have to wait rather a long time.
Yep, it’s the fundemental difference between how the BBC covers scientific innovation and social innovation.
Some guy invents a hair dryer that runs off cheese and they interview an econut on how this could devestate the Amazon rainforest, the Ozone layer and polar bears. Meanwhile, the left wants to bin one of humanity’s oldest institutions and the BBC treats anyone who objects like Flat Earthers.
Because it’s a non-issue that’s only obsessed over by sad blokes? The Gender Recognition Act 2004 contains explicit legal exemptions covering clergy, and that hasn’t been challenged in eight years. The same bunch of rancid homophobes tried to use the same scare tactic when the Civil Partnerships Bill was proposed, and it wasn’t true then, either.
…And this is the point where David Vance proves definitively that he’s not actually interested in debating the reality of the situation.
Wait…. you mean the Civil Partnerships Bill after passage of which, we were assured, the whole gay movement would retire to the country to run an antique shop with a close friend?
Now, seven years later they’re on the march again, but this time they totally mean it when they say this will be their last territorial demand. Really?
Even the most superficial survey of their rhetoric suggests this is not a group of people interested in any kind of meaningful coexistance with Christians, but the BBC is too busy checking for supa sekret gay bashers to report honestly on, say, Peter Tatchell’s open support for paedophilia.
By whom?
I thought that the paedo label was a slur on Peter Tatchell, until I read his own website and found where he said the law should be changed to allow sex with 14 year old’s and even worse, that children from the age of six should be allowed to have sex with each other, so long as there is no greater an age-gap between them than 3 years.
And the sick part of the militant homosexual lobby do not support paedophilia? Of course they do!
Scott, the homosexual lobby in Denmark is ahead of the homosexual lobby in the UK by 8 years.
Now the homosexual lobby in Denmark has already placed a complaint before the ECHR to over rule any religious based opt-out across the whole of the EU, where the individual national law allows homosexuals to “marry”.
This means that as you are falsely claiming that the clergy will have an opt out, the ECHR is already working to overturn such an opt out.
So this argument that the homosexual lobby will allow religions to have their opt-out is completely false.
NORMAL (as in the majority) society has fallen for this ruse by the militant homosexual lobby time and time again.
At first legalisation was all about “what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business” (I wholeheartedly agree) From that correct and rational position, we have moved close to the destruction of the institution of a legal religious marriage.
I personally am NOT opposed to homosexuals marrying if they so wish. I am also NOT opposed to their wedlock being sanctioned by a church, if that church wishes to do so.
Where I draw a very reasonable and rational line, is when the freedom of the church, Mosque, Synagogue or whatever, has a right and chooses, for their own religious reasons, to refuse a religious marriage, is overturned by selfish, obsessive, fascist, zealots who despise anyone having an opinion that is different to their own and then using the grossly Anti English (as in the tradition of English jurisprudence) ECHR ride roughshod over democracy and religious freedom and tolerance to impose the will of a small percentage of a 1.5% of the population, who happen to be homosexual zealots.
Live and let live, Tolerance, understanding and free choices? All these things are utterly alien to the extremist militant homosexual lobby.
This is a line in the sand and it MUST NOT be crossed!
I have supported homosexual rights and freedoms for years, but on this, they are completely wrong, they are bigoted and intolerant and I can not support them.
“Now the homosexual lobby in Denmark has already placed a complaint before the ECHR to over rule any religious based opt-out across the whole of the EU, where the individual national law allows homosexuals to “marry”.”
I haven’t heard any of this – although my knowledge of the ECHR and same-sex cases has so far been limited to adoption cases. A search of some common databases on the net hasn’t thrown up anything which obviously matches your description.
I’m sure you won’t mind furnishing links to prove your point?
According to an extract from an ECHR ruling given in March regarding an application to this court that marriage is a human right, the panel of judges stated that marriage is not a human right;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html
Within the ruling they made the following observation;
“Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation.”
And in the same article;
Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, told the Mail: “Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.”
Its pretty clear that the no legislation will prevent the ECHR from ruling that gays are entitled to legal marriage within religious premises provided that such premises are registered to perform legal marriages.
My guess is that if this legislation is passed many of the objecting religions will simply stop performing marriages and only offer blessings. As such a tiny minority of the population will affect the way most wish to celebrate their marriage.
Statistics show that gays constitute some 1% of the population. Only a quarter of all gays are in monogamous relationships. So this change in the law would accommodate 0.25% of all gays.
So they wish to make a law that accommodates 0.25% of the population and deny a religious marriage to 99.75% of the population.
You don’t get more daft than that.
Yes, that ruling was actually made in the context of same-sex adoption within France’s own, very specific, adoption regulations. There are lots of intricate legal provisos that the Telegraph – well, let’s be generous and say “glossed over”.
There is a temptation – on both sides of any argument – to assume that cases such as this will automatically suggest some sort of legal precedent for the future. Often, the judgement is framed specifically so that it can’t – or at the very least, shouldnt – be misapplied. Such framings rarely trouble news reporting, though.
In any case, this particular case has nothing to do with any claim originating in Denmark, as far as I can tell…
Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, told the Mail: “Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.”
Quite right. A same-sex married couple should have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. Once they are married.
In England and Wales, the government’s position is that they are only talking about civil marriages conducted in a register office. Religious bodies already have numerous rights to refuse to marry certain straight couples.
The Scottish cabinet were due to discuss whether to allow religious bodies to choose whether to conduct same-sex ceremonies if they wanted to. They’ve bottled out of making a decision either way.
In Northern Ireland – where David Vance lives, and where several elections have shown that the vast majority of people prefer other people’s views rather than his – there are no plans yet to introduce same-sex marriage. Although it is being talked about.
any idea what happened to my post?
Knowing Royal Mail it’s been lost in transit!
Did it have more than 5 links? If so it probably went automatically into moderation purgatory.
Why do the gay right’s lobby never hassle Muslims? Glasgow Mosque has made its stance on ‘gay marriage’ quite clear but you never see the lesbian, gay and transgender movement standing outside protesting (probably because they know they’d end up as an accompanying salad to a kebab if they did!).
this from the linked BBC article
Faith groups, including the United Reformed Church, the Quakers, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation also support the move, but some big religious groups are against the idea of redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
So how is it now defined?
A business contract between a tablecloth and a horse.
All this talk about gays wanting to get hitched in Church. Gee I wonder why those who prefer the love of their own kind aren’t batting to get together in the local mosque.
I mean with the huge number of mosques springing up in the Uk, I wonder why no bBC reporter hasn’t knocked on the door and asked if he can marry his gay lover inside the mosque. (So much for multi-faith community centres)
The problem here, unable to express themselves, Muslims resort to violence. Be it Afghanistan, Iraq or even East London. Muslims lash out when words fail them.
Numerous examples exist of Islamic violence tendencies yet the bBC instead only looks at non-Islamic institutions in which to find inequality
The bBC the traitors in our Midst.
The BBC likes to keep the undeniable truth about psychopathic muslim violence at the end of a shit fork with a mile long shaft. Each day that act of self-deception gets harder as the smell gets fouler, yet still they cravenly polish the sword of Islam. You can have Freedom & Civilisation, but not with Islam. That ideology is binarily incompatible. With Islam you have paranoic totalitarianism, enforced submission & the erasure of hard won liberty. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali what she escaped from. And the barbarous activities of the Tehran Crane Hire Company should have convinced even the most myopic of metropolitan gays that tolerance of minorities is not the moon jockeys’ most prominent characteristic, and yet you can still hear the heedless boys in Le Brun Chapeau singing ‘I’m off to Armageddon with an Imam on My Knee’. They should be listening to Douglas Murray. He could tell them some sobering facts.
The BBC are just your typical leftys talk a good fight, but when the crunch comes they are spineless cowards. They know with any religion apart from Islam they can critisise them and get away with it. But with Islam they would mostly likely meet a violent end. The BBC and the rest of their sort are going to end up like the leftys did during Iran revolution.
I was listening to a bit of Princess Nikki’s show this morning on 5Live. He had on a Catholic spokesman and a gay activist. The Catholic was making the point that the EHCR could be used to force religious groups to “marry” gays, but Nikki was having none of it: “Do you think you could force a mosque to marry gays?” he squeaked in incredulity.
Without meaning to, he of course made a valid point. This law would be used to force Christian churches to marry gays. Moslem gays who tried to force the imam to “marry” them would be murdered. It’s as simple as that, and even Princess Nikki knows it, even if he can’t quite bring himself to say it. We have enriched our society with a violent intolerant cult.
The allowing of civil partnerships was the big mistake as it opened Pandoras box in relation to furthering the Queer agenda. Using typical Marxist tactics, they will get all they want slice by slice and drag society even further down the plug hole. Gay Marriage is a gift from Hell and an insult to our Christian values. I personally will never recognise a ‘Gay Married Couple’ as to me such a thing cannot exist.
Interesting that this “non-issue” really brought Scott out of the woodwork with salient details at his fingertips. Always had my suspicions about him.
I’m pretty sure he’s been out for a while now.
Well I just watched tonights news on the BBC regarding SS marriage in scotland.
You know the issue… A. Salmond is pushing through SS marriage, even though it is not in his manifesto and he would NEVER have had this power if it was.
In the news the BBC discussed the response of the public to the consultation.
That is the one that had 64% of the responses against gay marriage.
It then went on to state that the catholic church encouraged a response by catholics using a pre-printed postcard.
The campaign it said was “hugely successful.”
There was something like just under 300000 postcards sent.
All of this so far was fair enough!!
Here is were my jaw hit the floor.
It ACTUALLY SAID “discounting these” and went on to imply that the REAL public vote was about 60%ish in favour!!!
WTF????? Way to go BBC. Discounting 300000 people to support your gay agenda.
Why “discount” them?
I was at church, with my wife, when these postcards were handed out. I took one, my wife did not!
I am anti-gay marriage. My wife (catholic) is pro-gay marriage.
Neither she, nor I, sent the card!!!!!
My point – just because the “church says so” does not mean the people are all sheep and can be dismissed as “not counting.”
300000 people responded and the BBC waved them aside.
Don’t you believe the militant gays are aggressively pushing this issue with thier campaigns. Did they use any clever tools or cards or petitions?
Alex Salmond “knows” or fears that if a referendum was held on this subject. The silent majority would kick it in to the long grass.
The silent majority who believe in the unique place of marriage in our society, but are afraid to voice this because of the bullying of the militant gays crying “homophobe” and “hate speech.”
This one made me sick BBC!