Proud to be one of the founding members of this campaign! Get retweeting and making your videos!
Sounds a great campaign and exactly the sort of momentum and attitude that is needed.
Intrigued and excited to hear who the A list celebs are going to be.
Lets make it viral!
At long last, everything I’ve said supporting this strategy is coming to fruition. Wonderful news. Well done to all concerned.
Haven’t you deviants created enough ‘viral’?
Did you know that homodeviant men are 44 more tims as likely to have AIDS than hetero normals?
Keith doesnt deal in facts.
Harry has proven to Keith that HIV is more prevalent in heterosexuals globally – but he still comes out with these statements but never able to produce any reliable evidence to support it.
Its just more examples of his hatred and deviance.
Keith, Keith who?
Did someone say something?
Obviously not – Keith is just ignorant and worth ignoring.
Ben Cohen, absolutely fantastic, and thank you. We will win!
Looking forward to watching the President of the Lib Dems- Tim Farron’s video! (Like NOT)!!!!!!
We also need to ensure EVERYBODY emails their MP, fills out the online consultation (it’s pretty easy), and signs that petition at C4EM.ORG.UK
The future belongs to young people, and it is so edifying to see a campaign of such high caliber.
Terrific stuff !!!
Truly amazing! I’m sure we’re going to hear dozens of inspiring stories over the next couple of weeks. I hope to add a contribution of my own shortly!
This is truly amazing. No doubt we’re going to hear many inspirational stories over the next couple of weeks! I really hope I can make a contribution of my own
Why should we support YOUR rights to marry, when you won’t even acknowledge WE EXIST? We want legally and socially recognized bonds and family groups, too. Why do you pretend there are only cis-gendered male/female people? WHAT ABOUT US?
Me, me, me…
Brilliant :-) Excellent campaign. Count me in :-))
This campaign is far too modest, condoning continuing discrimination against gay people of faith. At present, faith groups which are opposed have access to their own policing service at taxpayers’ expense: they are allowed to dictate to faith groups who are for. That little word ‘civil’ in your invitation video is an inappropriate humility. Go for it and be out for marriage ALL THE WAY!
Bit by bit Rev. Stepping stones across the river.
How can you as a Christian leader ignore God’s word? Have you contextualised the Bible to the point of ignoring it? Has Jesus revealed something to you that Paul missed? On what authority do you change the word of God?
The Bible says scripture is God breathed, meaning God himself inspired scripture. In scripture we read that marriage is between one man and one woman recognised by God. How can you ask this “Christian” country to change the definition given to it by God? Unless you wish to take God out of marriage, but then how is it still marriage?
Your slogan: “Love is the same straight or gay” talks only about love, what you don’t say is that “Marriage is a religious institution based upon the word of God, but we want to redefine it because we feel it’s unfair that God doesn’t acknowledge and bless our relationship (which by the way he calls sinful).”
If you don’t hold Jesus as God don’t ask Him to bless your relationship. If you do, don’t ask Him to bless sin.
There are many things that we ignore from the bible. “Contextualising the bible” if that is what you want to call it, has always ben done throughout the ages. It was used to promote black slavery it was used to argue that women don’t have the right to vote. We ignore large parts of the bible. Take Leviticus. Leviticus has many many teachings of which the majority of people can only say “Leviticus 18 says homosexuality is an abomination” and you have to turn round and say “yeah, Leviticus also says don’t eat shelfish or pork, don’t wear clothes of mixed materials, f you find a bit of mildew in your house tear it brick from brick and roll every brick in the desert then reconstruct it”. If you want to know what Jesus revealed that Paul did not, it was the message of loving others. Jesus says “love one another as I have loved you”, Jesus saves the adulterer from being stoned, Jesus tells a story that promotes a samaritan. Jesus rarely condemned anyone, why do we as Christians feel we can?
When you talk about Leviticus you are referring to the law given by Moses to the Jews and true that covenant doesn’t apply to us as we see Paul rebuking Peter for eating Pork with the gentiles and not eating it with the Jews.
However the bible does tell us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever and we know that God doesn’t change His mind and the teaching about homosexuality is continued in the new testament:
“Romans 1 26 – Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
let me clarify that I’m not interested in persecuting homosexuals, what I am interested is redefining Gods plans for marriage.
Difficult for you to accept that many people do not believe your ‘religious truths’ we see them at best as fictions and at worst delusions. You have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone. Those days are long gone. Now you are just one more “person of faith” in a diminishing collective. So, I as just one gay man tell you, I refuse your religion, I refuse your demands to make me conform to it, I will not submit to your ‘faith’ and I will resist it to the last breath I take. Go and post your comments for the benefit of others like you who subscribe to your ‘faith’. Your comments are not wanted here.
The bible is a crock of cr@p.
“Go and post your comments for the benefit of others like you who subscribe to your ‘faith’. ”
I think you will find that you CANNOT comment on these christian sites. They do not allow it. They will not accept criticism of any kind.
That’s why goons like Luke have to come to sites such as this in order to vomit their drivel.
Osric – I fully accept people don’t share my views, I have no problem with that at all. But the issue was never me trying to make you conform to my views. The issue is that marriage in this country is defined by the religion Christianity and what Christianity teaches. So what you are asking this country to do is abandon the Christian form of marriage or to change Christianity to conform to your views so unknowingly you are enforcing your beliefs upon me. It’s your choice what you do with your life, what choices you make. What I do care about is any attempts to change God’s definition of marriage.
The main difference between a civil ceremony and marriage is God, one is recognised by God and the other isn’t. The God of this country calls homosexuality sin, so why would you want to be married by God and the church who feels that way about your relationship? Who is going to lead the ceremony, a priest, a vicar? And are we going to HAVE to marry you if we disagree with your beliefs?
“The main difference between a civil ceremony and marriage is God, one is recognised by God and the other isn’t ”
And the one being discussed is the one that isn’t so what’s the problem?
If scripture is God breathed, how come so much of it was edited, deleted and rewritten by the Council of Niceae for the benefit of the Roman Empire? How come modern American translations are so dodgy?
In fact most Christians in the West accept that it was written with the human cultural biases and ignorance of the times it was written in, and is more inspirational than literal.
Luke says: “The issue is that marriage in this country is defined by the religion Christianity and what Christianity teaches. So what you are asking this country to do is abandon the Christian form of marriage or to change Christianity to conform to your views so unknowingly you are enforcing your beliefs upon me.”
The United Kingdom is not a theocracy and its laws are not based on the Christian bible. Laws, from which civil marriage is part of, are made in a democratic way, based on science and reason.
One more thing: Christianity does not own the definition of marriage, not in this country or in any other democracy in the world.
Luke, darling …
You are a little out of date. Since 1836 marriage in England has not been viewed as necessarily religious.
Your argument went out of date in 1836.
Firstly I appreciate those who responded to me in a respectful manner, I’m aware what I’m saying isn’t popular, but you do need to know the objections to your campaign.
Tod – people claim the bible was edited when assembled but no-one has a shred of proof to support that claim, it is nothing by hearsay. The scriptures that went in the book are there because God guided men when assembling the bible much in the same way God guided Moses when assembling the law. The claim that american translations are dodgy I fully accept so where possible go NIV or ESV as they are faithfully translated and closest to the Greek. At the end of the day there will always be slight differences as there are words and expressions in the Greek and Hebrew that simply don’t exist in English.
Carl – We don’t own it, but our God penned the definition so anything that changes that definition goes against our beliefs.
Max – perhaps my thinking is outdated, but you cannot deny where the definition came from.
Firstly, you do not answer what has changed since 1836?
Secondly, since you use your (to quote you) “outdated” view of marriage to define it, do you regard those heterosexuals who have married in civil ceremonies since 1836 as married? If so, why can that not extend to gay people in a non-religious event? The definition in law clearly is non-religious. Why do you seek to try and use a viewpoint that has not been the view in the UK for nearly 200 years?
Thirdly, marriage pre dates Christianity. Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil
marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.
Ancient Chinese, African, Greek and Roman civilisations have all practiced various forms of marriage which pre date the Biblical views on marriage and certainly predate those of the church.
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history. An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.
So, your view of marriage is a redefinition
@Max In 1836 the law was incorrectly changed then as it is being incorrectly changed now and no I would argue that those married without God are not following the biblical principles of marriage. The state may recognise them as married and that leaves nothing but man and law binding them together. As law is written by man and man is fallible that leaves a sorry foundation for marriage.
Marriage does pre-date Christianity but marriage does not pre-date God and as Christianity follows on from the Jewish scripture, we include that scripture in our doctrine. We are told that at the beginning of time God set out the model of marriage – nothing pre-dates it. it doesn’t matter how many different cultures have sought to change or ignore God’s commands it doesn’t make it any less sinful.
It is only in recent history that marriage has moved away from God and look at the rocketing divorce rate…
Are you saying that everyone married outside of a church since 1836 is not actually married in your opinion?
The factors binding them together are man, law and love.
You seem to forget about love.
You seem to focus on hate.
So are you advocating polygamy and incest? That’s what the bible says marriage is.
Yes indeed, in the old testament. All invented by heterosexuals of course.
If you wish to accuse the bible of hypocrisy bring quotes to support your point. the bible is clear on both matters, incest and polygamy. Why was Solomon judged for having more than one wife if God condoned polygamy?
So you regard my relationship with my future husband to have the same ethical value of eating lobster?
lol no. The old testament law doesn’t apply to Christians today but God hasn’t changed His mind on homosexuality. Either way I know you don’t share my faith, the issue is the attempt to redefine my God’s design for marriage.
It’s bad to have more than one wife but it’s ok to have hundreds of concubines (how many did Solomon had)? In spite of this, he was king with the approval of “god”. That IS hypocrisy.
Since 1836 the Marriage Act changed marriage in England to make it not necessarily a religious matter.
Why should your faith prevent me marrying my boyfriend in a civil marriage?
The 1836 Act made it clear that religion was unnecessary in the context of marriage.
What has changed now?
@Max thank you for your respectful response.
There are two main issues.
1. You are proposing to change the definition of marriage that was given to us by God. Whether you believe it was God breathed is up to you but there are people in this country who do believe in it strongly. Note also that I have the same objections to couples who choose to marry without including God as what makes and keeps a marriage is God.
2. Where will this lead? Overall it’s up to yourselves how you choose to live your lives. Quite frankly Gay marriage is hardly the biggest problem Christianity has at the moment. It is however a stepping stone to potentially massive problems for our faith. Will there come a time where it will be discrimination if a priest refuses to marry you based on their religious beliefs? That’s the road we are on and it will result in us either having to compromise our faith or possibly face prison.
The so called “slippery slope” argument has been shown to be false in all countries where gay couples can marry.
Are you saying that Britain lacks the ability to ensure this does not happen here – if Argentina, Spain, Portugal and Iceland can?
@Max How long have the laws been changed in those countries? You can’t possibly use that to justify dismissing the “slippery slope” argument.
What’s more, we are a very different country and as a result could issue a very different response.
Either way this law would mean another step away from God which the foundations of this country were built upon.
Just like the attendance of churches changes.
Down 72% since 1950.
The relevance of your fairy story is seen for what it is.
We do not live in a theocracy thus your fairy story should have no influence on law.
You’ve forgotten to take your pills again.
Pea brain, CIVIL marriage was NOT invented by your god. It’s an invention of state government, no religious component, no mandate to procreate. Get it? I suppose NOT, pea brains never do. Your Jesus Christ NEVER mentioned or condemned gay people either. Go work on the millions of heterosexual adulterers for a change, the real threat to marriage.
In Genesis we read clearly that God’s plan for marriage was one man and one woman. They were called to be fruitful and multiply – you cannot multiply with two men… Through that and God’s additional guidance for marriage we learn the model. That model was then taken on board by the monarchy when this country became Christian, from there this model of marriage has changed very little (with the exception of the reformation and the introduction of legal divorce) till this day. Now you want to change it from the original model set out by God to something new.
What I am in support of is the original design for marriage set out by God, that this country at this time adheres to.
And yes you make a good point about heterosexual adulterers who also have little regard for God’s commands. The reason I haven’t posted a comment on their wall is because they are not petitioning to change concept of marriage to allow adultery, something God also says is wrong.
Adultery is legal in the UK.
Its grounds for divorce.
So, your point is?
Thre is no god, not yours or anyone elses. No god, nish for the god, you are the spokesman or woman for nothing. Bible, a collection of nonsense written by people who for the most part would be seen to have mental heath issues now. You are a slave, a babbling godbot to utter nonsense. Get it understood, this is not 1512 and organised religion is falling apart, (hello Catholics ) so, take your god gibberish and go someplace where the other godbots listen to you.
Civil marriage is not an invention of your sky fairy, nitwit. In the UK, it was introduced in the 19th century by the secular government. Adultery is legal in almost every country in the western world. Nobody goes to jail for it. Not even the future head of the CoE, Prince Charles did when he carried on with Camilla Parker Bowles. Plenty of heterosexual religious bigots partake in it. FYI: who do you think introduced equal civil marriage in 11 countries, six states in America and in Mexico City? Why, none other than heterosexuals. David Cameron is a heterosexual last time I checked and so are the majority in all three parties and House of Lords. You’re an idiot.
@Lauro Adutery is legal but they haven’t changed the vows to include it as inevitable. My point was in response to someone’s comment about adultery being a bigger problem to marriage and whilst I agree, there isn’t a campaign in support of it, if there was I would be posting to them also.
“How can you as a Christian leader ignore God’s word? Have you contextualised the Bible to the point of ignoring it?”
Only an uneducated fundamentalist would argue that using ones intellect to undersntand the context of the bible is inherent folly, compared with taking every word literally and ignoring science and theological scholarship.
There are some occasions where context is important i.e. Paul’s recommendation to wear head-scarves in the temple. How do you contextualise God’s views on homosexuality without contradicting God? Please explain how you justify changing God’s word, surely then you end up editing scripture to suit your needs. If you don’t like something then just chuck it out as old fashioned… Matthew 15 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men. ’[d] ”
Gibberish, more gibberish. Say what you like, say it with conviction it’s still gibberish. Free your mind drop the delusions and think for yourself for once in your life. Religion all religion is death for reason.
GOD IS A FAIRY STORY…………..
‘Please explain how you justify changing God’s word, surely then you end up editing scripture to suit your needs’
Council of Rome, ect ect ect ect……
A bit like the Council of Niceae when it rewrote the Bible.
“How do you contextualise God’s views on homosexuality without contradicting God?”
Umm… God is a trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son, Jesus, specifically told us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Sounds to me like God is telling us that, as Christians, we should be ACCEPTING everyone, not condeming them.
Also, you keep saying the Bible is the word of God, which it is, but you don’t seem to realise that it is the word of God written by humans. Humans are obviously imperfect, so we cannot possibly fully understand the Divine Law, so we put what God revealed to us into a contemporary context, but that context has changed since the Bible was written.
If you ask me, any “Christian” who condemns ANYONE shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Christian. We are Christian, so we follow Jesus Christ, we are not Leviticians or St. Paulians. They were human, Jesus was divine, so Jesus’ teachings are what I’M going to be following.
@Mark He did say to love your neighbours as yourselves true. But you misunderstand love if you use this in this context. Love is patient, love is kind but it is also honest and sometimes you need to say the unpopular in order to speak the truth which surely everyone deserves?
Gods law was penned by humans but it was inspired by God and if you consider God all powerful you can assume that when His book was being assembled He was powerful enough to complete it the way He wanted. Although Jesus didn’t speak about homosexuality (Probably because everyone knew the basics of the law) He did talk about the law stating it’s still applicable. So if you wish to be a faithful servant you need to follow His teaching:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Please don’t I think if you choose not follow this you will lose your salvation, your sin is no greater than mine. Just be aware.
Thanks, Ben and Mike.
Excellent campaign that will get my total support… but please remove the mawkish background music from future vids.
It’ll get annoying after a while, it makes up-beat clips seems a tad depressing plus it often partly-obscures the words of some people with quiet voices (the great clip by Rabbi Friedlander, especially)
Here’s one of the more vapid statements in this article:
In her video, the UK Minister for Equality, Lynne Featherstone MP said: “I think its just amazing that people love each other enough to commit to a lifelong vow, ‘till death do them part’. That should be exactly the same whether you’re straight or gay and that’s why I’m Out4Marriage.”
Ya, sure. The gay/lesbian middle class is going to hook up “till death do them part.” The crusade is headed by a founder of Pink News, which may explain why every lead story in the daily online site propagandizes for gay marriage. Lemmings running after hetero approval for their conjugal cohabitations.
Please don’t feed this troll. Just hut the thumbs down button, and in a while his drool will magically disappear.
Or ‘hit’, even! :P
OH YES IT IS!!!!!
And what himan rights do fake people have “Aiden”?
This is a great campaign. Best of luck with it!
I see Aiden continues to cherry pick the ECHR judgements (an institution, he as a (made up) neo n@zi disagrees with).
The ECHR made it very clear that article 12 does apply to same sex couples in relation to marriage.
You can’t spell and you are an idiot.
Will any of these videos get access to the main t.v. channels I wonder?
Obama believes it is a human right
Good luck with becoming a human being Aiden Pinocchio the delusional closet case.
I made my contribution to the project- it was such an empowering experience, I recommend you all to do it, too!
Cal – eatgaylove.com
That was great :) loved it.
It must be awful to be on the wrong side of history, knowing that people will look back and place you in the same pigeon hole as all those other nasty bigots.