“Church of England bishops argued yesterday that clergy members could be sued for refusing to carry out religious civil partnerships for gay couples.
Earlier this week, the House of Lords approved an amendment to the Equality Bill allowing faiths to hold the ceremonies if they wish.
The Lords vote does not make the change law, as it must be approved by the government and an amendment must be made to the Civil Partnership Act.
Despite the fact that Lord Waheed Alli’s amendment made it clear that churches would have the option of hosting the ceremonies, the Bishop of Winchester Michael Scott-Joynt claimed that gay couples could use human rights legislation to sue vicars who chose not to officiate for them.”
Read more at Pink News
"
Sexual perversion. The definition of sexual perversion is anything that go’s away from genital sex between a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation.
That’s to say that Anal sex, Oral sex, Masturbation, Wearing a condom, Are sexual perversions. Anal sex, Oral sex, Between a man and man is sexual perversion. Also Anal sex, Oral sex, Between a woman and a woman is sexual perversion. As is Anal sex, Oral sex, Between a man and a woman sexual perversion. normal sexual behaviour is genital sex between a man and a woman. So there for homosexuality is a sexual perversion as is bisexuality and lesbianism. Anal sex,
the church have got to no were the goal post are,like every one else, when it comes to morals the Church of England should be moralist and not bow to the unmoralist….
So let me get this straight… infertile people that have sex are perverts? They’re not procreating, so by your definition, they should remain celibate. I’m sure they’ll appreciate that…
So what is the Church Of England’s stance on Aural Sex? I haven’t heard anything suggesting that is immoral… (mind you, I haven’t heard much at all since finishing ‘extra’ choir practice…)
I suppose the very suggestion of Nasal Sex would get right up the Archbishop’s nose too.
Makes you laugh really, the church on it’s moral high ground, yet the amount of sex scandals the church has covered up. Ranging from ‘rape’ by the preists having sex with minors, peodophilia and everything else. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Marriage is not about condoning sexual activities, it is about a union of “souls” or the affirmation of a loving relationship.
The church doesn’t have grounds to reject such a union on the assumed or likely sexual relations that couple may have.
You clearly understand that heterosexual couples can still take part in these “sexual perversions” Mark, therefore should heterosexual marriages also be prohibited on the grounds that they could partake in perverse sexual activities?
The church isn’t, or shouldn’t, be an authority in any sense, It’s a spiritual service.
That said, I have no problem with churches only providing this service ‘if they wish’. There are plenty of churches that only wed couples that are regular attendees, this shouldn’t be any different, just not a moral judgement.
A great step forward allowing priests to perform civil partnership ceremonies, but I think it should remain optional. Let the idea spread – It would be far better if the church eventually willingly accepted the idea of gay relationships, rather than being forced to accept it. If it was made law, then yes, the prejudice of the church would be illegal, but the prejudice itself would still exist.
There was a fantastic couple of Catholic pro-life demonstrators in Maidstone town centre a few days ago. One of them called out, “Gay relationships prevent the procreation of the human race!” Then this guy walking passed called back, “Aren’t all your priests celibate?”
Is it wrong of me to be looking forward to the first such legal case, and the spanking that the CofE would hopefully get in a court?
Churches refuse to marry people all the time, a friend of mine wanted to get married in a catholic church (to please his parents) but the priest would not allow it as neither of them believed in god.
Which strikes me as fair enough.
It’s their ball if you don’t want to play their game they have a perfect right to take it home.
Hey Mark, is it always NOT perverted if it’s genital to genital? I mean, does that mean just missionary, or is it also ok in the bushes outside someone else’s house or in a nightcub? What is more perverse, oral between two loving partners in their own home, or genital to genital man to woman on top of a bus on Oxford Street for the purposes of having a baby?
Or what if it’s in some Karma Sutra position, is that ok or wrong? Or if they start with some mega weird roleplay but have no contact until genital to genital sex and they want to have a baby?
Just wondering.
Just seen this on the bbc news site about a huge sex scandal rocking the Vatican:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8552804.stm