Christian Activists in Britain Protest New Gay Rights Law

[BlaznFattyz]

LONDON — Christian activists were submitting a petition to Queen Elizabeth II on Tuesday to protest against a new gay rights law they claim will force them to promote and condone gay sex.

The activists, who say such laws violate Biblical teaching, also planned to hold a candlelit vigil outside Parliament as the upper house, the House of Lords, debated the new law.

The section of the Equality Act 2006 banning businesses from discriminating against gay people in the provision of goods and services came into force in Northern Ireland on Jan. 1, and is scheduled to be introduced in England, Wales and Scotland in April.

Cont'd

 

[johnp.]

I wonder why Christians think they have a right to impose biblical restraints on worldly men? Why is it that we think we can change another person's nature by proscribing what he does? An homosexual is an homosexual why cause him to be a persecuted minority as well?
What two people get up to in private should be a matter for them and God as long as it interfers with no one else. We are being busy-bodies in this area.

...the petition being submitted to the queen has been signed by 10,000 British Christians and urges the monarch to use her "power and position" to demand that the British government protect the freedom of Christians to live according to the Bible's teaching.

She wouldn't be Queen long if she tried. haha! She is in no position to demand anything.
It seems as if these 10,000 know nothing about politics or they are out to cause a constitutional crisis.

john.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Protect discrimination and bigotry in the name of religion. What's wrong with that?

s.

 

[Quahom1]

Hi,

Protect discrimination and bigotry in the name of religion. What's wrong with that?

s.

Protect a house from dividing within itself...is what a wise man would do. This gay thing is a derisive issue, and clearly not what the majority cares to entertain. Yet governments are pushing the agenda very hard, and ignoring what the majority (we aren't talking 51-49% here), wish and do not wish.

 

[wil]

I am in the US. But if left up to the majority civil rights would have been voted down, as it was the representatives for the majority firebombed busses and churches, blockaded schools, and lynched folks that supported the issue.

If left upto the majority ADA would not have passed, why go to the expense of handicap ramps, braille at ATMs, handicap bathrooms and giving folks a chance to work at taxpayers expense.

While this issue has a religous context in lots of regards it is no different than the others...

 

[Quahom1]

I am in the US. But if left up to the majority civil rights would have been voted down, as it was the representatives for the majority firebombed busses and churches, blockaded schools, and lynched folks that supported the issue.

If left upto the majority ADA would not have passed, why go to the expense of handicap ramps, braille at ATMs, handicap bathrooms and giving folks a chance to work at taxpayers expense.

While this issue has a religous context in lots of regards it is no different than the others...

Better read your Congressional history again. Civil rights was an overwhelming majority of representetives. In Congress, and nearly unanimous in the Senate. Lyndon B. Johnson couldn't wait for the bill to cross his desk, to sign into law...

What you are going off on is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[wil]

Better read your Congressional history again. Civil rights was an overwhelming majority of representetives. In Congress, and nearly unanimous in the Senate. Lyndon B. Johnson couldn't wait for the bill to cross his desk, to sign into law...

What you are going off on is beyond the scope of this thread.

I apologize if you feel so.. You are changing ships my brother, I was countering your statement regarding majority of the PEOPLE, yes our representatives, our government made changes which were objectionable to the PEOPLE...then and now. I am using an analogy of past bigotry which I feel relates specifically to the discussion of today's bigotry (the same book and similar pulpits were used by the majority to prove its point then as it is now)

 

[Quahom1]

I apologize if you feel so.. You are changing ships my brother, I was countering your statement regarding majority of the PEOPLE, yes our representatives, our government made changes which were objectionable to the PEOPLE...then and now. I am using an analogy of past bigotry which I feel relates specifically to the discussion of today's bigotry (the same book and similar pulpits were used by the majority to prove its point then as it is now)

Congressional representation must be at kin with the districts the Congressmen represent. If not, they are recalled home very quickly in this country. The majority wanted change, hence change occured. The people knew there was something wrong, so they hired (voted) for those who would put it right.

There is reaching, then there is tacking, then there is running. If you know anything about sailing you'll appreciate me.

I'm not changing ships my friend, I'm tacking hard into the wind, just shy of going into "irons".

 

[taijasi]

Well, there's always a curve, just when you feel you're starting to get used to the game. And here I've always felt I was a (US) Northerner at heart, and have resisted this business about "preserving our lovely southern history" in the Civil War South. After all, the issue of slavery and Civil Rights was the *Gay Rights* of the day, right down to Well can they vote, or can't they? Are they first-class citizens, or aren't they?

For all the differences (you're up to bat, Quahom1, try to list at least a dozen) ... there are obvious parallels between these issues. And we can scripture-pick about why thus-and-such is right, and why this-and-that is apportioned by God's laws, but this over here is just a result of man-made, whummitygummits, and - (so on, till you're blue in the face).

And I thought folks like Lincoln and our Founding Fathers were men of impeccable character, light years ahead of their time, pioneers of the Civil Rights movement, and so on. HOGWASH!!! This was politics from start to finish, it was about rock the vote then, and it's the same-old, same-old NOW.

Gay rights is the hot potato, but the problem is, it's finally somebody's turn to HOLD IT. It's cooled down to the point where, LIKE SLAVERY - and the struggles that were still taking place in the U.S. a century *after* the Civil War - this issue ain't goin' *nowhere* ... till it's solved. UK, USA, doesn't make much difference when it comes to the politicians and how they see this.

Folks can kick it around on the Christian forum, and find twelve dozen passages condemining homosexuals from the times predating Sodom and Gomorrah ... until fifty aeons after Armageddon/Rapture/Left Behind/2nd Coming/Kingdom Come, or whatever else it is you believe in.

What I'd like to see is anybody other than an Episcopalian who can say, "I'm Christian and as far as I'm concerned, gays are no different than any *other* type of person/Christian!" THAT'd be some news worth printing, posting, blogging, etc.

Otherwise, frankly, who cares what these activists do, so long as they do it PEACEfully!

Pax,

~Zag

 

[Quahom1]

Well, there's always a curve, just when you feel you're starting to get used to the game. And here I've always felt I was a (US) Northerner at heart, and have resisted this business about "preserving our lovely southern history" in the Civil War South. After all, the issue of slavery and Civil Rights was the *Gay Rights* of the day, right down to Well can they vote, or can't they? Are they first-class citizens, or aren't they?

For all the differences (you're up to bat, Quahom1, try to list at least a dozen) ... there are obvious parallels between these issues. And we can scripture-pick about why thus-and-such is right, and why this-and-that is apportioned by God's laws, but this over here is just a result of man-made, whummitygummits, and - (so on, till you're blue in the face).

And I thought folks like Lincoln and our Founding Fathers were men of impeccable character, light years ahead of their time, pioneers of the Civil Rights movement, and so on. HOGWASH!!! This was politics from start to finish, it was about rock the vote then, and it's the same-old, same-old NOW.

Gay rights is the hot potato, but the problem is, it's finally somebody's turn to HOLD IT. It's cooled down to the point where, LIKE SLAVERY - and the struggles that were still taking place in the U.S. a century *after* the Civil War - this issue ain't goin' *nowhere* ... till it's solved. UK, USA, doesn't make much difference when it comes to the politicians and how they see this.

Folks can kick it around on the Christian forum, and find twelve dozen passages condemining homosexuals from the times predating Sodom and Gomorrah ... until fifty aeons after Armageddon/Rapture/Left Behind/2nd Coming/Kingdom Come, or whatever else it is you believe in.

What I'd like to see is anybody other than an Episcopalian who can say, "I'm Christian and as far as I'm concerned, gays are no different than any *other* type of person/Christian!" THAT'd be some news worth printing, posting, blogging, etc.

Otherwise, frankly, who cares what these activists do, so long as they do it PEACEfully!

Pax,

~Zag

No chance. To be gay is a choice (or a condition, I don't know), and is one thing. To demand others to accept the demands of such, is another.

I don't care if one is gay. Can one get the job done? fine. Hired. But do not tell me I must teach my kids about alternative life styles. And do not tell me I must pay for insurance for partners not wed in the eyes of God and the Law. And for heaven's sake, I don't want to hear about the sexual escapades and/or advantages of being gay. I don't want to hear about a co-worker's trists with another woman when I know he's married either. In fact I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom of two heteros in love and married for years...that is their business.

Gays don't get special rights. They have basic rights like everyone else.

If I said "I'm of Irish decent, and you owe me Irish rights"...you'd laugh me right out of the court room.

Get it?

v/r

Joshua

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I don't care if one is gay. Can one get the job done? fine. Hired. But do not tell me I must teach my kids about alternative life styles. And do not tell me I must pay for insurance for partners not wed in the eyes of God and the Law. And for heaven's sake, I don't want to hear about the sexual escapades and/or advantages of being gay. I don't want to hear about a co-worker's trists with another woman when I know he's married either. In fact I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom of two heteros in love and married for years...that is their business.

Gays don't get special rights. They have basic rights like everyone else.

Dear Quahom, that is wonderful that you feel that way, but in the eyes of the law we do not have "basic rights like everyone else". In nearly every state in the US, if I were (heaven forbid) in the hospital in intensive care, my partner would not be allowed to visit me, nor to have any say in my treatment. Granted, we are not "wed in the eyes of the Law" - but we have no chance to be. My partner would have no right to my pension after retirement. Again, because we have no chance to be "wed in the eyes of the Law". If my partner and I were raising my biological children together, and I were to die, she would have no right to keep the children, who would then lose both their caregiving adults.
I don't care if you teach your kids about "alternative lifestyles" - as long as you don't teach them that it's okay to be violent towards homosexuals, because then it affects me personally (but from what I know of you, I can't imagine you'd ever do any such thing). I don't need you to pay for either my insurance or my partner's insurance. I have no intention of telling you about anything that goes on in my bedroom. I personally don't want any special rights. I merely want these "basic rights like everyone else."
In love and respect,
Scarlet

 

[Quahom1]

Dear Quahom, that is wonderful that you feel that way, but in the eyes of the law we do not have "basic rights like everyone else". In nearly every state in the US, if I were (heaven forbid) in the hospital in intensive care, my partner would not be allowed to visit me, nor to have any say in my treatment. Granted, we are not "wed in the eyes of the Law" - but we have no chance to be. My partner would have no right to my pension after retirement. Again, because we have no chance to be "wed in the eyes of the Law". If my partner and I were raising my biological children together, and I were to die, she would have no right to keep the children, who would then lose both their caregiving adults.
I don't care if you teach your kids about "alternative lifestyles" - as long as you don't teach them that it's okay to be violent towards homosexuals, because then it affects me personally (but from what I know of you, I can't imagine you'd ever do any such thing). I don't need you to pay for either my insurance or my partner's insurance. I have no intention of telling you about anything that goes on in my bedroom. I personally don't want any special rights. I merely want these "basic rights like everyone else."
In love and respect,
Scarlet

I can't argue with you on your point. But you are an exception to the rule, as was my brother inlaw.

v/r

Joshua

 

[Caimanson]

The section of the Equality Act 2006 banning businesses from discriminating against gay people in the provision of goods and services came into force in Northern Ireland on Jan. 1, and is scheduled to be introduced in England, Wales and Scotland in April.

Cont'd

Does someone know how this law will affect churches?
I mean what are the practical implications of such a law for those churches and individuals that reject homosexuality if any.

I'm just wondering if the opposition to this law is a matter of principle, or if there are indeed deep repercussions for these christian groups.

Anybody know?

 

[johnp.]

Anybody know?

Hello Caimanson. Not really but I'll have a go.

Does someone know how this law will affect churches?

If the Church has property that it lets out to the public then the Church is not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of homosexuality. If a person wants to use the Church hall he cannot be barred because of his nature if that hall is open for the public to hire. If a civil partnership ceremony is planned then we can't refuse them the hall.
We can still discriminate against the BNP though. Cool.

I'm just wondering if the opposition to this law is a matter of principle, or if there are indeed deep repercussions for these christian groups.

I think the deep repercussions have to do with the Church owning property. We only have to get rid of it or do as we are told, Matt 5: 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
A better oppotunity can't be presented than to have the unsaved nearby. If I was a minister I'd make sure they invited me.
What I see is that Christians, I am a Christian, want to sweep sin under the carpet where we cannot see it and remove any chance of rubbing shoulders with it. We cause sinner to go underground where we don't have to meet them.
Can you understand why they sent a petition to the Queen? Have you ever heard of this before?
She might be called the Defender of the Faith but she is not the Defender of Church halls.

john.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I can't argue with you on your point. But you are an exception to the rule, as was my brother inlaw.

v/r

Joshua

Ah. I do genuinely appreciate the fact that you have a higher opinion of me than of most homosexuals you have encountered. I would also venture to say that I personally know many more "exceptions" than "rules". Perhaps your experiences are, as occurs with so many groups, a case of the loud-mouth radicals making the rest of the population look bad? Perhaps not - maybe I'm just extremely lucky in my acquaintances.

 

[Penguin]

Didn't Jesus say though "that you should take people for what they are" If somebody is gay what difference should it make? So what? Wasn't that the main reason Jesus died on the cross? To show that god is for EVERYBODY no matter who they are, how much they sin and what sexuality they are. Jesus wouldn't have cared about their sexuality then so why should we care now. My thoughts

 

[17th Angel]

Because we are not as perfect as your poster child christ?

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Didn't Jesus say though "that you should take people for what they are"

of course, love everyone no matter what, but don't confuse that with loving someone enough to steer them in the right direction when you see them going to a dead end.

 

[kenod]

Discrimination based on sexual preference cannot be compared to discrimination based on gender, race, age or disability. Of course, the gay rights movement wants to achieve the same status, and is just about there, but there is one very obvious difference: gender, race, age and disability are not based on behaviour.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Discrimination based on sexual preference cannot be compared to discrimination based on gender, race, age or disability. Of course, the gay rights movement wants to achieve the same status, and is just about there, but there is one very obvious difference: gender, race, age and disability are not based on behaviour.

They're not?
Gender discrimination: "She's too emotional, and she'd call in sick once a month. We can't hire her."
Race discrimination: "I didn't rent the apartment to him because he'd be playing that loud 'music' all the time."
Age discrimination: "Let's not hire him. He'd be too slow."
Disability discrimination: "Don't bother taking her order. I'm sure she can't talk clearly anyway."
All these forms of discrimination are based on assumptions about the behaviour of an individual based on their membership in a particular group, and come down to the fact that the person doing the discriminating is uncomfortable with that group.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I have the attitude, "All Christians are pushy, loud-mouthed jerks." (I don't think anything of the sort, not even remotely, but let's pretend for a minute that I do.) This assumption is based on a few brief encounters with particularly uncharitable people who said to me that they were Christians. Or perhaps I've never even met any Christians to my knowledge, and it's based purely on what I've seen in the media.
Let's also say that I am a HR manager in a firm, and someone comes to me for a job interview. In the middle of the interview I notice a cross around the person's neck. I immediately think, "Oh no, she's a Christian. Well, I don't care what her qualifications are, I'm not hiring her! She'd spend the whole day proselytising, and no one would be able to get any work done. That's when she shows up at all - she'd be gone half the time to prayer meetings, or to go bomb abortion clinics."
What a horrible thing to say! And how can I write this woman off like that based on such a tiny piece of information (a cross around her neck)! I clearly know nothing about Christianity, and even less about this woman and her relation to Christianity! How dare I deny her a job on the basis of my erroneous assumptions about her, which have nothing to do with her qualifications!
There's no law that says I have to be comfortable with Christianity. There's no law that says I have to learn all about it and get over my dislike. But I do not have the right, legally and morally, to deny someone housing, employment, service, or anything else for which they are otherwise qualified based on their (perceived) membership in a group with which I am uncomfortable, or of which I do not approve.