Different views... (From York Press)

I have not read the article

Well that says it all, you took the time to write in, but not to read the article.

Why should our government be any more bound to the words written in the bible than they are to the words written in the Harry Potter books?

He should save the preaching for his flock, and let the rest of us get on with our lives unhindered. But no, he sticks his oar in *where it's not wanted* and _that_ is why he gets attacked for his bigotry.

"Facts" change - homosexuals might be evil, but in the same book, so're shell fish and wearing mixed fibres. You don't see over self-important gasbags harping on at people about them, though.

Unusual to have comments open on a Sentamu thread, so well done Press.
Perhaps comments will reflect this

Omega Point wrote:
Unusual to have comments open on a Sentamu thread, so well done Press.
Perhaps comments will reflect this

Yes I thought that too.

Now to the main point. No matter what your view is on homosexuallity, the bible condenms it. Sentamu is a Christian bishop, who's manual is the bible, therefore he must follow the bible's teachings, or stop being a christain bishop. It's a bit like an electirican who says he don't believe in Ohm;s law, he has no choice if he's an electrician.

So the next point is this, why do homosexuals want to be married in an establishment, who's manual/law condemns them?
Why are they not content with, as many others who are hetrosexual, civil marriage, in a registry office?
Could it be, that they simply want to stand upon their rights?
If as they say, they love each other, and want to live together, isn't that enough, after all, how many hetrosexulas these days live together without civil marriages or civil partnerships and argue that a piece of paper doesn't make them love or commit to one and other any more than they do already.

I'm affraid, the last thing I would want to do, is have any part of my life "sanctified" by an organisation, who's rule book condemned my way of life, so don't, and I never ever thought I'd hear myself think thios, let alone type it, condemn Sentamu for sticking to at least one thing his rule book stipulates. Now perhaps he can go one to uphold all the other things it tells humans not to do.

I dunno, perhaps it's because we still can't be married in a registry office? Civil partnership is still second class status. Even once homosexual marriage is a reality, it'll still be up to religious wonks as to whether they allow it in their temples.

lis0r wrote:
Why should our government be any more bound to the words written in the bible than they are to the words written in the Harry Potter books?

He should save the preaching for his flock, and let the rest of us get on with our lives unhindered. But no, he sticks his oar in *where it's not wanted* and _that_ is why he gets attacked for his bigotry.

"Facts" change - homosexuals might be evil, but in the same book, so're shell fish and wearing mixed fibres. You don't see over self-important gasbags harping on at people about them, though.

Well said.

There is a storm brewing regarding the church (and many other religions). It is now - quite rightly (why did it take until 2010?) - illegal to incite hatred based on a person's sexual orientation.

Yet somehow the bastion of institutionalised prejudice that is the church is excluded from this. The Catholic church thinks being gay is a crime against nature and says so publically - if that's not incitement to hatred, I don't know what is. The Church of England rather fudges the issue as usual, but Sentamu's comments are a deliberate attempt to pander the homophobes in the C of E's own ranks. And that's before we get on to the nuttier evangelical churches and Islam. How long do we have to wait before we see priests, ministers, imams in court to answer for their institutionalised homophobia and attempts to incite hatred?

lis0r wrote:
I dunno, perhaps it's because we still can't be married in a registry office? Civil partnership is still second class status. Even once homosexual marriage is a reality, it'll still be up to religious wonks as to whether they allow it in their temples.

then if you cannot be married in a registry office, it seems that homsexual marriage is not legal in this country, therefore it would make no difference if the bish says no, obviously this type of marriage is not legal so what is the fuss about the bish, it's the mps you need to get to change the law

I disagree with the Archbishop and his church's views.
But, Bo Jolly, holding a moral position no matter how wrong (as I see it), does not of itself amount to incitment in the eyes of the law.

CynicaloldGit wrote:

lis0r wrote:
I dunno, perhaps it's because we still can't be married in a registry office? Civil partnership is still second class status. Even once homosexual marriage is a reality, it'll still be up to religious wonks as to whether they allow it in their temples.

then if you cannot be married in a registry office, it seems that homsexual marriage is not legal in this country, therefore it would make no difference if the bish says no, obviously this type of marriage is not legal so what is the fuss about the bish, it's the mps you need to get to change the law

Because he's trying to stop the MPs from legislating in it's favour. Buh - that's *exactly* why we're attacking him for interfering where he's not wanted. He can limit marriages in his own church as much as he likes, but he should keep his nose out of the registry offices.

Omega Point wrote:
I disagree with the Archbishop and his church's views.
But, Bo Jolly, holding a moral position no matter how wrong (as I see it), does not of itself amount to incitment in the eyes of the law.

There is a distinction in the eyes of the law between holding a moral position and publically inciting others to hatred, which is what my point was about.

This is the difference between holding homophobic opinions in the privacy of one's head, discussing them in the privacy of the home or even amongst bigoted friends in the pub, and using - in the clear-cut case of the Catholic church - one of the most powerful and influential organisations on the planet to tell the world that homosexuality is wrong and constitutes a sin against nature.

I appreciate that this causes problems for organisations who see their role in the world to give moral guidance (i.e. tell people how to think and behave). The answer though is simple - STOP telling people what to think about gay people, just as you have stopped telling people that black people are inferior. Go back to your bible (Torah, Quran, magic book of choice) and reinterpret the offending passages just as you did when you decided that menstruating women were no longer unclean and that breaking the sabbath was no longer punishable by death.

lis0r wrote:

CynicaloldGit wrote:

lis0r wrote:
I dunno, perhaps it's because we still can't be married in a registry office? Civil partnership is still second class status. Even once homosexual marriage is a reality, it'll still be up to religious wonks as to whether they allow it in their temples.

then if you cannot be married in a registry office, it seems that homsexual marriage is not legal in this country, therefore it would make no difference if the bish says no, obviously this type of marriage is not legal so what is the fuss about the bish, it's the mps you need to get to change the law

Because he's trying to stop the MPs from legislating in it's favour. Buh - that's *exactly* why we're attacking him for interfering where he's not wanted. He can limit marriages in his own church as much as he likes, but he should keep his nose out of the registry offices.

Ah, fair enough, he should keep secular things and spiritual things in their own places.
Sorry, I misunderstood the issue, I thought homosexuals were trying to force the right to be married in church.
Maybe that is his problem, he might feel that if they are allowed a civil marriage, it could be the thin end of the wedge and next they will demand church weddings if they want them.