Anti-gay marriage poster defended by church (From Bournemouth Echo)

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit.
For some reason or other some people find this offensive.
It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent.
If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
elite50 wrote:
"Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit."

What about gay couples who have adopted or procreated with the help of a surrogate? Are those children not entitled to a family unit?

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit.
For some reason or other some people find this offensive.
It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent.
If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

elite50 wrote:

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
elite50 wrote:
"Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit."

What about gay couples who have adopted or procreated with the help of a surrogate? Are those children not entitled to a family unit?

As I said, form your own club.

Cerdicjute wrote:
They are entitled to their opinion and point of view. We either have free speech or we do not. You cannot frame debates with a single viewpoint being deemed 'correct' and anything counter to it as 'bigoted' or 'wrong' for that is the road to fascism.

elite50 wrote:

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
elite50 wrote:
"Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit."

What about gay couples who have adopted or procreated with the help of a surrogate? Are those children not entitled to a family unit?

As I said, form your own club.

archibald wrote:
Surely this headline is misleading .
The church is not being "anti-gay" , it is being pro it,s own views . Because some disagree with it,s views does not make if offensive to the rest of us .
Like most I have no strong feelings either way , and it seems this change in the law will be steamrollered through regardless . Perhaps the lady interviewed would like to add tolerance to the ideals she wishes her daughter to learn .
The Church rightly or wrongly has it,s beliefs that it has had for hundreds of years , do Politicians have the right to impose changes that obviously concern those most affected , ie those that have to conduct weddings in their own churches .

elite50 wrote:
Why is it that all of these comments are aimed at preventing me from having an opinion.
It appears that I am backing the wrong horse, Yes?
The point that I am making (and continue to make) is that you DONT have to agree with me.
If I dont like a play, I walk out, I dont jump up on stage and try to take over the leading role.
If you dont like it, start your own club, dont leap on my stage.

elite50 wrote:
Why is it that all of these comments are aimed at preventing me from having an opinion.
It appears that I am backing the wrong horse, Yes?
The point that I am making (and continue to make) is that you DONT have to agree with me.
If I dont like a play, I walk out, I dont jump up on stage and try to take over the leading role.
If you dont like it, start your own club, dont leap on my stage.

The Liberal wrote:

archibald wrote:
Surely this headline is misleading .
The church is not being "anti-gay" , it is being pro it,s own views . Because some disagree with it,s views does not make if offensive to the rest of us .
Like most I have no strong feelings either way , and it seems this change in the law will be steamrollered through regardless . Perhaps the lady interviewed would like to add tolerance to the ideals she wishes her daughter to learn .
The Church rightly or wrongly has it,s beliefs that it has had for hundreds of years , do Politicians have the right to impose changes that obviously concern those most affected , ie those that have to conduct weddings in their own churches .

Straw man. It's well known that there are clauses in the Bill so that churches won't be forced to conduct ceremonies.

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote:
I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same rights and liberties as 'straight' (can I use that word?) couples. However, I simply believe the word 'marriage' when it was created (and that's the important bit here) was a word use to describe the partnership between a man and a woman. I am offended by the use of this same word for a partnership for a gay couple (but not at all by the partnership itself) as I believe it changes the meaning of the word that was in use when my 'straight' partnership was created. Therefore I propose that a new word (with exactly the same rights and liberties as for a straight marriage) be created for a gay marriage. Any suggestions?

Esqui wrote:

Letcommonsenseprevai l wrote: I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same rights and liberties as 'straight' (can I use that word?) couples. However, I simply believe the word 'marriage' when it was created (and that's the important bit here) was a word use to describe the partnership between a man and a woman. I am offended by the use of this same word for a partnership for a gay couple (but not at all by the partnership itself) as I believe it changes the meaning of the word that was in use when my 'straight' partnership was created. Therefore I propose that a new word (with exactly the same rights and liberties as for a straight marriage) be created for a gay marriage. Any suggestions?

Gay...marriage.... How about a garage?

Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:
elite50 is the only one on here (so far) who knows what they are talking about!

CourtOffside wrote:

elite50 wrote: Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

Further illustration of why religious voices should have no influence in the public policy debate... Disestablish the church of England and free us from these medieval blowhards please.

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote:
I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same rights and liberties as 'straight' (can I use that word?) couples. However, I simply believe the word 'marriage' when it was created (and that's the important bit here) was a word use to describe the partnership between a man and a woman. I am offended by the use of this same word for a partnership for a gay couple (but not at all by the partnership itself) as I believe it changes the meaning of the word that was in use when my 'straight' partnership was created. Therefore I propose that a new word (with exactly the same rights and liberties as for a straight marriage) be created for a gay marriage. Any suggestions?

muscliffman wrote:
No oofence intended but if I may comment on behalf of the vast (majority?) number in the population who are by choice, or default, devout athiests - who cares what opinion an establishment founded on pure fiction holds!?

clr WHAT! wrote:
bowie 1982
appreciate we were a powerful nation.
slavery, females as chattels, child labour, persecution of indig' populations, assorted (religious) wars intolerance of differences
& the church ordained all of this based on it's interpretations of the gospel.
as for marriage, why do those who have rights wish to deny others, how does equality of rights damage their own position, interpretation of that postion or the physical manefistation on their opinion. Work out some of the meanings of past marriage rights then try to defend the position of women in the past, age of consent polygamy & so on. Marriage was not & is not set in stone. All too often it was based on need & not just to reproduce. Go for it no, more senior marriages as they can't give birth!

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
elite50 wrote: "Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit." What about gay couples who have adopted or procreated with the help of a surrogate? Are those children not entitled to a family unit?

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

abc100 wrote:
Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!!!

The Liberal wrote:

elite50 wrote:

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
elite50 wrote:
"Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit."

What about gay couples who have adopted or procreated with the help of a surrogate? Are those children not entitled to a family unit?

As I said, form your own club.

If the C of E were just a club, that would be one thing. The trouble is, the C of E is still the established church in England. It's high time that was changed IMHO.

scrumpyjack wrote:

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Just because you, or I, have faith does not allow us to call those that have crazy.

Ok so clearly are but then so are clearly some non-believers.

They have their feelings because yours differ does not mean theirs is necessarily wrong.

This is not a black and white situation and goes back a lot longer than you.

scrumpyjack wrote:

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Just because you, or I, have faith does not allow us to call those that have crazy.

Ok so clearly are but then so are clearly some non-believers.

They have their feelings because yours differ does not mean theirs is necessarily wrong.

This is not a black and white situation and goes back a lot longer than you.

scrumpyjack wrote:

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Just because you, or I, have faith does not allow us to call those that have crazy.

Ok so clearly are but then so are clearly some non-believers.

They have their feelings because yours differ does not mean theirs is necessarily wrong.

This is not a black and white situation and goes back a lot longer than you.

bowie1982 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Just because you, or I, have faith does not allow us to call those that have crazy.

Ok so clearly are but then so are clearly some non-believers.

They have their feelings because yours differ does not mean theirs is necessarily wrong.

This is not a black and white situation and goes back a lot longer than you.

I think the most overused words in our vocabulary in dorset are black and white, My gay partner is black I am white get over it. I get fed with the same racist and homophobic bullying in Dorset!!

Azphreal wrote:
I always thought the section of the bible that is against homosexuality also states that crabs and lobsters are an abomination unto god. If the church wants to say that having a marriage between two people of the same sex is against their teachings then i am waiting for them to lobby the Government to stop divorce. Lets face it the Christian religion is based around a bachelor who hung around with a group of men and 1 woman,what would someone who did that be accused of today?

abc100 wrote:
Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!!!

meaning of marriage wrote:
Meaning of MARRIAGE marriage "Marriage"deriv
es from middle english mariage,which first appears in 1250-1300 CE This in turn is derived from old french marier (TO MARRY) and ultimately latin maritare meaning to provide with husband or wife and maritari meaning to get married. (The adjective marit-us-a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in masculine form as a noun for "husband" or feminine form for "wife" The related word "matrimony" derives from the old french word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from latin matrimonium which combines two concepts mater meaning "MOTHER" and the suffix-monium signifying "action,state or condition" husband and wife, mother.I don't see same couple metioned in the meaning of marriage

muscliffman wrote:
No oofence intended but if I may comment on behalf of the vast (majority?) number in the population who are by choice, or default, devout athiests - who cares what opinion an establishment founded on pure fiction holds!?

elite50 wrote:
Why is it that all of these comments are aimed at preventing me from having an opinion.
It appears that I am backing the wrong horse, Yes?
The point that I am making (and continue to make) is that you DONT have to agree with me.
If I dont like a play, I walk out, I dont jump up on stage and try to take over the leading role.
If you dont like it, start your own club, dont leap on my stage.

bowie1982 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:

bowie1982 wrote:
Rev Martin Howard, said all are welcome and loved at the church. speaks volumes!!! We are a Country that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies.

Just because you, or I, have faith does not allow us to call those that have crazy.

Ok so clearly are but then so are clearly some non-believers.

They have their feelings because yours differ does not mean theirs is necessarily wrong.

This is not a black and white situation and goes back a lot longer than you.

I think the most overused words in our vocabulary in dorset are black and white, My gay partner is black I am white get over it. I get fed with the same racist and homophobic bullying in Dorset!!

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

FNS-man wrote:

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

I fully agree. It''s all about raising kids. Gays can't have kids, so ban them from marriage. Likewise, people with infertility problems, women who have gone through the menopause, men who have had the snip, women with their tubes tied, people without enough money to support children and career women who just want to work and not have kids: all should be banned from marriage.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

skydriver wrote:

FNS-man wrote:

elite50 wrote: Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

I fully agree. It''s all about raising kids. Gays can't have kids, so ban them from marriage. Likewise, people with infertility problems, women who have gone through the menopause, men who have had the snip, women with their tubes tied, people without enough money to support children and career women who just want to work and not have kids: all should be banned from marriage. Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

Quite right, Why should Cameron be the voice behind this, we the people of the UK should have our say, I say No to Gay marriage, ok, fine for civil partnership but that's it. So Mr Cameron step down from your high horse, keep focused on real issues as outlined in your manifesto, and stop trying to score points from a few. There are greater issues to should be concentrating on at this time and this issue is NOT one of them.

meaning of marriage wrote:
Meaning of MARRIAGE marriage "Marriage"deriv
es from middle english mariage,which first appears in 1250-1300 CE This in turn is derived from old french marier (TO MARRY) and ultimately latin maritare meaning to provide with husband or wife and maritari meaning to get married. (The adjective marit-us-a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in masculine form as a noun for "husband" or feminine form for "wife" The related word "matrimony" derives from the old french word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from latin matrimonium which combines two concepts mater meaning "MOTHER" and the suffix-monium signifying "action,state or condition" husband and wife, mother.I don't see same couple metioned in the meaning of marriage

FNS-man wrote:

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

I fully agree. It''s all about raising kids. Gays can't have kids, so ban them from marriage. Likewise, people with infertility problems, women who have gone through the menopause, men who have had the snip, women with their tubes tied, people without enough money to support children and career women who just want to work and not have kids: all should be banned from marriage.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

FNS-man wrote:

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

I fully agree. It''s all about raising kids. Gays can't have kids, so ban them from marriage. Likewise, people with infertility problems, women who have gone through the menopause, men who have had the snip, women with their tubes tied, people without enough money to support children and career women who just want to work and not have kids: all should be banned from marriage.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

Mike Pickering wrote:
This church and most of the people commenting here are way way behind the curve on this topic. All of my friends and family and everyone I chose to associate with have stopped even framing this debate in the terms that I'm reading here - it's like going to archive.org and digging up some old Angelfire forum from 1996. Someone even posted the Adam and Steve stupidity - that's so old Adam and Steve have retired.
What's memorably sad and laughable is the vicar's Poor Me attitude bemoaning the fact that he thinks he's been wronged by not being allowed to discriminate.. You couldn't make it up !
You are not free to deny people freedoms that you yourself take so for granted that it's invisible to you.
That for me was the nugget of the whole piece - the same old arguments that people of the church use - that they just 'believe' it's their right to be able to transgress the edicts of civilised behaviour, and they have no further recourse than they believe it because it's in their book which they believe because they believe it. There's no beginning and no end to their reasoning, which is fine were they content to remain within their social vacuum and ask nothing of the rest of the world.
But they don't.
For an organisation so resolutely certain of the power in an afterlife, they sure do seek a lot in this one.
The church attracts and maintains massive subsidy and wields disproportionate undemocratic power in this country. It responds slowly and reactively to the changing developments of social standards, occasionally having 'revelations' about whatever social issues the rest of us have determined are just and fair, then bandwaggoning that yes, this new standard of kindness and justice is JUST what their god wants. Slavery, suffrage, serfdom - all were disbanded by people that fought against the conservative entrenchments of the church, and so it is with this.
Many churches see the writing that has been on the wall since the 60s and welcome in their entirety gay people's rights and have adapted their role within, and as a servant of, modern society.
Should churches be forced at point of law to do anything they don't want ? Probably not, but they should then also relinquish all subsidy from, and power over, us all - gay, straight, both, neither or undecided.

guisselle wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote:
This church and most of the people commenting here are way way behind the curve on this topic. All of my friends and family and everyone I chose to associate with have stopped even framing this debate in the terms that I'm reading here - it's like going to archive.org and digging up some old Angelfire forum from 1996. Someone even posted the Adam and Steve stupidity - that's so old Adam and Steve have retired.
What's memorably sad and laughable is the vicar's Poor Me attitude bemoaning the fact that he thinks he's been wronged by not being allowed to discriminate.. You couldn't make it up !
You are not free to deny people freedoms that you yourself take so for granted that it's invisible to you.
That for me was the nugget of the whole piece - the same old arguments that people of the church use - that they just 'believe' it's their right to be able to transgress the edicts of civilised behaviour, and they have no further recourse than they believe it because it's in their book which they believe because they believe it. There's no beginning and no end to their reasoning, which is fine were they content to remain within their social vacuum and ask nothing of the rest of the world.
But they don't.
For an organisation so resolutely certain of the power in an afterlife, they sure do seek a lot in this one.
The church attracts and maintains massive subsidy and wields disproportionate undemocratic power in this country. It responds slowly and reactively to the changing developments of social standards, occasionally having 'revelations' about whatever social issues the rest of us have determined are just and fair, then bandwaggoning that yes, this new standard of kindness and justice is JUST what their god wants. Slavery, suffrage, serfdom - all were disbanded by people that fought against the conservative entrenchments of the church, and so it is with this.
Many churches see the writing that has been on the wall since the 60s and welcome in their entirety gay people's rights and have adapted their role within, and as a servant of, modern society.
Should churches be forced at point of law to do anything they don't want ? Probably not, but they should then also relinquish all subsidy from, and power over, us all - gay, straight, both, neither or undecided.

Well said Mike I agree with your
very articulate philosophy on this topic.
Religion causes so much friction its
hard to make sense of it all!

awsokend wrote:

guisselle wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote:
This church and most of the people commenting here are way way behind the curve on this topic. All of my friends and family and everyone I chose to associate with have stopped even framing this debate in the terms that I'm reading here - it's like going to archive.org and digging up some old Angelfire forum from 1996. Someone even posted the Adam and Steve stupidity - that's so old Adam and Steve have retired.
What's memorably sad and laughable is the vicar's Poor Me attitude bemoaning the fact that he thinks he's been wronged by not being allowed to discriminate.. You couldn't make it up !
You are not free to deny people freedoms that you yourself take so for granted that it's invisible to you.
That for me was the nugget of the whole piece - the same old arguments that people of the church use - that they just 'believe' it's their right to be able to transgress the edicts of civilised behaviour, and they have no further recourse than they believe it because it's in their book which they believe because they believe it. There's no beginning and no end to their reasoning, which is fine were they content to remain within their social vacuum and ask nothing of the rest of the world.
But they don't.
For an organisation so resolutely certain of the power in an afterlife, they sure do seek a lot in this one.
The church attracts and maintains massive subsidy and wields disproportionate undemocratic power in this country. It responds slowly and reactively to the changing developments of social standards, occasionally having 'revelations' about whatever social issues the rest of us have determined are just and fair, then bandwaggoning that yes, this new standard of kindness and justice is JUST what their god wants. Slavery, suffrage, serfdom - all were disbanded by people that fought against the conservative entrenchments of the church, and so it is with this.
Many churches see the writing that has been on the wall since the 60s and welcome in their entirety gay people's rights and have adapted their role within, and as a servant of, modern society.
Should churches be forced at point of law to do anything they don't want ? Probably not, but they should then also relinquish all subsidy from, and power over, us all - gay, straight, both, neither or undecided.

Well said Mike I agree with your
very articulate philosophy on this topic.
Religion causes so much friction its
hard to make sense of it all!

We got one Mrs Brown on tele ,that's enough thank you,
each to their own
you know a lot about gays don't you
OMG

madras wrote:
' features the words ‘Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman’, ' - no, it quite clearly does NOT contain any words other than 'marriage'

to me it implies that one person should wear trousers, the other a dress - now, I would like to see gay couples taking them up on this :-)

guisselle wrote:

awsokend wrote:

guisselle wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote:
This church and most of the people commenting here are way way behind the curve on this topic. All of my friends and family and everyone I chose to associate with have stopped even framing this debate in the terms that I'm reading here - it's like going to archive.org and digging up some old Angelfire forum from 1996. Someone even posted the Adam and Steve stupidity - that's so old Adam and Steve have retired.
What's memorably sad and laughable is the vicar's Poor Me attitude bemoaning the fact that he thinks he's been wronged by not being allowed to discriminate.. You couldn't make it up !
You are not free to deny people freedoms that you yourself take so for granted that it's invisible to you.
That for me was the nugget of the whole piece - the same old arguments that people of the church use - that they just 'believe' it's their right to be able to transgress the edicts of civilised behaviour, and they have no further recourse than they believe it because it's in their book which they believe because they believe it. There's no beginning and no end to their reasoning, which is fine were they content to remain within their social vacuum and ask nothing of the rest of the world.
But they don't.
For an organisation so resolutely certain of the power in an afterlife, they sure do seek a lot in this one.
The church attracts and maintains massive subsidy and wields disproportionate undemocratic power in this country. It responds slowly and reactively to the changing developments of social standards, occasionally having 'revelations' about whatever social issues the rest of us have determined are just and fair, then bandwaggoning that yes, this new standard of kindness and justice is JUST what their god wants. Slavery, suffrage, serfdom - all were disbanded by people that fought against the conservative entrenchments of the church, and so it is with this.
Many churches see the writing that has been on the wall since the 60s and welcome in their entirety gay people's rights and have adapted their role within, and as a servant of, modern society.
Should churches be forced at point of law to do anything they don't want ? Probably not, but they should then also relinquish all subsidy from, and power over, us all - gay, straight, both, neither or undecided.

Well said Mike I agree with your
very articulate philosophy on this topic.
Religion causes so much friction its
hard to make sense of it all!

We got one Mrs Brown on tele ,that's enough thank you,
each to their own
you know a lot about gays don't you
OMG

Mrs Brown is actually a man so I'm told
also Irish and a Catholic, has a gay
son, controversial! Did you mean
Gordan Brown's wife, surely not!

awsokend wrote:

guisselle wrote:

awsokend wrote:

guisselle wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote:
This church and most of the people commenting here are way way behind the curve on this topic. All of my friends and family and everyone I chose to associate with have stopped even framing this debate in the terms that I'm reading here - it's like going to archive.org and digging up some old Angelfire forum from 1996. Someone even posted the Adam and Steve stupidity - that's so old Adam and Steve have retired.
What's memorably sad and laughable is the vicar's Poor Me attitude bemoaning the fact that he thinks he's been wronged by not being allowed to discriminate.. You couldn't make it up !
You are not free to deny people freedoms that you yourself take so for granted that it's invisible to you.
That for me was the nugget of the whole piece - the same old arguments that people of the church use - that they just 'believe' it's their right to be able to transgress the edicts of civilised behaviour, and they have no further recourse than they believe it because it's in their book which they believe because they believe it. There's no beginning and no end to their reasoning, which is fine were they content to remain within their social vacuum and ask nothing of the rest of the world.
But they don't.
For an organisation so resolutely certain of the power in an afterlife, they sure do seek a lot in this one.
The church attracts and maintains massive subsidy and wields disproportionate undemocratic power in this country. It responds slowly and reactively to the changing developments of social standards, occasionally having 'revelations' about whatever social issues the rest of us have determined are just and fair, then bandwaggoning that yes, this new standard of kindness and justice is JUST what their god wants. Slavery, suffrage, serfdom - all were disbanded by people that fought against the conservative entrenchments of the church, and so it is with this.
Many churches see the writing that has been on the wall since the 60s and welcome in their entirety gay people's rights and have adapted their role within, and as a servant of, modern society.
Should churches be forced at point of law to do anything they don't want ? Probably not, but they should then also relinquish all subsidy from, and power over, us all - gay, straight, both, neither or undecided.

Well said Mike I agree with your
very articulate philosophy on this topic.
Religion causes so much friction its
hard to make sense of it all!

We got one Mrs Brown on tele ,that's enough thank you,
each to their own
you know a lot about gays don't you
OMG

Mrs Brown is actually a man so I'm told
also Irish and a Catholic, has a gay
son, controversial! Did you mean
Gordan Brown's wife, surely not!

Shes a he?
don't make me chuckle
Mrs brown is a lady, she swears a bit though.

itsalladream wrote:

FNS-man wrote:

elite50 wrote:
Marriage was originally ordained to procreate the species and to protect the family unit. For some reason or other some people find this offensive. It seems odd that the only objector is a single parent. If people wish to live their lives in a different manner that is up to them but if you want to be a member of a club (any club), you abide by the rules if not, form your own club.

I fully agree. It''s all about raising kids. Gays can't have kids, so ban them from marriage. Likewise, people with infertility problems, women who have gone through the menopause, men who have had the snip, women with their tubes tied, people without enough money to support children and career women who just want to work and not have kids: all should be banned from marriage.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

Reading the Echo's comments section amuses me greatly :-) who knew that such narrow minded, prejudiced people existed...
FNS-man should be 'banned' from society and him and his outdated views should be put on a remote island along with all of the other pompous bigots.
Why should any of the people mentioned be banned from marriage and declaring their love for one another?
I am saying this as a single mother on benefits,who by the way is perfectly capable of raising my child without being married.

lilliputian wrote:
To return to the original article on this story, I am not sure that a '21 year old single mum' is necessarily the best person to be pontificating on marriage and morality.