«

»

Feb 02

Joke Marriage debate Tuesday 5th February

MPs will debate the Joke Marriage Bill on Tuesday

MPs will debate the Gay Marriage Bill on Tuesday

Members of Parliament will debate the Joke Marriage Bill, or ‘Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill‘, to give its full title, on Tuesday.

Christians are calling for prayer this Sunday, 3rd February, to strengthen the resolve of the Bill’s opponents and for a sizeable rebellion against the Bill from MP’s of all parties in the 2nd Reading Division.

There is no doubt that in a free vote in our House of Commons the Bill will pass, but a healthy rebellion will encourage the House of Lords to oppose this ill-thought-out measure which was not in any party manifesto.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond MP has backtracked over comparing ‘gay marriage’ to incest.  ‘We don’t allow siblings to get married either’, he told a constituent, before his spokesman denied that he equated the two.

But Mr Hammond is right.  Homosexual activity is exactly on a par with incest.  Homosexuals even talk about their ‘gay brothers’ and ‘gay sisters’.

Jesus Christ said this:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

And of course two men or two women lack between them the full set of complementary equipment to be ‘one flesh’ in the physical expression of marriage.  You can’t build a car with just bolts or just nuts.

Christian Voice asked the Government repeatedly how two homosexuals will consummate their ‘marriage’.

Initially, in their consultation they said it would be up to the courts to decide.  We said that was not good enough.  The Bill had to spell it out.  But now, on the face of the Bill, the Government say those in a ‘gay marriage’ will not have to consummate it at all.  Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable) will ‘not apply to the marriage of a same sex couple.’

We also asked what will constitute adultery as a ground for divorce of a ‘gay marriage’.  Again, in their consultation the Government said it would be up to the courts to define ‘adultery’ in a homosexual context.  Now they say, in the Bill: ‘Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of ‘ the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage)’.

The Government have failed to deliver, because they never could.  The homosexual lobby wanted equality in marriage.  What they have been delivered is second-class marriage, a two-tier system, a Joke Marriage Bill.  That will not stop them claiming to be ‘married’ and in the words of the Bill being ‘husband and husband’ or ‘wife and wife’ or usurping the time-honoured expressions ‘widow’ and ‘widower’.

And how long will it be before the concepts of consummation and adultery vanish from our statue book because of the inability of homosexuals to become ‘one flesh’ in the complete emotional and sexual sense?  The currency of marriage itself – of every marriage in the land – will be degraded by these counterfeit marriages.

Clause 1 of the 1297 Magna Carta is still in force.  It says this:

1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. …

The front page of Magna Carta - The 'Great Charter' of which Clause 1 is still in force.

The front page of Magna Carta – The ‘Great Charter’ – of which Clause 1 is still in force.

Legal advice is that despite David Cameron’s ‘Quadruple Lock’  the Bill will open the door to a legal challenge on the freedom of the Church of England not to conduct false marriages.  But if the C of E needs a ‘Quadruple Lock’ what is the legal position of every other church without it?  They are being thrown to the homosexual equality wolves.

At the very best, a church or denomination will be bogged down in court cases and lawyers’ fees for years defending itself against a gay activist law suit, brought with the financial muscle of the Government-funded Stonewall group and the rest of the homosexual industry.

Christian Voice members and friends may feel free to print out this article and take it to church for prayer tomorrow.

We have no doubt that Christians and other decent people will be contacting their MPs today, tomorrow and Sunday.  Their email addresses are here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

You can also sign our Christ-centred petition:

We the undersigned believe that marriage was ordained by God to be the union of one man and one woman and that marriage between two persons of the same sex can not and should not be legalised by any earthly government.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

 

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

51 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. David

    If churches are to be forced to give their blessing in a Church ceremony it will mean God must be forced to change his mind on what He has forbidden. This is really a spiritual battle at the end of the day. see Jude 1:18
    But God will not be mocked! Watch out!

  2. Anonymous

    I find that my faith in the world and in humanity is restored when I see right-wing Christians complaining about being oppressed and unheard. It is nothing less than you deserve, and a powerful indication that the world works; after all, it was oppressed under centuries of this mentality and you are quite rightly serving an everlasting comeuppance.

    You can pray all you like on Sunday 3rd February. Your invisible man in the sky will not help you, nor will he lend a divine hand to your deviant and closed minded beliefs. As gay marriage is voted on on Tuesday 5th February and undermines your disgraceful organisation, take a moment to realise how your God has abandoned you.

    And once this is all over, there will be a reckoning for the appalling acts your kind have taken in desperation against this latest measure of equality. As it was with interracial marriage, so shall it be again. If you truly feel oppressed by liberal politics now, then you cannot possibly fathom the retribution that will befall your disgusting kind; Hell will be a reprieve.

    We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

    1. Stephen

      Be afraid, believers. Be very afraid. Someone who has such depth of courage as to remain ‘Anonymous’ is after you!

      1. Beelzebub

        No. You be afraid.

        Your days of oppression are finished.

        1. Stephen

          And those of the Gaystapo are just beginning.

    2. Phil Boggis

      Quote: “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”
      When I read this I was drawn to the phrase ‘we are Legion’ and I remembered a Bible verse from Luke 8 v.30 – ‘And Jesus asked him saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion” because many devils were entered into him. You say, “We do not forgive, we do not forget.” You know only hate does that. Love forgives!
      Why use the phrase ‘we are Legion’? Why not just say there are legions of gays (which there are not!) and they do not forgive or forget Christians for pronouncing judgement on them, or words to that effect. It is not Christians who, ‘off their own backs’ are judging – it is God Himself – read Leviticus 18:22. Gay’s complaints should be directed at God and not at Christians who believe in Him and follow Him – we are His servants – or rather believers in Jesus who know the love of Jesus in His forgiveness of our sins – but I suggest gays do not believe that they have sinned in this area of sexual practice. 1 John 1 v 8. Look it up it’s the Word of God. And herein lies the problem – no repentance.
      Please have the courage not to be anonymous in any reply – thank you.

    3. W.S.Becket

      If Mr Anonymous is correct in what he says and correct about the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, we would not be having this debate. It is the very fact that Parliament is trying to normalise a relationship that most people regard as wrong and depraved that has sparked the discussion.
      If homosexuality was normal, there would be no debate.

    4. jane

      You may be legion, but you are alone. Say what you like against God, but may He help you when Judgement Day comes, and it will come. You can say what you like but it doesn’t make it so. I love the Son of God, Jesus, He changed my life and I will pray that He will do the same for you.

      1. jane

        God instituted marriage between man and women, please see Genesis, why do gays want to be married ? They aren’t interested in God’s law and that is what marriage is? Please explain.

        1. Jane Glover

          Um, because they’re in love and want to declare that publicly ? Because they want to make a commitment to one person for the rest of their life ? Who says that gay people aren’t interested in god’s law; gay people are Christians too, you know!

          1. NWPilgrim

            Dear Jane,
            God’s law plainly says that the homosexual life style is sinful. And Jesus says: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). Every Christian confesses that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is one God so all God’s commandments are Jesus’ commandments and vice versa. Therefore people cannot be “gay” AND call themselves Christians – it’s an oxymoron. Homosexuality, like every other sin, can be repented of.

    5. Robin

      You say, “As it was with interracial marriage, so shall it be again.” But comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage only works if you first assume that marriage is a union of persons rather than a union of a man and a woman. If marriage is understood in the second sense (and I would argue that it should be), then we can reasonably talk about past prohibitions on interracial marriage being a case of people being barred access to an existing institution. But homosexuals are not being barred access to this institution in a comparative way. This is because no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the Pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.

      Only if you start by assuming that marriage is the union of persons rather than the union of a man and a woman does it make sense to talk about homosexuals being denied access in a way comparable to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. There is, however, a problem with defining marriage in these terms, for let’s consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being irrelevant (or “accidental” in an Aristotelian sense). We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened to be members of the opposite sex, that “man and wife” were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus “union of persons.”

      The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

      Now let’s be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretense of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

  3. joe

    War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Famine. how about protesting about these? lucky for you Stephen God doesn’t exit as you would be going to HELL!!!

    1. Stephen

      How odd that someone who knows nothing about God is so good at passing judgment on God’s behalf.

  4. Jane Glover

    So on one hand, you don’t like gay people casually sleeping around and having meaningless sex. Yet on the other, you don’t want gay people to be able to commit themselves to another person for the rest of their life. Bit of a contradiction there!

    1. Stephen

      If they fancy carrying out some vain committment ceremony let them. Just don’t pretend it’s marriage.

      1. Jane Glover

        So you think it’s vain for two people to stand up and publicly make a declaration of love towards each other ? That goes a long way to explaining your cynical view of the world.

        1. Stephen

          Most homosexual male relationships are over within six months. Most lesbian ones around two years. Those that struggle on always include third (or more) parties after a month or so. The brevity of homosexual relationships is because they are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces. That is why their making a public commitment is a waste of time.

          1. Beelzebub

            You are a sick evil twisted cretin.

          2. Stephen

            But apart from that am I OK, Derek?

          3. Ian

            You seem to know an awful lot about homosexuality, how many partners have you had, and how long did the relationships last?

          4. Stephen

            I spent seven years studying the subject for my book ‘The Sexual Dead-End‘. The brevity of the relationships, the promiscuity, are all well-documented by social scientists, many of them homosexual and with no anti-gay axe to grind. I referenced many in the book.

          5. Alan Edwards

            Dear Stephen…..I am sure that you are terribly well-intentioned, but I would love to ask you why you think you have the right to make dogmatic statements about the relationship in which I find myself! You don’t know me or my husband – unless we had sex together before David and I left for South Africa. Here we find ourselves in a country that has been through the most appalling struggles to achieve a state of equality amongst its citizens. There is still much education and economic inequality, but every South African citizen, under the terms of a post-Apartheid Constitution is EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW and nobody is discriminated against because of race, religion or sexual orientation. Is that not something that ALL CHRISTIANS should strive for….is that not what the Lord, himself, said in essence throughout the whole of his ministry??? You really cannot “cherry-pick” quotations from the Bible just to suit this particular prejudice that you are upholding in your writings.

            I fear that what you are doing (ALL you are doing!) is to rail against matters that you do not understand. There are those who have have commented here that you seem to know such a good deal about homosexuality, that the implication is that you are a closet gay yourself. Now that’s very naughty and should not be tolerated BUT I should like to ask you to put yourself in my shoes and those of my husband. Neither of us asked/chose/decided to be Gay….we just are! That’s the way that God made us, and after much self-seeking, and even, on my part, psychotherapy, we were both able to come to terms with who we were, and allowed ourselves to be happy. If you were able to take the time to meet Gay men and women (don’t just read books about them!) you would realise that the Satanic horns are nowhere to be seen or felt. We have the urges, desires, wants as you do; we are persuaded politically as you do; we like the same food as you do and breathe the same air as you do, YOU have a perfect right to be who you are, and I have exactly that same EQUAL right. What you do NOT have the right to do is to make offensive and derogatory statements about how I live my life which is within the letter of the Law and in the eyes of the God who made me “in his image!”

            david and I were legally married here in South Africa on November 17th, 2012 by a Minister of God and witnessed by fifty of our dearest friends most of whom were heterosexual. I think it’s really about time that you “cat the beam” out of your own eye!
            Alan Edwards

      2. W.S.Becket

        It is not marriage nor is it anything like it. What Parliament is doing is the solemnisation of sodomy.

    2. W.S.Becket

      Of course I want a homosexual person to commit himself to another person for the rest of his life. Provided the other person is female.

      1. Jane Glover

        As I’ve already pointed out – a homosexual man is unlikely to find a heterosexual female sexually attractive. Therefore, they are unlikely to have intercourse and produce offspring. All of which rather flies in the face of marriage being an institution for procreation.

        The fact that I’ve tried to point this out three times and had it censored shows how flimsy your argument is.

        1. Stephen

          Don’t let lighthearted throwaway comments wind you up, Jane.

  5. Phil Crouter

    Watching the moral, spiritual and economic decline of a nation is an acutely painful experience. I can start to have some sense of the torment that men like Isaiah and Jeremiah went through as they watched their beloved people turn from God’s laws.
    Well i’ve signed the petition and emailed my MP. I dont want to sound negative but I dont think we will win. I truly think we are in the very last days and the rapture will be soon.
    Lets keep our eyes fixed on Jesus and pray that many will be saved before the sands run out. Grab hold of God and run with Him while you can. We simply dont have the time to mess around

  6. Peter

    No church group should ever give a blessing to an abomination, God’s laws do not change.

  7. NWPilgrim

    In the last analysis what validates a marriage ceremony is that it is conducted “Coram Deo”; that the parties to the marriage make their vows before Him and are pronounced as married in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

    This is ultimately what the same-sex marriage lobbyists have been pushing for: validation of their union before God – the God of the Bible, the God Who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the God Who, in the person of Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh.

    And yet – no matter how heroic their efforts, how elaborate their ceremonies, how full the support of the state or how firmly worded its legislation, this divine validation is the one thing they can never get: for in the eyes of God their “union” is not a union but an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

    Their man-made ceremonies and certificates are, after all, only dumb idols. They are not, and never can be, the imprimatur of the living God Who made Adam and Eve and Who, as the Son of Man, turned the water into wine at a wedding in Cana.

    As Jesus said (Mark 10:6-9): “…from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
    The proponents of same-sex marriage want all the fruits, blessings and respectability of marriage without adherence to its most basic criterion.

    When Mr Cameron announced a policy of tax-breaks for married couples we had thought – at last, someone who supports marriage. Alas, it is now all too clear that Mr Cameron intends not to support marriage but only to undermine it by giving the blessing of the state to a perversion of marriage, and by giving tax breaks to something that is a travesty of marriage: a corruption, a falsehood. And, by encouraging churches to conduct such ceremonies, our Prime Minister seeks to place his idol right before the face of the living God.

    What an affront to the God Who commanded: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me (literally “in My face”)! What a provocation to the God Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the very sin that is remembered in the word “sodomy”!

    That is why there is little that could be more destructive of the good order and well-being of our nation than for Parliament to approve and enact this proposed legislation.

    1. Edward

      Quoting Leviticus is invalid as argument because this is the same part of the Bible that forbids people from wearing clothes of mixed fibres (check the label on whatever you’re wearing) or from eating shellfish. It also condones the selling of one’s daughter into slavery. Perhaps you should realise that maybe the Bible is no longer relevant in this day and age.

      1. Stephen

        Lev 19:19 says specifically ‘wool and linen’ and shellfish are merely unclean not an abomination. (SEE HERE) Bond-servitude was their social security system and you could argue many people are in wage-slavery today.

        And here are some more laws from Leviticus 19:

        Lev 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
        Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
        Lev 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
        Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
        Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
        Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
        Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
        Lev 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
        Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
        Lev 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
        Lev 19:36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

        Justice and truth and respect for the divine and for persons and property ‘no longer relevant in this day and age’?

        No wonder Britain is in such a mess.

      2. NWPilgrim

        Dear Edward
        God loves mankind and He has spoken to us in the Bible and through His Son. When people reject the Bible they are rejecting the love that God proffers us. All they are doing is to condemn themselves.

        God speaks to us in the Bible. Why not just listen? Why raise your hackles? Why not just approach it with a submissive attitude? Better to do so now than when it’s too late on the Judgement Day.

        Leviticus is quoted by Jesus. As Stephen has pointed out, the very chapter that speaks about linen-and-woollen garments also contains the second greatest commandment: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

        In 1 Corinthians 9 the apostle Paul shows us that these strange Old Testament laws are relevant to us if only we’ll listen and seek to understand…
        “For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake…
        ” 1 Corinthians 9:9-10

        And he goes on to show how this teaches Christians that their ministers should be paid for their ministry.

        If we then consider the law of Leviticus 19:19 – “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”

        How does this apply to us today? Well, one thing these laws did for Israel was to establish a mindset that abhorred a deviation from God’s created order. We know from Genesis 1 that God is very particular about keeping the species separate (note the repetition below of “after his kind”)…

        “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:11-12)
        “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:21)
        “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:24-25)

        And God’s order of things concerning marriage as laid down in Genesis 1 and 2 is that one man should leave his parents and marry one woman. A man should not marry his mother, he should not marry more than one woman, he should not marry a beast, nor should he marry another man. That is not God’s order. Being strict about God’s order regarding animals and plants, both of which symbolise mankind, meant that the Israelites would be even more strict when it came to human relationships. They were not to mix what God ordained to be kept unmixed – and that is why in the very next chapter of Leviticus we read:

        “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13-16)

        The permanent relevance of which laws Paul confirms in Romans chapter 1.

        And then we have the issue of mixed linen-and-woollen garments. Now sweat, according to Genesis 3:19 is a sign of God’s curse, and woollen garments have a tendency to make you sweat, especially in a hot country. That is why God prescribed that His priests should wear linen undergarments (Exodus 28:42). All this is explained in Ezekiel 44:15-18
        “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.”

        In other words, the law of Leviticus 19:19 concerning garments made both of linen and wool was intended to convey and confirm in the mindset of each Israelite that things having to do with God’s blessing (e.g. the priestly ministry) must never be mixed with what causes His curse. Paul, in the New Testament puts it, for example, like this:
        “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)

        Well, this is not a place to go on for too long, and I’ve only scratched the surface (and I’m sure I’ve not done it justice), but I hope you can see that, far from being obsolete, the symbolic Old Testament laws, fulfilled in Christ, have intense relevance and application to us as men and women today if only we will exercise our lazy minds to study them and to perceive the New Covenant reality of which the symbols speak.

    2. Michael C

      Congratulations NWPilgrim on your comment so beautifully put. Coram Deo – in the face / presence of God – is central to living a life acceptable to God. The concept of Holy Matrimony surely is based on Coram Deo. Unfortunately even many heterosexual couples fail to to solemnise their marriages before God, and choose instead to make their vows before a secular marriage celebrant. Maybe that is why we have so much divorce these days.

  8. Ashley DICKENSON

    I managed to secure a radio ‘phone-in with Radio Jackie on behalf of the Christian Peoples Alliance. The first time I’d done so but gave it my best shot.

    1. NWPilgrim

      Well done Ashley. The Lord will bless all those who are not ashamed of Him!

  9. Jane Glover

    So how are gay people referring to their gay brothers and sisters any different from Christians talking about their brothers and sisters in Christ ? If you’re going to use the incest argument – then it’s also true for Christians!

    Yet again a flaw to your argument – which I expect that you’ll refuse to publish.

    1. Stephen

      Because they then proceed to engage in sexual acts with them, that’s the difference!

      1. Jane Glover

        So (for the third time) you’re trying to tell me that Christians don’t have sex with each other ? Why are you so scared of the question; the answer should be a simple yes or no!

        1. Stephen

          Sorry Jane, your line of reasoning is flawed. Yes, by refering to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, we see each other as family in the sense of being adopted sons and daughters of the Almighty. Christians have one sexual partner, called a ‘wife’ (in the case of a man) or a ‘husband’ in the case of a woman. They do not sleep with other Christian brethren.
          Homosexuals on the other hand feel free (or should that be ‘driven’) to engage in acts of sexual gratification with any of those they call ‘brothers’ (in the case of men) or ‘sisters’ (in the case of women). If you don’t like the incest analogy, forget it. Just remember the inherent promiscuity of ‘gay’ life.

  10. Roger Eldridge

    Has Cameron also done away with the 28 degrees of prohibition which is proof that Marriage is for only for those open to procreation?

    If a Marriage can not be voided it can not be verified either. These idiots are actually playing around with rationality itself.

    Impediments to Marriage

    One or both of the parties to the intended marriage will be under the age of 18 years of age, on the date of marriage (unless an exemption from this provision is granted by the Court).
    One or both of the parties to the intended marriage is, or both are, already party to a subsisting marriage or a subsisting civil partnership.
    One of both parties is incapable by reason of intellectual disability or mental illness of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage contract (a medical report is required to establish the facts in such cases.)
    The parties are of the same sex
    The civil partnership would be void by virtue of the prohibited degrees of relationship and affinity.
    Prohibited Degrees of Kindred and Affinity
    A man may not marry his:
    Grandmother
    Grandfather’s Wife
    Wife’s Grandmother
    Father’s sister
    Mother’s sister
    Father’s brother’s wife
    Mother’s brother’s wife
    Wife’s father’s sister
    Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    Mother
    Stepmother
    Wife’s mother
    Daughter
    Wife’s daughter
    Son’s wife
    Sister
    Son’s daughter
    Daughter’s daughter
    Son’s son’s wife
    Daughter’s son’s wife
    Wife’s son’s daughter
    Wife’s daughter’s daughter
    Brother’s daughter
    Sister’s daughter
    Brother’s son’s wife
    Sister’s son’s wife
    Wife’s brother’s daughter
    Wife’s sister’s daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    Grandfather
    Grandmother’s Husband
    Husband’s grandfather
    Father’s brother
    Mother’s brother
    Father’s sister’s husband
    Mother’s sister’s husband
    Husband’s father’s brother
    Husband’s mother’s brother
    Father
    Stepfather
    Husband’s father
    Son
    Husband’s son
    Daughter’s husband
    Brother
    Son’s son
    Daughter’s son
    Son’s daughter’s husband
    Daughter’s daughter’s husband
    Husband’s son’s son
    Husband’s daughter’s son
    Brother’s son
    Sister’s son
    Brother’s daughter’s husband
    Sister’s daughter’s husband
    Husband’s brother’s son
    Husband’s sister’s son

  11. David Smith

    Why do Homosexual people hide behind the ‘Gay’ title.
    If Homosexuality is right and proper and ‘normal’ why do they need to hide it behind a word that originally meant light hearted , carefree, happy.
    The term Gay for homosexuals only came into use in the 1960′s and is NOT the correct meaning of the word, but merely a cloak to hide their perversion behind a banner of respectability.
    So to all the homosexuals out their who are proud of their homosexuality and want a homosexual marriage, stand up and be counted as homosexual, restore the word gay to it’s original use, and let the world see you for what you are.
    Homosexual, not gay.

    1. Kenrick

      David I have been saying that for a very long time. As a matter of fact, I do not call any Homosexual a gay. It’s either Homosexual, Lesbian or Bi sexual. This is a sad day for the UK but God is incontrol.

  12. Kenrick

    Let’s crack open the myths behind Homosexuals and Lesbian once and for all, Here’s a test, put a group of healthy couples (one pair each of Homosexuals, Lesdian and Heterosexuals) on an island. If it is so natural or of nature as some say, lets see who will have children in the end, Homosexuallity is just wrong and unnatural period.

    1. Jane Glover

      Well my husband & I are hetrosexual and we don’t have children. Are you telling me that I’m unnatural ?

      1. Stephen

        If it’s by choice, then that is an insult to those couples who are trying and are unable to have children.
        If it’s not for now, don’t leave it too late. You never know.
        Or if you have been trying and have not yet been blessed with a child, you have our sympathy and prayers.

  13. Neville Ward

    Why do homosexuals refer to others as “straight”. By doing so they are admiting that they themselves are distorted, crooked, or perverted. That is what their behaviour is.

  14. GB

    Considering you guys were all intently praying for this bill to not get passed, but it did get passed – its a reasonable conclusion that:

    A) God doesn’t exist and so your prayers were wasted.

    B) God does exists but totally ignored your prayers because he doesn’t like your bigoted, unforgiving attitudes!!

    Either way – YOU LOSE!!!!!

    I fully appreciate as fundamentalists (with the emphasis on ‘mental) “reasonable conclusions” are beyond your primitive, backward thinking..

    reasonable, logical, THINKING people are laughing at you -I do hope you know that.

    GB

    1. Stephen

      Actually, no-one here was praying it would be defeated at Second Reading in the House of Commons. We knew there were always more than enough votes to pass this rebellious measure.
      But if anyone was, then:
      C) God is courteously allowing our nation to go further on its sinful way to hell – or in the case of a nation, hell on earth.
      The wicked laughed at Jesus Christ, so if the same sort laugh at us when we proclaim his righteous ways then we are in good company.
      And we’ll take all your insults as compliments.

    2. NWPilgrim

      GB

      Personally I prayed, and continue to pray, that this bill might be thwarted because I don’t want God’s severe judgement to be visited on my countrymen. Look what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) for this very sin.

      If God allows this bill to progress into law then we all ought to be afraid, for it is one more evidence that He is allowing this sinful nation to destroy itself. Read Romans 1:18-32. Here’s some of it (verses 24-28)…

      “Wherefore God also GAVE THEM UP to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God GAVE THEM UP unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God GAVE THEM OVER to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting…”

      The Judge of all the earth only does what is right. God didn’t answer even the prayer of His own Son as He would have wished (Matthew 26:39) but only because He loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son so that whosever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      If you make a mockery of that love then there is no one who can help you. You are the one who loses and God will laugh at you (who professed yourself to be reasonable, logical and thinking) in the day of your calamity.

  15. Robin

    For those of you who support gay ‘marriage’, I have a couple questions. Do you favor changing the definition of marriage, or merely giving same-sex couples access to an existing institution? If the answer is the second, then does it follow that marriage always has been the union of persons rather than the union of a man and a woman?

  1. Commons votes for non-equal marriage » Christian Voice UK

    [...] « Joke Marriage debate Tuesday 5th February [...]

Comments have been disabled.