Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory peers “planning to oppose” rules for civil partnerships on religious premises

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Is there any possibility of STOP going on and on about whether religeous buildings and organisations perform CIVIL “partnerships”, and start to concentrate on CIVIL MARRIAGE for ALL genders/sexualities?!?! Lets not loose the plot, shall we people?!

    1. Staircase2 21 Nov 2011, 2:42pm

      I think thats a red herring Keith…
      These are two completely separate issues…

      1. They are separate issues.

        The grave injustice of the current British system is that gay couples are denied access to civil marriage because they are gay.
        Seeing as most religious cults (certainly all the major cults) are so toxically bigotted, the fact that some tiny cults wants to be allowed perform CP’s is pretty much irrelevant.

        Although it’s being treated as a big thing, to hide the fact that nothing is actively being done to allow legal equality in Britain (this ‘consultation on marriage equality is merely a delaying tactic – there is no reasonable opposition to marriage equality whatsoever after all).

  2. Its always going to be an area of debate …

    Yes the priority should be the equalisation of civil marriage … but others who seek to muddy the water will continue to do so, whether we want them to or not …

    1. No, Stu, it should be about equal marriage full stop- not just equal civil marriage and allowing continued discrimination against gay couples who belong to religious organisations. Religious gay couples who get married in their churches don’t want civil partnerships- they just want legal recognition for their marriages in the same way that straight couples’ church weddings have legal recognition.

      1. @Dromio

        I would like to see total equal marriage … my resolution of preference would be to make all marriages civil (and religious celebrations not be granted legal status) but I accept this solution is unlikely …

        So whilst I do seek total equal marriage, I am pragmatic and recognise this may need to be a gradual process … We began with CPs, perhaps the next step in equal civil marriage (maybe with religious ceremonies where the denomination are willing and desire to offer this) and then maybe full equal marriage …

        Not the way I would choose to offer it, as equality should just happen … but being pragmatic it might bring a solution …

        1. Yeh.

          Just like the “gradual process of allowing coloureds to marry whites in the 50s.

          It should be in 1 step.

          Not dribbles like this.

          1. @BobaJOB

            You deliberately twist what I state and manipulate my words to make them mean something I do not intend …

            More evidence of your childish approach to debate …

            Where does establishing fully equal civil marriage not mean a positive move forwards?

            Do you realistically believe that a fairy godmother can come along and wave her wand and suddenly everything will be sparkly, happy and equal?

            I know that is not realistic …

            Therefore, lets be pragmatic and ensure equality and make giant steps forward with equal civil marriage … that does not mean that those religious organisations which are happy to should not be able to host same sex marriages – just that imposing equal religious marriage in all venues simultaneously with the introduction of equal civil marriage would cause so much conflict initially that it would jeopardise any advancement.

            So lets establish some level of equality and then build on it …. unless of course, your aim is to create conflict so that …

          2. … all equal marriage fails

  3. This is a specious claim, part of the “victimisation meme” currently being adopted by anti-gay groups, but unfounded in law, and so finding little support among even anti-gay clerics.

    Moreover, Baroness O’Cathain and her small band of Tory dinosaurs are highly unlikely to succeed. They have released this story in the hope of arousing media and political interest; to judge from the lack of coverage, they appear to be failing.

    Baroness O’Cathain’s measure is unlikely to pass because Parliament, including the Lords, has already said yes to this idea last year. The Government’s plans do not need to be debated in Parliament again, so unless she receives a groundswell of support, Baroness O’Cathain’s motion to block something previously agreed is unlikely to be allocated parliamentary time.

  4. All Ii can say is, in spite of assurances from Lynne Featherstone, quite clearly made in fact, that no religious denomination will be compelled to recognise or allow its premises for the signing of a CP contract, proves how disengenuous the opponents are and not that bright. Obviously they don’t read much. Expect similar transparent objections when the marriage equality consultation begins. We’ll hear the most absurd arguments regarding the heralding of polygamy, incest, bestiality, you name it, once it’s underway and of course that old chestnut, the procreation mantra.

  5. Just give us state marriage

  6. Baroness O’Cathain

    There’s a clue in the name folks…

  7. Further evidence (as if any were needed) that is it time to scrap the House of Lords in its entirety.

    It is beyond obscene that these unelected peers are able to hijack democracy in this manner.

    Get rid of them and replace them with an upper house who’ve actually, you know, been elected?

    By the way – even if allowing religious cults to perform civil partnerships is scrapped it will only affect a tiny number of people.

    Only very minor cults such as quakerism; unitarianism and reform judaism were going to offer to hold the ceremonies. The larger cults were going to remain as bigotted as they always were.

    1. I do wish you wouldn’t use the word ‘cult’. I find it just as offensive and derogatory as someone calling me a fag considering I, and many others have religious beliefs.

      1. @Nathan

        I am not a member of any religious faith or group, and I personally find the use of the word cult (repeatedly by dAVID) as objectionable and offensive

        I know he usually argues he is meeting a dictionary definition – fine, but that does not stop it being an offensive use of the word.

        1. I like the word cult. If anything, it makes the thing dAVID hates sound cooler. I love cult films, and cult music, and cult scenes. Even lady gaga fans are a cult (not one which I belong to), but cult is a cool word. So in a way, dAVID just makes religion sound cool by using the word cult. Don’t get offended by it. It just reveals dAVIDS anger and bitterness towards religious groups. I personally don’t think christianity is a cult, defined by its etymology, but there are cults within religious groups, it’s a complicated word. I think dAVID uses it simplistically, as an insult, but like I’ve said, it’s not really an insult. It’s a compliment.

          1. @Kyle

            etymologically, I agree Christianity does not resemble a cult in my view …

            I like your twist on the word cult – perhaps dAVID does mean to compliment (or doesnt realise that he is complimenting) … I shall take that view now …

          2. Oh christianity is a cult. How else would you describe it.

            How else can you describe a belief system which thinks that a powerful being invented the world in 6 days, and then sent its offspring to be spawned by a virgin, before being crucified and rising from the dead.

            It is older than scientology – it is no less lunatic and fictitious however.

            By the way I am not complimenting cults. ]

            Christianity/islam/judaism/hinduism etc are sicknesses which destroy people.

          3. @dAVID

            Maybe you don’t intend a compliment, but I like Kyle’s take and shall now always perceive you as supporting and complimenting religion by the use of the word cult.

            How would I describe religion – by using the word “religion”, strangely enough …

      2. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc etc ..

        Its a duck.

        1. However …

          Whilst. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

          If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction.

          but the debate highlighted here … http://www.debate.org/debates/If-it-looks-like-a-duck-quacks-like-a-duck-and-walks-like-a-duck-its-a-duck/1/ is equally applicable to your use of the word “duck”

          1. The term “cult” first appeared in English in 1617, derived from the French culte, meaning “worship” or “a particular form of worship” which in turn originated from the Latin word cultus meaning “care, cultivation, worship,” originally “tended, cultivated,” as in the past participle of colere “to till the soil”. In French, for example, sections in newspapers giving the schedule of worship at Catholic churches are headed Culte Catholique; the section giving the schedule of Protestant churches is headed culte réformé.

            Its a duck.

          2. @BobaJob

            Equally cult means something that is celebrated, sought after and highly regarded … a bit like a duck …

      3. Why on earth do you think the word ‘cult’ and he word ‘fag’ are comparable.

        If someone calls you a ‘fag’ then they are engaging in a personal insult.

        If someone refers to the catholic faith as a ‘cult’ then they are referring to the belief system.

        They are absolutely not comparable.

        1. Fag is a derogative term used as a personal insult. You’re correct.

          The term ‘cult’ is used as a derogative term to demean a religious organisation… The word cult has all sorts of negotive connotations associated with it, and is used by people to insult a religion, and make it seem less respectable… It is not a coincidence that people who use the word cult to describe a religion often have opposing views to said religious organisations… eg. Christian websites often describe modern paganism as a ‘cult’, or satanism as a ‘cult’, or voodoo as a ‘cult’… I’ve even met one extreme christian who views all other religions (including different branches of christianity) as ‘cults’… And when he used the word he certainly didn’t want me to consider them in a positive light… The word is used to insite negative feels towards the group it’s targetting, just as you must realise you’ve done in your original sentence…

          You’re entire paragraph will tell the average reader that you have no respect for religious organisations and look down on them, probably considering them backwards. If this was not your intention, then fair enough – stop using the word cult, because this is the impression the word gives.

          I hope that is a satisfactory explanation, and that you will take on board the fact that you may be offending others, whether you agree with it or not, and thus adapt you’re behaviour.

          1. Sorry to jump into this argument half way through, but I kind of agree with dAVID here, I don’t like religion all religion (this does not mean I don’t like religious people and I respect everyones right to believe what they want) however why should I give something which I find ridiculous at best and dangerous at worse any kind of automatic respect.

            I don’t give the BNP or Tories respect because I disagree with there views and I will regularly joke about them (in fact the term Tory was originally a derogative term for them) but that doesn’t mean that Tory voters say “hey you can’t say that you have to respect them”

            Why do I? I respect peoples tight to be religious and I will fight for there right to believe it. But that is where there freedom ends.

        2. Personally, I find it (at best) ignorance that one can not understand the utilisation of the word cult to describe religion (in general) can not be perceived as offensive to many …

          More likely (particularly when it has been debated on these forums and elsewhere often – the then continued) use of the word is deliberately provocative and intended to cause offence … and is juvenile, patronising and demeaning

          1. I know full well that using the word cult is offensive.

            But seeing as it can never be personally insulting as it desribes lunatic belief systems, then no-one can claim to be personally offended by it.

          2. @dAVID

            Well since you are clearly complimenting them, by your choice of word which demonstrates your positive views of religion … we have nothing to worry about … well, done on demonstrating your tolerance and open mindedness

        3. de Villiers 21 Nov 2011, 5:49pm

          David is a nasty bully. Thank god that he isn’t straight or he would be turning those hate-filled chants on to us.

          1. My personal view is that granted the evil that religion has done to the gay community it is legitimate to use offensive terms towards its followers, especially the traitors to the gay cause who espouse one of the principal homophobic cults such as Catholicism. There is no room between gays and cultists for anything other than total war.

          2. @Secularist

            That sort of stereotyping and generalisation is as shallow and out of touch with reality as saying all gay men are camp and lack any sense of insight

          3. @Stu

            You appear to be equating sexual orientation, which we are born with, to religious belief, which is a lifestyle entered into entirely by choice. If someone joins or remains in (say) the Catholic church then they are making a statement of agreement with the homophobic doctrines of that institution, in precisely the same way as someone who joins the BNP (or the Labour Party :-) ) is making a statement of agreement with that institution’s beliefs.

            The former should not be stereotyped; the latter may legitimately be assumed to assent to the relevant insitution’s fundamentally homophobic values and therefore be fair game.

          4. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 12:00pm

            I’m pleased I don’t depend on you, Secularist, for my freedom. No-one has conferred upon you the right to say what gay people may or may not think and what they may and may not worship.

            Your position comes very close to fascism. It also comes close to gross stereotyping in the way you seek to conflate institutions made up of many people to only one central view – the way our enemies do when they talk about the view of the “gay community”, ignoring each of us as individuals.

          5. @Secularist

            No, I am being blind to who the rights are protecting – so to an extent orientation and religion do not matter …

            Human rights are what matter and denigrating any of them or preferentially treating any of them is wrong and unfair …

    2. Staircase2 21 Nov 2011, 2:43pm

      ….Theres only one cult here as far as I can see! lol

    3. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:09am

      Don’t be such a naive prat.
      The House of Lords acts as a safety measure to prevent the Commons running riot and ramming through legislation without due consideration. The system used to work until Labour dumped all the hereditary peers and replaced them with arse-licking cronies and sycophants. Whatever you may think of the class system, the people that used to be there didn’t have a political axe to grind and did it out of duty, not for the money or glory.

      As a simple demonstration, check all the Lords that bent the expenses system – every single one of them was an elected peer.

      Don’t scrap the Lords, just reinstate the old hereditary peers and get some sense of balance and justice back.

      1. I believe that the Upper House should 100% elected by the public.

        The House of Lords is an utter anachronism for a country which claims to be a democracy.

        The House of Lords in its current form is anti-democatic and undemocratic and it must be scrapped.

        1. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 12:09pm

          England is a democracy. It does not claim to be one. It is one. Not every arm of the state has to be elected for a country to be a democracy.

        2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 2:03pm

          Democracy does not necessarily mean fair.
          Just because the majority want something does not make it right.
          Lynch mobs may be wrong, but they are still democratic.

          The upper house has worked perfectly well for hundreds of years, and has only gone tits-up since your concept of “democracy” fouled it up a few years back.

  8. Steve Smith, All Hallows Church, Leeds 21 Nov 2011, 2:02pm

    I’m a Church of England vicar and I’m dismayed that people are still trying to prevent lesbian and gay people from expressing their love and commitment to one another in their chosen place of worship.

    1. Exactly, couldn’t agree more! Although I’m not a christian I have a friend who is who would very much like to be married in a church!

      1. So have I – sadly she is divorced so cannot marry her new husband in a cult building.

        No cult is required to marry anyone they don’t feel like – gay or straight.

        This pathetic exercise to allow CP’s be performed in cult buildings is so glaringly irrelevant in light of the fact that in the UK, same sex couples are denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage, just because they are gay.

        Allowing CP’s to be performed in cult buildings does not alter the fact that gay couples are denied access to marriage.

        1. You have a friend – I mean, one who hasn’t died of boredom!?

    2. @Steve Smith

      Thank you for your support.

      Its good to see that some Christians support gay people.

    3. Is that the one by The Beatles?

    4. I didn’t know there was a verse 7 in Hey Jude? You should listen to the first verse a bit more though.
      “Hey Jude, don’t make it bad, Take a sad song and make it better, Remember to let her into your heart, then you can start to make it better.” Because, you need healing. Badly.

    5. Many thanks Rev! We need to hear your voices – we know decent folks like you are the sensible and well-meaning religious majority. But too often, the Christians who take up all the column inches are the extremist but well-connected loons like Anglican Mainstream, the Christian Institute and so on. We need you folks to get writing letters or opinion pieces to newspapers, and get heard in the media.

    6. Thank you so much for your support Rev Steve Smith. Though I am not Christian myself ALL support from the church is welcome! At the end of the day love is love regardless of colour, faith or sexual-orientation!

    7. Thank you for your support. Nevertheless you remain a member of an institutionally homophobic institution so the level of your commitment to the gay cause is in doubt.

      1. Reverse bigotry at its worst …

        1. How is it bigotted if it is true.

          He is a member of a homophobic organisation even though he claims to be against homophobia.

          What is he doing to reverse the monstrous bigotry of his cult?

        2. In what way is the C of E, which opposes any aspect of CPs which approximate to marriage, let alone same sex marriages themselves, and categorically refuses to allow Cp registrations in its churches, NOT a homophobic institution? Please do explain.

          As to your accusation of reverse bigotry, I point out that religion, unlike sexual orientation, is genuinely a lifestyle choice – and any genuine lifestyle choice is open to criticism in the same way as joining a political party is open to criticism .

          I would be genuinely interested in Mr Smith’s views on how he can remain within such a self evidently bigotted organisation in good conscience.

          1. not all C of E churches preach the same thing you cannot hold certain churches to the actions of another (catholics are a different matter)

      2. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 12:04pm

        Who are you to define the “gay cause”? Like a German Nzai who decided how a ‘Jew’ was to be defined, you have taken it on yourself to determine what is the ‘gay cause’ and what gay people may properly think – and by extension who is properly gay and who is a gay ‘traitor’.

        You are at one with the Pope but on the other end of the spectrum. Pope Benoit has said that we do not have freedom of conscience because one cannot have the freedom to think in a manner which conflicts with their nature.

        You, too, are saying that we should not have freedom of conscience because we should not have the freedom to hold views that conflict with our true (gay) nature – as defined by you.

        At base, your politics are as controlling, undemocratic and dictatorial as Pope Benoit. Shocking.

    8. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:12am

      it’s nice to know some churches are willing to marry same-sex couples, but it should not be down to the government to decide whether this should or should not be allowed, but the individual dioceses or their equivalents.

      The church stands independent from a lot of law, and I see it as some kind of “club” or association, if you will. However, a legal marriage should be available to everybody as a secular right.

    9. Thank you for your support, we need more allies in the faith community!!

  9. dAVID, I’ve been advocating that for years but there doesn’t seem to be much interest in society as a whole. It is an anachronism whose time has finally come. Abolish it and replace it with a democratically elected body and ban religious clerics from being appointed. Religious beliefs should NOT and must not be allowed to influence the outcome of what are purely civil matters. I think if there were a referendum held to abolish it as well as state religion, I truly believe there would be enough support among the British public to do both.

    1. @Robert

      I wouldnt abolish a second chamber – but I would rework it …

      I think the bicameral system brings a level of scrutiny and accountability that unicameral parliamentary systems miss out on.

      I wholeheartedly agree that scrutiny of parliamentary business should be blind to religion, race etc etc (other than in terms of specific and direct relevance eg legislation preventing discrimination). This would suggest not giving clerics seats in the second chamber as automatic right. If the chamber was electable (in one form or another) and there were clerics elected democratically that is completely different to the current Lords Spiritual scenario, which to my mind is an anachronism.

      To remove this does not just require reform of the House of Lords but a full separation of church from state.

      1. The sooner the better.

        it is obscene that an unelected upper house is allowed to thrash our democracy in the way they continue to do so.

        The Upper House is unelected – they need all to be fired and elections held every 5 years to fill those seats,

        It';s also obscene beyond measure that the homophobic Cult of England is the official state religion.

        That needs to be scrapped as well.

        1. @dAVID

          You expect others to be reasonable and inoffensive in their language towards you and the LGBT communtiies …

          Whilst you do not perceive the use of the word “cult” as offensive, you have been told by a number of people that it is offensive …

          Can you therefore please exercise some decorum, and humanity and make your same points but avoid the use of the word cult …

          The frequency of your use of it means it can only be deliberate and aims to be provocative

          It undermines any sense of seeking equality and makes you look crazy and obsessed.

          1. Offensive to whom?

            It is not a personal insult and it’s an accurate description of what it actually.

            I am offended that people think that their lunatic belief systems should be treated with more respect than the Stamp-Collecting Society of Cheadle.

        2. de Villiers 21 Nov 2011, 5:50pm

          David is a nasty bully. Thank god that he isn’t straight or he would be turning those hate-filled chants on to us.

        3. Don’t pay any attention to the cult supporters whinging and whining David. The cults are overwhelmingly against gay rights and the only way forward is (non-violently of course) to fight them tooth and nail and to push them out of mainstream society.

          1. Self defeating arguments that undermine real equality are damaging to us as gay people

        4. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:13am

          It’s obscene that you have no concept of how British politics is actually meant to work.

          1. An elected Upper and Lower House is how democratic politics is meant to work.

            Are you admitting that the House of Lords in fact shows that Britain is not really a democracy?

          2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 2:07pm

            dAVID “An elected Upper and Lower House is how democratic politics is meant to work.”

            Says who? We are a constitutional monarchy, if you hadn’t noticed.
            We didn’t vote for the royal family, but I for one am quite happy with that situation.

    2. Staircase2 21 Nov 2011, 2:48pm

      This is nonsense.
      The clergy (of all denominations) have just as much right as everyone else to voice their opinions. In fact in many cases (this one included) it is religious organisations which are leading the way.
      Its important to have religious voices in the debate – otherwise its too easy to paint it as ‘christian/’godly” Versus ‘ungodly’ ‘heathens’…

      Full marks to the Quakers, Unitarians & Jews who are pushing this – and shame on those weak-hearted Tory Peers who think that opposing it is a good idea…! (The words ‘Godless Wankers’ spring to mind….)

      1. While I agree that people who follow religious cults should engage in politics and express whatever opinions they like; I absolutely disagree with the idea that the feedback of the cult as a whole is ever required or listened to,

        Over the past few months there have been repeated stories about the efforts of certain tiny cults to be allowed perform CP’s in their cult buildings.

        It’s being treated as if this is major news which is worthy of celebration.

        Which I suppose it is, if you are a member of a cult which wants to allow religious CP’s.

        But the fact remains that quakerism; unitarianism and reform judaism are tiny cults. The big cults – the cult of Englandl; the catholic cult; the muslim cuilt remain as toxically bigotted as ever.

        And of course every single LGBT person in the country – whether they are atheist or non-atheist – is denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage, simply because they are gay.

        And our government needs a ‘consultation’ about equality???

        1. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 2:24pm

          You’re a bit a little cult yourself, aren’t you?

  10. I note the story leads “Tory peers will oppose new civil partnership regulations on the basis that they fail to protect religious establishments from being obliged to host ceremonies, the Independent reports.”

    I believe custodians of religious premesis are constantly being told there is no intention for them to perform any ceremony if they do not wish to, yet this statement is ethier unnecessary scare-mongering or else it is a warning of what might be expected.

    Religious establishments take very different stances to whether they should / should be allowed to conduct ceremonies for same sex couples.

    My own view is that there should be something that recognises same sex unions (currently this is civil partnerships and it may later be a redefined form of marriage) in order to provide legal protection etc.

    But as a minister, I would oppose any form of government compulsion for churches to be used for conducting ceromonies to affirm same sex unions as that is incompatible with my beliefs of what churches should be about.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Nov 2011, 4:09pm

      Well, why should those religious establishments that wish to perform them be prevented from doing so?

      1. Those who wish to certainly should be allowed to do so …

        Those who do not wish to, should not have the power to prevent those who do wish to do so, from meeting the needs that they perceive some of their members have and which they wish to assist with …

        1. I think I got that – I agree!

          1. Not my best use of the English language ever … I concede :-)

    2. “But as a minister, I would oppose any form of government compulsion for churches to be used for conducting ceromonies to affirm same sex unions as that is incompatible with my beliefs of what churches should be about.”

      Funny that, when your churches has the power to impose every lunatic law and whim on the masses, I didn’t see you moaning too much….

      1. Will: can you elaborate please – I am not sure what is it exactly that you think we are imposing on the masses?

        Granted, in the past, the established Church of England did occupy a privilege place in society and the consensus in society supported much more of a Christian perspective than it does now. I neither condone or apologise for what happened but rather would want to reflect on what should happen now, realising that a healthy balance should be achieved to take into account the needs and aspirations of all citizens.

        You and I (I hope) both have concerns for the good of society. Given what churches do offer (e.g. in an area I closely work with – homelessness) it seems reasonable to me that their views should be taken into account and what they do for the common good should be helped and not hindered.

        As for being able to carry out services e.g. civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples, that in my view should be up to the individual churches, who should be allowed to either opt in or opt out according to how they see things.

        1. “I am not sure what is it exactly that you think we are imposing on the masses?”

          One groups view on what is “moral” or “ethical” – so better put “do what I think god tells me you should so.”

          “You and I (I hope) both have concerns for the good of society.”

          Of course, but their solutions will not be found in a book that condemns shellfish as a abomination and tells us its all about 7 days creation. That would be bordering on insane, wouldn’t it?

          1. Will: The problem as I see it is which view is allowed to predominate. Just because you don’t believe in what the Bible teaches, what makes you think you are right and your views are better than anyone elses? What basis do you have for your views and how can you logically have any basis if we are mere products of blind chance?

            The best we can hope for in a pluralistic society is for the democratic checks and balances to accomodate different views in the hope that shared values of what consitutes the common good will rise to the surface? Or are are you saying that a secularist, anti-god elite, supported by your good self, should decide what goes and the rest of us are merely expected to follow suite?

          2. @JohnB as you are the one making a claim that your religion is right, you have the burden of proof he is not saying this is what I think is happening he is merely saying it is ridiculous to believe in a sky fairy that grants you wishes as long as you worship him without any!

          3. “Just because you don’t believe in what the Bible teaches, what makes you think you are right and your views are better than anyone elses?”

            The bible is not fact. Believing something does not make it fact either. Forcing others to accept, and live their lives, by your unproven nonsense as fact is called fascism.

            Wake up John. Just because you wasted you entire lift on a “belief”, doesn’t meant he rest of us have to suffer for it.

          4. “What basis do you have for your views”

            Science.

            But we already established your lack of understanding in that area, and hence why you chose to dismiss it as a “belief”

            The rest has been said by the other two comments.

        2. So science can tell you what is right and wrong, provide a basis for a moral code, direct you along the right path, give you a reason for living!? Is that what you are saying Will?

          1. Don’t be so absurd. Why do you have to minimise everything you do not understand to the remedial nature of the nonsense you read of out that stupid book? Seriously, grow up.

          2. seems to me that you are the one who needs to grow up. Your religion (science) does not have the answers to these questions, which is why you are so defensive.

          3. “Your religion (science) does not have the answers to these questions, which is why you are so defensive.”

            Yes, you are as much an expert in psychology as you are in science it seems. Tell me, why is a self confessed bigot like you on a gay site anyway?

            Incidentally, your “bible” doesn’t answer any “moral” or “ethical” issues either, unless you think incest is okay, slavery is acceptable, and eating shell fish is an abomination. So spare me the sanctimonious crap, John, just becuase you wasted your life chasing an imaginary sky-fairy, doesn’t meant he rest of us are idiots too. You religious type make me sick, you are the reason humanity does so appallingly when it comes to compassion.

          4. Will, ignore him. He’s an arrogant twit who thinks the rest of us are somehow suffering becuase we don’t hive his mindless belief. How wrong he is.

            John, get a life, amte. This is a gay site, not for your heebie-jeebie-god-will-get-you preaching. You won’t find many here who will support your bigotry and your silly beliefs. Your kind are dying off. Get over it. And get lost.

  11. Keith...HIV free always! 21 Nov 2011, 4:54pm

    “This may surprise you Keith, but not all gay men have anal sex!”
    Not all padophiles go on to abuse children either but it is still wrong to foster an attraction toward children rather than fight it!.
    “‘Judge others and you will be judged. Judge not and you will not be Judged.’ ”
    You should read things in context. The passage is about fault finding in others where your own faults are greater. Judges werte set up in the BOOK OF JUDGES in the bible to PASS JUDGEMENT on wrongdooers. The bible also said not to cover over or conceal gross sin. Jude 7 and many others identify buggery and homosexuality as gross sin. Psalm 97:10 says to hate what is bad.
    You however, appear to be identified in the following passage…
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    “A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.”
    (2 Timothy 4:3)

    1. Keith, you still need plenty of awareness training. There are several differences between homosexuality and paedophilia. The most important distinction here is that homosexuality is on the same level as heterosexuality, in that the attraction is innate, natural and not chosen. Therefore, as the sexual attraction is natural to the individual, it cannot be a sin to feel an attraction to a person of the same gender. Also, people of the same or opposite sex are consenting adults and therefore have consensual sex. Paedophilia, on the other hand, only ever results as a result of manipulation, except on the occasion where a 14-15 year old has lied about their age with a fake ID, even though that is still not a perfect excuse to use. Rape and coercion are usually always used in regards to paedophilia. Why on earth would a child or young adolescent make a totally informed decision to allow themselves to be abused in such a terrifying, disturbing and evil manner? Your comparison is indefensible!

    2. Keith, you still need plenty of awareness training. There are several differences between homosexuality and paedophilia. The most important distinction here is that homosexuality is on the same level as heterosexuality, in that the attraction is innate, natural and not chosen. Therefore, as the sexual attraction is natural to the individual, it cannot be a sin to feel an attraction to a person of the same gender. Also, people of the same or opposite sex are consenting adults and therefore have consensual sex. Paedophilia, on the other hand, only ever results as a result of manipulation, except on the occasion where a 14-15 year old has lied about their age with a fake ID, even though that’s still not a perfect excuse to use. Rape and coercion are usually always used in regards to paedophilia. Why on earth would a child or young adolescent make a totally informed decision to allow themselves to be abused in such a terrifying, disturbing and evil manner? Your comparison is indefensible!!

      1. “Keith, you still need plenty of awareness training.”

        He needs AA and a good therapist to help him overcome the failed “ex-gay” conversion, before he sexually assaults someone….

        1. He needs to stop thinking that the Cosmos is a washing machine with a rag-bag of ancient and contradictory Eastern Mediterranean texts as the book of instructions. Not holding my breath.

  12. If these unelected Tory dinosaurs vote against allowing willing religious organisations to conduct civil partnerships, then David Cameron should throw them out of the party. No ifs, no buts !

    He really can’t have it both ways, saying that the Tories have really changed and left their bigoted past behind, only for the actions of their Lordships to make his words meaningless.

    1. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:18am

      Who said they are all Tories, or unelected? Most of the House of Lords used to be politically independent, until Blair stuck his fat oar in and destroyed 500 years of British tradition that was working perfectly well.

  13. “A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.”
    (2 Timothy 4:3)

    The perfect mind trap… almost..

  14. carrie baker 21 Nov 2011, 8:48pm

    You dont protect racism and bigotry and predjuce, its a hate crime because it harms innocent people, out of malice and spite and jealousy, your go and get the attacker of it, the perputrator the defamator, who victumizes all that it encounters and leaves wounds scars, stigmas, suicides and murders, you never ever is suppose to tolerate such evil and violence and against other who are not bothering you and harming your personal families, you treat everyone fair and courteous , and congenial , and you go on about your business with your own friends and famiies, you dont have to go home with a colored famiiy are a gay familhy , or spanish familiy or disabled family that is not yours, so get on about your businesses, and leave them alone as well as the lgbt communites and families leave them alone get on with you, and let te other people who are civilized alone too they have a right to treat other right and fair, that clergy and religions who are human rights and civilized , Humanity

    1. Oh, cheers Carrie, its not that we saw the other 500+ badly written cut and pasts you bored us with already….

  15. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a cult is defined as such…
    “A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object…..a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over member.

    The abrahamic cults all started out small and grew, so in essence, they are cults, some are good, some extremely bad such as Islam, C of E and Roman cults and those American evangelical cults and sects such as Mormonism. They all have leaders and they all follow them.

    1. One can use any word to meet a dictionary definition and still be offensive … When one is advised the use of a particualr word is offensive, a civilised person then refrains from using the word in question

      1. Whether offensive or not it is a true agreed definition.

        Just because YOU don’t like doesn’t make it any less descriptive of “religions”.

        1. I dont like it because it undermines our fight for LGBT equality by behaving like school ground bullies and utilising the same tactics those that condemn us as gay people utilise …

          I prefer to be treated humanely and treat others with the same respect and honour that I would like to be treated …

          Other people, can choose to behave like school children and be inhumane … but some people are just bullies …

          1. So the use of the word cult undermines out fight for equality.

            I think you will find that the poisonous activities of the religious cults undermines our fight in a far more serious way.

            These cults do not deserve respect. They should keep out of our laws and should be condemned loudly every time they try to interfere with anyone’s civil rights.

      2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:22am

        That makes me uncivilised by your definition then.
        The English language is a fluid and evolving process, and is there to be used.
        Just because some politically-correct twat attaches a new meaning to a word does not make it offensive.

        “Thy Father is a Gorbelled Codpiece” ;)

        1. Its a very inhumane person who when advised repeatedly that a word is both offensive and undermining their cause continues to use it and justify it by semantics of definitions being correct or trying the deconstruct other peoples arguiments … a reasonable, humane person who believed in their fight and didnt act as a bully would use the same argument but not the same word …

          1. And it is a complete moron who gets offended by an accurate description of an organisation.

            Most religions hate you Stu.

            The number of religions which do accept you are tiny in size, and even then require that you believe in some sky-fairy.

            I completely faii to understand how someone can be offended by referencing the catholic, muslim, baptist, jewish, hindu organisations as ‘cults’.

            It’s not offensive if it is true.

            And is is about time the politicians who believe in equality started referrign to them as cults,. It will drive them crazy, while at the same time delegitimising their toxic influence on democracy.

          2. Well, as the good wikipedia have stated about vandelism on their site …. A troll is more interested in the response to their posts than in the choice of words … in other words, will refuse to consider changing words to make the same point – because a response is what they seek ….

      3. What makes religion not a cult? It has all the characteristics of a cult and I assume when you see other cults you call them a cult so why not the major religions?

  16. Daniel Marshall 21 Nov 2011, 10:38pm

    This is exactly why the gay community needs to create some kind of new movement in the run up to 2012’s Westminster talks on gay marriage. Visit my latest article if you’re a gay theatre maker just waiting to make a difference.

    http://www.thegaystage.com/2011/11/young-gay-theatre-makers-creating-new.html

  17. Churches and religious groups have purposely excluded the LGBT community for eons… how about we repay some of this and force them to accept something?

    Boot other foot now and they don’t like it!

    1. That is such a grown up approach …

      Really helps ensure equality by behaving the same way you are trying to stop being used against us ….

      Are you really just 5 years old, because thats the maturity of your argument …

      1. The “voice of reason” dribbles again……….

        1. The petulant child retorts again …

          1. You Sir are an enemy of LBGT.

          2. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 12:06pm

            You bobajob are an enemy of freedom – freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

          3. @bobajob

            You are entitled to your opinion …

            When forced to make a choice I will almost always put LGBT rights as my priority, although do so reluctantly as the important issue is universal human rights (of which LGBT rights are a subset). Universal human rights apply to all (including LGBT people). LGBT rights are undermined by those seeking to exclude rights from others or be petulent and childish.

            Just because I profoundly disagree with your tecnhique and methodology in your approach to seeking LGBT rights does not mean that I am an enemy of LGBT rights nor that I am not passionate about ensuring LGBT rights are advanced, upheld and passionately claimed. If you can not see this, it demonstrates the absence of logic in your arguments …

      2. I think it is merely treating cults in the same manner as they”ve treated us over the centuries.

        There is a vicious, evil, cruel, murderous streak running through every cult (Something along the lines of ‘God thinks we are special, therefore we are better than everyone else’).

        These cults are immune to reason, opposed to democracy and really should stop trying to impose theor absurd beliefs on all of society.

        Religious cults have a power which they use to harm people. Until their harmful power is reduced then they need to be attacked every time they try to undermine someone’s human or civil rights.

        1. No point discussing anything with stu.

          He is as bad as the CULTS themselves.

          ONLY HE is right. All others are wrong. All hail the mighty stu as he has spoken.

          Note that he is ALWAYS at the top of the number of posts posted as he has an answer for everything and always has the last word.

          He is a CULT apologiser and an arrogant “thinks he knows it all”.

          I think I prefer Keith’s rants to Stu’s

          1. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 1:56pm

            Infantile.

            Perhaps you need that in capital letters.

            INFANTILE.

          2. de Villiers: I agree.

          3. @BobaJob

            So, let me get this right …

            I don’t agree with you and the fact that I comment on my disagreement and try and explain why I see things in the manner that I do – means that I am an apologist for those with faith. No, it means that I disagree with you – nothing more …

            I might agree with many of your views, however I find your manner and approach infantile, offensive and this leads to undermining your argument …

            I am not saying my approach is the only one – I am merely explaining why I perceive yours as wrong – I am certainly not arrogant to suggest that I have all the answers …

            Its clear from the way you throw your teddy out of the pram that you are affronted because I point out that there is not a right to offend another … there is a right to freedom of speech, but as with all rights that should be exercised with responsibility, particularly if you are seeking to advance the rights you can exercise – otherwise by jeopardising others rights, you give no …

          4. … legitimacy to you being given additional rights (because you are undermining others) – natural justice does not advance rights on the basis of the use of offensive language or limiting others rights.

            Again we see you childish approach with your comments about Keith and comparing my approach to arguments to his … no reasonable person would do that (ah but you are not reasonable are you …).

            As for me being an apologist you clearly have not read many of my comments (one thing I do frequently on here is condemn religious views) – I know I have a lot of comments on here – but if you read them, I have disclosed why – and if you had a sense of humanity or any compassion you would perhaps understand …

            Glad that you are not someone seeking to develop human rights … Your approach dishonours the battle many have made to advance the rights available to LGBT people …

  18. This is very good news.
    We need to to protect religious establishments from being obliged to host ceremonies, but this does not go far enough. We need ALL establishments to be protected from their own choice to server and or accommodate who they wish.

    Please to oppose them, you have my full support.

    1. This post is incomprehensible. I assume English is not your first language. If it is, you’re in trouble.

    2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:25am

      “We need ALL establishments to be protected from their own choice.”
      That sounds wholly democratic to me.
      You are incapable of making your own decisions so we will make them for you.
      I believe Stalin came up with that idea too.

  19. It will be interesting whether the debate moves on to gay marriage, after all this is the real issue they are probably concerned about. I don’t believe for an instant this change to the equality acted, drafed by lord whaeed and the CofE is an issue at all to anyone and this is just a starter/tester for the battleground for gay marriage..If this succeds then religious gay marriages probably has to be introduced in the long run and that’s what they are really worried about as well as simlpy civil gay marriages. I wouldn’t underestimte the house of lords and their opposition and power, I think some people seem to..

  20. I don’t see why religious institutions should get an exemption from the law of the land. They should be forced to offer their services equally to all, just like everyone else has to. They don’t get an exemption from the murder laws or the rape laws or the contract laws, they shouldn’t get an exemption from the equality laws. A registry office cannot refuse to host civil partnerships, so a church or mosque or ziggurat temple to almighty Marduk shouldn’t be allowed to either.

    Just being religious does not make an institution special. Quite the reverse in fact, it makes it complicit in the promotion of irrational nonsense. Irrational nonsense can be fun, but it is no basis for granting undeserved special legal privileges to self-constituted private interest groups.

    1. I agree, there must be no special privileges or special opt-outs from the law for religious institutions and their followers no matter how devoutly homophobic they may claim to be.

    2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 8:26am

      Why? You are not forced to go to church. If you don’t like what they offer, don’t go there.
      It really is as simple as that. What you are saying is much the same as demanding a Halal butchers must sell pork chops.

      1. If only the religious loud-mouths and control addicts would confine themselves to the private sphere of their various churches, temples and mosques while staying out of our parliament rather than constantly attempting to impose their empty, unfair and often cruel dogma’s upon the rest of us, then I would say live and let live.

        The fact that the “religious” so openly strive to interfere-in and to control my life and other people’s lives makes them a dangerous liability and not one that deserves to be pandered to by gifting them special privileges in the form of special opt-outs from civil law.

        1. Indeed. Dangerous Cults.

    3. de Villiers 22 Nov 2011, 12:24pm

      Religions do not provide services to the public in that way. One cannot demand that a church provide a wedding as a hotel must provide a room. A religious organisation is a group formed by the freedom of association of the individuals that attend it – like any club.

      I would be against anything that prevents freedom of association – much in the same way that I am unhappy that laws prevent gay clubs and bars which create gay spaces from imposing gay-only entry policies.

  21. Jock S. Trap 22 Nov 2011, 6:26am

    Oh typical, anything to make a noise about nothing. Fact is the Church of England etc are not just discriminating against our community they are also discriminating against there own religious freedoms by trying to dictate that if they shouldn’t perform Civil Partnerships neither should anyone else. An attitude that needs to be put out with the other trash.

    Enough already, stop whinging and deal with the issues at hand, either that or section yourself against humanity further and watch yourself decrease into the wilderness and teh histiry books.

    There is nothing going on he apart from petty mindedness. They are not being forced to perform here they just want something to whinge at. Fact is they have their religious freedom but like everyone else they have to follow the law of the land not to discriminate, something the church is well rehearsed in.

  22. Where is cameron? Why isnt he comdemming them??

    1. Probably because he secretly agrees with tme.

      He announces a change to the CP law to allow cults perform these in their buildings, knowing full well that only a tiny number of people are affected. I suspect he also knew full well that the disgusting, bigotted Tory Party sitting in the undemocratic House of Lords, would try to stop it.

      Meanwhile a wholly unnecesary ‘consultation’ on marriage equality (which would effect FAR more people than the unnecessary cult update) is timed to allow the government to introduce marriage equality by 2015 – the end of the current coaltion.

      I hope I am wrong, but the committment to have equality by 2015 seems timed to allow ‘Callmedave’ to claim that he ‘simply didn’t have time’ to introduce equalit.

      We all know that marriage equallity could be a reality by summer 2012. There is no poltical will to introduce it. And we are getting sidetracked by crap like this CP in Cult Buildings nonsense.

  23. The English like to make fun of Australians but at least we don’t have a ‘House of Lords/Masters’! Our Senate is elected by the people, using proportional representation! When are you going to get rid of such a bunch of ‘unrepresentative old farts?’

    1. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 2:30pm

      Because most of us prefer a bunch of old farts that know what they are talking about rather than a bunch of young, corrupt, power-crazy, ego-tripping idiots that haven’t got the first inkling of what it is to serve one’s country.

  24. 8th Dec – something to look forward to!!!!

    †Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2661) Baroness O’Cathain to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 8 November, be annulled on the grounds that they do not fulfil the Government’s pledge to protect properly faith groups from being compelled to register civil partnerships where it is against their beliefs. 43rd Report from the Merits Committee (Lunch break business)

  25. I might be wrong, but I think all legislation related to gay rights and/or equality has eventually needed the Parliament Act to get it through.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all