Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2012 But why would you want to get married, in a religious ceromony that is completely against what you belive in or are But it isn't really religious anymore. Tonnes of people get married separate from the church and church only is allowed to do it because the state says so. Marriage is entirely a state affair now. These law changes have nothing to do with the church, it's about civil marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Gay couples should be able to get married in a civil ceremony if they want. I have no time for organised religious beliefs of any sort - at best its just misinterpretation and translation of the culturally bound ramblings of some semi literate recording events he wasnt present at 100 years after they happened. That said many people have genuine beliefs and faith and no religious organisation should be compelled to conduct gay marriages if they dont want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W9Saint Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 But why would you want to get married, in a religious ceromony that is completely against what you belive in or are You can be gay and also be religious but personally if I were to get "married" I like lots of straight couples would opt for a non religious ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 But it isn't really religious anymore. Tonnes of people get married separate from the church and church only is allowed to do it because the state says so. Marriage is entirely a state affair now. These law changes have nothing to do with the church, it's about civil marriages. Thats like being a Saints fan but going to fratton park to watch football. It's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 But why would you want to get married, in a religious ceromony that is completely against what you belive in or are Where did he say he wanted marriage in church? IMO the church can make their own rules if they want, but I don't see why they should be able to dictate to the non-religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 You can be gay and also be religious but personally if I were to get "married" I like lots of straight couples would opt for a non religious ceremony. No issues at all with you being gay, just dont understand why you would want to be associated (Marriage) with an institution that says (As part of it's rules - poor choice of words, bit I am a pished) that they think you are wrong etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Thats like being a Saints fan but going to fratton park to watch football. It's wrong. eh? loads of heterosexual couple get married without ever setting foot in a church. why shouldn't homosexual couple also be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Where did he say he wanted marriage in church? IMO the church can make their own rules if they want, but I don't see why they should be able to dictate to the non-religious. That's what marriage is you plum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 eh? loads of heterosexual couple get married without ever setting foot in a church. why shouldn't homosexual couple also be allowed. Because the institution that you want to recognise you, think you are wrong, dirty evil...etc etc.... Just doesnt make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Its like asking to be christened in a mosque Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W9Saint Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Some strains of the Church of England take a much more accepting view of Homosexuality, I guess it is how you interrupt the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 That's what marriage is you plum# What so hetero couples married in civil ceremonies aren't "married"? you knob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Or being attracted to fat birds? ...mmmmmmmmmm.......fat birds.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 # What so hetero couples married in civil ceremonies aren't "married"? you knob. Not in the christian sense no............your location is wearing off on on, you thick ******* idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Some strains of the Church of England take a much more accepting view of Homosexuality, I guess it is how you interrupt the bible. Allegedly, privately, many of the higher echolons of the church, especially in the CoE barely believe in the Bible at all anymore. That's what some 'expert' was saying on the beeb a week or so back anyways. I think it is ridiculous how Christians say, oh this part of the Bible is to be taken literally, but this part... well, that part isn't and is just a metaphor, and you see this bit here, well that's just to be ignored. Where did God lay down the rules for what to take literally and what not? For what it is worth though, I am glad that most Christians in this country do not take the Bible at face value anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Because the whole concept is sick. A man on a man, Two willy's... tell me that isn't sick in the head material. I think we should do more for getting these people help, rather than encouraging them. Serious question. If homosexuality was the norm, and you were heterosexual, would you be able to subjugate your abnormal desires and force yourself to find men sexually attractive? Its not a matter of choice. I happen to like the female form, but that doesnt mean I think every bloke ought to whether he feels that way or not. And if they dont, it certainly doesnt make him sick in the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 I think people need to make allowances for people's beliefs. After all no-one would criticise a Muslim for making the same comments as the Archbishop, yet Islam sees homosexuality as a sin. I don't think you can force people to accept something they see as wrong if their religious belief tells them that. We might see them as backward or offensive but if we are to have a diverse community then it can't be purely on the terms of the 'right on' or the politically correct. If a devout Christian thinks gay marriage is wrong then who are we to criticise them? I have always believed that legislation is the wrong way to deal with certain things. Education is a better way, as forcing someone to accept something they see as wrong just creates more resentment and bigotry. If the bible says that homosexuality is wrong then then how can the church justify gay marriage ceremonies when it is in direct contravention of their teachings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Because the whole concept is sick. A man on a man, Two willy's... tell me that isn't sick in the head material. I think we should do more for getting these people help, rather than encouraging them. The real issue here is why the mention of gay marriage makes you think of 2 men and their willys? That sounds pretty gay to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 (edited) Not in the christian sense no............your location is wearing off on on, you thick ******* idiot FFS, what are you on you pleb? The church haven't got a monopoly on the definition of marriage you know. In this country, a non-religious service is a "civil marriage ceremony". Personally I was very glad not to have any cretinous religious bull**** play any part in my marriage ceremony. Edited 11 March, 2012 by anothersaintinsouthsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Remember this isn't just about men, it's about women as well. A lot of people skate that over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 I think people need to make allowances for people's beliefs. After all no-one would criticise a Muslim for making the same comments as the Archbishop, yet Islam sees homosexuality as a sin. I don't think you can force people to accept something they see as wrong if their religious belief tells them that. We might see them as backward or offensive but if we are to have a diverse community then it can't be purely on the terms of the 'right on' or the politically correct. If a devout Christian thinks gay marriage is wrong then who are we to criticise them? I have always believed that legislation is the wrong way to deal with certain things. Education is a better way, as forcing someone to accept something they see as wrong just creates more resentment and bigotry. If the bible says that homosexuality is wrong then then how can the church justify gay marriage ceremonies when it is in direct contravention of their teachings? But the Govt aren't proposing to force the church to allow gay marriage. They're just proposing to allow civil gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 FFS, what are you on you pleb? A non-religious service is a "civil marriage ceremony". Personally I was very glad not to have any cretinous religious bull**** play any part in my marriage ceremony. You have completely missed the point, as i suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 You have completely missed the point, as i suspected. Go then - what was "the point"? If it is so obvious you should be able to explain it quite easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 But the Govt aren't proposing to force the church to allow gay marriage. They're just proposing to allow civil gay marriage. I guess there are two points here, one going back to the civil partnership ceremony, and legislation which was forced upon people to carry out these ceremonies in contravention of their beliefs, surely that can't be right? The other point was the criticism of the Archbishop, again he made the comments based upon his teachings, now regardless of how hypocritical we might see them, I just think if those are his beliefs, then he's entitled to have them and if we value free speech, then he's entitled also, to air his views After all, if we lived in Jeddah, then this conversation would be a no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 I guess there are two points here, one going back to the civil partnership ceremony, and legislation which was forced upon people to carry out these ceremonies in contravention of their beliefs, surely that can't be right? The other point was the criticism of the Archbishop, again he made the comments based upon his teachings, now regardless of how hypocritical we might see them, I just think if those are his beliefs, then he's entitled to have them and if we value free speech, then he's entitled also, to air his views Great. He's entitled to his views. If he doesn't want to marry a man, preside over a gay marriage ceremony, or attend a gay marriage then he's free not to do so. But why should he impose that on others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Allegedly, privately, many of the higher echolons of the church, especially in the CoE barely believe in the Bible at all anymore. That's what some 'expert' was saying on the beeb a week or so back anyways. That was on "Yes Prime Minister" a few years ago, mind you none of this will be allowed when the UK becomes a muslim country within the next 50 years or so. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 11 March, 2012 Share Posted 11 March, 2012 Penis. Tehehehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 In the 21C who really gives a fu ck who marries who apart from the Catholic church, whom seem to be a bunch of men who wear dresses and fu ck young boys? Others oppossed, IMHO, are closet fudge packers scared to be outed. My thoughts exactly. The catholic church are the LAST people who should be lecturing anyone given the systematic covering up of child abuse. I don't know who they think they are influencing because EVERY decent person in this country thinks they are a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 That was on "Yes Prime Minister" a few years ago, mind you none of this will be allowed when the UK becomes a muslim country within the next 50 years or so. . You don't really believe that do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 And for the reason i've given above i'm 100% in favour of forcing the Catholic church to carry out gay wedding ceremonies. It's about time they were democratised and governed because they cannot be trusted to govern themselves. All they care about is preserving the gravy train reaped from the most sucessful books of propaganda ever written. F/ck the catholic church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 You don't really believe that do you? Yes I remember the prog very well it was repeated on TV a few weeks ago. As for the muslim bit yes I believe that as well, honestly.The way things are going. I will conceed that it might take perhaps 80 rather than 50 but I am convinced it will happen. I am just so pleased I will never be around to see if I am right. Re Gay marriage in Africa, looks like it won't be widely accepted for a few more years:- http://malema.byo24.com/index.php?id=iblog&iblog=485 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 The Church is f*cked up. Full of seft-rightous ass-holes who turn a blind eye to blatant sexism and homophobia. Might that be a bit of a generalization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 This whole country is wrong on so many levels, we are a laughing stock. It's about opinions, in my opinion, gay sex is abhorrent, it is being forced on us, in much the same way as being racially tolerant is..........accept it or be polarised, trouble is, it is a minority forcing it's beliefs on a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 Yes I remember the prog very well it was repeated on TV a few weeks ago. As for the muslim bit yes I believe that as well, honestly.The way things are going. I will conceed that it might take perhaps 80 rather than 50 but I am convinced it will happen. I am just so pleased I will never be around to see if I am right. lol there is certainly no shortage of gullible people ready to believe a scare story, especially if it appeals to their prejudices. A detailed recent study estimates that the Muslim population of the UK will rise from 4.6% in 2010 to 8.2% by 2030 - and you reckon they're going to gain another 42 percentage points in just 20 years? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8189231.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 This whole country is wrong on so many levels, we are a laughing stock. It's about opinions, in my opinion, gay sex is abhorrent, it is being forced on us, in much the same way as being racially tolerant is..........accept it or be polarised, trouble is, it is a minority forcing it's beliefs on a majority. gay sex is being forced on you? errr that's called rape and as far as I know the Tories aren't proposing to force that upon us. If you don't like gay sex (and btw doth the lady protest a bit too much?) then don't do it and don't watch it. That's pretty easy, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 But it isn't really religious anymore. Tonnes of people get married separate from the church and church only is allowed to do it because the state says so. Marriage is entirely a state affair now. These law changes have nothing to do with the church, it's about civil marriages. If you were to get married in a non C of E church, you would have to have a (state) Registrar present. It's only the C of E that doesn't require this. If you get married in licensed premises (ie a hotel) you also have to have the Registrar conduct the ceremony and there mustn't be any religious content at all - no hymn, no religious texts etc. Marriage should be conducted by a representative of the state (Registrar). If people then want a religious blessing, then that's up to them. My own view is that religion plays too big a part in our civil lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 If you were to get married in a non C of E church, you would have to have a (state) Registrar present. It's only the C of E that doesn't require this. If you get married in licensed premises (ie a hotel) you also have to have the Registrar conduct the ceremony and there mustn't be any religious content at all - no hymn, no religious texts etc. Marriage should be conducted by a representative of the state (Registrar). If people then want a religious blessing, then that's up to them. My own view is that religion plays too big a part in our civil lives. My own view is that the State plays too much of a part in our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 EDIT: Ignore me, I got that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 My own view is that the State plays too much of a part in our lives. Presumably you don't think that people should have to have a religious marriage service though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 There is a far more deep seated problem here. More hetrosexuals get married in registery offices than they do in church. maybe thats because its their 2nd or third marriage I dont know. The issue for me is that some politicians and pressure groups are trying to destablise religious beliefs and could fundamentally bring the church to its knees by forcing the powers of the church to rewrite the Bible re marriage. If the church is forced to under take non hetrosexual marriages in churches . where will it stop will the laws be changed to force marriages intemples and mosques or will the sentiments of the Koran remain intact. we do not want to upset our ilsamic friends do we? being hetrosexual myself I do not have any isues with gay marriage but when you start to hit the fundamentals of christianity you cannot rewrite the ten commnadments etc > i have a gripe against Church of Scotland. Also Will Young angerd me the other night on Question Times . saying the Cardinal O'brien in Scotland should be charge with Hate Crime. Just because someone believes in holy vows and has a different view to You Mr Young dosent mean he has to be charged with Hate crimes, Common sense is required in this debate not throwing threats out to people becuase they have different viewpoints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 Presumably you don't think that people should have to have a religious marriage service though? It is up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 There is a far more deep seated problem here. More hetrosexuals get married in registery offices than they do in church. maybe thats because its their 2nd or third marriage I dont know. The issue for me is that some politicians and pressure groups are trying to destablise religious beliefs and could fundamentally bring the church to its knees by forcing the powers of the church to rewrite the Bible re marriage. If the church is forced to under take non hetrosexual marriages in churches . where will it stop will the laws be changed to force marriages intemples and mosques or will the sentiments of the Koran remain intact. we do not want to upset our ilsamic friends do we? being hetrosexual myself I do not have any isues with gay marriage but when you start to hit the fundamentals of christianity you cannot rewrite the ten commnadments etc > i have a gripe against Church of Scotland. Also Will Young angerd me the other night on Question Times . saying the Cardinal O'brien in Scotland should be charge with Hate Crime. Just because someone believes in holy vows and has a different view to You Mr Young dosent mean he has to be charged with Hate crimes, Common sense is required in this debate not throwing threats out to people becuase they have different viewpoints But the Govt aren't proposing to force Churches to offer gay marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 But the Govt aren't proposing to force Churches to offer gay marriages. I'm afraid you're guilty of allowing a simple fact to get in the way of a perfectly good paranoid conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasiak-9- Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 The whole debate here is complete pie in the sky. You cant reason with genuine religiosity. You want gay marriage? tough. Bible says no. Thats the end of the debate from the point of view of anyone who truly believes that their religious book really does reflect the will of the creator of the universe. You have to take a stand and simply say that religious beliefs will be completely disregarded in state affairs. If the issue on the other hand is one of democracy and the majority of people are against gay marriage however, then thats another story altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 If we differentiate between "Secular Marriage" and "Church Marriage" for a moment… I don’t see any reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married (Secular Marriage). If that is what they want to do when why shouldn’t they be allowed to? My understanding is that the proposal is that they should be able to do so and I am in favour. As far as Church Marriage is concerned, I believe that gay people should also be able to get married in a religious ceremony; however, if it is a religious service then it really is ultimately down to the church to decide. If the church choose not to allow it then although I disagree with them it is their call. By not allowing gay marriage I expect the church achieve very little other than to highlight how out of touch it is with the modern world and continue its drift into irrelevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 Well... This just opened a whole can of worms. Who the hell cares if homosexuals want to marry? Apart from the church and a couple of backwards nations and people I mean. In Zimbabwe for instance while I was living there it carried very strict penalties, (ironically put in place by the Britsh, ) and Mugabe hasn't made it any better. I fully expect in the near future to see discrimination against homosexuals viewed in the same light as slavery as a backwards and immoral practice everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 If we differentiate between "Secular Marriage" and "Church Marriage" for a moment… I don’t see any reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married (Secular Marriage). If that is what they want to do when why shouldn’t they be allowed to? My understanding is that the proposal is that they should be able to do so and I am in favour. As far as Church Marriage is concerned, I believe that gay people should also be able to get married in a religious ceremony; however, if it is a religious service then it really is ultimately down to the church to decide. If the church choose not to allow it then although I disagree with them it is their call. By not allowing gay marriage I expect the church achieve very little other than to highlight how out of touch it is with the modern world and continue its drift into irrelevance. Completely agree with all of this. There is a far more deep seated problem here. More hetrosexuals get married in registery offices than they do in church. maybe thats because its their 2nd or third marriage I dont know. The issue for me is that some politicians and pressure groups are trying to destablise religious beliefs and could fundamentally bring the church to its knees by forcing the powers of the church to rewrite the Bible re marriage. If the church is forced to under take non hetrosexual marriages in churches . where will it stop will the laws be changed to force marriages intemples and mosques or will the sentiments of the Koran remain intact. we do not want to upset our ilsamic friends do we? being hetrosexual myself I do not have any isues with gay marriage but when you start to hit the fundamentals of christianity you cannot rewrite the ten commnadments etc > i have a gripe against Church of Scotland. Also Will Young angerd me the other night on Question Times . saying the Cardinal O'brien in Scotland should be charge with Hate Crime. Just because someone believes in holy vows and has a different view to You Mr Young dosent mean he has to be charged with Hate crimes, Common sense is required in this debate not throwing threats out to people becuase they have different viewpoints I was very impressed with Will Young actually. I can't remember the detail so if I've got this wrong then apologies Viking Warrior. I think Will Young was not so much intolerant to the different views of others, but he was angered by Cardinal O'Brien's use of the term "Grotesque" to describe the plans to legalise same sex marriage. Still not sure that using that word qualifies it as a 'hate crime' but thought I'd point out the focus of his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 anothersouthsea saint But the Govt aren't proposing to force the church to allow gay marriage. They're just proposing to allow civil gay marriage. Not at this juncture but it only takes someone to win a claim Saying its against their Human Rights not to Marry In the Church " Then the laws will need to be changed> I wouldnt be suprised if the majority of Gay people are angerd by the more extreme elements who are taking on the establishment re marriage in the Church. SaintBletch I think he is tolerant (Will Young) but Will Self didnt help the debate what ever the topic that was being discussed> I find islam hypocritical too of homosexuality. Its quite rife in muslim countrys, I saw it in Oman/ Sharjah and if you have worked in Afghan then its not unusual there either. I will ask my girlfirends son what he thinks of the Gay Marriage debate, but knowing him he will not give a monkeys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 Some strains of the Church of England take a much more accepting view of Homosexuality, I guess it is how you interrupt the bible. anothersouthsea saint But the Govt aren't proposing to force the church to allow gay marriage. They're just proposing to allow civil gay marriage. Not at this juncture but it only takes someone to win a claim Saying its against their Human Rights not to Marry In the Church " Then the laws will need to be changed> I wouldnt be suprised if the majority of Gay people are angerd by the more extreme elements who are taking on the establishment re marriage in the Church. SaintBletch I think he is tolerant (Will Young) but Will Self didnt help the debate what ever the topic that was being discussed> I find islam hypocritical too of homosexuality. Its quite rife in muslim countrys, I saw it in Oman/ Sharjah and if you have worked in Afghan then its not unusual there either. I will ask my girlfirends son what he thinks of the Gay Marriage debate, but knowing him he will not give a monkeys Homosexuality has been rife in all cultures and present throughout the course of human history. It's nothing new. Why anyone really cares about it I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 12 March, 2012 Share Posted 12 March, 2012 Great. He's entitled to his views. If he doesn't want to marry a man, preside over a gay marriage ceremony, or attend a gay marriage then he's free not to do so. But why should he impose that on others? Because he is seen as a Church leader like it or not, and it's against the teachings of the Bible. Gingletiss is right, the views of the minorities are being forced upon the majority with regards to gay, lesbian transgender as well as racial issues. OK I don't think I'm bigoted and don't have a problem there, but others do, and it's their right to have that problem and as someone who is supposed to be seen to be preaching God's will, then this Archbishop chappie is entitled to his say, however repugnant you find his views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now