web analytics


By David Vance On January 12th, 2013

Interesting views here;

More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England. They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition’s plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage. Even the freedom to speak from the pulpit could be under threat, they claim. And they fear that Christians who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage would effectively be excluded from some jobs – just as Catholics were barred from many professions from the Reformation until the 19th Century.

I think they are quite far sighted in this regard and one dismisses their argument with some peril. The entire “equalities” industry is about restricting liberty and when it is combined with gay militancy, it becomes toxic to those who seek to maintain traditional Christian values. So, a cleric standing up in a Pulpit quoting from Leviticus, for instance, is going to find himself frog marched off to the nearest rehabilitation center tout for some emergency treatment!


  1. //Coalition’s plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage. Even the freedom to speak from the pulpit could be under threat, they claim//

    That’s nonsense. There is no way that any new laws on same-sex marriage could affect that.
    They will always be free to say their church’s teaching on homosexuality or marriage or whatever.

    I don’t know what the situation would be if they advocated killing people for homosexual acts, as the Old Testament does, but that situation would also not be changed in any way by same-sex marriage laws.

    This is just paranoia and scare mongering in an attepts to get people to support the church’s social agenda.

  2. One of the interesting things about looked after children in the care system is the way in which many of them spin out of control.

    Especially if they have been neglected/rejected by one or both parents.
    Witnessed violence in the home.
    Suicide/death of a parent.
    Inappropriate treatment of women or other negative role examples.
    Been allowed unlimited access to drink, pornographic material or drugs.
    Or any combination thereof.

    A lack of stability, guidance, boundaries and love causes some children to reject themselves, self harm, commit acts of violence, become seriously depressed, kill themselves.
    The reason for writing this is that human beings need stability. They need freedom within boundaries. They need to see that acting without concern for others not only harms the individual. it harms the community as well.
    That is what these clergy are saying. To make demands for more freedom without thinking through the consequences of that freedom does not result in greater happiness.
    It simply results in more laws.

  3. //that acting without concern for others not only harms the individual.//

    Agit8ed, you seem to have a very poor view of marriage. What happened?

    In my experience, most people have plenty of concern for the person they marry.

  4. Noel,
    there is no such an animal as marriage between two people of the same sex.
    Give me a historical precedent of a human society that ever thought it or accepted it.

  5. ps.
    You might enjoy this little gem from an Islamic scholar..


  6. //there is no such an animal as marriage between two people of the same sex.
    Give me a historical precedent of a human society that ever thought it or accepted it.//

    There is no need for any historical precedent for any laws.
    Until relatively recently, there was also no historical precedent for a slavery-free society, yet the world didn’t fall apart when that practice was abolished.

    Agit8ed, I’m guessing you simply find it hard to imagine, say, two men married to each other.
    But I hope you can easily imagine two men living in a loving relationship, as it’s happening all around you (otherwise just think David and Jonathan 🙂 ).
    From that, it’s just a tiny step to their relationship being recognised by the law in marriage. I don’t see where the problem lies.

    BTW, I’ve long given up listening to what “Islamic scholars” say about relationships or society in general.

  7. (otherwise just think David and Jonathan 🙂 ).

    There is no hint that David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship. Sometimes two boys or two men can form a bond that approximates to love, but not sexual love.
    Or do you ” find it hard to imagine?”
    The problem I have with your argument is
    a) why did random evolution come up with its most successful mutation so far (in human terms) i.e two sexes. One producing sperm, the other eggs, and one sex bearing and nurturing the young?
    That mutation has gone on to become the top of the evolutionary tree (if you believe in Convolution that is).
    Sadly no human mutation was found (no matter how much we heterosexuals tried :)) that resulted in two of the same sex producing offspring…

    Anal sex might have its fascinations, but no matter how far that penis reaches, it ain’t going to find no eggs to fertilise.
    So random Convolution or not, the future of the human race remains with the heterosexuals.

  8. pps
    I don’t have a problem with two homosexual men loving each other. I accept that homosexuality happens, and in the amazing experience of life I believe no one should be judged for what they were born as or into: only for what they themselves choose to do once they are old enough to realise their choices will impact on others.

  9. “could”

    In other words, much ado about nothing.

  10. Fews,


  11. It’s quite simple: if and when it is decided that a test case will be taken to Court on grounds of Church ‘discrimination’ against homosexuals through the Church’s refusal to allow ‘gay marriage’ in a Church, then the Church will lose the case and will no longer be able to marry normal people in Church either. The template for this assault is the way in which the Catholic Church was constructively driven from adoption of children i.e. allocating children to male-female couples (normal couples) for adoption.


    Note that homosexuality is natural but it isn’t normal. It is normality under attack.

  12. ” and will no longer be able to marry normal people in Church either. ”
    See, I believe homosexuals are normal in that many (not all) are born homosexual..
    As I said earlier, all human societies can only function with rules. There may be disagreements over which set of rules are best, but there must be rules.
    Societal success might be measured by the degree of personal freedom afforded whilst maintaining the overall stability and security of the whole.

  13. In the UK, which, amazingly, still has a state religion, the issues are potentially different than in the many other countries that most assuredly do not have establishment of any religion.

    In the US, no judge or president would ever think of telling a church what its rites should be. In the UK, where Church of England and UK state are entwined, is there any possibility in law that some judge or that Parliament could direct the established church or any other church to change this or any other doctrinal policy?

    I am not asking if it is likely. I ask if it is possible.

  14. Phantom

    Not an expert but I think that other churches would be in the same boat as the CoE regarding interference – apart from the bizarre power that Westminster has re appointing bishops and archbishops.

  15. I think that even that power is dangerous for both church and state.

    Does anyone here endorse it?

  16. Phantom

    I haven’t heard anyone argue that it s a good idea ( the appointing of bishops I mean). I get the impression theses days, that it is largely rubber stamping the decisions made by the CoE itself.

  17. Phantom,
    The Church of England is a breakaway version of the Church of Rome aka the Roman Catholic Church, brought into being by Henry the Eighth who was desperate to
    a) enjoy young women
    b) provide an heir to the ENGLISH throne.

    So over time, England developed its identity based on a mixture of Anglo Saxon Common Law and the teachings of Christianity.
    Now similar things happened all over the world, but only England left a continuing influence.
    I don’t know.
    The fact is though that the Church of England became the accepted bedrock for defining religious and political Englishness.
    To me and many of my generation an endearing historical story, which provides a basis for so many things including Parliament/Civil War/The Divine Right of Kings/Guy Fawkes
    Toffee Apples/Blaydon Races/Bumbledom and the British Empire.
    The great blessing for England (and subsequently the rest of the Western world) was breaking away from the Church of Rome.
    However, the fact that Europe is (post) Christian and not Muslim, has to be credited to the (Catholic)French and the )Catholic) Spanish.

  18. ps
    It never ceases to amaze me that when you attempt to answer a question
    in this case by Phantom,
    you don’t get a response of any kind at all.
    Is that deliberate or vacuous??

  19. Who knows ?