NOT A GAY DAY!

Today sees Northern Irish society sink to a new low, as "civil partnerships", the precursor to official gay marriage,  becomes law. 

Naturally the militant gay lobby is delighted with the news and it is deemed politically impolite to speak out against this corruption of the institution of marriage by the liberally driven  political class. Unsurprisingly the Churches are pretty mute on the subject, though at least the Roman Catholic Church exercises some moral clarity on the subject. The lack of comment by the main Protestant Churches is evidence of their own descent into the moral mire.

It's just one pink jamboree and presented as an alleged sign of our "maturity and tolerance", or so goes the official line. Well, I beg to differ and see it as one more indicator of our society slouching towards Gomorrah. But if we look North, to the western Isles of Scotland, we see a spirited effort to ban civil partnerships, with local Councillors voting AGAINST them. However, in another sign of the rabid intolerance that underlies so-called liberalism, the Registrar General of Scotland will FLY IN outside registrars to the Western Isles - a move which would have the Executive's full support. So the wishes of the people of the Western Isles are to be ignored lest militant gays and their cheer-leaders in high places be offended!

Let me make my position clear on this. I have no issues with gay people on a individual basis, though I condemn the sin as the Bible requires. What people do in private is their business, not mine. However, and there is always a however in these things, I believe that conferring the same economic and legal advantages on homosexuals as those hithertoo enjoyed by married heterosexuals WILL seriously undermine the institution of marriage, and I would recommend anyone who doubts this to familiarise themselves with the work of Stanley Kurtz.

I also believe that civil partnerships will morph into fully fledged gay marriage. That is part of the not-so-outspoken gay agenda and those who think that this concession to militant homosexuals will be the end of the story fool themselves.

Today is a day of shame for Northern Ireland.

Comments

[Colm]

"Rabid intolerance"

David , this post is a perfect example of that.

[David Vance]

Colm,

No, it is an honest expression of my views on the matter. The sub title of this blog is "a dissenting view of contemporary politics" and I retain the right to argue against whatever I wish, regardless of who likes it or otherwise. Rabid intolerance is best exemplified by those politically correct liberals who will bully their way over the wishes of the people of the Western Isles as indicated in the post.

The key line, Colm, is to condemn the sin but love the sinner. Some liberals get it the other way round.

[NRG]

As long as soddemy is tolerated rather then enforced I don't see that it matters too much.

However the professional gay activists should give a bit more thought to the views of wider society and encourage some of the gay community, if such a thing exists, moderate the excess behaviour. However the same could be said for some other groups.

[DST]

I think it's a bit strong to call it "A Day of Shame for Northern Ireland"... there must be better contenders for that title!

Rather than condemn civil partnerships (which seem to make sense to me, at the very least on the grounds of fairness) why not ask why governments have reconfigured the tax and benefits system to strip marriage of its advantages.

Instead of bewailing the extension of basic rights to gays, campaign for the restoration of laws that recognise that marriage is special and held by society to be A Good Thing.

[Colm]

David

Of course you are perfectly entitled to your views, and I do respect your willingness to stand by them, but I am saying that it is the actions of the Western isles councillors which display rabid intolerance , not the willingness of the registrar general to effect these legal measures.

Civil Partnership is not a religous ceremony and the desire of faith based individuals and groups to ensure that such unions are not given religous approval is perfectly valid , but to seek to ban the secular legal partnerships is not acceptable and is an interference is matters that are nothing to do with religous faith.

Civil Partnerships are not compulsary , they are there for gay couples who wiah to avail of them and nobody has to give approval or attend a ceremony if they don't wish to, but while people of faith should be entirely free to worship as they wish and organise their religous institutions as they see fit, the state also has a duty to respect and recognise all it's citizens including those that may not have the approval of certain religous communities.

[Colm]

David

I just wanted to re-iterate that I don't think you expressing your views was an example of 'Rabid intolerance' just the attempts by the Western isles councillors to impose their opinion on ALL residents of those isles.

[Colin Maxwell]

Thankfully the Free Presbyterian Church will be raising a visible protest both in Londonderry and in Belfast. There is still some "protest" left in Protestantism. As you indicate, the mainline Protestant denominations are just "ants" - the "Protest" is gone.

[Cunningham]

Any chance that at least the bible-thumpers among Ulster Unionists will now gaze with more sympathy across the border, where such unions are still impossible? Maybe this is all part of the hidden agenda that the 2 Govts are quite obviously pursuing (contrast Dublin/London ministers handling of the Provos), to make NI so unbearable that they rush into the protective embrace of RoI, where they will also be infinitely more appreciated that by thier fellow Britons. A sort of persuasion from the back, so to speak.

[David Vance]

DST/Colm,

Excellent comments.

Colin,

I agree.

[Henry94]

Colin

Many Protestants appear to believe that Gay Marriage is fine by God. You may disagree with them but on what basis do you dispute their right to their own interpretation of scripture?

What makes Peter Robinson right and Gene Robinson wrong other than your private agreement with one or the other.

[Madradin Ruad]

Live and Let Live.

[David Vance]

Live and let die!

[Madradin Ruad]

"Save Sodomy From Ulster" ;)

[Colin Maxwell]

Henry94

Two things.
[i] I don't think those who engage in these Sodomite unions have any religion at all, so I hardly see them sweating over an interpretation of the Bible.

[ii] The Bible is not a free for all in interpretation. There is no clear scripture that endorses such a action and plenty which condemn it: Genesis 13v13/Genesis 18/Romans 1:24-31/1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[Colm]

Colin

The Civil Parterships are nothing to do woth religous faith so there is no reason for religous individuals and organisations to complain about them.

[willowfield]

DV

A great day for NI - a rare occasion in which we are leading the rest of the UK rather than following. If David Vance doesn't like being part of a liberal, secular state, maybe he'd prefer Saudi Arabia.

I believe that conferring the same economic and legal advantages on homosexuals as those hithertoo enjoyed by married heterosexuals WILL seriously undermine the institution of marriage

How?

So the wishes of the people of the Western Isles are to be ignored lest militant gays and their cheer-leaders in high places be offended!

Presumably you think it's OK for the views of gays in the Western Isles to be ignored? Or for the law of Scotland not to apply in the Western Isles?

I also believe that civil partnerships will morph into fully fledged gay marriage.

What would the difference be?

[Colin Maxwell]

Let me explain my world view to you. You might not agree, but you will at least maybe understand where Bible Christians are coming from on this.

We believe that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34) God's word is binding on all people, even if they reject it. To recognise and make sin "official" is to invite God's wrath upon the nation. All people, including Christians, suffer when this happens. What is happening affects us all. No man is an island.

To honour God, as a nation, is to invite His blessing. Christians are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13) i.e. they have a preserving influence. Part of this is for them to "cry aloud and spare not" (Isaiah 58:1) to warn and entreat and (best of all) to preach the gospel that Christ sets men free, including Sodomites. There were converted Sodomites in the Corinthians congregation (1 Cor.6:9-10)

As I say, you might not agree...but at least you might understand. Christian protests are generally peaceful. Maybe boisterous at times (It is Belfast!) but the Sodomites do not have enemies in the Bible Christians, only those who ultimately care for them in the best way possible.

[David Vance]

Willowfield,

Come now, you're too modest. Northern Ireland already leads the UK in several exciting way; Let me see;

FIRST to release hundreds of convicted terrorists.

FIRST to install terrorists representatives in Government.

FIRST to allow on-the-run murderers to come back home free from justice

And - let me get this straight - YOU supported all of this.

So don't lecture me about the Gay Marriage -it IS a moral affront to those of us who believe the Bible and I see no reason to reconsider my position. I am careful not to damn the sinners though - though when it comes to those who support the Belfast Agreement and its obscene provisions, then I do damn them.

A bad day for Ulster - our backs are indeed against the wall. Whooops!

[DST]

I don't think you'll do anything to re-build the status of traditional marriage by throwing names around. (And I think it's probably the lodestone on which the order and happiness of society rests).

Colin: while you claim to for gay people "in the best way possible", you're still happy to chuck insults at them / us.

I don't imagine you're using the word "sodomite" other than as a ploy to annoy.

Civil partnership - which is not marriage - is about fairness. It's about enabling people to make legally-enforceable and socially-recognised claims on each other to enable inheritance or the right to visit a partner in hospital as next of kin.

Why does everyone get so fraught about The Gays?

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

I must admit I didn't come up with these questions myself, but seeing as ATW seem to be experts at applying biblical instruction to the real world, perhaps they could help?

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 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?

8. 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. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 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. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we have to do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[Colin Maxwell]

DST

I use the term "Sodomite" solely because this is the Bible term (Deuteronomy 23:17) and this is the basis of all my comments. There are other well known names which I *could* use which would be unnecessarily offensive and so I avoid them on these postings. I also avoid terms like "gays" etc., because I don't think they are appropiate either. I let God Himself, to whom we all must one day give an account, describe those who break His law in this way.

I haven't insulted any one in these posts.I have registered my lawful opposition to what is happening in my native city. If that constitutes "insults" then what further proof do I need that this matter of Sodomite unions poses a greater threat than is generally recognised?

I don't always agree with DV's views...but I sure am glad that he is providing us with a platform to give an honest opinion of what we think on certain issues.

[Hugh Green]

I let God Himself, to whom we all must one day give an account, describe those who break His law in this way.

I would like to see some proof that God wrote the Bible or approved of the term 'Sodomite'. 'It says so in the Bible' isn't proof BTW.

[Jo]

A woman was raped in Belfast this weekend.

She wasnt gay and neither was the man who raped her.

Yet all thse posts and outrage over two adult women pledging their love for each other? Priorities...

[Colm]

"I haven't insulted any one in these posts"

That's up to those reading them to decide not you. However you quite rightly are free to do so.

However can I just point out that in a purely legal sense Civil Partnerships are not about homosexual unions. They do not operate in the same manner as the Marraige Acts where particular vows are required to ensure the union is a marraige commitment. No vows are required for the civil union so there is no legal impediment to 2 friends (regardless of sexual orientation) forming a civil union.

[DST]

Thanks Colin.

Unfortunately , for you, the discussion on civil unions is happening without exclusive reference to Bible terms. So I think you'd be a more effective advocate for your point of view if you didn't use the word "sodomite" (and in any case, the people of Sodom surely were condemned for being inhospitable - and how many gays have you met who wouldn't invite you in for a cup of tea and a bun?)

I am not unsympathetic to your forceful and unambiguous Christianity. We could do with a lot more. But at the same time I'm not going to buy this literal reading on the Bible. PopeBuckFast's post shows quickly you can reduce yourself to absurdity.

There's a lot of extraneous - and conflicting - stuff in the Bible. But the central message of love is very clear and I feel certain that God would be more interested in our observance on this point, rather than obscure ceremonial rules of an itinerant desert people thousands of years ago.

I am afraid I'm feeling more Pharisaical self-righteousness than love and charity in your position on this.