When will these editors get it trough their heads that this has NOTHING to do with churches? FFS they really are getting tiresome!
Only the part that MARRIAGE was commissioned by the church when Christianity was introduced into England in 597. Since then, MARRIAGE is between men AND women.
So the church has every thing to do with it.
Same-sex marriages should not take place, period.
You have no skin in the game, nothing will change for you, unless keeping same sex marriage illegal is the only thing that stops you running off with the postman. The concept of marriage pre-dates your vile putrid murderous church by thousands of years, we can prove this. And marriage has been in a state of evolution for a long time, making it gender blind is just one more step. So get over your homophobia or mind your own bloody business.
Well said Valsky!
Christianity wasn’t introduced into England in 597. That was only the date of Augustine’s mission from Rome. Christians alredy existed – the Queen of Kent, Bertha, was Christian. If you get simple facts like that wrong (“commissioned by he church”?), then should you really be so insistent in pushing your views that the Church and marriage are linked?! You have no idea.
And prior to that it was always a CIVIL matter, thereofre predating the religious conotation(sp)
It never ceases to amaze the people who want to deny us our our rights, spout on about religion and yet you are perusing the gay news sites. Something you want to share?
And how do same sex marriages affect you if your not planning on having one, may I ask?
Marriage should be for all who wish to commit to another regardless of gender or orientation, End of!
“So the church has every thing to do with it.”
LOL! Not any more…. time to get over the fact this is a democracy, not a theocracy. Why not move to Iran is you love that superstitious nonsense in lieu of civil liberties?
Actually the church played little or no role in administrating marriage ceremonies in medieval Europe until at least the early Twelfth Century. Prior to the great institutional establishment of the church in the central Middle Ages marriage was a very informal affair in England, and in most cases had little to do with christianity. Often it was simply a matter of social convention, especially for those with little or no property to ensure legitimate succession of. Only when the church developed a sophisticated bureaucratic network did it arrogate to itself authority over the rhythms of human life that had been going on for millennia.
But in any case marriage as a social custom has pre-historic origins. There isn’t a human society we know of that hasn’t had some form of it back to the very earliest records still extant (and, given how important pair-bonding is in our species, almost certainly further back).
If you want to go throwing history around, it might help to learn some first.
Because it’s worth passing on as widely as possible during this debate, here, once more, is the ultimate guide to traditional Christian marriage:
Love it :P
When the issue of Old Testament incest and polygamy comes up in conversation I find fundamentalist will usually quibble that those verses fall under what’s known as “Mosaic Law”. This is not to be confused with a set of archaic biblical laws set out by Moses and sanctioned by the Almighty.
It’s Mosaic as in a collage formed from a bunch of selectively edited fragments of bible verses stuck together any old how to suit the personal taste of the person gabbing on about them. See also ‘Montage’.
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Well, those same bigots conveniently select the verse in Leviticus (also known as Mosaic law) where man shall not lie down with man as he does with a woman nonsense. They cherry–pick this and that so it proves they dont consider the bible to be the “word of God”, only when it suits their agenda attacking and discriminating against Gay people.
It’s such a handy and convenient trick that they can tell the mistranslations and the metaphors and the relics of bygone eras (stoning women who aren’t virgins on their wedding day for example) and yet still know which bits are the immutable word of god. The capacity for cherry picking hypocrisy is truly staggering (and the cognitive dissonance required makes me wonder why some of them don’t actually have two heads).
Well quite, I was brought up C of E [now lapsed] and still have a dog-eared King James bible at the back of a cupboard somewhere left over from school.
I’m guessing there were a whole bunch of footnotes explaining which verses were meant to be taken literally and which bits were mistranslated that I must have somehow missed through the decade of RE lessons and church sermons I was forced to attend.
Not being a fan of the Abrahamic cults, can someone enlighten me as to how one lies with a man as with a woman. Surely the man would need to have a vag, or was the holy joes accepting that men and women engaged in sodomy and if so how come they weren’t railing about it?
I think it has something to do with claiming “I had to work late at the office hun, I’ll be home late, don’t wait up”.
That’s one way you can lie with a man as you would a woman.
Is that what they mean?
Nice definition of Mosaic Law, flapjack.
Justice will prevail … :o))))
That is great!
Foremost, the video is wrong. Your missing the point of the story of the Bible and its written in stages. This video seems to miss every stage. Incest is sinful, so is homosexuality.
The bible is quite clear for all you idiots who enjoy trying to humiliate people for their religious beliefs. This is nothing more than a nasty and disrespectful display of vulgar humour. Which of course your quite accustomed too.
The bible is a collection of campfire tales and fairy stories created by a primitive people who couldn’t explain why the sun rose. You know. Fiction. Used for convenience by people who wanted to extort the gullible and control the weak. The only difference between the buy-bull, and the Xenu drivel belonging to Scientology is antiquity and bloodshed. Your ridiculous book has talking animals, women turned in to condiments, men living in whales. Frankly, an alien overlord nuking his enemies in a volcano seems more bloody plausible.
Rocko – you’re talking to someone who was brought up with the bible through my formative years.
The so-called ‘word of god’ is a mishmash of contradictory creation myths, personal opinion, dog-ends of previous religions given a superficial makeover (notably the cult of Mithras)
all edited together by a bunch of bronze age peasants who still thought the earth was flat (and even included that ‘fact’ in Genesis).
And the gospels were cobbled together a good 100 years after the lead protagonist got crucified.
As moral authority goes it leaves a lot to be desired.
The only people “trying to humiliate people for their religious beliefs are the religious extremists themselves.
“who enjoy trying to humiliate people for their religious beliefs. ”
You do that quite successfully on your own, without our help. Its embarrassing how little you know about your own bible. No surprise really, its a common defect among those who shout nonsense the loudest.
Well it didn’t take the Mail long to revert to type did it?
They were halfway to sweeping the whole Jan Moir debacle under the rug then they come back with this.
Heaven forbid marriage should be redefined… again. I think redefining marriage has being going on since at least Henry VIII if not before.
I’m happy with them using “husbands and wives” on marriage certificates. All that changes is that in a gay marriage you have two of the same.
Just another smokescreen. Marriage equality has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the civil law. There is well established precedent of institutional bigotry being enshrined in law (you couldn’t sue the RCC for not hiring you as a priest if you are a woman, this is protected discrimination in the Equality Act 2010), this will be no different, no one is going to kick down the church doors and make them marry same sex couples. At best, it is ignorant, at worse, downright dishonesty (and about what I would expect from the Daily “Oops Winterval is a lie after all” Mail)
‘ignorant’ and ‘dishonest’ – Well doesn’t that just about sum up the Church and all its followers! Well commented Valksy!
Because the Church know *nothing* of bullying. Ever. Throughout history.
Oh, hang on…..!
Agreed. Isn’t it sickening when they play the “help help I’m a victim” in the context of hundreds of years of oppression and bloodshed (as an atheist, a woman, and a lesbian, I’m just relieved that they can’t burn me at the bloody stake any more).
Careful, they might try now! We’ll help protect you ;-)
Thanks hun. Honestly, I am so sick of what putrid brands like the Daily Mail are doing – their depraved and wanton indifference to how dangerous it is to whip up the mob against a minority is going to get people hurt. And it won’t be bloody christians.
Again well commented Valksy. You wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes during the witch hunts. Sadly, there are still a lot of countries today (mostly Islamic) where you also wouldn’t last 5 minutes – for any of your reasons above never mind all of them. For me. The marriage issue is a double edged sword and one of those ‘edge’s is about breaking down the hold religion has on the world and it’s interference with human rights and humanist causes.
Couldn’t agree more, Valksy. I literally cannot believe the audacity. It’d be funny if it actually wasn’t so heartbreakingly sad. Some of the most horrific things imaginable have been at the behest of religion, directly by religion or on the assumption that it’s the “right thing to do” because of religion.
There’s nothing more irritating than a bully who cries the victim card.
And once again Stonewall’s comments in 2009 let us down!! They no longer have the right to speak for us, and when will the news stop going to them for my thoughts!
It certainly does make you wonder doesn’t it?
Funny you should say that, I mentioned this earlier in the week that Summerskill should be sacked for his anti-marriage stance, and I got heavily red-arrowed.
Not from me. I told him to his face to step down and wrote to everyone of his board demanding they sack him. Obviously he’s still there, but at least we got a change of policy and some proactivity. But some damage remains, gleefully trawled up by the C4M haters.
They may have done in 2009 but they are supportive in 2012, surely thats what matters now.
I’m sorry I just have to let some steam off:
Daily Mail, you’re a bunch of bigotted ****s. Sorry for that, but I couldn’t think of any other way to describe the vehemnence with which I dislike their grotesque and evil nature.
I would say, there probably isn’t widespread public demand for marriage for gays as a lot of people don’t have to consider the need for it not being a) gay or b) knowing a gay person who wants to get married but can’t. But that’s no reason for not doing it – I don’t buy tomatoes, yet Waitrose sell them because others want them.
Would that be cu*ts or sh*ts? :-)
The Mail is speaking some kind of Orwellian double speak. The gay community have had to endure years and years of vicious hateful bullying by the government and the church, and then when we say we will not be bullied anymore, and the government finally agrees with us, the bigots say we are bullying them. It’s so ridiculous it makes me laugh.
But when did the Mail not wpeak fluent Orwellian Doublespeak?
And of course their favourite newspeak word is sexcrime.
It’s what you get when you engage in the culture war. The church says atheists are bullying them; atheists say the church is bullying them. Black Americans say whites are down on blacks; white Americans say blacks are now down on whites.
Note also that the Daily Mail is aiming at American readers as much as the UK, and this is the sort of discourse that gets them stats they can show advertisers.
The media thrives on conflict. I suggest to you, though my suggestion won’t be popular here, that an effective way to do that is to channel people into identifying with narrow “communities”.
When women priests were introduced, there was an outcry and some people refused to deal with them. When equality laws were changed for black people some people refused (and still do) to respect them. We are no different, but in the long run most people will let us have this. Once it becomes more commonplace people will accept it.
For the last time Bigots everywhere – this is an issue of EQUALITY – tax paying citizens are legally entired to equality. end of!
Now there’s a shock. The Daily Fail at it once again stirring up sh!t!! Honest this is getting so freaking old now! Responsible journalism? Hmmm.
You mean, yellow journalism. There is a huge difference!
I don’t think Paul Dacre and his staff care about facts or equality; facts and reason mean nothing to them. They revel in and enjoy homopbhobia. They don’t really care about the church or religion – its just a convenient bedfellow to lamblast gay people.
If they want a battle – they got one – and they are losing!
I agree they are losing, but the battle is not over yet, we still need those churches who want to have Marriages in their churches to be able to do so.
funny how the newspapers cried foul when they were cought with their phone tapping, must be run by bigotted idiots. I think most people know the diffrence between right and wrong, or does the UK condone apartheit, because that is all this is about, we want equal rights and the christians want Apartheit. hopefully the church will fall along with their homophobic child molesters
The government ‘viciously bullying the Churches?’
Denying people rights under civil law a ‘religious freedom’?
The Daily Mail really does live in an Alternative Reality. Isn’t there chemical treatment for delusional psychosis?
I believe surgical intervention is necessary – Daily Mail readers have their heads to far up their own backsides for anything else to work.
I fear it is far too late for surgical or chemical intervention for Paul Dacre.
What is required is an appointment with Dignitas in Zurich.
“The paper’s front page today reports on the necessity of amending official documents that currently refer to ‘husbands and wives’ in order to make sure they would refer to a gay couple accurately, calling it a “red tape revolution”.
Those documents should have changed years ago for hetero couples living together, let alone CPs.
But none of that will alter the fact that religious marriage will always be husband and wife, unless some denominatoins demand that they want to marry us. It doesn’t change anything. Under the Marriage Causation Act of 1973, all that will be changed is the definition of civil marriage which will be “gender neutral”. It doesn’t affect religious marriage one iota. Why would an official form contain husband/wife anyway. Wouldn’t the word “married”, “divorced” or “single” be all that is necessary? Sounds as if the Daily Mail is just digging for more fear and prejudice where there isn’t any. How desperate they sound.
Why doesn’t someone in the media ask heterosexuals if any of them would choose a CP, if available, rather than civil marriage? If not, why not and what would be their reason? It’s a very simple, pertinent question in this entire debate. I think the responses would be quite revealing and put an end to the nonsense coming from the right wing and religious nutters.
It’s a question I post to the more rabid posters on some of the forums.
“If Civl Parnerships are currently equal to Civil marriages, as you say, would you be prepared to swap your marriage for a CP, and if not, why not.”
Next usually comes bluster, then “just because, why should I”.
Then comes “because marriage is between a man and a woman.”
At this point I just give up as they clearly have no concept of anything outside the box that they have not been spoon fed.
Never mind the fact that a Civil Partnership is not recognized in any other country as there is nothing anywhere else to compare it too.
Scaremongering, making it look like words like husband and wife will be banned. don’t they know that gay husbands hsve husbands and gay wives have wives.
Exactly my point above. The question to heterosexuals I raised should be posited to the media.
Daily Mail prints homophobic story? Where’s the new in that?
From Wikipedia -
A husband is a male participant in a marriage. The rights and obligations of the husband regarding his spouse and others, and his status in the community and in law, vary between cultures and has varied over time.
Sounds like it won’t change then!
Now now, you know it’s not fair to use facts when all they have to rely on is frothing-at-the-mouth illogical rhetoric…
If LGBT Christians want to get married by a priest in a church they should have that right the same as everybody else. Stop the discrimination against LGBT people. The time for LGBT people to be free is here, they need to be given the same freedom as all people now.
What I find very annoying is that the opposition is getting more headlines, more coverage tnan those who support SSM. What’s going on? Why doesn’t someone on our side, straight or gay, take these idiots on and spell it out for them? These vile people are trying to dominate the media to trick the British public into thinking that SSM is a very bad thing for society and some of them are buying it.
I see “Christain Concern” are running this headline.
“Newspapers cast doubt on gay marriage consultation”
Contemptible bar stewards.
Bar stewards serving bass drinkers :-)
Funny, isn’t it. Not bearing false witness is in their book of fairy tales as one of the top ten rules. And yet they do it constantly and with impunity. And yet homosexuality is barely mentioned, and they devote enormous amounts of energy in to wetting their pants and having a tantrum over it. Pathetic. (is it any wonder I have so much contempt? Even they don’t follow their own bloody rules, and yet they have the audacity and the hubris to demand that others do)
Yet again these hysterical people do not understand the word CIVIL! But since the churches continue to interfere in Civil Society, perhaps we should FORCE them to marry gays in their churches and thereby interfere in their ‘religious’ society…they act like this is what is being done, when in fact, it is not…Let us fulfill their fears, then….it certainly would be well deserved, if you ask me…twits, bigots and haters all of them ….besides Holy Unions between same sex couples already existed in the church and there are at least a million certificates issued by the church in the Vatican archives that prove this beyond any doubt….this is FACT!
Maybe if the churches don’t support gay marriage then they should be barred from performing ANY marriages. That would hit them in the coffers as they make piles of money from performing them. All marriages would be civil (they are anyway as being married is a legal not a religious state) and if religious places wanted to bless those civil marriages then they could.
Homophobia’ is a made up term to describe a condition that doesn’t exist. ‘Homo’ [latin] means ‘man’ [eg: homo sapien]; ‘homo’ [greek] means ‘same’ [eg: 'homogeneous' or 'homosexual']. ‘Phobia’ of course, means ‘fear of ‘. I bet you are not afraid of being the same, being a man, men, sameness, or even of? becoming a homosexual or homosexuals in general.
‘HOMOPHOBIC’ is a made up scientific sounding term that means: “You politically incorrect bigot! How dare you disagree with me!”
I think I must be homophobic although I’m not frightened of homos, a phobia suggests fear, I just don’t agree with the disgusting things that they do to one another.
Due to polititians being homos and do-gooders trying their best to promote homosexuality as something normal and good. They are due for a heavy fall.
It’s a real shame pathetic bigots like you still exsist in this day and age,stil everyone has a cross to bear and poisonous idiots like you are the cross the wholw uk has to bear.Oh and why are you on a gay blog?
A heavy fall.. ROFL.
Now look up “common parlance”….. (Although in terms of psychiatric diagnosis, the negative behaviour and animus towards LGBT people is completely irrational and nonsensical and is therefore a phobia). But please, try to assert some more insight and authority. You don’t actually possess either, but it is amusing to watch you try.
The bigot doth protest too much…
The Christian Institute make up their Christian atittudes. The are in reality merely the homophobic institute!
@ Aiden. So you think ‘homos’ are disgusting. And you think ‘homos’ are not normal and not good. What do you think should happen to ‘homos’? How do you think they should be treated by politicians who wish to ‘do good’?
“Due to polititians being homos and do-gooders trying their best to promote homosexuality as something normal and good.”
Given the bile and irrational nonsense in your post Aiden, I’d say we’re a whole lot more natural and good then you.
@Aiden — “‘Homophobia’ is a made up term to describe a condition that doesn’t exist”
A made up term ? As opposed to a non made-up word ? All words are made up. Not sure what you are trying to say.
Why do you feel the need to agree with people’s private lifes ? Not sure what business it is of yours, but thanks for sharing.
Do you really think all politicians are gay ?
Have these people who talk about the ancient and “holy rights” rights of marriage ever studied marriage through the ages? Ideas of what is a marriage have changed over the times. Until the 8th century CE, both same-sex and opposite sex partners announced their partnership by throwing a feast, together.
The Church wasn’t even involved in marriage until the 8th century CE, and then it was only a blessing which was given as a favor and not liturgical.
True. The church is a usurper. And yet they want people to believe that they invented and developed the concept of marriage, when there is actual evidence in artefacts to prove that is bunk. They therefore are assuming that the people who listen to them are too dumb to know better…
The people who listen to them ARE too dumb to know better…
I was being kind. Some posters seem to think that I am far too much of a big meanie to poor helpless little organised religion…. (can’t imagine why I would feel the way I do).
If the Daily Mail is so intent on stopping same-sex marriage, why isn’t it attacking the heterosexual adulterers, some of whom are Daily Mail employees, the ones responsible for the soaring heterosexual divorce rate that can in no way be attributed to same-sex marriage? Why aren’t they attacking that if they’re so interested in preserving religious and civil marriage for hetero’s only?
adulterers are redefining marriage, aren’t we
Exactly – as has often been said, divorce has done more damage to the ‘traditional’ concept of marriage than anything else, something people seem oddly inclined to overlook.
And perpetrated by heterosexuals of course who are actually helping to shape civil marriage equality for gay couples without much effort as they continue to philander. it weakens the notion of “traditional” marriage, not by us but by them. They are the ones whom the rabid Cardinal in Westminster forgot to mention who are actually “redefining” marriage, not us since we’ve never had access to it. Divorce was one of the changes brought about by heterosexuals too for both religious and civil marriage outside of the Roman cult.
The Daily MAil has been winding its readership up for weeks now with a new article every day or so , turning up the pressure , I like to keep my eye on the enemy and upset their readership with my comments and red arrow the comments of the bigots and hates , wish more did so and changed the balance of opinions of the readership . Homophobic assaults need challenging wheresoever they appear and manifest themselves.
Likewise in the Terrorgraph.
It really is the end of civilisation as far as the “foaming at the mouth” christians are concerned.
I have had no end of entertainment putting them right on just about every religous historical fact, and I must admit in some cases, just winding them up for the fun of it.
It is scary that the majority of these types, whilst screaming “tradition” at every turn clearly have no idea about their own religions history.
Absolutely right. Take the initiative and get in those comment boxes. If “moderated” then get on the green/red arrows. Tedious I know, but important at this time.
difference between public demand and public support
I haven’t actually come across many articles from Conservative against “gay” marriage.
There’s seems to be a handful of the usual lot of hard core homophobes and that’s about it. Who are these 100 or so Tory MPs/peers who are likely to rebel.
The only opposition is the church and even that opposition is mostly from the hard core side.
I don’t know what more evidence they require to show there is a demand for gay marriage. The whole western world has fights going on for gay marriage. All LGBT org around the world are calling for it. In the UK we have all major parties calling for it and there are very few MPs opposed to it.
Gay marriage is a major worldwide phenomenon. It’s obvious there is a demand for. What year is the Daily Mail living in?
The Daily Mail and The Telegraph ten years from now will look back and realise that their fear mongering and pandering to the worst prejudices in society were all in vain. Hopefully, their readership will decline drastically as the older generation dies off and both right wing yellow journalistic rags will be confined to the dust-bin of history.
Suimon Heffer has vomited forth the following:
OOPS. Correct link.
I think when Simon Heffer says . . .
“I can find no evidence that the majority of people support same-sex marriages. My homosexual friends tell me that many of them are opposed to the planned law change, for much the same reasons as I am. One told me he thought they were ‘silly’, ‘patronising’ and ‘just designed to make a political point’”
I think he is stretching reality when he thinks that
1. Having gay friends makes him immune to homophobic bigotry
2. Having gay friends who prefer to remain second class citizens,some how proves that he is not heterosexist
………It is just so gratifying to watch all these bigoted creeps getting so desperate in a fight they started themselves and a fight they are destined to lose so utterly spectacularly. We are living in interesting times to say the least. Who could ever have envisioned that those who supposedly espouse love and Humanity would end up being so evil, hate filled and divisive. But wait, I’m wrong as a cursery glance through their so called rule book dictated by the sky fairy will reveal. They have always been evil, hate filled and divisive because that is the only way they can have the delusion of power they so desperately crave. Again it is just so much fun watching them wriggle like a worm on a fish hook. The victory will be so sweet and boy will we crow….
What a huge laugh! The Church is the biggest BULLY in history!
Fascist rag, not worth commenting on
Yeah, lovely. We all love to hear he same ridiculous argument over and over again cut and pasted ad nauseum. Why not go back to trying to “run me down” with your vast intellect and grammatical prowess, eh? That’s a better laugh….
Why, are you?
I’m in too ! X
No. Clarity is the essence of intelligence.
You never had a good start to begin with.
You’re “outta here” because your so called intellect is beneath any rational examination. (That, or because you need to visit the liquor store again.) You’re position is weak and debase, filled with bile and puerile insults. Its the ranting of a mad man, and a desperate one too. Marriage equality is happening right before our eyes, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And THAT, my drunken friend, is the best laugh yet.
I think I speak for us all when I say don’t go. You provide brillaint amusement Keith.
@Keith D — I think the point is that people — gay and straight are reclaiming marriage, bring it back to what it used to be — a union between two people.
It is being redefined, back to its original meaning.
Happy to send you a more detailed answer on a postcard: what’s your address ?
The Glib comment – The Daily Mail’s editorial concludes today: “But would gay marriage confer any more legal rights than civil partnership, and is there really a genuine demand for it?
They are not aware how ibcomplete the last bill was.
1) A Married Couple where one has gender re asignment have to divorce and get a civil partnership.
2) A civil partnership couple after gender reasginment have to to it in reverse.
just two of the holes left.
All Keithies comments went the way of his mind, it seems…. :)
There’s also a great piss-take in the FT which says it all rather weel.
Unfortunately many of the posters underneath don’t take in quite the same light though.
You should see the number of comments on this discussion forum 3308(!) and many of them vitriolic racist, xenophobic and homophobic comments. There are a few great gay people giving them as good as they get. I am finding it quite entertaining with my popcorn watching it! Would love to see Will, Iris, Spanner or anyone else joining in!