Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Senior Anglican Clergy: “Church should rejoice” over equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A hundred bravos and hats off to Dr Jeffrey John, Canon Giles Goddard, the suffragan bishop of Buckingham, and the deans of Norwich, Guildford and Portsmouth!

    Well done! Keep at it!

    1. Made my eyes water today reading Time’s cover in Morrisons. Shame on me.

      1. Morrisons? You should be ashamed.

        1. Not everyone has a local Waitrose!

  2. Great top see yet more allies.

    Archbishop of Wales, Canon of Coventry cathedral etc etc all in few days.

    Equality is going to happen – because it is the right thing to do

    1. God Bless these true Christians who know the true meaning of the word of the Bible and know that God made men to love one another and be happy in their marriage. These good people know how to look at the real world for what it is and see the good.

  3. While this is a welcome step, homophobia and persecution of homosexuals was invented by monotheistic religions, let’s not forget it.

    A minority of them are trying to solve a problem that they created in the first place. In public, the leadership want to continue to treat homosexuals as less equal.

    1. Homophobia and persecution of homosexuals was invented by monotheistic religions? Were you there over 2 millenia ago when they were established? It’s just as believable that monotheistic religions just went with what society wanted it to tell them. Either way we’ll never really know, it’s like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg?

      I’m currently following tweets on the Cutting Edge Consortiuim (promoting equality in the debate on faith, sexuality and gender identity) annual national conference #cecuk. It makes for very interesting reading – for instance do you know only a quarter of the bishops/diocese have signed the Coalition for Marriage?

      1. Since you weren’t there 2 millennia ago either, you have rather undermined your own argument.

        1. I don’t see why. If read my comment properly I make it clear that I don’t assert to know either, I just take exception at the fact that you do.

      2. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 22 Apr 2012, 6:39pm

        Erm, Judaism has been around for closer to 6 millennia. Christianity is not the first monotheistic religion. I know the press loves to blather on about “Judeo-Christian” this-that-and-the-other, but they don’t have all that much in common, apart from a set of holy books which are interpreted in drastically different ways.

        New religions tend to be setting themselves up as different to what was going on around them at the time. Judaism grew up in a period of polytheism, human sacrifice and so forth, which is why it has oddities such as the story of Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac. Christianity was partly rebelling against Judaism and partly rebelling against the Roman religion. I’m not entirely sure what Islam was rebelling against, but no doubt it was carefully setting itself apart from its surroundings as well. Shoving the three together and claiming that they are all the same, based on, erm, well they all mention Moses somewhere – pointless. (Yes, I mostly agree with you!)

    2. de Villiers 21 Apr 2012, 3:44pm

      I think it might have been invented before monotheism.

    3. Religion was invented so the few could control the many. This is most effective by instilling fear and hate of those who are different, or who are not part of the country/race of the religious leaders. Also the best way to get new followers is to indoctrinate children, so anyone who didn’t produce children was shunned.

      1. Do you welcome todays letter, Sevrin?

      2. I’m not sure it was invented so the few could control the many (possibly though) but I agree it wasn’t used to do that and everything else you said. But as Darren asks, do you welcome todays letter?

        1. *was used, I meant was, not wasn’t – PinkNews, when are you going to put an editing facility on here?

    4. chris lowcase 21 Apr 2012, 10:17pm

      actually, our attention would be invested better on the people who STILL speak out against equality. these people are thinking for themselves and supporting equality. they cant be held responsible for other peoples actions or beliefs. these attitudes are not helping the struggle against prejudice, they confirm it.

      and you may or may not believe in god, but you’re buying the party lines. the religious opposition to marriage equality is losing support on this issue and they know it. read between the lines and the desperation is blatent. all right its a slow process but lets not turn our noses up at the effort made by all the recent supporters of marriage equality.

      1. I think most of us are capable of recognising that there are allies in some religious groups/people and some who clearly are not.

        I believe its better to welcome those who support LGBT people and rights and condemn those who do not, and not confuse the two.

        These clergy clearly support equal marriage. I welcome their comments without hesitation or rider.

        Where there needs to be condemnation of others then I will make it.

        1. I agree. Condemning everyone gets us nowhere and alienates possible allies. The name of the game is getting civil marriages for GLBT couples and I personally welcome ANY ally that will work with us.

          If they choose to believe in the Christian faith, that is their personal right and they should not be bothered for it, just as I should not be bothered for believing in the Pagan faith.

  4. I welcome this support.

    Truth is when i was younger if religion had been welcoming i would of found faith i believe.

    But love thy neighbour was all too often replaced with condemn you to hell. Its a shame because even though i dont recognise or bow before a ” superior ” being i like many hope there is an afterlife but sadly are only told if there is we will burn for all eternity.

    I know true reform in religion probably wont ever happen as the biggots in power have a stranglehold on the upbringing of so many young people poisoning their minds one generation after another, but it is encouraging to know some people can look beyond a book and its religion written by men and find spirituality and just frankly a scrap of humanity. Something thats scarse these days.

  5. Its worth reading the entire letter (very positive and supportive):

    Sir,

    A number of recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the mistaken impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples. We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England.

    Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.

    While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’

    The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects

    1. the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.

      We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.

      We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.

      It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally

    2. to such a change in the law.

      Sincerely

      Canon Giles Goddard, General Synod, Southwark
      The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans

      The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham
      The Rt Rev Michael Doe
      The Rt Rev John Gladwin
      The Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth
      The Rt Rev Peter Selby
      The Rt Rev David Stancliffe

      The Very Rev David Brindley, Dean of Portsmouth
      The Very Rev Graham Smith, Dean of Norwich
      The Very Rev Victor Stock, Dean of Guildford

      Mrs April Alexander, General Synod, Southwark
      The Rev Stephen Coles, General Synod, London
      The Rev Clair Herbert, General Synod, London
      Mr John Ward LLB, General Synod, London

    3. Don Harrisoin 21 Apr 2012, 10:09pm

      Well done Lucas for reading the the whole article and pointing out the detaies in the current prayer book.

  6. These are most welcome! Now can one of these men become the next AoC?

    1. That would be a step forward!

  7. Of course they have nothing to fear because

    1. There’s nothing wrong with it
    2. It’s none of their business

    1. Why can you not welcome allies?

      Why do you always have too be churlish when someone supports equal marriage and say their opinion is meaningless because they have a faith you disagree with? Is it not more important that they want equality?

      You need your anger issues sorting out, and you need to gain some perpspective.

      This attacking anyone who is religious is damaging to the campaign for equal marriage. Welcome the allies!

      Your comments on trans issues are repellent and ignorant.

      1. I’m talking about the Church, not the people saying this

        I really can’t welcome allies from a religion that follows a book full of evil though, and because the majority of their religion is against it, as well as their Bible.
        I disagree with all faiths, but strongly monotheistic ones that follows evil deities.

        My comments on trans issues have nothing to do with this

        1. If you welcome these comments from these individuals then why do you feel the need to diminish the impact of their comments supporting equal marriage by repeating your theological differences with them. We know you hate religion.

          I dislike Conservatives, but I cautiously welcome them seeking to introduce equal marriage.

          Know your allies, know which battles to pick and WHEN to pick them.

          This is a time to welcome the strong and encouraging words of these clergy.

          1. Because their religion is against homosexuality and same sex marriage. Until the majority of the people in their religion, Christianity, support equal rights, it doesn’t really matter

            I appreciate what they said, but I don’t forget all the things that have been said to me Christians

          2. Ah so what you are saying is your opinion, your hurt, your pain, your distress (caused by different people to these, cause by different church groups to these) is more important than equal marriage.

            You prefer to let you anger and hurt fester than welcome allies (regardless of how you perceive they feel about you).

            Your perceptions and hurt are more important than equality for LGBT people.

            Your are wrong.

          3. Lumi. Wow, the Church/’Christians’ have really done a number on you haven’t they. Again see my reply to your previous assertions that you know the real Bible better then anyone else:

            The Church’s teachings on homosexuality must draw all precedence from the New Testament, like all it’s other teachings. If it can’t be backed up in the NT then whatever is in Old Testament (e.g. passages in Leviticus like man shall not lie with man) is seen as obsolete teachings that were superseded by the coming of Christ. Therefore Romans 1 26-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:9-10 are the linchpin to the anti-gay doctrine. Corinthians & Timothy are mistranslations from the ancient greek that the apostle Paul wrote it in (most likely he was talking about traders of male concubines that were a prominent part of ancient greek society). Romans actually describes exactly the ritualist idol worship of the Cybelean/Attic cult that was popular in the area of Ancient Rome to which Paul was writing to….

          4. (continuation of my reply) funnily enough the women in this cult would lop off their breasts and engage in anal sex in order to avoid pregnancy, because they aspired to gender neutrality. Men would use castrated men (shrine prostitutes) in the ‘ceremony’ too. So Paul’s condemnation is actually more in line with your own regarding transgender. This of course has been grossly misinterpreted by the Church and cobbled together with Corinthians and Timothy in order to present a doctrine on homosexuality. As doctrines go it’s actually the weakest in the entire Bible. All other references (barring Leviticus which was about ritual cleanliness not moral rules) are a gross misinterpretation taken completely out of context. You have fallen for the same simplistic approach to the Bible that homophobes have – if the Bible were simple then clergy wouldn’t study theology degrees and no Christian would attend Bible study classes.

          5. I’m sure there’s some gay people who’ve done some pretty nasty things to Christians but does that mean gays should all be tarred with the same brush?

          6. @ Samuel

            It’s Christianity as a whole

            Of course I’m going to be angry at 1. A religion that follows a book of evil 2. A religion that has treated me horribly

            LGB equality is none of religion’s business anyways, so my opinions on religion shouldn’t matter

          7. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:13pm

            @Paul

            Good commentary of the Biblical view of homosexuality.

            Its sad when some people are hurt so much as Lumi appears to have been that they lose perspective.

            The comments of these senior clergy is to be welcomed for three reasons:
            i) a simple message from individuals (and part of a group) that support equal marriage
            ii) a repudiation of the hurtful comments made by some in the name of the church
            iii) a recognition that (whether you believe it has anything to do with the church or not – and in the sense that the church are part of communities, it is something the church should have interest in) there are a significant number of people

          8. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:16pm

            Lumi

            As a gay Christian, I want the church to be interested in me, my partner, my friends (of whatever orientation). That may not matter to you (although you anger suggests otherwise).

            However, please realise you do not have the right to dictate to the church and LGBT Christians that the church should not be interested in being humane.

            Some parts of the church get this very wrong. Some parts of the church do get this right (although not always).

        2. @ Rev Andrew Knight

          Well you must hate yourself if you follow a homophobic religion!

          1. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:47pm

            @Lumi

            No, I do not hate myself.

            I also strongly believe that your perception that Christianity is homophobic is simplistic and relates only to some individuals and/or some branches of Christianity.

            The message from the esteemed clergy, my life leading a church which works with many LGBT people – including blessing their unions (it would be marriage if the law allowed it), and many other experiences tell me your perception is wrong.

            Thats without considering the theology which I have studied at length in university for 12 years (both as a lecturer and as a student) and continued to study in my professional life. I see wrong interpretation of Christianity which is homophobic (and some individuals and churches follow these themes). The message of the Bible itself is not homophobic, it speaks of loving ones neighbour.

            No, I don’t hate myself – do you hate yourself?

          2. I notice that whilst you’ve retaliated to everyone else’s replies Lumi, you haven’t to mine. What is your justification for saying that Christianity is a homophobic religion in light of what I have said above?

            I agree that maybe the Church has no place in imposing it’s views on others outside of it, but they do and a lot of the time that has harmed LGBT people. This group is voicing support which adds perspective to those who see these as a Gays v The Church issue. If anything the discord within the Church gives less validity to anti-gay rights people who point towards it as staunch a ally.

          3. Well done Paul in making a stand.

            I think we are all guilty to some extent of talking about religions and books that most of never have or will read.

            Of course, we have good reason to complain, there are many people of religion who are horribly cruel and worse about our orientation/gender/lifestyle (take your pick).

            There is however, no reason to bitch about people who are supporting our fight, just because they have a faith that we either don’t like, agree with or subscribe too. There are many of us out there who are Christian, Muslim or of other faiths, why should they not have the equality they so desperately want within their church.

          4. I don’t hate myself at all lol!

            What I hate is religion

          5. Carl formally Phoenix (someone else is using Phoenix now) 22 Apr 2012, 4:44pm

            Lumi, it isn’t the religion that is homophobic, it is the PEOPLE who use it as an excuse for their hatred that are homophobic.

            Religion is like a gun – left alone, it is just there, something which exists. Wielded by a responsible individual it is a tool for great good. Wielded by an irresponsible person, it is a cause for great pain and suffering.

            Having read numerous threads where you have participated, it’s quite clear you have serious issues, both with others and yourself. Have you considered professional counselling? Because the amount of hatred you show on various topics is not in any way healthy.

        3. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 5:15pm

          Your comments on trans issues put you with the homophobes and reduce the value of anything you have to say.

          1. No it doesn’t because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it’s not a choice, unlike “changing” your gender

          2. Lumi

            Such a bigoted and shameful comment.

            You really are inhumane.

          3. Transgenderism is inhumane

          4. Lumi,

            You hate religion because you refuse to acknowledge non-homophobic interpretations of the Bible and won’t engage with me on that discussion when I give you facts that undermine your assertions.

            You assert that there is nothing wrong with your sexuality but there is with being transgender, purely because you’ve never been faced with the issues transgender people say they have faced.

            I mean the following in all seriousness. If you had always been straight, then I suspect your personality would mean that you would be one of the most die-hard homophobes who you yourself a victim of persecution from.

          5. Paul

            Lumi is apparently an “ex-homophobe” and “ex-Christian” from the US. It makes me wonder what sort of church she went to that made her so angry and adopt a “moral” stance on transsexuals.

            One thing, homophobic she may not be – bigoted – hell, yes!

          6. If I was straight, I would support 100% equal LGB rights and I would be pro gay/bi, as there’s nothing wrong with being gay/bi

          7. The churches I’ve been to didn’t even talk about transgenderism, I found out about it on my own. I don’t need a religion to tell me it’s wrong.

          8. Yes thanks Lumi, we know there’s nothing wrong with being bi/gay – preaching to the ‘converted’.

            Sorry but your refusal to even try and understand those who aren’t exactly the same as you (barring being straight I assume but growing up in a heteronormative world that doesn’t really count), makes it hard to believe that if you weren’t actually attracted to the same sex you would make any attempt to understand homosexuality as a being OK, despite it being something that you haven’t experienced in a world where a negative portrayal of it is in the majority.

            @Shears. Sorry, I went to Like your comment and Unliked it by mistake.

          9. I note that despite having such strong views against religion (in particular Christianity in this instance) and anyone that follows it, you still haven’t responded to the facts I’ve given which say such views are completely invalid.

            So you hate something/people but you blank anyone who challenges you on it with hard fact and keep on making the same old tired arguments that have little/no substance.

            Gosh, that reminds me of certain people but who? Oh yes, homophobes who use the Bible to justify their views on homosexuality.

          10. “I don’t need a religion to tell me it’s wrong.”

            That would be because you’re a fool.

          11. Lumi, why so “down” on transgenderism. I am happy as I am, but why persecute those who honestly feel that they were born the wrong gender?

        4. chris lowcase 21 Apr 2012, 10:42pm

          no, but they do hinder anything you say from being taken seriously. the proof of that is in anybody who responds.

        5. “My comments on trans issues have nothing to do with this”

          Yes it does.It means you’re a twisted bigot no more or less then the religious right wingers ho persecute. You are EXACTLY like the homophobes.

      2. It’s their religion that is the problem in the first place.

        1. Maybe, but isn’t it better to recognise our allies, Matt?

          1. Please understand the distinction between the religion and people who practise it. Bringing any religion into any civil legislation is divisive. They are using God to justify their beliefs the same way as the homophobes do. Leave God out of this human rights decision.

          2. Matt

            Please understand these people would only have had their opinions published if they had mentioned their roles.

            Their opinion is (in part at least) due to their roles.

            They support equal marriage – they are our allies, whether you, or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the organisation they work for – they support us and it is shooting ourselves in the foot not to accept, embrace and welcome the strong comments they make supporting us.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 2:34pm

        Totally agree with you! I’m an atheist but i welcome the clergy’s support. We need every bit of their support. Live and let live I say. Equal marriage hasn’t brought on polygamy or other forms of non-marital unions. For those like Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln, I wonder if they can identify the people who are demanding polygamy or child marriages? I’m sure they are all heterosexuals though. How many polygamous marriages have taken place in the UK in the past year?

        1. what have people got against polygamy? there is nothing wrong with consenting adults enjoying each other, whatever the permutations. I’ve known several people in polygamous relationships and they were healthier relationships than most opposite sex marriages.

          1. I think if people can make a polygamous relationship work then good for them. However, allowing same sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy because being gay and polyamorous is not mutually exclusive.

          2. Funny how suddenly, S, Sall, and now Sevrin are all here in support of polygamy on this site, like its anything to do with us.

    2. GingerlyColors 21 Apr 2012, 2:53pm

      We need all the allies we can get.

      1. The vast majority of people that follow their religion are homophobic

        Not to mention, it doesn’t really matter if they support it or not when it comes to the law because human rights shouldn’t be decided on what religions think

        1. Absolutely it shouldnt matter what anyone thinks (religious OR NOT) when it comes to human rights.

          These people support us and crowing on about others who do not, when these people are making a positive, strong, and constructive input to equal marriage is utterly wrong.

          1. Well their religion is against equality, that’s the issue. I guess they truly don’t belong to their religion.

          2. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:16pm

            @Lumi

            Your understanding of Christianity and the Bible is totally different to mine.

          3. My understanding of it is what it is-

            A religion that was made up to control people and makes you follow a book of evil

          4. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:50pm

            Lumi

            Are you saying that anyone who has an interpretation of Christianity that is different to yours, is wrong?

            A very brave and arrogant declaration to make. I must have met thousands of Christians over the years and I doubt I ever found an entirely identical theology, faith or interpretation of the Bible.

          5. The true interpretation of it is how evil it is, you can’t ignore the evil, and if you choose to, that’s sad

          6. ~”you can’t ignore the evil”

            Evil is a religious concept, you moron. So you’re using fictitious religious term to combat religion. You utter fool. No wonder you’re a bigot.

        2. Have you heard yourself? What knowledge about Christianity have you actually acquired that has been said to you by a pro-gay Christian? Let’s just take a look at your comment above but with a few words replaced:

          “The vast majority of people [who are gay] are [promiscuous and have AIDS]

          Not to mention, it doesn’t really matter if they [are good law abiding people] when it comes to the law because [the teachings of the Bible] shouldn’t be decided on what [advocates of human rights] think.”

          Just because you are gay or bisexual does not mean you have the monopoly on moral judgment either.

          1. There is a lot of good done by people of whatever orientation and whatever faith (or none).

            There is a lot of bad done by people of whatever orientation and whatever faith (or none).

            Being moral in judgement is not limited to Chrisitans or gay people.

        3. “The vast majority of people that follow their religion are homophobic.”

          That is an untrue statememt, Lumi. You can’t dismiss millions, if not billions of people in one sweeping comment.

          1. I’ve met Christians from different part of the US and the world, and I’ve talked to many online.

            Most of them are homophobic. Judging by what pastors and religious people in the media say, that backs it up.

            I have yet to meet pro LGB Christian, so I don’t see why I should believe the claim that there are more than a few of them

          2. So Lumis experience is representative of ALL Christians?

            B@llocks, she’s just a redneck tansphobe who doesnt know what shes talking about.

          3. transphobe*

          4. Lumi, so you’ve met various Christians in what context? I assuming you as a gay woman railing against homophobia and them as Christians who oppose gay rights? If you seek out bigotry in the Church you don’t have to go far, no-one’s denying that. But the views of the majority are always going to be skewed by the extraverts, such as Pastors and religious people in the media. You do realise that your one-sided views of the Christians are part of the reason why homophobia flourishes within the Church don’t you? I’m not saying be a doormat but you don’t have to belt them round the head before they’ve even opened their mouths.

          5. -I’m not a redneck LOL. I don’t know where you got that from.
            -I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. People on here who support immoral things like transgenderism and polygamy are the ones that don’t know what they’re talking about. Oh, and people that call people rednecks when they’re not.
            -The leaders of the religion are homophobic, so until they change, and until the majority of the religion does, then it doesn’t make much of a difference
            -I’ve yet to meet one Christian that’s treated me nicely and supported . Christians are many of the people that have bullied me and treated me horribly. Also, most anti gay/anti marriage equality hate groups and people are Christian.

          6. I’m also proud to be a so-called transphobe. I will NEVER support something so wrong.

          7. supported LGB equality*

          8. Do you have any Trans friends, or have you ever actually sat down with a trans person? While yes going through any form of surgery is a choice their being born the way they are is not. Sound familiar?

            We cannot expect to be able to say we cannot help the way we are and we should not be discriminated against then at the same time feel it fair to do the same to others

    3. It is their business. There is a significant group of LGBT members of the Church of England and a significant group of LGBT Clergy too. That makes it their business.

  8. The Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth, former Bishop of Oxford, is one of my heroes. He is a strong voice for LGBTs in the CofE and has already spoken up on this issue:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9127550/Church-should-warmly-welcome-gay-marriage-says-ex-bishop.html

    I do wish we could have him back. His successor is a real let-down and doesn’t represent the dominant views of Oxford people at all(http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/9579701.Bishop_criticises_gay_marriage_bid/).

    If there is any justice in the world, Lord Harries, Jeffrey John or any one of these brilliant church leaders who have signed The Times letter, would become the next Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m afraid that with stale-minded individulas like the current Bishop of Oxford still perpetuating age-old lies about LGBTs, this is unlikely to happen.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 2:19pm

      I’m shocked the Telegraph deigned to print Lord Harries’ letter. Imagine the hysteria at C4M et al after learning this. I’m gloating as their collective knickers get into a huge twist. Take that, C4M!

    2. FrankH

      Isn’t John Pritchard the new Bishop of Oxford?

      I havent heard his position on equal marriage, but he was a very strong voice in the Lords debate on religious CPs supporting their introduction and saying the CoE should consider endorsing them.

      1. I did include a link which shows just how disappointing he has been. Here it is again:

        http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/9579701.Bishop_criticises_gay_marriage_bid/

        He didn’t even make an argument, just silly, oblique, negative comments. Many, many locals – LGBT and non-LGBT – were bitterly disappointed by this. It has led to an interesting correspondence in the Oxford Times in which a few people have made equally silly remarks (even the archiac ‘God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve’ got an outing!) and others have replied Oxford-style with solid, logical, and coherent cases in favour of marriage equality. I guess it could be argued that by being so weak on the issue and demonstrating that there is actually no good case against marriage equality, the Rt Revd Pritchard has done Oxford people a favour, albeit negatively.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 2:14pm

    Absolutely marvellous! Thank you, your Graces!

  10. GingerlyColors 21 Apr 2012, 2:47pm

    The Church of England which was born out of Henry VIII’s questionable sex life, has been split over a number of issues such as women bishops, the ordination of gays, and marriage equality for a long time. Although there are people who are resistant to change, history has shown that the reformists always win in the end.

  11. Well done for this intervention. I’d say they were speaking for sensible people everywhere. Although I am interested as to how they will be punished by the Anglican communion for their insubordination.

    1. I doubt that they will. The old guard is losing it’s grip on the Church of England from within as Clergy and Laity are in open rebellion. Many Vicars are speaking an entirely different message to the heirarchy from the pulpits every Sunday. It may take a while longer in the Catholic Church, but the signs are there too.

      1. jackandjill 22 Apr 2012, 12:34pm

        I agree. What the church establishment is saying in public (presumably to keep their friend Robert Mugabe and his like happy) is not what is happening at grass roots level here in the UK. Jeffrey John and co. are much more in tune with that.

  12. Whatever anyone’s views on religion is you have to respect their integrity and indeed courage when you remember that they could have just sat back on just gone with the flow.

    I am grateful for their support and I admire them for it.

  13. God Bless these true Christians who know the real meaning of the word of the Bible, God created men to love one another and be happy in their marriage to one another.

  14. I’m glad the’ve done this – it’s about time. What they comment on is simply common sense and I hope other religions take note and step up to the plate. I have no faith, but my experience of those who do, have no problem with equal marriage (I don’t hang out with fundamentalists!). So, let’s have all religions making a stand for believers of their specific god, and not tar them all with the homophobic brush that, as usual, is generated throughout the media via a few bigoted fundamentalists.

  15. Let us see if the bishop of chester agrees with this.

    1. Who cares?

  16. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 5:55pm

    Interesting that the mainstream press will cover this, yet they have been steadfastly refusing to discuss the increasing number of faiths which openly support equal marriage and indeed want to be able to perform religious same-sex marriages. These include Quakerism, Unitarianism, the MCC, Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism. I suspect either homophobia (there is a strong media bias towards covering homophobic religious comments rather than anything else), religious bias (they’ll report the RCs and the C of E but no one else), or both.

    1. Robert Pigott’s reporting is very biased

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 8:55pm

      Absolutely right about that. Very little if any coverage of positive views of equal civil marriage. I’d like to see those denominations band together and form a movement of their own and counter the bigotry on the right, really show them up for what they are.

    3. “Quakerism, Unitarianism, the MCC, Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism”

      Who?

      Never heard of them. Not relevant. Hardly any members – though it is probable that the least successful of these groups has more members than the National Secular Society.

      1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 22 Apr 2012, 6:16pm

        So what if they’re minority groups? LGBt people are a minority as well. As for how many of them there are (and no offence, but your ignorance does not make them unimportant – there are entire small countries I haven’t heard of, but they are still important!), let see:

        Quakers: 23,000
        Unitarians: 7,000
        Metropolitan Community Church (high level of LGBT members): can’t find numbers for UK alone but estimating 4,000 based on international stats
        Liberal Judaism: 10,000
        Reform Judaism: 17,000

        So that’s around 61,000. Hardly an insignificant number. We have fewer transgendered people in the UK than that: are you suggesting that they should not be allowed a voice either?

  17. Pass this on to the RC- church?

  18. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 7:56pm

    So a group of leading Anglican churchmen state publicly the blindingly bleeding obvious and there is a rush here from certain individuals to get down on their knees to kiss their rings. No, no goes the chorus “they’re allies” as they fawn and grovel. Now let’s not forget boys and girls there are some ‘good’ Christians and there are some bad ones they say. The bad ones did all those terrible things like burning people, genocide, slavery and um oh yes and castrating gay men. The good ones are those nice people who say, go on then let the gays have their civil marriage it doesn’t matter to the Anglicans. Ask the Pope and Cardinals of the Roman Church and see if they agree with them? Christianity has a bad press only because it earned every word of it. Some Christians mean well of that I am certain, but Christianity is evil to the core and the sooner mankind is free of it the better the world will be.

    1. I’m not about to kneel at their feet and I see your point that an overkill of gratitude is a bit like rushing for crumbs that fall from the table. But I will acknowledge that there are a lot of those who signed that letter who have no agenda, it may very likely harm their postions within the Church but they did it because they have listened to their consciences.

      The Church presides over the biggest part of the society in the world. It’s massive. And yes there are those in it that have caused incredible suffering and a great many who have been complicit in it. But there are a lot of people who have been helped by Christians who have acted because of nothing more than a humanitarian purpose, when no one else gave a damn. It may not put it head and shoulders above any other humanitarian organisation but I wouldn’t see it as evil to the core.

      1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 9:02pm

        The Church? What Church? Presides? Any organisation under the collective noun of “church” that has promoted countless deaths in the name of an ideology is fundamentally evil. Africa, the promotion of aids through the denial of contraceptives, USA and Europe teenage suicides, murders of gay people all in the name of a fiction that has blighted humanity from the start, the telling of the horrors christianity has perpetrated is endless. So, with the history of that particular collective known as christianity and the endless harms it has inflicted upon gay men and women in the last one hundred years only, do you really think these churchmen deserve congratulations and gratitude? Really? I for one say not a chance. I repeatchristianity is evil to the core.

        1. OK swap for presides for involved with.

          I’m not denying that parts of the Church (mainly Anglican and Roman Catholic denominations) have done some quite unforgivable stuff. Should we sweep all of that under the carpet every time any contingent within it does something decent? No. But don’t forget (I’m assuming you’re American or British) that we are a members of a country whose atrocities to mankind are pretty dreadful too. Does that mean we should be flogged for our nationalities or for just being part of the worlds population that accounts for 90% of its wealth? No matter that we weren’t and aren’t continually involved in the bloodshed and exploitation which we continue to benefit from?

          1. last sentence: directly* not continually

          2. Religion is insanity in trolls. 22 Apr 2012, 12:28am

            We are born to a nationality, I am not responsible for what previous generations did or did not do when I did not exist. However I do not subscribe nor do I endorse or promote those harms done to humanity.Religionists chose to be a “person of faith” . The ‘people of faith’, are still perpetrating the same evil in the name of their god of ‘love’ but through different methods. All religion is bogus and has nothing to commend it to any rational human being. All religions are mad bad and dangerous to humans it’s just a question of degree. Any christian who seriously thinks they can limit my or any other gay persons ability to live life as they see fit can take their religous nonsense and stick it. I rather think you want to put a good frame on a very poor picture but no matter how much you apply the gold- leaf you will never change the picture into something good. “Quite unforgiveable stuff” well that’s an understatement to be considered.

          3. You know I knew you were going to respond with you can choose religion but you can’t choose nationality. Immigration is closed to you then? Why are not responsible for what previous generations did or did not do when you did not exist but people of religion are?

            So anyone that subscribes to a religion endorses or promotes harms done to humanity but when you walk into a supermarket and buy non-fairtrade or purchase high street clothes (almost all of which are made in sweat shops in countries like Bangladesh) you aren’t? And you say it’s just religionists who apply double standards?

            “Any christian who seriously thinks they can limit my or any other gay persons ability to live life as they see fit can take their religous nonsense and stick it.” You’re statement actually asserts that there are christians who don’t seek to limit you or anybody else. So what’s your beef with them exactly?

            So you think I’m trying to sanitise what the Church has and does do? Why? ….

          4. …Because I don’t say they’re all evil to the core, mad, bad and dangerous? I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the Church either but your scaremongering sounds very reminiscent of the likes of the Christian Institute and Daily Mail et al. They say because I stand up of gay rights and want equal marriage that I’m a ‘militant gay’. You say that because I don’t want to fire bomb every Church in the land that I’m a misguided fool who’s desperate to paint the Church as a soft cuddly people who are just misunderstood. Frankly you’re both as extreme as each other.

          5. BTW. I don’t think “quite unforgivable stuff” is an understatement to be considered – the stuff they’ve done is quite unforgivable – thats not understating it’s summarising.

          6. Religion is insanity in trolls. 22 Apr 2012, 12:06pm

            When you have quite finished having a fit of the vapours! It is the hallmark of a dishonest debate when it full of calculated distortions and deliberate misrepresentations. The words written below are yours, not mine.
            “You say that because I don’t want to fire bomb every Church in the land that I’m a misguided fool who’s desperate to paint the Church as a soft cuddly people who are just misunderstood. Frankly you’re both as extreme as each other”.
            This example you have provided of dishonest debate is quite typical of christian thought and it is why LGBT people are constantly engaged in the struggle for civil rights because they are incapable of dealing with plain facts. You should be ashamed of yourself. Try to moderate your assertions? I would never advocate doing harm to anyone or the wanton destruction of any place that is a historic and an estabished part of christian tradition and one I reject entirely.

          7. There are good and bad Christian people and organisations

            There are also good and bad LGBT people and organisations.

            The aim currently is to ensure LGBT people can consensually marry in a civil marriage.

            The clergy who wrote this letter support that.

            I welcome them as allies.

            RIght now, at this moment in time – whether or not they endorse other things that others do not like or find discomfort in (or even that I do) is immaterial.

            Equal marriage is more important than whether we feel comfortable with who our allies are.

          8. Excuse me….I just had to open the window to let the vapours out that rose from my screen when it displayed your reply. Or maybe, like me, you were cool calm and collected when your responded but lets not stop that from imposing our tone of choice on the two dimensional medium of the written word.

            Stating that the Church is evil to the core, mad, bad and dangerous, that every Christian perpetuates that evil and then to imply that anyone who says your statement is hyperbolic is trying to dilute the many atrocities of those who have abused their postions within the Church for millenia, is considered by many (not all of them of faith) to be a calculated distortion and deliberate misrepresentation.

            To use metaphors like fire bombing Churches may have been unwise and I apologise for dragging my side of the argument down to your level.
            …..


          9. I too am enraged at what the Church and other organised religions have done to me and what they continue to do others, like validating the persecution of kids like Kenneth Weishuhn who was driven suicide and whose mother is burying him today. The hypocrisy and divisiveness that pervades sickens me and if I thought persecuting religion in return would work, trust me I’d do it. But it doesn’t. Standing up to those who abuse religion is different to taking the olive branch of religious people, (who have either never agreed with the injustices caused by their religion, or have the integrity to admit that they were wrong, and work to end it from the inside) and bashing them round the head with it. I find your position of righteousness over religion to be as hypocritical as the Vatican’s. And the fact that you seek to divert away from my points by showing indignation at my comparisons only highlights that hypocrisy.

  19. Bravo!

  20. Even tho i do not believe in God and am pretty much against any homophobic religion, i gotta say thank you to these ministers! You have showed us that not everyone who’s christian is a homophobic bigot. And even tho i don’t share your beliefs, i am touched that you defend my right to marry the person i love (when i do..i’m still 19 so not for a long time tho lolz). Because i see marriage as a tradition to celebrate love between two persons, not as a religious act.

    Once again thank you!

  21. Oh dear the cavalry have been sent out!!!!!!

    ” five-day conference starting on April 23 ”

    “A high-powered group of traditionalist Anglican church leaders are to gather in London to address a growing “crisis” over openly homosexual bishops. ”

    “They want to restore “orthodox” values to the worldwide Anglican Communion and outlaw liberal church leaders who have rejected traditional teaching. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9204853/Traditionalist-Anglican-leaders-to-meet-over-homosexual-bishops-crisis.html

    1. what? this is ridiculous time to remove their seats from the House of Lords. Such dictators do not deserve a seat in our Parliament

  22. Some more powerful statements, this time from the Bishop of Salisbur

    “The Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, compared bishops opposing marriage reforms to 18th century Christians who believed slavery was “God-given….”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9218789/Church-opposition-to-gay-marriage-a-disaster-says-senior-bishop.html

  23. chris lowcase 21 Apr 2012, 10:35pm

    hats off!

    i see a lot of comments talking about religion being a way to control the masses. when you look back over history its easy to see the face of religion is constantly changing. not just for marriage equality, but for politics, womens rights, sex education, the list goes on. i welcome the constant change and once we are done with this issue i cant wait to see whats next.

    the way people use their supposed godlyness to oppress people is my only problem with organised religion. so its great to see the system fail. if the people who have spoken out for marriage equality can do so with their faith intact its just a bonus for me.

  24. Ten Things I wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality
    1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.
    2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.
    3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.
    4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.
    5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.
    (cont’d)

  25. (cont’d)
    6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.
    7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.
    8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.
    9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.
    10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.

    http://www.jimrigby.org/ten-things-i-wi … sexuality/

  26. Dr Robin Guthrie 22 Apr 2012, 2:49am

    Why do Christians always portray Jesus as white in their imagery.

    He was from the Middle East FFS.

    He would have looked more like Bin Laden than Billy Connolly.

    But that’s how organised religions function.

    Pretend that their idol is ” just like you”.

    ALL of it.

    Jewism. Islam. Christianty,

    And all believing that their religion is the way, comes from that region.

    They have polluted the planet with this guff for millenia

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 22 Apr 2012, 2:51am

      And as an addition I refer to Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot.

    2. “Why do Christians always portray Jesus as white in their imagery.”

      Probably has something to do with the Charlton Heston Syndrome

      Appears to be incurable melodramatic malady . . .

  27. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 22 Apr 2012, 5:25am

    I will say it again this is about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage!

    currently the countries that now allow gay marriage do not force the church to recognize them!

    This is civil marriage – not religious marriage!

    1. The clergy clearly refer to this as civil marriage in their letter if you read it!

    2. The debate on marriage equality is centred on civil marriage but there are religious organisations who would like to be able to conduct same-sex marriages and a strong argument is now being made that they should be allowed to do so if they want.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 4:39pm

        Yes, indeed. As for those opposing it, they’re the first to scream “abuse of freedom of religion”, yet they don’t want other denominations to participate in equal marriage. Although I’m an atheist, I also believe in freedom of religion as well as freedom FROM religion. Sadly, our foes refuse to accept it. They have NO right to impose their beliefs on our government officials, ever. It’s amazing to think that in this day and age, there are only two countries with religious clerics in government, i.e. Iran and the UK. It’s time that changed. It has absolutely NO place except in their buildings of worship and in their homes, end of.

    3. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 22 Apr 2012, 6:33pm

      You’d think. However, a couple of homophobic churches have waded into an entirely civil matter and are doing their best to derail the entire issue by a massive feat of – erm, not quite sure what the technical term is, but it’s somewhere between a diversion and confusing the issue.

      And the law about civil marriage does include religious marriage, as religious marriage gets bundled in with it. The goverment is currently proposing to legalise civil marriage, but at the same time to uphold the ban on religious marriage. May as well campaign for them both at the same time, in the interests of full equality.

      1. I think its a case of push thru civil marriage for now, and then attempt allowing people that want to do it in a few years time preferably when the bishops and priests and that have all matured and start acting their age.

  28. Now, that’s a church that would make Jesus proud !

  29. The Light is beginning to show through as the old and outdated blockages are being removed. The Power of the Lord God is working. Well done and full marks to those enlighted men who are listening and doing.

  30. Good to see these guys affirming ancient tradition. Blessing same-sex unions was pretty uncontroversial in both Eastern and Western Christianity until about the 11th century. Rising bigotry tends to produce collective historical amnesia. More of this therapy needed.

  31. Where were all these men when Maggie Thatcher’s and her lousy government of the day introduced S28.

    Let me think, a number were either bishops, or on the road to becoming one.

    Don’t recall their being very vocal back then. Neither do I recall any of these clerics joining us when we lobbied Parliament to lower the age of Consent.

    Wonder where they were then? Let me think, sitting and pontificating on the sin that is homesexuality.

    The only thing that has changed for these people is they’ve realised that equality is here to stay. Their church and it’s leadership are being made to look foolish by their own flawed thinking.

    So their response – to agree with what is after all common sense.

    I have no respect for those who turn up to our campaign late in the day and those who shamefully either remained silent, or sat on their hallowed pews while those amongst us perished.

    1. Certainly two of these individuals on the letter I know personally, and they have always been supportive of LGBT people and campaigned against section 28.

      So, please if you are going to try anti-Christian soundbites against individuals, make them factually accurate rather than rhetorical.

      1. Which two please?

        Name them and provide links/evidence to support your claims.

        There’s nothing anti-Christian in my post, merely stating facts.

          1. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 1:56pm

            S28 came in to effect in 1988.

            I don’t see Rt Alan Wilson piping up from the cloisters back then. All very well fast fowarding to 2011 and 2012 – as I said, coming to the table late when public opinion is more likely to be on their side.

        1. @Paul

          If you require me to I will dig out some of the paper copies of writings by Alan Wilson from 20-30 years ago. Unfortunately I can’t find them online – but if you require more evidence of how supportive he is of LGBT rights and specific rejection of section 28 then I am happy to dig them out, they are in a box in the loft somewhere.

          1. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 5:29pm

            Michael, thank you for your kind offer and also thank you for replying without the resorting to be ing abusive, as in the case of the two previous respondents.

            If Alan Wilson’s writings aren’t available on the Internet, or on Wikipedia, but exist in your loft, perhaps that says more about how determined he was in expressing his views, as I don’t recall any COE Bishop coming out in favour of the Repeal of S28.

            The names that I remember who supported it’s repeal included the dear and late, Mo Molem, Michael Mansfield QC, Helen Mirren and so on.

            However, I am sorry if I have somehow done Alan Wilson a dis-service in not remembering his efforts and I stand corrected.

            And where may I ask, did he stand on the lowering of the Age Of Consent?

            Paul

          2. @Paul

            I am wading through some documents at the moment to locate the bits a pieces that should be able to be help me either locate something online or direct you to something to verify the facts re Alan Wilson and section 28.

            I do remember the former Bishop of Oxford was strenuous in his condemnation of section 28 also (that is documented on Wikipedia)
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harries,_Baron_Harries_of_Pentregarth

            I can’t recall what Richard Harries position was/is on the age of consent (although I would be surprised if he was not in favour of equality). However, where Alan Wilson is concerned he preached that all people should be seen as equal under the law.

      2. Making accusations at individuals of whom you no know nothing about, apart from the fact that they are currently affiliated to the Anglican Church, on the basis that you don’t know what they have or haven’t done over the course of their ecclesiastical lives, isn’t the a very good argument. To then demand that others who contest your assertions provide you with evidence, when you haven’t bothered to find any to support your own argument is just plain lazy.

        1. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 5:50pm

          Lazy?

          I don’t know who you are, and to be honest, I wish you no harm, but I was one of a number who lost my career solely on the basis of my sexuality.

          I also was convicted of a sexual offence, which today wouldn’t be possible as the law in relation to sexual offences concerning gay men have changed.

          I was one of the few of us who stood outside Parliament often in the rain lobbying and protesting in relation to the lowering of the age of consent amongst other things.

          The point I have made is that I do not recall these individuals offering their support to us during these times.

          That’s a view based on experience. It may be flawed, and if so, I’m happy as I said in an earlier post to Michael to say I’ve got it wrong. And if so, I apologise.

          As to my being lazy, I tell myself that everyday.

          As to finding support in my argument, I write from experience, not from searching google.

          1. Fair enough, I was 7 when s28 was introduced so I didn’t realise just how much I was effected by that era until the first move to repeal s28 when I was 20. And I’ve never been sacked for being gay or stood in the rain outside Parliament. Although I do remember what it was like to be a junior member of staff in an office & too afraid to come out because I didn’t have any direct legal remedy to tackle harassment or constructive dismissal on the grounds of homophobia.

            I don’t dispute that you may very well have a lot of knowledge on those who supported & opposed gay rights over the past decades, based on first hand experience. But it just isn’t clear to me that you have any specific knowledge of the individuals who signed the letter. Admittedly since 2003 it’s been in vogue to jump on the pro-gay bandwagon and I don’t dispute that there are some who may have signed that letter based on nothing more than a political move. But I don’t know that for sure and I don’t think you do either.

          2. How self-absorbed is this!?! Just because somebody else’s battle doesn’t look like yours, doesn’t mean it is any less valid.

          3. My comment is aimed at Paul Power, not Paul.

    2. You don’t know your history at all! Just google Jeffrey John or Richard Harries and read about their strong stance on this issue over the past decades. History will record their breathtaking courage in the face of venomous opposition and ignorance somewhat differently to your silly, uninformed diatribe.

      1. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 2:01pm

        I know my history, thanks very much.

        What history has recorded is the courage of those who were persectued for their sexual orientation by governments not only supported by Churches, but encouraged by these same churches.’

        As for my being silly, you’re entited to your view and as a very mature gay man, I’m used to being labelled and called all sorts of names. Far worse than silly,

        1. ‘a very mature gay man’? I’m 23!! You really are extremely silly.

          1. I retract the comment about age as I see you were referring to yourself (as you always do with rather unnerving consistency). I don’t retract the comment about you being extremely silly because you are condemning people about whom you obviously know very little. Try finding out about the people you slag-off first rather than trashing them and then requiring others to proove you wrong.

      2. Perhaps you should consider Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford who strongly opposed section 28.

        Many more clergy and lay Anglicans (and no doubt other Christians) were strongly against section 28.

        1. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 5:55pm

          Thanks, Max.

    3. Well i don’t think these people were really that involved in it to be honest.

      but your forgetting that the Catholic Church and C of E sucessfully lobbyed the Labour party to make Amendment 70 to the Children, Schools and Families Act (2010) in order to allow faith schools to teach PSHE in the way they interpreted it in accordance with the bible – ie teaching kids that being gay is a sin, that contraception is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that masturbation leads to madness, etc … Everything that PSHE is meant to stand AGAINST. It was a Tory government that repealed this. Not all Tories are evil, the same as not all Labour supporters are angels far from it.

      1. Very true – as much as I don’t like to the tories that much. Apart from whether these signatories were active/complicit in s28, it would be interesting to see if any were involved in lobbying for the Amendment 70.

        (for the sake of clarity I’m Paul Power btw)

        1. Oh for goodness sake….typo, I meant I’m NOT Paul Power.

  32. Another step in the right direction – well done and thank you to those who wrote the letter.

  33. They believe in illusions – virgin births, walking on water, evil apples- that are of insane minds, so it is not really the foundation I would like support to jump off. It is just inane to need the approval of those who participate in illusions of mental illness. I would rather an organice process of love to be their reason, not because they are just trying to prolong the power of their illuisions.

    1. Rich Meadows 22 Apr 2012, 1:50pm

      They also believe in things such as:

      “In fact a very small but significant proportion of every human population is gay. If some of these people want to build stable faithful relationships based on love, that has to be a good thing. Love is love wherever it is found. We know it by its fruits, not its origins. But the fruits reveal the origin.”

    2. I’m not sure they do believe all of that actually Ray. There are some Christians who take the Bible literally in every respect (and they make up most of the anti-gay/anti-women lobby), but there are many more who take a wider and more reasoned viewpoint.

      I can understand people being suspicious, but these guys are not jumping on the juggernaut. Most of them have held these views for years.

  34. David Skinner 22 Apr 2012, 5:40pm

    Jesus Christ upheld the law and said that anyone who broke the slightest jot or tittle would become the least in the kIngdom of Heaven. He Never spoke about incest, or bestiality, simply because these and homosexuality would have been unheard of in the Jewish society in which he lived. It was only when the church moved out of Judea and came face to face with gentile Christians who had come out of pagan cultures like those at Corinth that he had tell them to leave those practices behind.

    Jesus Christ never spoke about drug taking,smoking or industrial scale abortion, simply because these practices were unheard at the time.

    1. Ditch your delusions and stop thinking absolute nonsense.

      Homosexuality was alive and well in Jewish society and before. Men have been falling in love with each other and having sex, and women have been falling in love with each other and having sex, since the dawn of time.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 8:54pm

        He’s an idiot. Homosexuality was known in the old testament otherwise what was the verse in Leviticus all about if it wasn’t? Polygamy was condoned too. Wasn’t it Solomon who had 300 wives?

    2. Paul Power 22 Apr 2012, 6:10pm

      Actually, David, Jesus never upheld the law.

      He was crucified beside the robber and the thief because he stood up for his beliefs.

      If he upheld the law of the day, then perhaps we’d never have heard of him.

    3. Ah, gee, DAVID, thanks for comparing homosexuality to vile sins like bestiality and incest. So christian and retarded of you.

    4. @David Skinner

      “He never spoke about incest … because these would have been unheard of in the Jewish society in which he lived.”

      Have you actually read the bible ?

      In Genesis 19:30-38, living in an isolated area after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s two daughters conspired to inebriate and seduce their father due to the lack of available partners. Because of intoxication, Lot “perceived not” when his firstborn, and the following night his younger daughter, lay with him.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 8:57pm

        And Adam and Eve must have committed incest with their own children and their children among themselves. How on earth would the planet have become populated if they were supposedly the first parents of the human race? Idiot like Skinner will brush it off and claim it’s the Jewish part of the bible and doesn’t have anything to do with christianity, yet they love to use Leviticus to justify their hatred and discrimination of gay people don’t they? They deliberately ignore the stoning to death of women for adultery and children for insolence of course, both condoned in the old testament.

    5. “Jesus Christ upheld the law and said that anyone who broke the slightest jot or tittle would become the least in the kIngdom of Heaven.”

      “Jesus Christ never spoke about drug taking,smoking or industrial scale abortion, simply because these practices were unheard at the time.”

      . . . . . . . . . .

      You are contradicting yourself, and picking and mixing your adherence to biblical knowledge.

      It is interesting how you do not mention slaying of the first born in the old Testament?

    6. @David Skinner

      I would be interested in your views of this biblical gems:

      Six days my work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:13-15

      I hope your trolling on gay web sites is a hobby, otherwise you must be put to death. Would this be something that your church would do ? Or would it be a service provided by David Green ?

      1. * Stephen Green, not David Green.

    7. @Skinner

      Calm down dear, calm down!

      Given your quote:
      “I am waiting with eager anticipation to be the first person in Britain, to be clinically diagnosed with homophobia. It hasn’t happened yet but I am sure, given a little time it will happen. Maybe Richard Dawkins could come up with some theory about this.”

      Found anyone who will diagnose you?, as you seem to seek – quite a perverse thing to seek – to be diagnosed as a bigot (even though you evidently are!).

      ““If I had been a kid fighting on the beaches of Guamin WW2 and I discovered that what I was really fight (sic) for was for queers to have the licence to smash the rules underlying any civilised society – the freedom get AIDS, be promiscuous and destroy marriage and the family – I would have joined the Japs.”

      Still fancy joining the enemy?

      Do you still believe that “We cannot both exist. One of us has to go.”?

      Do you still feel the need to “take up arms” against LGBT people?

    8. “Jesus…said that anyone who broke the slightest jot or tittle would become the least in the kingdom of Heaven.” Really? I supposed God allowed him to die on the cross for sh*ts and giggles then. It was probably just a fashion statement to go with the crown of thorns.

    9. Oh, look. Skinner pretending to be a “christian” again. Lets all sit and watch….

  35. @David Skinner, @Aiden, @Keith

    The beliefs you hold and act on lead to tragedies like the suicide of Kenneth Weishuhn Jr:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/17/gay-teen-from-iowa-commits-suicide/

    Why don’t you do something good instead of making more hatred in the world ?

    Do you really want your epitaph to be:

    A life devoted to spreading hate.

    Have you nothing more in your life than trolling on LGBT forums ?

    1. RIP Kenneth. You’re in heaven now, away from the David Skinners, Aidens and Keiths of this world. I hope that if you didn’t get your wedding to the man of your dreams on earth, that you get it up there and One Direction are your wedding band.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all