Now that the dust has settled on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, it is coming to be recognized as a massive mistake.
Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, has said that David Cameron pushed ‘gay marriage’ through “too quickly” and that it has been ‘damaging’ to the Tories.
Even David Cameron himself now reportedly believes that the speed with which he rushed the changes through Parliament was a political error, though there seems to be ambiguity on whether the Prime Minister said he actually “regretted” it.
However, there can be no doubt on one thing: it was a massive mistake.
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.
All Mr Cameron regrets is that it may affect his chances of being re-elected. By pretending repentance he may fool some angry people into forgiving him and giving the Tories their vote.
Cameron’s a douche and a liar, i believe nothing this man says.
Michael Isola is right here. This is not really a moral story, but a political one. It’s like making the mistake of promising a tax rebate in the hope of attracting more voters, and then regretting it because of the problems of not having enough money to run the country. Not enough homosexual lovers and their friends are going to vote conservative as a result of this for it to have been worthwhile (which really doesn’t surprise me).
Gay Marriage is bad and a big mistake.
And yet, maybe not always. Take the case of the Rev Flowers, banker extraordinary. Might it not have been better if he was quietly married, sitting at home watching television even with another man, rather than having his drug-fuelled bachelor extravaganzas with his gay young friends ?
Ah, but you are talking about the homosexual world, Rox. Would that it were that simple. Or that faithful.
Well, it’s not always quite that simple with the heterosexual world either, but you could give them a chance.
One might contend that decriminalising their activities in private, removing sodomy as a criminal offence, introducing civil partnerships to give recognition to their relationships, introducing anti-discrimination legislation and now passing the oxymoron of ‘gay marriage’ was ‘giving them a chance’ but still the homosexual world relies on drugs, promiscuity and paying for sex.
[…] Christians use worse language than this). Because of what the Bible says, many believers seek to deny same-sex couples the right to marry and resist attempts to grant them the same rights as everyone else, Christians […]
Are the Tories still calling themselves the Conservative Party these days?
One can’t help but wonder what exactly they’re trying to conserve.
Im a 16 year old young gay christian, i am one of gods children and he loves me the same as he loves all of you, why should i not be aloud to settle down and marry with the love of my life the same as you could with yours?
The Lord Jesus said:
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 his Apostle, Paul wrote:
Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
And this:
1Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
(It appears there were in Corinth those who had been delivered from same-sex attraction by the power of Jesus Christ. You could be too.)
James might be tempted to suggest that none of these absolutely clearly applies to him.
Jesus doesn’t say that it’s compulsory for all men to have a wife, and he didn’t have one himself, although he was made male. The Church has always encouraged women to remain virgins. Jesus doesn’t seem to be commenting here on men cleaving to each other, or on any compulsory rules. He is just pointing out that God made a male and female pairing possible, and that this is a good reason for leaving home (although it isn’t the reason he persuaded his own apostles to drop everything and leave home). I don’t think Stephen would condemn simple old-fashioned bachelors like Ted Heath.
James could quickly discount Ephesians if he felt that his love could not be classed as filthiness, uncleanliness, or fornication. You would need to look at the original Greek to be sure what Paul really meant. What about this foolish talking and jesting: they seem to be just as bad as the “fornication”. So what is it really all about ?
Again, in Corinthians James could argue that he is not an unrighteous fornicator. Is he “effeminate” ? If he is, then he is damned anyway. But then what does it mean ? There are heterosexual artistic men happily married with children who might be called effeminate, and there are great tough brutes who are practising homosexuals.
The Church encourages chastity and fidelity for both sexes.
James will quickly find, if he has not already, that homosexual acts are indeed filthy.
The Greek words used in 1 Corinthians are ‘malakos’ which means ‘soft to the touch’ and was Greek slang for a homosexual taking the passive role in sodomy, and ‘arsenokoites’ which means ‘male in bed’ and is Paul’s allusion to the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22, thus meaning the one taking the active role.