An interesting line of argument – making Christ distinct from the twisted Christianity of today. A very useful contribution to the argument (although identifyjng sexual orientation as a belief is somewhat off the mark – it it serves his purpose here). This is certainly an argument middle-England christians could take on board.
I wonder whether the Mail is feeling the turning tide of public opinion, and is worried about being left on the wrong side.
I also found it bizarre that he seemed to imply sexual orientation was a belief, but it shows he is a straight person arguing from common humanity. Overall it’s good, but I hope it’s not just to ‘balance’ some horrendous homophobia they may have in the pipeline…
Wouldn’t do any harm to visit the site and lend support in the comment section. He may need all the help he can get;-)
Do not support the Daily Heil website.
They will have Melanie Phillips or Jan Moir on next week arguing for the gay community to rounded up in concentration camps.
The Daily Mail?!
As in the “we hate everyone who thinks fractionally to the left of Hitler” Daily Mail?!
[Sasha checks BBC Wethe Online to see if Hell has actually frozen over.]
If they dare to publish it in the paper edition tomorrow, I may actually permit myself to buy a copy. It might be the first copy I will have ever touched without feeling to need to ritually cleanse my body and mind afterwards!
It’s the Dailty Heil
1 supportive column by the BNP’s chosen newspaper does not mean the Heil can be trusted.
Next week they will be argueing for the recriminalisation of homosexuality as a ‘threat’ to society.
Marriage is between two consenting adults. One of the key words is consenting.
Zoophilia- only one of the partners can consent, consequently, like sex with children, is abuse of the partner..
Because marriage is principally a legal contract, therefore requiring capacity to form one.
Do not feed the troll
The principle here is that your feeling of “yuck” is your problem, not other people’s. No harm, no foul.
Actually. The law says they cant. Twat.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
“So since an adult father and son can mutally consent, do you believe they should be free to marry if they both sincerely wish?”
Such stupid logic. Currently a mother and her son cannot marry.
Another endless ridiculous comment by Keith the ex-gay drunk obsessive. Did you read that one off the wall of your cell?
Read?? :D Surely not!
This is getting weird. First The Time says gay marriage is good. Then someone in The Guardian says it isn’t. Now the daily Mail has a pro gay story. Confused.
Just this week, the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund filed a petition to defend the new civil unions law in Hawaii in a case where the governor refuses to defend the state’s law against gay marriage and three people have filed suit, saying that civil unions are not good enough. That may be the first time that such an organization has actually tried to go to bat FOR a law that recognizes same-sex unions.
So it’s not just in the UK. Interesting times all over.
Perhaps because the same people/orgs are funding the opposition around the world. If you owned the richest bank in the world and thought gay marriage was the end of the world, what would you do? Not to mention the threat of excommunicating non-compliant politicians in various countries.
Remember, the current incumbent headed what used to be known as the Inquisition.
Nothing strange about The Times supporting it, their core readership is rational libertarians – those on the economic right of the labour party and social left of the Tories.
Michael White in the Guardian was a shocker though!
Heterosexual High Churchmen for you…
I may have to end my 20 year boycott of the Times. But it’s still owned by the Murdochs. What to do, what to do…
The Murdoch thing does trump their support – but I like their support!
well a great deal of momentum is gained due to the fact that it was written by a daily mail columnist. come on now, the mail are calling them bigots, THE MAIL! its great that anybody writes in support of equality, but even more so in this case.
a bit mixed up here, could do with somebody to talk to.
My gast is well and truly flabbered. It will be interesting how the mail deals with this in print and going forward, but thanks to the journalist for a very interesting and thought provoking article.
I hope it will make those who might be swayed by cardinals and arch bishops step back and think.
Wow! :o Excellent article – really great points clearly explained.
I know I was shocked too. I think Dr Guthries advice to be sitting down (elsewhere on PN) before reading it was right.
There was a need for a strong drink afterwards too (both in celebration and to counter the shock!)
If the Daily Mail is on side … and the only support the Cardinal can muster is the likes of the Christian Institute and Mugabe … then the battle is well and truly ours … but lets not count our chickens – we must keep it going till its real!
I’m hoping that people are slowly realising that the arguments against equal marriage are illogical and contradictory. I tried to be devil’s advocate (so to speak :D) and think of a proper argument agaisnt equal civil marriage and I couldn’t think of a single one.
The UNchristian Institute and their cronies like to spread misinformation, but, hopefully, when people stop and think about what the ‘antis’ say, they’ll realise it’s all just plain daft – not to mention prejudiced and mean-spirited.
I really hope so and it seems like we are winning, Iris.
We are out to win nothing.
All we want is simple equality.
A level playing with the rest of society.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Achieving equality is winning, Dr Guthrie
Winning liberty from being treated as subhumans
We should have had it all along, but we havent and by achieving it we win.
Women won the vote.
Martin Luther King won the argument for racial equality.
We will win marriage equality.
A super article, and perfectly written to boot…well, except for the troublesome use of the word ‘belief’ instead of ‘sexual orientation’.
Well that’s my flabber well and truly gasted!
(Goes for a lie-down to recover from the shock)
Funniest comment I’ve ever seen on here!
Yēšūah the Nazarene was not convicted for having different religious beliefs. He was convicted because he and his cult were perceived by the Roman authorities (correctly as the Christians later proved all too clearly) as a political threat to their power.
Yesuah, Jesus, and all the other names given to this fiction are exactly that, fiction. He has no more reality than Mickly Mouse has, or Thor, or Zeus, or the Road Runner! Fiction, didn’t exist, made up, just a story, and that’s it. The religionists, ‘people of faith’ are in degrees delusional, logic and reason fail to function when those parts of their brains are excited by their particular cult beliefs. Fortunately, thanks to modern communciations there is a world of younger people who recognise fiction when they see it. It is to be hoped that religion is finally moving to extinction and not before time.
I’m afraid you’re wrong there on many points.
1) Jesus The Nazarene was a PROVEN real human being. If you don’t believe me, look at
That will answer everything.
2) As mentioned on the link above, historians such as Tacitus, Josephus etc… have written about Jesus’ life, in one of Tacitus’ annuls, he called him ‘the man who performed miracles’
3) There are children being born every second that are Christian, Muslim, Hindu and the like… religion will NEVER be made extinct. It’s an absolute impossibility.
Not just very welcome support but very well argued support. Very refreshing.
When gay news items are featured in the Mail, you do of course get the usuall bigotted red neck response from some readers but you also seem to get what seems to be a growing number of positive comments.
It’s interesting that after about 24 hours you get a massive number of negative comments, which leads me to believe that some sort of orchestrated response is galvanised in response to these items. Now which organisations do we think might resort to those tactics? Hmmmmm?
Maybe it’s when the Bible Belt in the US wake up.
The writer says that opposing same sex marriage “goes against the spirit of the humanist movement of the last five hundred years that has been, with enormous difficulty, moving man from barbarity to moral civilisation.”
How right he is and it is the present-day Humanist movement which is in the forefront of the campaign for LGBT equality.
Indeed in the vanguard but to successfully achieve it we need a wide coalition of support, including those you might not traditionally feel comfortable working with such as liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians … people with differing politics, the Daily Mail, Jack Straw, Cameron, Francis Maude, Milliband, the Bishop of Salisbury ….
Don’t forget Tom Cobley.
The writer points out that Christ never condemned homosexuality in any way.
But I don’t think we can conclude from this that he would have been any less hostile to gay sexual relationships than his contemporaries.
Has any one read the puritanical views on other sexual matters expressed by Christ in the Gospels?
I believe the only thing he allegedly referred to was to save the adulteress from being stoned, supposedly telling her to sin no more. However scholars believe that was added to the particular gospel at a later date.
Some believe he had a some sort of relationship with the ” beloved disciple” he lay intimately with at the last supper, as described in the gospel of John, and who he asked his mother to treat as a son, from the cross. There is also an unexplained naked youth in the garden of Gethsemane, and one dressed in White in his empty tomb. Make of it what you will, but gay relationships with younger men were not uncommon at the time, and he never condemned it once, according to the Bible.
Who cares what Christ said in the BuyBull.
In ‘Lady Boss’ by Jackie Collins, her heroine Lucky Santangelo supports marriage equality.
She’s a more up to date fictional character than Jesus and therefore more relevant.
“Indeed in the vanguard but to successfully achieve it we need a wide coalition of support, including those you might not traditionally feel comfortable working with such as liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians …”
Indeed, but the reason the liberal Jews, Quakers etc. are as supportive as Humanists of LGBT relationships and rights is because they ignore the Biblical proscriptions.
As an agnostic who has studied the Bible at some length in my youth – I have to disagree and say that supporting LGBT rights is Biblical. I see nothing that condemns gay relationships in the new covenant.
Now, I think the proposition of many of the Biblical texts and assumptions are wrong. Saying they do not condemn homosexuality in the new covenant is also wrong.
If we are going to try and take the high ground and argue against faith groups, at least lets be honest in what we say about them (even if some of them are dishonest about LGBT people).
However, this battle is about equal marriage. Many faith groups support us. This battle is important and thus adopting a wide coalition is important. We need to recognise our allies.
As an athiest who has studied all of the Abrahamic biblical bumf
who lives with his “civil partner”.
A state of being I despise, given that it is forced on me by law.
However, I found myself very surprised when watching Question Time.
Eric Pickles was the government goon purporting to allow councils to continue with prayers etc, after the court case.
On QT he said with regards to same sex marriage ” He is all for it”
having heard all of the arguments, including Cardinal O’Brien.
It seems that the Cardinal has done us all a favour with his viscous language.
I must admit I was concerned when I saw Pickles was the coalition representative.
His comments that civil marriage is licensed by the state and that it should be available to couples, gay or straight, was said with a reasonable amount of passion.
It was a great response from the panel (with the exception of the Mail columist!) and the audience. I loved it when David Dimbleby asked the guy in the audience who looked quite traditionist if he thought the CofE should marry same sex couples and he responded “Why Not, wouldnt bother me at all”
The Daily Mail?
*jaw hits floor*
Wow, this is certainly a change. I hope that people like Mr Pandya will inherit the newspapers in the future.
However, I wouldn’t say that homophobia is the “last prejudice” – there is still plenty of vitriol against other gender and sexuality minorities besides gay and lesbian people – for example, bisexual and trans people still have a longer way to go to abolish prejudices and misconceptions against them – and just because nowadays it’s generally considered unacceptable to be overtly racist doesn’t mean racism has been eliminated, nor misogyny. Those kinds of prejudices are more subtle than they used to be, but they’re still there.
I’d guess he means the last great prejudice that’s still considered acceptable to implement, or express in public. (Yes, racism exists – it always will, I think – but you can’t have an official policy that has different rules for different races any more.)
I disagree with the notion that bisexual people ‘have a longer way to go’.
While it is currently fashionable to suggest (largely from US Campaigning groups) that Biphobia is as large a problem (and distinctly so) as homophobia I don’t believe this to be the case.
In truth, I believe that the campaign to overcome biphobia is actually exactly the same journey as overcoming homophobia – if anything overcoming biphobia is a proportion of the same journey.
Whatever the campaigners are suggesting, its simply foolish to suggest that Bisexual people have double the prejudice to overcome – this is simply not the case. If anything, bisexuals are actually (collectively) the single most privileged group within the LGBT umbrella and directly benefit from any gains made in general Gay Equality.
Here’s hoping we not only get “gay” marriage but also a change in the Church.
I sense true “Christians” are getting pretty fed up with their religious leaders who look more like extreme nuts who seem more interested in promoting extremism , anger and hate.
Yet another outbreak of common sense at the Daily Mail !
A columnist asks “Should we name and shame Alan Turing’s persecutors?”
Perhaps even the DM is beginning to realised that there’s no future in being a dinosaur !
If you have not seen the Prop 8 play you need to see how Christians used fear and prejudice to stop gay marriage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM
I agree with him except for this quote:
“the last great prejudice of our times.”
Oh really? I guess he’s forgotten, or is unaware, of how transsexual people are treated.
I am stunned to buggery that a positive LGBT article has made it to the Daily Fail, I wonder if it did end up int he print edition?
1. Did this article end up in the print edition
2. Do those neo-fasicsts Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn; Jan Moir still work for the rag?
3. This article was a ‘column’ ie the opinion of this writer only. The Times did an ‘editorial’ – therefore the Times as a paper supports equality, this 1 individual columnist in the Heil supports equality. That is an enormous difference.
This is the Daily Heil we are talking about.
Knowing the Heil’s history of neo-fascist extremism I predict that within a week it will publish a column so bigotted it will leave us breathless.
I don’t know if it made it to the print edition, dAVID
You were among many people who advised me not to buy it. I was intrigued to see how far they were taking their initial support and whether it might progress further. (takes tongue out of cheek)
Seriously, I shall load the free sample onto my kindle later and see if its on there!
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Surprise surprise. The item seems to have disappeared from the online Mail!!
Fantastic! Take that, Melanie Phillips!
It’s still there at 10pm Friday 9 March, but now it’s complete with lots of very positive comments.
Looks like Cardinal O’Brien’s vicious comments have backfired spectacularly when even the Hate Mail can’t rally the faithful !
Abjijit Pandya is scared of homosexuals!
Are all these people scared that we gay people with rape them?
Let me tell you, we are just “normal”.
We really do not want or need for your bodies.
The vast majority “paedophilia” is not committed by gay people but by straight people.
er – but he’s not
did you read the article!?
This from Ireland is very interesting too.
The Dean and his partner need our support
Who’d have thunk it?!
Well said, Daily Mail!