´óÏó´«Ã½

What's the point of having bishops in the house of lords when they cant even be bothered to turn up and vote on an issue that matters to christians across the country?

By examining the voting records of Tuesday's debate in the Lords, it appears the Northern Ireland Lord's voted overwhelmingsly against the propossed legislation. It is refreshing to see politicians working together.

However, I am shocked that the religious representation of NI in the Lords aka Lord Eames declined to vote. Surely a relgious leader should vote in religious/ethical debate.

A few more thoughts...

William has brough up a few emotive but relevant examples above, but in fact I dont see that either of them would require a church to endorse same sex partnerships, so potentially there may not be any problem with them.

I think William said before there is a lot of trench warfare on this issue and not so much listening. Perhaps there could be come win win way forward for the time being anyway.

I think of this issue in terms of conflicting rights, much like the Drumcree standoff. One party had the right to use the Queen's highway, another had the right to privacy and a quiet life etc. Both were and are valid, though I cant see the law itself has provided a solution.

A few other examples

What about a muslim chap who runs a printing business and is asked to print gay pornaography?

A Christian teacher who may be asked to teach that CPs are equal to marriage as part of a curriculum?

A Christian registrar asked to officiate at a CP ceremony?

A church adoption agency asked to arrange an adoption for a same sex couple?

A church retirement home asked to provide adoption for a same sex couple?

A clergyman in a social setting who is asked about his views on homosexuality does not have the exemption for church services on doctrine. So in my understanding he could quote the bible ok during a service but could be sued if doing the same outside it?

As part of the whole mix, inlcuding the views and concerns of the gay community, there also has to be the question as to whether gay Christians would want to cause so much hassle for those of a different views. In theory I understand their concerns about discrimination, but in practise it seems they have largely won the battle, in GB anyway, and that very few people would be interested in discriminating. That is not intended to try and close the discussion, but I think it is still a valid point.

One other thing is that I am not sure it is accurate to equate discrimination on grounds of racism and sexuality.

Race is fixed at conception but scientific consenus does not conclude sexuality is fixed, as far as I am aware.

Peter Tatchell is of this view because he knows so many gays who have switched to heterosexuality.

And Alfred Kinsey found ten per cent of gays were only so for three years in their lives. And apparently he did not believe in fixed sexuality.

Neither of these points proves anything beyond doubt, only that the subject is much more gary than we are normally led to believe.

Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries is now married with kids and used to live a gay lifestyles.

None of this is to offend anyone, just facts in the interest of open discussion...

PB

PB, i've read you say all these things a hundred times before on here, and others have responded so I won't waste anyone's time going through your list.

It's full of mistakes.

Here's one - you say a religious printer would be required to published gay porn. That's ust a lie. No printer is REQUIRED BY LAW to publish ANY porn, gay or straight. Why are you going around lying about what the law says, just to inflame hatred?

Another one - you mention a church retirement home. First of all, elderly people are NOT ADOPTED when they reside at a retirement home. That gay me a laugh anyway. But your serious point, such as it is, is that a retirement home should have the right to turn away a gay person who wants to come and live there. Why ANY church retirement home would want to be so unChristian and turn away someone in need simply because tey are gay leaves me speechless. But if the retirement home is a commercial concern, it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gays, blacks, women, jews, muslims or anyone else. Some retirement homes are limited to former clergy, in which case the BASIS of their exclusion of others is not sexuality but a professional status, which is fair enough.

Hi Gay Christian Believer

I didnt say a muslim would be required to print pornography I asked if that was the case? If I am wrong I will stand corrected.

Am I?

I asked for serious engagement and used very moderate language. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ moderator concurs.

So why are you accusing me of "inflaming hatred"?

I appreciate I have no idea what hurts you have suffered but this seems to me to be playing the victim card when it has not been dealt.

If you read my post again, you will see that I personally cannot see any problem with any church group serving a single gay person.

It appears to be that the problem arises when they may be asked to deal with a gay couple and effectively affirm the relationship.

If you want to demonise and attack me, fine, but I am a fairly average person, and I imagine II would be pretty representative of many people whom you perceive as your enemy.

To me this is an opportunity for us both to safely discuss the issues with honesty and directness. But if we just throw emotion at each other, well, to me we have wasted an opportunity.

If you read my post again I pleaded for discussion about win-win position and serious engagement.

I'm willing and waiting...

PB

Pb, you mention Andy M. He was gay and now is married to a woman. Big deal. I know married men who are now gay. Neither cases proves anything in itself.

I agree with Gelman H. Pb you need to be careful how you make arguments. When you APPEAR to misrepresent the truth about this new law, others will not take your views seriously even when you have a point.

A appeal to Christians to please avoid bringing ht Christian message into disrepute by abusing the truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. We should be MORE truthful than others when we seek to represent the message of Christ.

So, when there are reasonable concerns, let's raise them. Let's not publicise falsities and fake examples like those in pb's comments.

Gelman H #1
"What's the point of having bishops in the House of Lords when they can't even be bothered to turn up and vote on an issue that matters to Christians across the country?"

Count your blessings, you don't know when you're well off. Doesn't this dispell any doubt that there is no true separation of church and state in Britain? Had a bishop been elected by the electorate at large and voted, that would be one thing. But here we have church officials appointed to positions which give them a say over what the laws would be. By American standards and the standards Will admired so much in the Gettysberg Address, this would be considered an imperfection, a flaw in British democracy. In fact so would the House of Lords itself. That a church official would be granted voting membership proves the priveleged position of power it enjoys by fiat, an anathema to democracy, its antithesis.

Christine

You havent demonstrated any falsities in my postings.

So I mentioned a gay man who went and got married and had kids.

Gelmen you said that proves nothing, but if you read my posting I also said that before you did.

You are misreading this as an attempt to win an argument when in fact it is an attempt to open a discussion and ask if the issues are as black and white as they appear.

eg why is there state funding easily available for groups helping people transfer from straight to gay lifestyles but not the reverse?

Shouldnt we have freedom of choice in sexuality?

Isnt this current position discrimination?

PB