Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Church of England: David Cameron is being ‘divisive’ over same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What is their problem? They’re being given a choice in the matter for each Church. Or is that the bit they don’t like. They prefer dictactorship.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Dec 2012, 7:32pm

      It’s none of the C of E’s bloody business if other denominations wish to participate in same-sex marriages. It’s not going to affect them or their ability to continue marrying hetero couples one iota. I do wish these idiots would come forth with any evidence to substantiate the nonsense they’re throwing around before opening their mouths. I suspect they’re feeling very embarrassed knowing that there are other religious groups who want to take part which puts the spotlight on them and exposes their bigotry. They don’t want to be shamed into doing anything. It has a lot do to with a loss of power that they see fast diminishing. Equal marriage is the last straw. Too bad, it’s coming whether they like it or not. They’ll just remain in isolation, even more so. Not a recipe for attracting more members I don’t think.

    2. He is actually allowing religious groups to do what they want. So those who are anti want to stop those who are pro. This is an inter religion argument then.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Dec 2012, 5:48pm

        What Cameron has done is drawn a line in the sand. He’s echoed what Theresa May said months ago, if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one. They’ll have a choice under the law. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. All of those skeptics on the fence will now have no reason to throw in those very silly red herrings. The fear mongerers among them will have their wings clipped. They won’t be able to scream discrimination or abuse of religious freedom any more.

    3. Julian Morrison 7 Dec 2012, 9:28pm

      The C of E ran religion in Britain with an iron fist until basically the mid 20th century, when public opinion shifting to the secular levered open their grasp. They may play fuzzy minded, harmless tea-and-scones clerics, but the old desire to run everything is there under the surface.

  2. These guys blather on like modern day Eloi, puffing out removed-from-reality twaddle.

    Still, makes a change from C4M’s grunting Morlocks, I suppose.

  3. “To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged”

    Or to put it in a less convoluted way:
    removes official support for the view that couples who are not of different sexes are inferior.

    Yeah, thanks for that.

  4. Here is the level of comment over at The Telegraph,

    David Roberts
    15 minutes ago
    From now on I suggest a sleeper cell of Ultra, combat ready Christians are stationed in each Parish. They will be ready at a moments notice to fire bomb Churches that are holding these travesties of marriage. When the flaming queens run outside they will be bayoneted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9729773/Gay-marriage-given-the-green-light-for-weddings-in-churches.html

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 7 Dec 2012, 7:32pm

      David is pro gay. Check out his other contributions. His comment is ironic and meant to show up the Catholicgraph haters. He appears to be succeeding as a number are actually posting support and voting his comment up. It is a work of art.

      1. Poe’s Law.

    2. Thanks Pavlos, I’ve never visited the Telegraph website. Wow. So much bile disguised as Christianity, is there anyone they actually like?

  5. The CofE’s time is fast running out.

    Before very long the 2011 Census results will be published, and it’s likely that religionists will find that they are now in a minority.

    Disestablishment will duly follow sooner or later…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Dec 2012, 7:26pm

      I don’t think anyone in government would have the guts to say the word ‘disestablishment’. The CoE would blame that on equal marriage anyway.

      Men and woman have been procreating long before marriage was invented. It didn’t require marriage to do that. Of course, not all opposite sex couples can procreate, so using procreation as a reason to justify a ban on gays having access to civil marriage just doesn’t add up. It’s illogical, irrational and absurd. What it really is, is homophobia and bigotry.

  6. The bigots are desperate. The more they gesticulate, bark and shout, the louder their antiquated views and dangerous dogmas will relegate them to where they belong : the sewers of history.
    It’s hilarious seeing them dig their own graves ; it saves us some sweat. Though my preference would go towards throwing them to wild dogs.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 7 Dec 2012, 7:27pm

      Check out the comments on the Daily Telegraph (aka the provisional wing of the roman church):

      http://goo.gl/WhVCd

      I feast on their hate and laugh at their pain.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Dec 2012, 7:21pm

    “Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted”.

    Facts, evidence please? Provide us with the details as to how you arrived at that conclusion? Eleven countries have equal marriage. Cite instances in any of them that support your statement?

    1. These are religious people we’re talking about. If facts and evidence worked on them they wouldn’t BE religious…

  8. Mumbo Jumbo 7 Dec 2012, 7:24pm

    “David Cameron is being divisive over same-sex marriage”

    Well, that’s another irony meter broken.

  9. So the CofE wants to impose its view of gender roles onto the rest of us?

    Get back to us when you’ve worked out that women are full human beings, as capable of church leadership as men.

    1. Yeah, that’s the kind of “sexual difference” they want to promote – women not being as good as men. The idea that people are simply human beings must fill them with dread. Imagine! One more group of potential people to discriminate against removed from them.

  10. Houston Bridges 7 Dec 2012, 7:28pm

    No women bishops, no same-sex marriages, no government support for their infrastructure, … no wait, I added the last one. Canterbury’s okay with that one.

  11. Couold we please be told what the 7 Dec 2012, 7:29pm

    There is nothing in the story to bear out the headline–nothing in the story to the effect that ssm will be *divisive*.

  12. “In September, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey also warned that equal marriage would pave the way for Mormon-style polygamous relationships.”

    So the example he gives is a religious group then? So what is he saying? Allow mormons to exist and you get polygamy. Makes no sense at all. The mans an idiot.

  13. What convoluted nonsense! ‘Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone!!!’ Just as we changed the meaning a few hundred years ago to suit ourselves and form the foundation of our church!

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Dec 2012, 8:21pm

    Divorce wasn’t permitted until Civil Marriage came along and redefined marriage. It didn’t stop religious nutters from having a religious marriage and today in 2012 and beyond, it’s not going to stop them if gays marry. Nothing will have changed and it only affects one group of people….US. Men and women will continue to procreate whether we marry or not, dumb bastards.

    If they think it’s going to harm hetero marriage that much, then why do heteros continue marrying in countries were equal marriage is legal if it has diminished the meaning of marriage. This is sheer homophobia, nothing more. I’d have more respect for them if they would admit it but they don’t, they choose to lie about it so they avoid being called homophobes and bigots which they are anyway with or without equal marriage.

    Who are they to lecture society on gender roles? They can’t even accept women bishops. Who are they to lecture the government on anything for that matter. They are the divisive ones.

  15. “the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women”

    The Church of England really need to tell the IOC and other sporting bodies about their objective method of distinguishing between men and women. Because they have spent decades trying to find one.

    Seriously, if the world made any sense, this line alone would get the Church of England written off as cranks. The concept of “complementarity of the sexes” is inconsistent with reality, just like young-earth creationism or phrenology. They shouldn’t get let off just because they claim their nonsensical ideas come from a magical sky fairy rather than their own heads.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Dec 2012, 5:53pm

      I often wonder how the CoE in particular would view the marriage of a hetero couple where the male was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage in the traditional sense? In that scenario, there would be no way for penetration to take place. So where would the complementarity between the sexes come into play in that instance? It goes right out the window in my view and really debunks the nonsense they’re spewing once and for all.

  16. That There Other David 7 Dec 2012, 8:28pm

    I read this and all I think is that it’s about time society made these shamen get a real job. All this sitting on their backsides pretending they’re doing us a favour whilst they’re idle is obviously retarding their capacity to think straight.

  17. “The uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women.”

    Yes, and we must all make sure we remember that women aren’t quite up to the standard of men, eh? Idiot!

    And what about those churches that will marry divorcees compared to those who don’t? Is that divisive? In fact, isn’t having a choice of religion (or none) divisive? Talk about power-grasping!

    And yet a while ago they were bleating on about the freedom of religion. Of course, such freedoms only apply to THEM.

  18. It’s not divisiveness guys it’s called *religious freedom*. Something you claimed to be in favour of during your struggle to combat equality.

  19. Where in the body of the article does it say anything about the Church of England claiming Cameron is being “divisive”?

    1. This is becoming standard in PN’s output, David. A headline without the back up. They probably did say it: just sloppy journalism.

  20. The same tired old rubbish being trotted out that allowing same sex couples to marry will “change” marriage for everyone. If they are that worried about the definition of marriage not being changed how about the “as long as you both shall live” bit? Or will that somehow not work when the future head of the CoE is, himself, divorced? Not to mention the reason that CoE exists at all.

  21. Hodge Podge 7 Dec 2012, 9:47pm

    Sorry, sorry, this is the organisation that just reaffirmed it didn’t want women in positions of leadership.

    Why do we care about their opinion?

    1. It’s not so much that we do not care about their opinion, but that they must be monitored very sharply. These lunatics have power, and influence, and they hold many of our elected representatives.
      ESSENTIALLY they are a clear and present danger to not just us but to society at large… they are no less that a virus and should be treated as such… we cannot let them spread, and their main means of spreading is through hate speech, so for now we have to wage war on them with words. For now.

      1. Hodge Podge 8 Dec 2012, 6:37pm

        Yeah I know, but it’s a good line to bring out whenever they present themselves as a moral authority :)

        Although I support disestablishment, I don’t think Christians are the enemy, only conservative ones. To be honest, I think the new atheist project of ending religion isn’t going to happen.

  22. “Divisive” for their own ranks they mean. There will be plenty of vicars champing at the bit to not only perform legal marriage, but also get hitched themselves.

    1. Thats an excellent comment doug!

  23. I think it should be about choice, I am all in favour over religous gay marriages. I would not want one myself, but I respct the views of Christain/muslim/jewish gays/lesbians who want a religous service. It is the choice of the faith organisation/the person that is marryinging them. I know this goes against the churches view (which I am not scared of, as I am a beleiever in evolution), but why can’t the church start believing in nature rather than god. It is cause they are sheep always followng the shepherd, rather than their own minds thats why

  24. Just checked out the comments on Telegraph equal marriage article. And I thought all the N@zis were dead. Silly me.

    1. Perhaps all of them are being ironic (see mumbo jumbo’s comment above) but somehow I doubt it.

  25. Marriage is a legally recognised SEXUAL relationship. I don’t think there is any requirement to have sex in a civil partnership. If there is then it is really marriage under a different name. Religion and the legal systems only consider a marriage real or valid if penis vagina full sex takes place between a man and a woman. In the interest of equality, this rule has to go. It discriminates against same-sex sexual activity and against heterosexuals who are unable to engage in full sex with their husband or wife. Any form of sex then must be considered to validate or consummate the marriage

  26. The CofE and the men in frocks (aka the Catholics) have been given everything they want here.. they can CHOOSE!! wow.. something they want to deny others, Now they have run out of arguments, and they are still yelling. They should grab this opportunity with both hands.. welcome the flocks and remain relevant. As it is they are pandering to a crowd (ok ok.. its not really a crowd anymore) that wont be around to see the doors locked and the lights turned off for the last time before the wrecking ball knocks the churches down. Society has changed, people know more, history is being made everyday and the churches stance belongs in the past.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Dec 2012, 5:44pm

      Quite right, Peter. Further, the CoE and Roman cults will be in isolation. As the Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal and Reformed Judaism will eventually empower others to marry us, the isolation may well impact the CoE to rethink it’s position in the years ahead, especially since the new Archbishop to be wants broader dialogue with gay people, a reaching out. Of course, there will be nothing happening from the Roman side. They’re actually in decline as more progressive catholics reject their church’s teaching on social issues, especially equal marriage and womens’ reproductive rights. More catholics than protestants support equal marriage apparently and a significant number of their clergy (not the hierarchy) are suddenly becoming more supportive. That doesn’t bode well for Rome one bit.

  27. Jock S. Trap 8 Dec 2012, 11:24am

    Typical of religion to damn others for the very thing they do themselves… yet again.

    David Cameron is being democractic. The Church of England is not.

    The Religious Freedoms the CofE pathetically, constantly bangs on about should NOT deny other religions their own Freedoms in supporting Equal Marriage and performing them.

    Just because certainly nasty, Bigots within the religion(s) wish to stay stuck in the mud doesn’t mean they have the right to let other, more open, religions thrive, while (hopefully) they sink, deeper and deeper!

  28. PeterinSydney 8 Dec 2012, 9:37pm

    Rubbish! The only ones being divisive are Catholic Bishops and Anglican homophobes. Get out of our lives you silly old bigots.

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