Scottish Cardinal Attacks Plans for Gay Marriage

Gee.... yet another rabid homophobe. How exciting.

good for the Cardinal, at last, a bit of common sense.

Keep the pervs where they belong, in the sewer pit.

The cardinal said, "deliberately" deprive children of the right to a mother or father". I wonder how this works. If there were couples coprised of a woman and a man who were out there seeking to adopt those children, why are there so many that are in the care of the state? Wouldn't they already be spoken for? I take it the cardinal believes that there are no children in state care waiting for adoptive opposite-sex parents. And what becomes of those children that are overlooked by opposite-sex couples who will not adopt them due to the child having disabilities or illnesses, many of which could and would be adopted by same-sex couples, as has been apmly demonstrated.

OH PLEASE! Where is the "reality" in ANYTHING the church teaches? It's all fantasy!!!

A poof from Stonewall said "Our advice to anyone against same sex marriage is not to marry anyone of the same sex."

If they want to marry each other, let them.

I believe proper marriage is between a man and a woman, but everyone has their own life to live, and their own happiness to pursue.

I bet Scottish Cardinals like to attack underage children too.

From:

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.[Ed- or provie two parents of one sex instead]. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?"
Unquote.

Good question.

I know a man who lives quite happily with two women. They harm nobody and are all productive, well-balanced and highly respected members of their community.

Humanists celebrants I have spoken to (though they hadn't previously considered the question, perhaps) said they had no universal or automatic objection to polygamous marriages. The key question for them seemed to be was the specific arrangement moral, or morally questionable.

Religionists must follow their dogma.

EVERY Christian should oppose the cruel lie of homosexual 'marriage.'

It has failed in every country that allows it and been rejected as an actual practice by an overwhelming majority of homosexuals themselves.

Mike wrote:

EVERY Christian should oppose the cruel lie of homosexual 'marriage.'
It has failed in every country that allows it and been rejected as an actual practice by an overwhelming majority of homosexuals themselves.

EVERY homosexual should oppose the cruel lies of David from Pekin.

He has failed with every woman and child that knew him and been rejected as an actual human by an overwhelming majority of those who’ve read his homophobic BS.

Pitt and Clooney perform 8 on stage:-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pitt-clooney-perform...

Goodness gracious me:-

| http://t.co/60G3FlMR | http://t.co/G1Zhr2V6 | http://t.co/YrBvKwRU |

Dilbert wrote:

A poof from Stonewall said "Our advice to anyone against same sex marriage is not to marry anyone of the same sex."
If they want to marry each other, let them.
I believe proper marriage is between a man and a woman, but everyone has their own life to live, and their own happiness to pursue.

do not agree. total perversion pure and simple.Between bull dykes, rugsuckers, sodomites, shit jockeys the world has had enough. Bring in Sharia law. That will fix the pervs,simple.

MarXPacE, you really need to get some help pal. Seriously, you don't seem well.

http://www.lambethpct.nhs.uk/a/2206

Mike wrote:

EVERY Christian should oppose the cruel lie of homosexual 'marriage.'
It has failed in every country that allows it and been rejected as an actual practice by an overwhelming majority of homosexuals themselves.

if you study the politics of the Uk at the moment, pervs have centre stage over all, Tory, LibDems, Snp all trying to outdo each other in the support the perv race.
Time to bring in Sharia Law because we, the orinary God fearing folk have been failed by our Churches.
Same in Obama USA , support the pervs. So no-one only the moslems to put thse scum in their place.

They`ve got their civil partnerships,which is marriage in all but name.They`ve got their declaration of love & the rights of married men & women,so what the hell is the big deal???(or,being straight,am I missing the point?)Let them do their thing,live their lives & be happy `cos when all`s said & done,they`ll ALWAYS piss the god-squad off. I`ve got a few theories of my own as to why that might be,but that`s another story.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

grumpyoldsod wrote:

They`ve got their civil partnerships,which is marriage in all but name..

Untrue. There are many benefits, rights, and responsibilities that marriages have that civil unions and such do not. The first and foremost being that their civil union (or whatever) is not legal in any state that does not permit them. All rights, benefits and responsibilities stop at the state border. Does your marriage end when you leave your state?

Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Untrue. There are many benefits, rights, and responsibilities that marriages have that civil unions and such do not. The first and foremost being that their civil union (or whatever) is not legal in any state that does not permit them. All rights, benefits and responsibilities stop at the state border. Does your marriage end when you leave your state?

no, but Paul is normal so why should it.

Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Untrue. There are many benefits, rights, and responsibilities that marriages have that civil unions and such do not. The first and foremost being that their civil union (or whatever) is not legal in any state that does not permit them. All rights, benefits and responsibilities stop at the state border. Does your marriage end when you leave your state?

You just responded to a Brit talking about the UK in a thread about the UK. Over here gays have the same civil rights as everyone else.

I'm sorry you live in a country which is always decades or centuries behind the developed world on civil rights issues but you have to understand: It isn't like that everywhere.

Lest we forget wrote:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

well said and truly spoken.

Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Untrue. There are many benefits, rights, and responsibilities that marriages have that civil unions and such do not. The first and foremost being that their civil union (or whatever) is not legal in any state that does not permit them. All rights, benefits and responsibilities stop at the state border. Does your marriage end when you leave your state?

In the UK they have virtually the same rights as heterosexuals.

I'm not qualified to explain the reason godbot-gays might want the right to marry in church. However, I think GBLT want marriage instead of being satisfied with civil partnerships is to demonstrate that they are included and equal members of civil society. For instance, one godbot said to a gay couple, "you are in a civil partnership? That means you're not married". It is being made to feel they are less than equal to heterosexuals that bothers some of them.

Some Christians react like Mike and Humberman above, but I think their prejudices are in a minority in the UK. Their objections to homosexuals seem to be based on the assumption that all homosexuals engage in anal sex. I am not sure if that is true.

Gay couples always seem to emphasise love and humanity. It is dogmatic religionists who appear almost fixated on the sexual aspect of gay relationships. Christians often don't demonstrate a good understanding of GBLT generally, for instance they may not even distinguish between transexual and transvestite.