To want to flounce my current church...

[trustissues75]

and to point out to them that praying for LGBT couples be denied marriage like everyone else and that they should be happy with civil unions is akin to telling African Americans in the 50's to be happy they got their own water fountain?

And also want to tell them what a pile of fucking hypocrits they are?

If we're following the example of the Bible, then we should probably acknowledge that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and David also had multiple wives. So by that logic polygamy is OK.

Trust, Jesus was clearly so horrified by homosexuality that it rendered him speechless on the issue :)

No, you're not being unreasonable in the slightest. They are. Fecking bigots.

We keep hearing that's it's religious people who are opposing gay marriage in this country. Actually, it isn't. Virtually every churchgoer of every denomination I have ever spoken to is pro-gay marriage. It's the men in long dresses and funny hats that are against it, not their flocks.

So yes, flounce. And slam the door loudly.

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. mathew 7.5

I think that the church should worry less about who is shagging who and how we can love our neighbours better.

MrsTodd...you understood...they led a prayer to protect children and marriages and our nation from the government possibly making the "wrong" decision. There was lots of clapping and yessing and shaking of hands in the air....I felt physically sick to be honest. I wonder what these people, some of who I call friends, who smile so brightly at me and welcome me would say if I said..."Well, actually, I'm bisexual; I was born that way and I'm ok with it. You still love me, right?" Cue the gradual turning of backs over the coming months I'm sure.

I agree with you trust. I currently attend an international baptist church in Germany-there are some lovely people but I know most of them are very much of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach which I feel is patronising and demeaning (oh we are all sinners but my marriage is blessed by God approach)-love is not a sin and I cannot get my head around people who want to say it is. So much harm has been done to GLBTQ people with this approach/conversion therapy etc. I just cannot conceive that their options are -live life alone in celibacy, deny your sexuality and date/marry-not only harming yourself but your opposite sex spouse or be forced to leave the church and accept that you are a sinner. This is not what is talked of in the bible when we are told that Jesus came to give us life in all it's fullness.

(And breathe...!) I make no attempt to hide my views, often posting quotes/links to Facebook etc and have had 2 or 3 people with gay family members ask about it and mention that they wish people would be less judgemental-but so many people within the church are so sure that they KNOW exactly what God feels and thinks even though they make little effort to verify the verses or understand the context-or even think logically about the fact that very little of the bible makes sense when taken literally today. The spirit of Jesus message to us-(examine your own lives/love God and each other/do not judge others-and when asked about other people and what was to happen to them -"Mind your own business!") are all things we can apply in our lives.

I still go to this church but can feel myself withdrawing and having less respect for the leadership. When we move back to UK I will not be going to a similar church-the very thought of it makes me feel ill. DS (7) knows my views and that other Christians think differently but I will not expose him to homophobic views by a church leadership as he gets older. Not quite sure where we will go, I have found a couple of inclusive C of E churches, a Unitarian church and I think a fairly new Oasis church. (Steve Chalke has recently released a video/booklet talking about inclusivity/acceptance within evangelical churches). If anyone has any other suggestions for the Bristol area I would love to know.

With reference to Equal Marriage I think -a)there are lots of important issues which the government deal with-they are capable of dealing with more than one thing, and if it is so unimportant then let us get it passed quickly with a minimum of fuss. b)many churches and Christians (and other religions inc Orthodox Jews) support equal marriage so why should the views of these against it take precedence and c)No where in the bible does it say that it is a sin to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples-Even though IT WILL NOT HAPPEN the worst case scenario is that vicars will have to obey the law? I am sure that vicars marry all sorts of people who they do not necesarily agree with, why is this different?

Sorry that was long! Meant to say liberal Jews as well as Quakers, Unitarians etc support equal marriage!

The creation story is believed to have been written when the Jews had been exiled to Babylon. They were worried their God would not go with them. However, as God, is God of all creation, he was with them wherever they were.

As it has been shown that being gay is genetic, as opposed to a 'lifestyle choice' I find it very hard to believe that a God would create people who could never be loved/love others (in a gay relationship) and that by being in a relationship they are constantly sinning. As 'man was not meant to be alone'.

I can understand the church having problems actually marrying gay people in church - it would mean rewriting all the church canon (law) - not an impassable obstacle, but as there are people who are unable to even accept women as priests/bishops, I think them allowing gay marriage to be changed is a big uphill struggle. The problem being the minority rather than the majority - e.g. with the women bishop vote the current clergy (those who have studied theology) mainly thought it was a good idea, it is more areas of the laity who have been brought up to believe religious dogma without actually ever challenging it, or knowing where it has come from, where the church is going to struggle.

I think the interesting thing is how cross the C of E became when it was proposed that they be banned by law from performing "gay marriages" rather than it being left to their conscience like other churches and religious groups.

I do think it could have been avoided if "Civil Partnerships" had become the normal legal bit for everyone, then you could have a religious service on top according to the rules of that religion. And also Civil Partnerships should be between any two people who want to be committed, regardless of sex.

But then I have had arguments with Christian parents at DCs junior school (C of E) who oppose the children visiting the Hindu temple.

Mummy...the parents opposed their children visiting a Hindu temple? Wow. Their choice I guess but why do people get so uppity about other religions? Why do they feel so threatened? Is their faith that weak? Can they not get over themselves a little and recognise that other religions aren't just going to poof into the ether just because they bury their heads in the sand and choose to ell their children that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

Yanbu my lovely mum, a committed Christian and socialist who firmly believes in equality is struggling in her conservative church right now ...she has no liberal options locally and just keeps speaking up ...repeatedly...to be ignored or talked over

gordy...how very rude of them....ignoring or talking over? They do ascribe to being Christians right?...

When I was first converted homosexuality was a big issue for me, and I read and re-read the Bible trying to find loop-holes that would make it OK. Believe it or not I'd always been quite a liberal person and had a "live and let live" attitude. But no matter how hard I tried I just could not reconcile my own views with what the Bible said and eventually I realised I was trying to make the Bible fit in with my own values instead of living my life in the framework of what God teaches us; just picking the bits of the Bible that were easy to subscribe to and ignoring the bits that were challenging and might make my life difficult.

None of the Christians I know hate gay people. Just because you don?t agree with somebody?s lifestyle-choice doesn?t mean you hate them. If I hated everybody whose lifestyle wasn?t compatable with Biblical teaching, then I would have a lot of hatred and few friends.

Why would I condem my friends who are in gay relationships any more than those who are unmarried and living with heterosexual partners, who get drunk, don?t keep Sunday as the Bible commands etc? They all are sinners in need of grace? just like me. But love covers a multitude of sins.

My greatest wish for all my friends in these kinds of situations are that they would repent and come to Christ ? not because I want them to be ?the same as me? but because I love them and want the best for them. I am not any more deserving of God?s grace than they are.

I know a gay Christian who lives a celibate life ? that is the sacrifice that he has made in order follow Christ, and yes I know it?s a big thing to expect of anybody. But I also know a former Jehovah?s Witness who has been rejected by his own family for becoming a Christian, and I?ve met Christians who live in Muslim countries who risk their life to follow Christ. In the New Testament, Stephen, Peter and many others died for Christ?s cause. They did so because He gave up his life for them ? He is worth it!

I know it?s not easy, but the Bible teaches us to take up our cross and follow Him; nowhere in the Bible are we promised an easy time on this earth as a Christian. I understand that this is not an easy thing to hear and it probably seems easy for me to say, as somebody who (so far) has not been called upon to make great sacrifices for my faith. But I have to be prepared to do so if the time comes ? and I have a promise from God that if I do, He will give me the strength to endure whatever I have to face!

Jesus tells us to hate the sin but love the sinner.

But tuppence....could you please tell me where in the Bible it explicitly and unequivocally says that homosexuality is a sin? Because I've had a hard time finding it.

And I'm not suggesting that the congregational members of my church either hate or love people who are LGBT I've not personally asked them - what I am saying is that they have not right to try to influence the government to blanket force their views on the rest of the nation.

:) Tuppence, I came from a very evangelical background, and have become more liberal as I have got more involved in real life.
For me, and I'm not trying to alter your view, I came to believe that the bible was written over time by people trying to understand their God. They didn't always understand correctly (hence their are still theologians trying to understand more about God) e.g. Paul thought Jesus' return was imminent and told people not to get married as they needed to devote themselves to the church's work. We'd have a problem 2000years later if nobody had got married and had children.
Jesus himself reiterates many parts of the Torah law, such as adultery, but with homosexuality he was silent, which does leave it open to interpretation by later cultures. Adultery is a sin which ends up hurting people, homosexuality doesn't. In my understanding he was (compared to the culture of his day) very open to women and their ministry (especially as described by Luke) yet he didn't choose any to be any of his specific named disciples. I think that would probably have been a step to far in his day to have been taken seriously. But if he came today, would that be different? In my opinion, probably yes. If Jesus shows acceptance and inclusion of people then we as Christians should too.

Trust Lev 18:22 in some translations specifically says the PRACTICE of homosexuality is a sin e.g. the new living translation:Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
however, translations which are considered more accurate tend to just say "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

However, it wasn't so long back, 100years, 200years? that the same viewpoint was held by the law in this country, let alone a race living several thousand years ago.

Tuppence you might be interested in rereading the passage where Jesus heals the centurion's servant, but know that the phrase used which is now usually translated as "favourite servant" or similar, in the original, had the force that "partner" does today. Semantically it doesn't mean "gay lover" but that's the phrase that was used at the time.

Read it again. The centurion's lover faithful servant is desperately ill. The centurion faithfully believes Jesus can heal him, but knows them to be outcasts, so doesn't ask Jesus to visit. But He does - he accepts them as they are and does not challenge their lifestyle.

If Jesus could visit a gay couple, I will not condemn one. He did not accept people who were still sinning (eg at the temple market) but did accept those whom others falsely believed to be sinners (eg lepers).

This was highlighted to me by an extremely academic priest friend of mine (married with children so no particular bias in this issue) and since then I've had no doubts.

You cannot read a translated book and hope to have insight into the original without expert guidance and useful footnotes.

Can I ask a question, because I don't know the answer? Where does a civil partnership fall short of marriage? What does a marriage offer - legally or personally - over a civil partnership?

Tuppence -why should this particular verse of Leviticus be seen as so important that it takes precedence over the other verses which very few rational people follow? There are huge discrepancies and discussions about what Paul said about homosexuality (temple prostitutes/married men/translation issues etc) but none of the prohibitions refer to a committed partnership the way we would understand it today.( Incidentally this is also true for heterosexual marriage.)
What it comes down to is the fact that we can not know the mind of God.

As for the concept of "Love the sin, hate the sinner" I cannot find it quoted anywhere that this is what Jesus commands. This is a good article on the subject,

www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/love-the-sinner-hate-the_b_526355.html

But particularly this quote:

"First, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an unbiblical concept. Many people think that this is a divine command, but it actually doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. Although God clearly "hates" sin in the Bible (sane in Hebrew and miseo in the Greek), God never demands that we carry out this hatred on God's behalf. God is perfectly capable of addressing the sins of others without needing our third-party intervention. Those who truly believe in "hating sin" probably should focus more on hating their own sins (i.e., first taking the log out of their own eyes, as Jesus says) instead of hating the sins of others. (See Matt. 7:5 and Luke 6:42.)"

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05882.pdf

There you go Scholes....first chapter in the index. Basically LGBT partners are being denied choice based on their sexual orientation - the choice, and privilege to call each other wife and wife, or husband and husband, and the choice to have a religious ceremony if it is important to them. There are other issues too.

Trock...to add weight...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

Trust they are high Anglican and more traditionalists than openly right wing...lots of.older congregation members and few families and young people

Civil partnership differs in terms of consumation and it isn't recognised once you step out of the country, even if you go to another country that has equal marriage or some form of civil partnership.

The main problem is that words matter, it's viewed as 'marriage lite' and it forces those in one to 'out' themselves in a way that they wouldn't have to if they could use the same words eg the police officer who was shot dead in Mancester. People might be 'out' or they might not or they might not be out to everyone and by having o use a different word, that choice is removed to a certain extent.

Trokodile I have always believed (and it is only my assumption) that the term love the sinner, hate the sin, came because of Jesus' treatment of the women caught in adultery, the woman is dragged to Jesus so she can be stoned (note the man isn't dragged with her). Jesus says that whoever has commited no sin should throw the first stone. The eldest walk away first. When the whole mob has left, Jesus tells her to go BUT to sin no more. i.e. he saved her from stoning because he loved her, but he didn't love the sin.

Scholes, I don't think there is any difference between a civil partnership and a marriage in terms of 'legal benefits' received, just the name. I don't understand why if 'gay marriage' is approved therefore why civil partnerships need to be retained. Anybody any ideas?