ACTUAL news: House of Lords vote 390 to 148 in favour of gay marriage

[FlyingJesus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10099539/Lords-give-overwhelming-backing-to-gay-marriage.html

Bill to stop gay marriage law talks goes defeated by over double the amount of aggressors

Most hilarious quote is "Lord Hylton, an independent crossbench peer, said that the word “gay” has been taken over by homosexuals." literally one of the biggest concerns raised was that the word gay now means homosexual instead of happy and jolly, and THAT is why same-sex couples should not be married

[Chippiewill]

I was not expecting such a landslide result. That said, house of lords is less about the content of a law and more about the legality.

[MKR&*42]

I too am surprised at how large a majority that is :P Nevertheless, good news for a fair few.

[Shar]

that's hilarious. nice to see some change

[Ardemax]

Pleasantly surprised by this result! :) Didn't realise the Lords were in touch with the people

[AgnesIO]

Now this is done, maybe they could start voting on more important issues. Absolutely sick to death of how long the process has become - just make it legal and move on with it fgs

[-:Undertaker:-]

I do hope the weakling Church of England bishops in the House didn't back down on this, as the Archbishop of Canterbury did yesterday by saying that 'gay marriage isn't an issue of faith' - and this is from the man who is supposed to represent Christianity in this country, maybe he ought to read up the Bible. As for the weakness of the backbench Conservative Party, as usual, it's just another nail in its coffin as like the Church of England membership has been nosediving through the floor regarding this issue. Indeed, there hasn't been any other issue that has caused as much upset at Tory grassroots level as this one has - who is going to campaign and knock on doors for Dave come 2015? he's shot apart any credibility he had left, managing the incredible feat of pissing off so many social conservatives in the party who are historically the most loyal of the lot.

When will the Church of England and the Conservative Party learn that social liberals or cultural marxists have no interest in attending Church, listening to Church teachings on morality or ever voting Conservative - they already have Richard Dawkins, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats for what they believe - appealing or surrendering to social liberals and those on the left won't bump up Church numbers nor will it win the Tory Party any elections. What do social conservatives have left? not much, but increasingly the Roman Catholic Church.

In regards to my personal opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, a law doesn't change anything.

[FlyingJesus]

maybe he ought to read up the Bible

You mean the Christian text which explicitly states that we ought not live by Levitican law?

[Aiden]

LMFAO the happy thingy loooool

so how many stages does this stupid bill have to go ?

[MKR&*42]

Committee > 3rd reading > royal assent iirc. ^

[Aiden]

ohhh :O

is there a list of which lords voted for what?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You mean the Christian text which explicitly states that we ought not live by Levitican law?

Nobody says the Bible all should be taken literally, but you have to reach a point where morality (which inherantly discriminates against somebody or something by its nature) has to be defended - which is the entire point of the Church. I would personally say we, or Christians rather, reached a suitable biblical level of compromise in the 1900s to 1950s - for example, tolerating homosexuality and treating with respect but still realising homosexuality is against Christian teachings and therefore should certainly not be encouraged by the Church and more so discouraged.

The fact is that you hold socially liberal views on morality and all that, and that's fine - but many do not (Christians, social conservatives, muslims even) and therefore are completely puzzled when their Church won't even properly come out against acts such as this. And again, that's why CoE members are flocking to the RCC which actually seems to have a bit of backbone.

[FlyingJesus]

The entire point of the church is bigotry based on nothing whatsoever in opposition to its own holy book?

Homosexuality is NOT against Christian teachings - at least not against any that should actually exist in terms of scriptural evidence. Love that you said that Christians ought to read the Bible and then when it was pointed out that the Bible doesn't hold your beliefs at all you turned around and said it shouldn't be read literally

[Aiden]

lol just saying i dont see why god ppl care
they dont have to marry someone of the same sex
just chill, dont watch most tv shows cuz they are full of gays
and defo dont watch xfactor

[-:Undertaker:-]

The entire point of the church is bigotry based on nothing whatsoever in opposition to its own holy book?

Homosexuality is NOT against Christian teachings - at least not against any that should actually exist in terms of scriptural evidence. Love that you said that Christians ought to read the Bible and then when it was pointed out that the Bible doesn't hold your beliefs at all you turned around and said it shouldn't be read literally

Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible time after time throughout, and even if you doubt the Bible is the word of God then it's still inherant in Christian culture of the past few hundred or even thousands of years - and that's why social conservatives and Christians believe it to be wrong on grounds of morality (and thats not even mentioning biology, health or nature). The point is, you obviously agree with policies and broadly beliefs such as this gay marriage - but Christians and social conservatives do not, and therefore are mighty pissed off when their supposed Conservative Party or Church of England haven't even got the backbone to come out strongly against this.

Neither are fit for purpose anymore.

[MKR&*42]

ohhh :O

is there a list of which lords voted for what?

I don't actually know, I'm not too sure their names get recorded with the vote.

You'd have to look around online for it xD.

[Aiden]

I don't actually know, I'm not too sure their names get recorded with the vote.

You'd have to look around online for it xD.

Okay lol

jw is Alan Sugar one of them people? a lord lol :S
I know his names Lord but yeah not sure
and i wanted to see what he voted for
i tried google but no luck :-)
i bet he said yes 2 it anyway cuz it dont seem 2 have problems with gay ppl on his show
but i think hes a jew lol and i just know they are god ppl so i guess he hates them 2
i duno

[FlyingJesus]

Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible time after time throughout

Feel free to point out any New Covenant law which states this, as from a scholarly point of view (ie: one from someone who's actually read the text) it's agreed that the New Covenant erases Mosaic law, and so any condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament is or should be nullified from an educated Christian viewpoint. Ignorance is not an answer as to why things ought to be

[lemons]

Okay lol

jw is Alan Sugar one of them people? a lord lol :S
I know his names Lord but yeah not sure
and i wanted to see what he voted for
i tried google but no luck :-)
i bet he said yes 2 it anyway cuz it dont seem 2 have problems with gay ppl on his show
but i think hes a jew lol and i just know they are god ppl so i guess he hates them 2
i duno

o m g

Edited by Matts (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Feel free to point out any New Covenant law which states this, as from a scholarly point of view (ie: one from someone who's actually read the text) it's agreed that the New Covenant erases Mosaic law, and so any condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament is or should be nullified from an educated Christian viewpoint. Ignorance is not an answer as to why things ought to be

I said earlier a lot is based on culture and customs of the past few hundred to thousand years. The Bible is more or less a rough guide if you will. Either way even if you think the Church ought to debate changing stance on homosexuality - it should be done on the grounds of educated theological debate like you've put forward against customs and values that I side towards rather than what the Church of England does which is change stance purely in the hope that thousands of social liberals will come flocking into the Churches once it does. The CoE needs to learn that social liberals will never attend in great numbers just as the Tory Party needs to understand it will never gain the votes from those on the left.

Perhaps a modern day split is needed in the CoE, with the likes of Rowan Williams and Justin Welby in the liberal 'Church' (which stands for nothingness) and the likes of Carey and Desmond Tutu in the other - and we'll see which one social conservatives and Christians flock to. It's not hard to guess which one.

[FlyingJesus]

To turn your attempt at an argument around, if the church needs to pander to the whims of the ignorant and intolerant in order to keep its flock then that is the true meaning of standing for nothingness, especially if such "moral" standings have absolutely no theological basis. Being wrong for a long time doesn't make it right, and no amount of "just because" will make any view seem logical or worth holding

[Inseriousity.]

some viral letter to some anti-homosexual american tv show host who also used the Bible to justify their prejudice. Theology isn't fixed or exist in its own bubble, it reacts to human problems with a sacred context, often to legitimise terrible views that have no place in a modern society and so it is important that the theology moves forward or they will be left behind when human problems change.

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L18.22) clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L1.9)). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#E21.7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L15.19-24)). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L25.44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#E35.2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L11.10)), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L21.20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L19.27). How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L11.6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L19.19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L24.10-16)) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L20.14))
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To turn your attempt at an argument around, if the church needs to pander to the whims of the ignorant and intolerant in order to keep its flock then that is the true meaning of standing for nothingness, especially if such "moral" standings have absolutely no theological basis. Being wrong for a long time doesn't make it right, and no amount of "just because" will make any view seem logical or worth holding

I don't understand why it is 'intolerant' to oppose homosexuality? Christians can certainly think of homosexuality as wrong or undesirable but be perfectly friendly to homosexuals. The debate really boils down to whether Christians should accept homosexuality - something that the vast majority of them don't for a variety of reasons that extend out of biblical texts or even Christian cultures/traditions and values.

But again, i'm not actually debating it whether it's right or wrong in my eyes - i'm simply making the case that it's absurd for the Church to be going against what its membership believe in the vain attempt of attracting social liberals like yourself to the flock when it's never going to happen. To borrow a phrase from Powell, it's like watching the Church (and Conservative Party) heap up its own funeral pyre.


some viral letter to some anti-homosexual american tv show host who also used the Bible to justify their prejudice. Theology isn't fixed or exist in its own bubble, it reacts to human problems with a sacred context, often to legitimise terrible views that have no place in a modern society.

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L18.22) clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L1.9)). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#E21.7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L15.19-24)). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L25.44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#E35.2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L11.10)), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L21.20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L19.27). How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L11.6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L19.19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L24.10-16)) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14 (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm#L20.14))
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

I have read all of that before and it doesn't convince me, I view Christianity as maybe even more so cultural than what it says in the Bible. The Bible is full of silly things, but that doesn't mean every stance taken by the established Church (England or Rome) is wrong. Often morality is best found through practice, backed by the Bible.

[GommeInc]

Pleasantly surprised by this result! :) Didn't realise the Lords were in touch with the people
You would be amazed. They knocked back any internet based snooping laws where the Commons naturally were in favour. Our elected politicians are worse than our unelected politicians, it seems :P Thank Christ we have the House of Lords and the Queen, the House of Commons is filled with imbeciles.

Quite a big result from the Lords, though. Personally I think more pressing matters should be dealt with, like same-sex couples being allowed to adopt which I find more important than a ceremony filled with pomp, but that's just my views :P Hopefully with marriage comes adoption.

[Aiden]

You would be amazed. They knocked back any internet based snooping laws where the Commons naturally were in favour. Our elected politicians are worse than our unelected politicians, it seems :P Thank Christ we have the House of Lords and the Queen, the House of Commons is filled with imbeciles.

Quite a big result from the Lords, though. Personally I think more pressing matters should be dealt with, like same-sex couples being allowed to adopt which I find more important than a ceremony filled with pomp, but that's just my views :P Hopefully with marriage comes adoption.

cant sam sex couples adpot? what

[FlyingJesus]

it's absurd for the Church to be going against what its membership believe

Not nearly as absurd as it is for their membership to have beliefs against real Christian teachings...

[peteyt]

Great news

[Ardemax]

You would be amazed. They knocked back any internet based snooping laws where the Commons naturally were in favour. Our elected politicians are worse than our unelected politicians, it seems :P Thank Christ we have the House of Lords and the Queen, the House of Commons is filled with imbeciles.

Quite a big result from the Lords, though. Personally I think more pressing matters should be dealt with, like same-sex couples being allowed to adopt which I find more important than a ceremony filled with pomp, but that's just my views :P Hopefully with marriage comes adoption.

I totally agree! Come on Lordies, there are pressing issues that need to be pressed