Letters RSS Feed


Church blind spot

I WAS pleased to attend Thursday’s protest in support of gay marriage outside the Minster (News, Letters, February 2) and to take part in such a young, vibrant, good-natured demonstration.

Well done to the Students Union for their organisation.

It’s a great pity that this should have been induced by Archbishop Sentamu’s remarks.

Many of us know and respect Dr John Sentamu as a strong, progressive voice in our community and internationally for social inclusion and human rights, and against racism; not to mention his extraordinary courage in earlier life in standing up to the brutal regime of Idi Amin, and more recently that of Robert Mugabe.

Sadly the rights of gay people seem to remain something of a blind spot for the Church hierarchy, a curious exclusion that seems to reflect reactionary social attitudes more than anything in the Gospels.

There are many gay couples who would like, simply, to seal their love and commitment with marriage, and its rights and responsibilities. How can that harm anyone? Why on earth should they be refused that simple choice?

Ben Drake, Fulford, York.

• JOHN WESTWOOD-HILL (Letters, February 2) asks us whether we can see the difference between “my husband” and “my partner”. Yes, we certainly can.

For a man to talk about his husband or a woman about her wife requires a substantial change to the English language. Surely this is exactly the point the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, was making with regard to the use of the term “marriage”.

Jean Frost, Heworth, York.

• AS A black man, the Archbishop of York should appreciate more than most the meaning of prejudice. Yet in the name of religion he appears to be prepared to peddle it.

In the eyes of Christ, we are all equal but apparently only if you are a straight man or woman.

After reaching the conclusion that only straight people should be afforded the right to marry, the only reason he could find to justify it was that it would be dictatorial of politicians to change the status quo. What a thin excuse.

Many of us believe Christianity has had its day as a means of controlling the population and such pronouncements will only hasten its demise.

We are a happily married loving couple, under the civil partnership law. If traditional marriage was made available to us, we may or may not take the opportunity, but we should have the same right as everyone else.

Angus King and Ian Leatham, York.

Comments(13)

Buzz Light-year says...
12:38pm Sat 4 Feb 12

It's an interesting conundrum indeed.
There's a lot to debate about it.
But you know what? It's not even worth wasting typing time as The Press banmonkeys will whip the comments away before you can say prestidigitation.

Silver says...
4:57pm Sat 4 Feb 12

If God is meant to be in each and every person then he's in gay people the same as straight people....so he has to be a little bit gay himself/herself.

cherokee says...
5:05pm Sat 4 Feb 12

The opposite of gay is miserable,therefore I am miserable and so are all my friends

Buzz Light-year says...
6:19pm Sat 4 Feb 12

cherokee wrote:
The opposite of gay is miserable,therefore I am miserable and so are all my friends
You don't need to tell us you're miserable, we already know!

Omega Point says...
10:13pm Sat 4 Feb 12

This is similar to some saying women priest are OK but not women bishops. The principle is logically inconsistent.

Magicman! says...
12:13am Sun 5 Feb 12

It's still freedom of speech whichever side of the argument you are on. Those at the protest have the freedom to protest at something they personally feel offended by, but on the other hand the Archbishop still has the freedom to speak out against something that he/the church condems... Tolerance works both ways.

cherokee says...
10:30am Sun 5 Feb 12

Buzz light year Contact my friends,they will tell you I have a large fund of jokes gags puns etc

sheps lad says...
11:28am Sun 5 Feb 12

If God had made Adam and Steve the bible would be a very thin book!

Buzz Light-year says...
5:57pm Sun 5 Feb 12

cherokee wrote:
Buzz light year Contact my friends,they will tell you I have a large fund of jokes gags puns etc
Only going on your public persona from your various letters and postings over the years.
Which could be described, and I'm pulling the punches here, as "curmudgeonly"

lis0r says...
10:21am Mon 6 Feb 12

Amongst the gay community, it's pretty common for people to refer to their "civilised" partners as husbands and wives - we're just waiting for the rest of you to catch up :P

lis0r says...
10:28am Mon 6 Feb 12

Amongst the gay community, it's pretty common for people to refer to their "civilised" partners as husbands and wives - we're just waiting for the rest of you to catch up :P

lis0r says...
2:48pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Oh look! Now Sentamu *proves* his hypocrisy - it's OK for him to spout offensive homophobic bigotry loudly in a public forum, but a little racism in private correspondence, and he runs crying for the police.

MrsHoney says...
9:03am Tue 7 Feb 12

lis0r wrote:
Oh look! Now Sentamu *proves* his hypocrisy - it's OK for him to spout offensive homophobic bigotry loudly in a public forum, but a little racism in private correspondence, and he runs crying for the police.
I was going to say the same thing. He's allowed to be homophobic but racism!!!! That's so much more offensive. I don't really get the argument, what's the difference between a woman referring to her wife and a man doing the same? It still has the same meaning, it's not confusing, there's no need to change the English language because of it!! I am married and as far as I'm concerned it had nothing to do with religion. So how come I can get married and a couple who are gay have to have a civil partnership? The church should keep their prejudiced nose out IMO.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree