Religious heads oppose UK’s move to allow gay marriage

A FORMER island basketball star said she would like to marry her partner in Guernsey if gay marriage legislation was introduced.

A FORMER island basketball star said she would like to marry her partner in Guernsey if gay marriage legislation was introduced.

The House of Commons yesterday voted in favour of a bill which will enable gay people to get married both in civil and religious ceremonies – where a religious institution had formally consented – in England and Wales. However, the move faced strong opposition from religious figureheads locally, who felt marriage should be purely a union between a man and woman.

Liz Kerr, who used to be Guernsey’s basketball captain, has been with her female partner for the past 12 years. The couple had a ceremony in 2004 to recognise their commitment to each other but it was not legal.

‘Definitely one day we would like to get married but we want to wait until it is recognised legally in Guernsey,’ the 39-year-old photographer said.

But Dean of Guernsey, the Very Rev. Canon Paul Mellor (pictured), yesterday said it was unwise to tamper with marriage. He said redefining the language of marriage could have ‘unforeseen consequences’.

Comments for: "Religious heads oppose UK’s move to allow gay marriage"

vic gamble

...."unforeseen circumstances" is a phrase used by those with no foresight!


.....or no foreskin if they happen to be Muslim or Jewish. As for me I'm eternally grateful Christians don't need to snip the tip any more - I'd have needed it done at 28 and the very thought makes me go weak at the knees.


Well, I’m sure it won’t cause half as much damage as his religion has throughout the ages.


And once again the church highlights its minority status, isn't it about time they realised that most of us couldn't give a monkey's toss what they think? Just keep taking the cash off taxpayers to further bloat your finances, in the guise of church upkeep and ecclesiastical court fees, whilst refusing to agree to any kind of transparency as to where the money goes. Ching ching Mr Mellor, keep the till ringing.

King Maker

Agree, thin edge of the wedge - Gay Marriage what a farce - go somewhere else where it is accepted, we dont have to here and it should be illegal. Too many hand wringing liberals around!! Get a grip there are far more imrotant things to deal with then bull like this.

Rainbow Roy

"King Maker" you wish.

King Maker

Same sex parnerships or so called marriages are nothing more than a freek show gone wrong.

Did you see the disgusting spectable that was a same sex couple with a baby last night on the ITV news - what chance does that baby have in that environment!

It aint right and trying to wring your hands and say 'oh dont be nasty' is pretty pathetic, get a grip!

Oh Dear

So would you have preferred it if the child stayed with it's own family?

What if they were neglecful drug addicts, paedophiles or alcoholics?

Do you think that is a better environment than being raised by two Dads who will love child?

Why do Homosexuals frighten people so much? They're just people!


King Maker - What about a women in an abusive marriage who has children? She protects her children from an abusive father - and finally divorces him due to persistent domestic abuse. She subsequently enters a same sex relationship. Is she suddenly an unsuitable mother? Should her children be taken away from her? Would they really be better off in an institution, or moved from foster family to foster family?

Just one hypothetical example to illustrate how complicated these matters can be. Listen - I'm the first to say in an ideal world the best place for children is a stable family environment with both natural parents - but we both know that ideal world doesn't exist. I may have reservations about some parenting arrangements but your comment suggest you're more concerned about justifying your own position than the best interests of the child.

Rainbow Roy

"KIng Maker", you wish.

You're not a maker of Kings, but a sad internet troll.


perhaps King Maker is, in fact, just a bitter old queen, secreted so far back in the closet, he's in Narnia.... *lol*

john p. dantic

Name me one imrotant thing?


*important *than *full stops *correct syntax

Perhaps if you didn't sound like an uneducated moron, the majority may be more sympathetic to your viewpoint. As it is, the majority think you're talking "bull".


If you are referring to 'King Maker' then he is also an "uneducated moron" inasmuch that he doesn't acknowledge the rationality of liberalism.


This is the normal 'Ed'- I just want to make that clear so that the possibility that any other 'Ed' said this is excluded.

Island Wide voting


Might be safer to change your name ?



The reason being ? ...

Island Wide Voting

Sorry Ed

I was addressing the 'normal' Ed



The 'Ed' with the purple gravatar was me as well- made a typo when writing the email first time around.

Island Wide Voting

Oh OK ,but the purple Ed claimed to be normal which is what led to the confusion


"Unwise to tamper with marriage" says the Dean of Guernsey. It's unwise to "tamper" with a lot of things but a number of factions of the Church haven't covered itself with glory there...let's enjoy that fact that we are on the whole a progressive, accepting nation. One's sexuality should be of supreme unimportance and really no ones business.


As I get older I realise how much of a nonsense religion really is, how it influence us and controls us ….. In my view it’s archaic, out dated and thank heavens dying out.

Rev Dean .. Let people live their own lives the way they want too.


I’d like to thank Very Reverend Canon Mellor for reminding me of the classic Yes Prime Minister episode where PM Jim Hacker wants to introduce anti-smoking legislation.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems.

Jim Hacker: Such as?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: If I could foresee them, they wouldn't be unforeseen!


What a load of rubbish, with that many divorces around does it really matter whether it is same sex or gay marriages??!! Let people decide for themselves. To say they should go elsewhere is disgusting. Get in the real world.


This should say male/female or gay marriages!


'unforeseen', you can't think of any, Rev Mellor.

What does it matter? It doesn't denigrate conventional marriage or those person's relationship with whatever they perceive to be 'god' in any way whatsoever, and if 'god' is that bothered about it, I'm guessing he'll make his feelings on that subject pretty clear, so doesn't need you to be his self appointed mouthpiece.

i seem to remember similar arguments when they first grudgingly agreed female clergy. Where's are the alleged potential problems with that, then? Yet to hear of any...

With dwindling numbers attending church I would have thought the clergy would be keen to encourage people, not alienate them and make them feel less worthy because of their sexuality....

and as for that subject, perhaps the church should tread very carefully when it comes to taking the moral high ground.


There are all sorts of possible consequences. Not by definition positive or negative, but it's wise to consider them.

For example, currently close blood relatives are forbidden to marry - partly because this has been culturally unacceptable, and partly because of concerns about genetic damage to children from such a union.

But marriages between same-sex couples necessarily rule out the production of children. So why would the ban on marrying a close blood relative continue? There would be no good reason to stop a man marrying his brother, or a woman her mother. And, using the principle of equality, if those two examples are acceptable, why not a man his sister, or a woman her father?

Similarly, given the tax and legal advantages of marriage, there would be no reason to stop people marrying purely to obtain these convenient benefits (for example, flatmates who have no romantic interest in one another). The existing test of whether a marriage is consummated is without legal meaning in a same-sex marriage, and given the principle of equality would stop being applicable to marriages between men and women.

Oh Dear

Who metioned blood relatives getting married? That's completely irrelavant and off topic.

Homosexuality is very much a normal occurence, humans are not the only living beings that contain homosexuals. It happens more often than your average person thinks.

You haven't given that second paragraph much thought. A Man and Woman could have a convenience wedding as well. Why do people always try and limit these things to minorities.

Why is the UK and Guernsey so out of touch with the times? This issue should've been sorted decades ago. I don't think a debate is even necessary.

As for the marriage of blood relatives I don't think there is exactly a lot of call for it. It too exists in nature (more widely than in humans). But is no where near as common as homosexuality.



I will quite happily discuss the consequences of same sex marriage on these areas for you.

In the UK there was a bill to allow same sex couples to get married in religious ceremonies where before they could not. This has prompted the above comments.

Same sex marriage will not lead to incestual marriage. The origin for the desire to allow same sex couples to marry is so they will be treated equally - that they would not be discriminated against. Being homosexual is not illegal and they should be able to live their lives as fully as anyone else.

Incest however is illegal and thus incestual marriage is a crime. The law will not be changed to allow an unlawful activity to take place on the same discrimination grounds.

As an aside in researching whether incest was legal here I came across this: I don't understand why he only got 14 months.

For tax purposes in Guernsey there are no great benefits. Instead of getting a single persons allowance two people share a married persons allowance which is just twice the amount of a single persons allowance.

Married couples can elect to transfer their allowance to their spouse if they wish for tax purposes. However you don't need to married to do this so flat mates can fake if they want to now. Same sex marriage won't change this. Also I do not believe the tax authority actually cares as long as it gets its tax! Over the years the wording on the forms has changed from wife to spouse in what I understand to be more sensitive to all types of relationships.

The legal consequences in the UK were that same sex couples could update their civil partnerships to a marriage and transsexuals could acquire legal recognition in their genders without ending their marriages.

In Guernsey we have no civil partnership law. If we had either that or marriage a same sex couples would be entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

Oh Dear

Dani, very well said!


Please explain to me why two brothers or two sisters having a sexual relationship is wrong, other than than "it disgusts me", "it's not normal", "it'll encourage paedophiles", "it's illegal" or "we've never allowed it in the past"...

All of which were of course reasons given at one stage or another for disapproving of same sex relationships between people who are not blood relatives.



As I have said it is illegal. This is important although you appear to feel this could be liable to change and are worried about this.

I do not believe it is going to change anytime soon and this is for a number of reasons.

Firstly; incest can cause genetic inbreeding. When you have sex with people within your own family you increase the risk of a harmful recessive genetic mutation being expressed. A recessive mutation needs to come from both parents. Usually both parents will not have the mutation but inbreeding makes it more likely. To contrast this to homosexual individuals they are not passing on a recessive genetic mutation.

In the long term diversity would decrease if genetic inbreeding were to occur. This is not a good thing as reduced diversity means people will be more susceptible to disease and weaken the population. Contrasted to homosexuality again this problem would not happen.

This reason only holds true to a certain extent. This is because not all family members can produce offspring. They could use contraception for example or be infertile.

So we look to another reason why it is also likely to remain illegal.

I would like to note people that are homosexual were born that way. When you look around the world there is so much diversity which makes life beautiful. Homosexuality is just another natural variance as is bisexuality and asexuality. They are less prevalent in society but so are other genetic variances. Take eye colour for example. Most peoples eyes are blue or brown but you also get green and grey. I think because sometimes people are wired differently that way it can feel unnatural for those different to understand different sexual preferences because it is not something they feel themselves.

Incest however is a choice. When you think about it in common sense terms it is also a harmful one. It can destroy a family unit. If you were to enter into a relationship with your mother you are no longer just the child and she is no longer strictly just your mother. You would become your sister’s step-father and your father would be displaced. All the upset it can cause can be easily avoided. You can have sex with anyone you want so you don’t need to have sex with your family. You have the rest of your sexually preferred sea to catch a fish in.

To contrast this to homosexual relationships they will start their own units and will not be harming anyone else. I especially enjoy the fact they are more likely to adopt and provide homes and loving units for children that would not have them otherwise.

Thirdly I think there are psychological reasons for there not being a change either although an actual psychologist may be able to give you more insight into this than myself. The role of our parents roles are to ready us for life on our own independent from them as much as possible. Parents are looked up to for guidance and we trust in them. Even if we are older and it is consensual would there not be other psychological factors at play in these types of relationships? Family love is different to being in love and there is no gene which I am aware of that makes you genetically inclined to lust after your family. Does family hierarchy not make it easier to be exploited?

Comparing this area to homosexual relationships again there are no pre-established relationship roles to manipulate or benefit from in the same way.

I think because of all these points the law will not be changed to allow incest and I would repeat again incest is a choice, homosexuality is not and discrimination is thus not going to be used as a driving factor to allow incest. Incest is a separate issue and not be used as a fear factor to put people off the idea of an equal world and love between a same sex couple.



Apart from the genetic issues, one reason to keep incest illegal is the close psychological and emotional proximity of family relationships. If incestuous marriage was made legal a wide open door for abuse would also be opened. For example, a father would literally have a lifetime to "groom" his child for "marriage" once s/he reached the age of 16. He could do it perfectly legally too, as there would be no need to do anything sexual, just legally drip feed the idea into his/her mind over 16 years until they were ready.

I suggest you speak to anyone who has been exposed to sexual abuse within families before you get too vocal about allowing incestuous marriage. There's a damn good reason the family unit is protected from such perversions - it is the primary nurturing environment for the raising of children, not the grooming of them.


Interesting discussion.

I agree that the argument against parent/child incest is a clear cut moral one. It is damaging without doubt. The film Savage Grace covers interesting and unnerving sexual themes including homosexuality and incest.

Regarding sibling incest the legal position is firm but the moral case is perhaps open for debate. If they are consenting adults it is a difficult one. Those who feel compelled towards this will have problems which will only be compounded by the legal position.

Regarding the in-breeding issue if one of them is infertile or if they are taking precautions does that not resolve the problem? What about sibling homosexual relationships - is that OK?


Absolutley Scarlett.

The real 'unforseen problems' is that the church today struggles to change with the times and is wedded to its rule book -the bible which it has to follow to the letter. This is why it can't accept issues like this as it goes against their rigid and totally inflexible belief system.

Of course the fact is that the bible isn't gods words it the words of man (or rather many men) that has been written and re-written over the centuries and used as an extremely powerful means to manipulate and control the masses and commit the most heinous acts of murder and brutality by truly evil individuals masquerading as 'men of god'.

The church is in no position to preach the moral high ground.

Dave Haslam

Yet again the church take steps to further alienate themselves from mainstream society.

I for one am happy with their continuing propesnity for scoring own goals, as they continue to showcase just how far away they are from reality/rationality.

Jonathan Hills


I am not sure it is the church's job to change its beliefs because society does. If it believes that the bible is the word of God, and that the bible is the one, definitive statement from God, that is complete and every part of it is useful; then if society says that it is at odds with it, that is fine.

Jesus Christ made his statement on marriage: "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate"

The Church is not suddenly going to decide: "Do you know what, Dave Haslam and many others think that our position is irrational/unreal, I know what, we shall listen to what they say and not the Son of God."

That is not saying that the Christians love for the world should not be critiqued; but I think that the world often wants Christians not to be hypocrites. Sadly all humans are and will be for eternity. If you want a perfect example to follow, I think you know where to look.

Oh Dear

The Church should no longer have a say in a predominantly atheist society.


Although I'd agree the church should not be as entangled with the state as it is, people of faith are equally entitled to have a say on this, or any matter. We may live in a predominantly secular society, but I would argue we certainly do not live in an atheistic one...not yet anyway.

Although I could not find any statistics for Guernsey, as far as I'm aware, despite significant growth in no European country do atheists (in the purest sense of the word i.e. no belief in the spiritual / supernatural) form anywhere near the majority; I think it's reasonable to presume a similar trend here.

I would say a more accurate description of Guernsey society is one that contains a broad spectrum, from atheists right across to devoutly religious. What we need to do in situations like this is find a solution that as much as possible reflects this spectrum....and in this case I think Martino's idea is as good a suggestion as any I've seen.

Anecdotally, in the swearing in ceremony for the current States Assembly, when given the opportunity to use an oath that omitted all references to God only a handful did. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether that's a good advert for religion or not though! ;-)

Oh Dear

That's why I said predominantly atheist. I wasn't saying entirely atheist. But the majority of people on this island are probably atheist/agnostic (I don't know exact figures). Of course with the influx of people from abroad we have become a lot more religiously diverse.


Oh Dear - I am assuming that you do not celebrate any religious holidays such as Easter and Christmas and therefore go to work on these days.


Actually, V, Christmas, Easter and many other 'church' holidays were hijacked from the Pagans, so strictly speaking, christians are the ones who should be avoiding these originally 'ungodly' days off.


Jonathan Hills

I believe the legislation under discussion does not force institutions to perform same sex marriages so a church does not have top change its beliefs even if the majority of the rest of society does.

It is a choice at this point that can be made by each religious institution on what they think is right or wrong as there tends to be disagreement among those of faith on the matter.


The legislation does not force religious institutions to carry out same sex marriages but i can't imagine it will be too long before some high profile gay couple takes a church to court for discrimination for not agreeing to marry them



I hope that they do. :-)

Unfortunately I don't think the world is ready to come to the conclusion that having a religion or a belief is not a valid reason to discriminate. So religious discrimination will probably continue sometime yet...

Dave haslam


Without getting into whether gay marriage could be constreued as being allowed in the bible, your point stands, the church should not change their beleifs.

But that wasnt my point.

My point was that by shouting their Dogma from the rooftops, they push themselves further towards becoming the irrelevance they should always have been.

Jonathan Hills


I am not sure he is shouting in from the rooftops. Although there are several christians who are complaining vociferously I am sure. But as I say, we are all hypocrites.

My guess is that the Guernsey Press went to the Dean and asked for a comment. He seems to have had one sentence - that it is unwise to tamper with marriage - and that there will be unforseen circumstances which is exactly what you would expect him to say. He is not going to say something unbiblical, nor has he said that homosexual marriage is evil or that homosexual people are worse than heterosexual people or anything of that sort.

I would be surprised if the Dean actually rang up the press and said: "I want to make a statement on homosexuality to the island."

I shall probably not write again. Because I could spend a long time on it, but It strikes me that there is something about the gospel/good news of Jesus Christ. It seems that its very words do something to people. It either antagonizes them vociferously or brings them to salvation. Seems that there is power in the name of Jesus

Oh Dear


I don't celebrate the religious holidays as religious holidays. I'm more than happy to take some well deserved time off work though.

Sugared Brazil Nut

No way to run a business Mr Mellor. You're spurning the chance to make extra income from the additional uptake in church ceremonies and resultant fees.

Still, when your overheads are so dramatically reduced by way of getting your business premises and staff accommodation for free [including all maintenance thereof] then I guess you can afford to let such opportunities slip by without having to worry about any shareholders or potential administration.

Meanwhile, in the real world.......


Plain madness, people are meesed up enough these days without starting this!

Some say the church exists to make money, well if they did, they would see this as a new income.

They must really see it as a problem for society.

James,you seem to have a handle on this, maybe you could teach the vicar what the consequences might be.


I am all for it, as someone said, why shouldnt gay people have the same opportunity to suffer too...just kidding.

If two people love each other and they are not harming anyone else, then why shouldnt they be able to marry.

oh and while we are at it, why cant we get married anywhere we like in Guernsey, or at least say designate a few more places that you can get married at, it seems daft to me that you can have a blessing inside at Castle Cornet and then have your do, but you cannot get married there.

If you could get married at the beach like you can in other countries, we could market Guernsey as the place to marry for straight or gay people.


After same sex marriage legislation is approved we can go on to consider other minority sexual preferences. What about marriage between siblings or parents and their children? Why should those who prefer incest not have the right to marry? There may be a demand, too, from those who would like three or more person marriages - a minority perhaps but their rights should not be ignored.

There may be further developments not yet thought of.

Joe Broughton

This issue was always going to be an emotive and contentious one. However, I think it important to try to see both sides of the debate here.

Firstly, I totally support equal rights for same- sex couples and vehemently oppose prejudical treatment towards same- sex couples. I firmly believe that one's sexual orientation should not cause them to feel stigmatised in what is allegedly a "liberal" society. On the other hand, I can see the Church's concerns, especially at the local level, of performing same- sex marriages in local churches. One should remember that, to undertake this would contravene the core values and principles of many Christians. The purpose of marriage, in some people's views, is solely procreation. However, I suggest, that this is not the sole purpose of marriage, and that the unity between the couple is equally important.

It seems that there is always going to be a great ambivalence between the Church and the public on this issue. As a Theology and Religious Studies student, I am well aware of the arguments presented in protest of these, and indeed some are very convincing. That being said, I think it is fundamentally important for religion to embrace modernity, as it has done previously, and at least accept that same- sex marriage is an increasigly common part of our lives and will likely continue to be so in the future.

I respect the Church's views on this, and understand their concerns; but the question I should like to posit is this: if, as is commonly purported, God is all- loving, then might it not be that this love encompasses all of humanity? If this were the case, surely nobody should be discriminated against?

I will be interested to see how this pans out- at both the local level and with regard to UK legislation and pratice.

Sugared Brazil Nut

Well reasoned and sensible points there Joe.

But regarding the church having concerns at the local level about performing same sex marriages, doesn't the law being advanced in the UK give same sex couples the right to have a church marriage service whilst not going so far as to impose a legal obligation upon any church to perform such a service?

Thus freedom of choice could prevail all round - if a minister didn't wish to perform a same sex marriage in his church then he wouldn't have to. The happy couple would have to find another church willing to accommodate their wishes. Surely there would be some.

Analogous to the present scenario where Anglican churches turn away divorcees whilst the Methodists will let them marry in their churches. [Paradoxically the Methodists don't permit second baptisms].

I think that's how it's being set up anyway.


'If, as is commonly purported, God is all-loving, then might it not be that this love encompasses all of humanity?'

I believe that God does love all of humanity, just as a father loves his children. And a caring father hopes that his children will behave well. The concern of theologians is not about the state of homosexuality, but about certain acts, which are considered disordered. Such acts are equally disordered if committed by heterosexuals.

An atheist - obviously with no belief in God - comes to a similar position when studying natural law philosophy.

The traditional concept of marriage is about the creation of families, the building blocks of society. To redefine traditional marriage is to seek a different paradigm. There are groups who, for different reasons, wish to attack the family. Many Marxists have argued that children should be taken from parents at birth and brought up in a communal creche. Some humanists are also against the family. Some of them are interested in the marriage issue, not because they wish to achieve a same-sex marriage, but because they see it as a 'Trojan Horse' to attack traditional society and the church.

For some who advocate same-sex marriage there are goals beyond, which are to be addressed later. Two are -

[a] lowering the age of consent

[b] encouraging adolescents to experiment, to see whether they enjoy same-sex activity.

If same-sex marriage is instated, it will be claimed that as it is of equal legality, it is of equal morality. Consequently, a teacher who commends marriage as the sacramental union of male and female for the procreation of life will be charged with discriminating in favour of one type of marriage and, ipso facto, against the other type of marriage.

The programme for change was set out in 1989 by two American homosexuals - Kirk and Madsen 'How to sell homosexuality to America'. It is an interesting read, not least if you wish to look into the future.

Joe Broughton

I should also like to take issue with Dave Haslam's comments. Just because the Church has advocated their concern at the legilisation of same- sex marriage, that does not make them out of touch with reality!


As an irreligious person I actually have a little bit of sympathy for traditionalist churchgoers who see marriage exclusively as a union under God between man and woman.

With all the Christian/religious connotations of marriage I think the answer may be to upgrade civil partnerships to full marital status under the law and to open up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples too.

That way the churches could carry on with their religious marriages but they would no longer have legal status in secular society unless backed up by a lawful civil partnership.

Just a thought. Just a talking point maybe?

Oh Dear

Martino, that is a genius idea.


Martino - an extremely thoughtful post, I commend you for being so open minded - particularly as I know your views on religion.

Once we realise that the religious definition of marriage and the civil legal definition of marriage are two very different things I wonder whether a lot of the argument wouldn't just fade away. Indeed religious groups themselves often don't agree - a conservative Muslim and Quaker for example would have very different interpretations!

Interestingly enough I know of two local Christian couples who got "married" in a registry office before having a Christian ceremony outside a church building. In their eyes their marriage started after the latter ceremony, despite already being technically and legally married.

Perhaps as you suggest the answer is to completely separate the two.

Nick Le P

PLP - I also got married legally one day at a register office and then had a church wedding the day after. We did not consider ourselves married until after the church ceremony (coincidentally conducted by Deputy Le Tocq).

As a Christian I do not support gay marriage and do not feel that legislation should mean that churches have to support this either (state church or otherwise). Some posters have quoted the Old Testament but Paul's letters in the New Testament have much to say on the subject of homosexuality and so for the Christian cannot be ignored.

For me marriage is between male and female and for procreation although not solely for that. Therefore, it does not include homosexual/lesbian relationships.

I am also concerned about the children. Whilst it does happen we shouldn't normalise the raising of children by same sex couples.

Taking a slightly different tack I have never understood why people who openly say they have no faith want to get married in church. Its rather like saying I support Tottenham but only ever go and watch Arsenal - a frightening thought indeed.


Nick - my understanding in the UK is that churches will not have to do that, although despite their noble intentions there was debate whether the "quadruple lock" would stand up to a challenge in the Euro-bureaucrat courts.

That's why I like Martinos idea - take marriage totally out of the hands of the state and replace it with a civil union for legal purposes (e.g. taxation and inheritance). After all, by definition civil marriage is little more than a legal contract whilst in reality for the people involved it is far deeper. For people of faith like us it has all sorts of spiritual connotations that are nothing to do with secular law.

By doing that, religious groups will be free to have their own doctrinal definition of what marriage is (which let's face it, differs even among Christian groups!) without facing challenges in secular courts; whilst same-sex couples can have the legal equality and recognition they desire. No matter what our religious beliefs are I don't think that is something we can legitimately seek to deny them.

Your final point...if I can be blunt, I think a lot of people want to get married in church because it's traditional - it has sod all to do with God. A bit hypocritical perhaps, but not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.


Martino - In todays Press Deputy Le Tocq is quoted as saying that himself and Deputy St Pier have been in discussions about whether changing the law to remove States involvement in marriage and introduce "civil unions" might be possible.

It seems you've been listened to!

Oh Dear

Excellent post PLP.


Hi PLP and thanks for your support on this.

I heard Jonathan Le Tocq on Radio Guernsey this morning (Sunday). Could Guernsey possibly lead the way on this, civil partnerships for all that are recognised legally as marriages by the secular State(s) authorities and church marriages where they can set their own rules but they would not count as State marriages. The only thing I could see getting in the way is the C of E being an establish church. That's where it could get a bit messy!


Yet another reason to disestablish the CofE, Martino. It's no secret I think establishment is a rod for the backs of both state and church. For starters, if we had disestablishment the whole parish rates / ecclesiastical court issue would disappear overnight - issues that may contribute to the coffers but in my opinion hinder the church's relationship to the wider community.

I heard Deputy Le Tocq this morning too. As both a senior government minister and one of the islands prominent Christian leaders it was good to hear his refreshingly wise response to the situation. I think he has a unique opportunity to bring some much needed wisdom to this debate...if and when it reaches the States.


I see that the UK is to legalise Gay marriage.

Well at least they've been honest and upfront about it


I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

Oh Dear

That made me chuckle.

He didn't turn out that great, he died twice.

Nick Le P

Not sure where you get the idea that Jesus died twice?

Oh Dear

He was crucified then seen to be walking around. I can't remember the story exactly.

Nick Le P

Yes I know that, it was when He died again I was asking you about.

Oh Dear

If he didn't die again he'd still be around.

Nick Le P

Me thinks you need to read the end of the story. I won't quote it because you will label me as one of those who you laugh at for believing in fairy tales, as per post 44 below.

However, outside of the Bible there is more historical evidence for the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. I bet you never doubt his existence.


No problem accepting that a significant historical character known as Jesus existed circa 2,000 years ago. Where we get into Hansel and Gretel territory is the story that he was the product of some kind of supernatural parthenogenesis.


Nick Le P

You hit the nail on the head when you used the word "story". That's all it is, a fairytale, full of silly little stories that together make up one large one. Quite how anyone is taken in by it amazes me, I guess brainwashing and fear are two of the reasons but surely nowadays people oughtn't to be so gullible?

Oh Dear

I will have to seek out the end of the story. It's been a very long time since it was told at me.

I don't doubt the existence of a Jesus at all. I know that records show that he was alive around 2000 years ago.


No he`s not the messiah he`s a very naughty boy.


True bcb but Brians mum was talking about her son, not Jesus. :-)


And the reference to 'two dads' is misleading.

F Nietzsche

God is Dead.

Get over it.


F Nietzsche

It is probably impossible to know whether an ultimate deity exists, thereby meaning that it is totally unlikely that we will be able to ascertain whether one has died or not.

vic gamble

..Ed, what there a pink elephant in your underpants? we have to know whether such a thing exists...or do we have to accept because we cannot prove that fact that maybe there is such a discoloured monster wandering in your nether regions...what a pathetic philosophy to promote...


Vic, I think you stepped beyon the boundaries of what is considered acceptable speech when you said that Agnosticism was a "pathetic philosophy" .

The reason why one knows that elephants definitely are definitely not inside their underwear is because their senses provide them with the ability to detect what's occurring there. Yet, with concern to the possible existence of a deity or deities, we lack the abilty to establish whether one exists since we have not yet experienced the heyday of scientific and technological development- something that would enable us to extensively probe the universe,theoretically.

Perhaps the context ought to influence which school of thought is best to go by...

Island Wide Voting


What subject do you intend to teach once you have sailed effortlessly through University ( as you most certainly will) and do you intend to teach that subject in Guernsey?


If Nietzsche is to be quoted, please note the following. He wrote -

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

Nietzsche attacked Christianity as a religion for wimps who took pity on weak people. He cultivated an image of strong 'overmen' - a concept taken up by Hitler and that led inexorably to the SS and Auschwitz.


Nietzsche's theory of 'overmen' did much to inspire eliminationist anti-Semitism, but probably not the development of Auschwitz. It led to the belief that, in order to allow the Herrenvolk (Master Race) to flourish and enable natural evolution-perhaps even revolution- to continue unhindered, yet it is questionable as to whether the so called 'Jewish problem' at that time was to be solved by deportation and repatriation or extermination.

Island Wide Voting


I say that because this is a matter which will have to find a willing States Committee sponsor to take it to the Assembly for debate and if passed will then have to find it's way into the Law Officer's in tray for drafting into local law

On past experience THAT is where it is likely to remain for perhaps ten to fifteen years by which time I expect my old bones to be settled in to my pre-booked slot in heaven .................. or that other place :(


......What, Jersey!


IWV - I think there is a willing sponsor in Deputy St Pier but whether it would fall under the mandate of T&R is a different matter. Which committee would it fall under then? In the UK the Department of Culture Media and Sport deals with "equality issues" whilst the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was presented by the Minister for Women and Equalities (I wonder who the Minister for Men is?) so I suppose if we were to follow suit it would come under Culture & Leisure. They seem more interested in penny pinching by outsourcing Beau Sejour though.

Could it be brought as a requete?


My personal views differ quite a lot on this and I hope they don't get mixed up with what I've said above.

Believing in a god is something I can tolerate in others. I think they have every right to do so if they wish. At the same time though I think it should be noted there is no evidence of god, you cannot prove he is real and theoretically the existence of god is unlikely.

At the same time though I don't think believing in something you cant prove is a reasonable excuse to violate the human rights of others - in this case discriminating against others. I don't think anything is a reasonable excuse for discrimination. I think having a religious belief should not grant you legal privilege to violate others. Its definitely wrong in my eyes and if you were to have morals I don't think you would want too.

For example if your god told you to dance and chant on a Wednesday morning whatever. But if they told you to violate the human rights of others it would not be ok and courts and governments should be able to intervene. Your breaking the law the way I see it.

I think everyone will come around eventually but they will have see it for themselves but I guess something has to happen first which is a shame. For example in Germany a muslim woman filed for a fast track divorce from her husband because from the start of the marriage he repeatedly and seriously beat her as well as threatening to kill her. The judge said they came from a Morrocan culture where the Qur'an sanctions physical abuse so there was no reason to fast track the divorce. She pretty much said that it should have been expected.

She was removed as a judge but now other women are too scared to come forward in a similar situations. I think its an unfortunate example why human rights should come before what is acceptable religiously. A religion is based on no evidence what so ever so people could do whatever they wanted in the name of it and claim impunity due to having faith.

So overall I guess I think religion deserves respect but not so much that it negatively impacts other peoples lives. I think same sex marriages and civil partnerships are just a stepping stone to true equality in the future when the religious are told you can't live above the law so stop discriminating against these same sex couples or anyone else for that matter.


Why do homosexuals want to have a marriage in a church anyway when the Bible in Leviticus describe the act of homosexuality as an abomination? Is it just to be antagonistic?


very good point TED


Totally agree here with TED, so as a matter of interest as so many of you who post here have gay friends ask them to answer that very question. "Why do you want to get married in the house of a God who sees you as an abomination?" And I would appreciate a straight answer, an answer not clouded by equal rights rhetoric etc. So get on the phone and ask them.


It is possible to get married other than in the house of God.

It is also possible to get married in the house of a God who does not see homosexuality as an abomination.

Gay people wold like the ability to have one of those marriages.

Human nature being waht it is, there may be gay people whose dream it is to be married by the Right Reverend in the Town Church, but I doubt it.


I agree too. To me it's a bit like a black or coloured person wanting to join the BNP. I just don't understand it.


Martino- Thanks, I could not have put it better myself that is a brilliant analogy.


Doesn't make you right though. By the very nature of your "opinion" you are coming across as self righteous and unforgiving


Same reason that non-religious people want to get married in church. A big "do". Chance to wear a posh frock and have lots of flowers. The Greffe is always open and ready for business.

Sad isn't it, that you simply cannot make a point about homosexuality and be against it on moral grounds without everyone having a go at you.

Not everyone in Guernsey thinks it is normal to fancy men if you are a man, or a woman if you are a woman. Just because a law is changed dosen't make it right in everyone's eyes. Our politicians will obviously go with whatever the party line is, as they won't want to be seen as being homophobic.


AbsoluBloomingLootely - Totally agree, how many of these people using

anti church rhetoric in connection with this issue celebrate Christmas and Easter and have actually been married in a church. There can only be two reasons, as you say they marry in church to show off and acknowledge Christmas and Easter to have a few days off or they do all the above because they are religious and acknowledge those days as special in the eyes of Christianity. In order for your opinions to be credible you must have the courage of your convictions, so all of you maligning the church's stance on homosexual marriage will not be celebrating Christmas and Easter and will of course be going to work on these days and not getting married in a church for if you do any of those I think the word I'm looking for here is hypocrisy, remember courage of your convictions not just lip service.

Oh Dear

Church is a traditional place to get married. Many couples do it for tradition rather than religious reasons.

You're obsessed with Christmas and Easter aren't you? If that is the main thing you can use against atheists, you're not going to do very well.

Since we all pay for the upkeep of churches without even going on Sundays I think we're more than entitled to have a wedding in one.

Terry Langlois

TED, I also wonder how people who eat seafood can bring themselves to get married in church, for the same reason. Surely the weight of their hypocrisy causes them many sleepless nights.

Donkey's Wotsits

As a Christian, I am very disappointed by the vote but not at all surprised. The Bible makes it very clear that society will go in this direction (ie a downward spiral) in the end days.

Jeff (the other one)

Agree Donkey, in fact it is more than even a sign of the end days, Godly nations do prosper more than ungodly ones. Compare Australia to UK, far more stable environment and a more godly government than our own.

Look at the state of Britain now compared to 200 years ago, 100 years ago even.

We kick God out of our society and then He gets the blame when things go wrong.

I'm not surprised by some of the comments above as if you don't believe in the God of the bible then of course you are likely to take the view of equal rights and disregard the warnings of not only homosexuality but sin in general (adultery, sexual immorality etc).

After hearing a talk by a doctor on the sorts of physical issues and diseases linked purely to the homosexual act I'm surprised so many people are gay - there again the government don't want to be seen to isolate another 'minority group' so say nothing other than practice safe sex.

Not a good move by UK government.


Donkeys Wotsits / Jeff (the other one)

Should we be surprised that the world doesn't follow Christian values? Central to our faith is the belief that the only way we overcome the world is through the power of the Holy Spirit. If you're not a Christian you don't have the Holy Spirit so expecting a secular society to embrace Christian values is like getting water to flow upwards.

The Apostle Paul realised this when he wrote to the Corinthians: he reminded them not to judge those outside the church - that is God's job - but rather deal with matters inside the church. That is a lesson we would do well to remember here as the church is far from blameless in matters of sexual integrity, and it would do well to tend its own house first before pointing the finger of judgement at others. Jesus warned us to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck from others.

Having studied the Bible, as a Christian I cannot celebrate or affirm homosexual behaviour. Nevertheless I can try as best I can to walk the fine line Jesus did, and show acceptance and love to the LGBT community whilst not agreeing with their lifestyle. Of course it's far easier to stand and condemn people for being sinners....but when I read the Bible I recall that Jesus' harshest words weren't reserved for them, but for religious folk who thought they were holy.


Paul in the "documentary" i saw Jesus aka brian told them all to f@ck off. Have i been mislead?.

On a serious note that was a very good post by you as per usual.


bcb - if memory serves, Brian was a very naughty boy who was mistaken for the Messiah. He was therefore quite right to tell the misguided believers to f@ck off, but before getting carted off on that spaceship he would've done even better to have pointed them to the real Messiah who was around at the same time. :-)

Oh Dear

@Jeff the other one:

"I’m surprised so many people are gay – there again the government don’t want to be seen to isolate another ‘minority group’ so say nothing other than practice safe sex."

That view is absolutely despicable. Do you think anyone chooses to be gay? This is when Christianity clearly displays itself to be out of touch.

You are in more of a minority than homosexuals these days. The last of the bigots.

Holy Socks!

So, let me check if I've understood this correctly. The Dean, a man who habitually wears a frock, is against gay marriages?

By all means preach your nonsense to the faithful minority, Mr Mellor. The rest of us aren't interested in your fairy tales or your pompous title.

St Marcouf

Why aren't the rules of ice hockey and field hockey the same? Because they are different.

Why aren't men treated the same as women in all respects under our sex discrimination legislation? Because they are different.

Why aren't adults treated the same as children? Because they are different.

So difference does not always lend itself to equality.

vic gamble

...Donkey's Wotsits...I'm glad you are back in the still have not explained what my "over used catch phrase is"....has it come back to you?

donkey's Wotsits

Ah, Vic, that's clearly been bothering you! You'll be disappointed to learn that the post shouldn't have read 'your catchphrase' but rather make reference to that catchphrase of a certain Mr Falla. I asked admin to remove my incomplete post but they didn't.

vic gamble

...well that's OK then...I'm none the wiser, but all appears to be alright with Man & God so we will let it pass....thanks for taking the trouble to (kind of ) explain.


Good thinking Martino. I don't beleive in god but if religous people don't want to conduct same sex marriges in their churchs they shouldn't be forced to, after all they are their churchs.


The Vicars dont own the churchs, the rate payers do, so if a rate payer wants to get married in their church they should be able to whether they are straight or gay or divorced, if the Vicar doesnt want to do it they should be able to find someone else that does!


....and here once again starts the church/state debate - and unfortunately by remaining the state church and thus its independence the CofE has made a rod for its own back.


If, as some say, nobody cares one way or the other then why do they (homosexuals) want an official marriage? They are thinking of official benefits which they would not otherwise be entitled to - Think about it!

My personal opinion is that marriage is/was always a religious thing and I think it should remain that way.


If your personal opinion is that marriage and religion are inextricably linked, then your opinion is wrong. I take it you realise that the Church of England didn’t actually invent marriage?

Per Wikipedia, the institution of marriage predates recorded history, and marriages between Christians only started involving a priest from 1545, and common law marriages were apparently legal in the UK until the Marriage Act of 1753. More recently, it has been possible to choose whether to get married in a church, or get married in a civil ceremony.

The last marriage I went to was at the Greffe, and was completely free of religion. There’s no reason I can think of why a same sex couple shouldn’t be able to go through the same ceremony – or even a religious ceremony, if they are of a religion that accepts gay marriage (such as the Quakers).

Oh Dear

CofE was invented so a fat King could have a divorce. Surely you'd be better off be a Catholic.

Bill M

Liz, you're very welcome to get married, as long as it's to a man. You see, as every child knows, a man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman. It's the way things are. We can't reverse the law of gravity by legislation, and neither can we change anything by legislating against the natural law with regard to sex. I hope and pray that you find happiness with a man.


Bill M really are patronising bible basher.

And we can reverse gravity, Star Trek proves that… just like the fictional stories in the bible anything is possible.


But he is correct and name calling won't change that..


I doubt every child “knows” that, but let’s accept for the sake of argument that what you say is true.

In that case, the children in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden are wrong in what they “know”.

Similarly, the children in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington are also wrong.

Oh Dear

Bill M, do some research into homosexuality in the natural world (not just humans) it may be a bit of eye opener for you. Plenty of "God's creatures" are in fact homosexuals. If it was not natural would it be such a common occurence?

I'm not going to knock you for your views but I think a lot of the teachings in the Bible are a little bit outdated. It was written when times were very different. The times have changed, people have moved forward and science has taught us a lot about how the world works.


If you research further you will find that cannibalism exists in some creatures. That is not a basis for recommending that humans engage in cannibalism [although it has been known].

I have a friend who sees with just one eye. Ideally he would have been born with two good eyes. Should such a person accept the condition OR campaign for equality, requesting that he should not be discriminated against when applying for a pilot's licence?

Oh Dear

Your friend with on eye will have poor depth perception, that's not inequality that's health and safety.

No one chooses their sexual orientation. I bet you didn't wake up one morning and think I know what, "I think I'll be straight". A lot of homosexuals live their lives in a lie to protect themselves from people like you.

Cannibalism still exists in humans. Not exactly the same as loving someone who is of the same gender. No one dies or gets hurt.


Oh Dear was responding to Bill M’s argument that homosexuality was unnatural by educating Bill M that it also occurs in the animal world.

Nobody is arguing that since animals do something then it must be morally acceptable for humans. You have won that argument – but since you were only arguing with yourself, unfortunately you have also lost.


'No one chooses their sexual orientation'

Would you therefore repudiate those members of the Gay Liberation Front who have called for adolescents to experiment and find out whether they enjoy same-sex encounters?

Oh Dear

I was trying to say that it's a natural occurence not some sort of illness or disease. We are animals after all. The most violent and destructive animals on the planet.

I'm trying to educate him as impossible as that may be.

Oh Dear


I've not heard of the Gay Liberation Front. They sound like an exact opposite of what you're preaching if your post is to be believed.

They do not represent the views of all homosexuals, just as you do not represent the views of all Christians. Hitler was a Christian but I certainly wouldn't tarnish all Christians with the same brush.

When you have certain views there is always someone who will be a polar opposite.


Every time a church related debate comes up, the 'true' christians, all too often, show themselves up as narrow minded, judgemental, intolerant bigots, whilst the 'non' christians, for some reason best known to themselves, don't.

Not making any judgement on this, being an EX christian myself, just saying, interesting juxta position, rather like the fact that the church murdered all those women many years ago for being 'against god'/witches whilst preaching that murder is wrong, waging war in the name of 'god', priests using their position to abuse children, certain churches of untold wealth telling 3rd world countries contraception is against god's will and consequently helping kill so many with AIDS, the church here wanting everyone, faithful or no, to pay for their buildings yet keep total control over those buildings and it's own substantial wealth in the bank....especially bearing in mind the nature of faith, i.e., peace, love, tolerance, acceptance of all, etc etc.....

so difficult to understand why congregations are dwindling and people are choosing their own path, spiritual or no, really, it's beyond me....


Scar - You poor soul.

Your opening paragraph shows who is intolerant and bigoted.

Your understanding is so mixed up on so many levels, it can't be addressed on here.

You need to speak with somebody, to have things opened up to you.


Je - oh no, poor, poor, poor you! :(

I am so, so, sorry that you were unable to understand, accept - let alone address - the well documented facts about the down side of 'religion' I detailed in my second para, equally, your inability to comprehend I wasn't criticising all those of faith in that comment (hence I said 'often', not 'always') saddens me deeply.

You need to listen to somebody, to have your mind (and ears) opened.


btw, just for the record, Je, for my personal edification, could you please point out which bit of my post was wrong?

Was it the details about religion's misdoings, or the fact that all christians are supposed to be peaceful, loving and tolerant?

Oh Dear

Scarlett, you're right. I wouldn't have been quite so bashful but yep the facts are there that prove religion is a hypocritical institution that is way past its' sell by date.

A major precursor to hundreds of wars. An excuse for the British Empire to spread its' violence.

Love thy neighbour, then kill him and take his country.


I am rubbish at Mathematics. Do my failures and mistakes discredit Mathematics?

Your logical error is in talking about 'religion's misdoings'. You have misattributed the agency. People commit sins - 'misdoings', not an abstract noun.

What is interesting is that the ethical criteria that you employ come from Judaeo-Christian teachings - the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes.

Yes, throughout the centuries people have sinned - people professing religion and people denying religion. Their sins violate Judaeo-Christian values.


Would that be the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea, Ben?

Either way, most people know the church has been committing atrocities as self appointed representatives of 'god' for centuries, so when the perpetrators of the aforementioned tells us all what the right thing is, whilst doing exactly the opposite, their words ring somewhat hollow, in my opinion.


Je, perhaps the reason you're unable to correct me isn't because there's enough room on here, but because you can't, similar to the 'unforeseen problems' comment that stirred this debate, that the illustrious gentleman was unable to substantiate either.

As for the rest of your ramble, I don't know who or what you're referring to, but it's certainly not me or my comments, as it makes little to no sense at all within that context.

Perhaps you're just talking to yourself, which, imo, is quite probably for the best.



Without doubt the most patronising 'holier than thou' post so far.

Please explain what part of Scarlett's post is so bigoted or intolerant, because as far as I'm aware he/ she has simply raised some very inconvenient truths about the true nature of religion and in particular Christianity.

Religion is man made, lets make no mistake about that, and has been responsible for some of the most truly evil acts of repression and manipulation in the pursuit of ultimate power and money.

Religion hides behind whatever we perceive to be god, conveniently side stepping any criticism by claiming that to diss religion is to diss 'god'.

I think it is you that needs to speak to somebody.

some say that god is within, so perhaps you should have a word with yourself.


"‘true’ christians, all too often, show themselves up as narrow minded, judgemental, intolerant bigots, "

This was the opening paragraph about a man that works in his church, doing his job. Can you imagine if Scarlett had written that same paragraphs, but aimed it at another sector of society,for instance mentally disabled or black people.

If you find his opening line acceptable, then you have blind spots in your way of thinking too.

As I said, above, the rest of the post is so off the mark and misinfomed, it can't be dealt with on a forum for short items of news.



Go back and read Scarletts post again. He/she wasn't referring to the Dean of Guernsey. The reference was to christians in general who cannot accept or tolerate differences in society and react in typical fashion as this discussion board clearly illustrates. Why you've included black or disabled people as a comparison is beyond me.

As for the rest of it, well if you knew anything about your religion and its less than perfect history you will discover that everything Scarlett has pointed out is factually correct.

You think I've got blind spots?

I think you have blind faith.

vic gamble

...ED, I did not suggest agnosticism was pathetic. I am sorry if that was how you interpreted my post.

What is pathetic is to give credence to an unseen deity simply because you cannot prove it exists, or does not exist.

Let us remove the pink elephant from your underwear ; as you quite correctly say you would be excruciatingly aware of such a now Mr. P. Elephant is reported as being miles up in the air, hidden behind clouds, ruling earth in an unseen and unheard you still want to offer the possibility that the elephant may exist because you cannot prove he does not exist?

Hopefully Ed we will not become embroiled, you & I, with pink elephants and rainbow horses...I seem to feel that sort of breeze blowing into our several communications.

Oh Dear

Logic states that a deity does not exist.

God created the moon and the stars to provide light. Very complex lights if you ask me.

Science is backed up by logic, reason and fact. Religion is backed up by an old book.


Oh Dear

Although one may argue that we are now at a stage where we can assess the validity of scientific and religious theories, we are nevertheless in the inchoative, even primitive, phase with regards to knowledge and understanding of such concepts, the marvels made over the last several millennia notwithstanding. For 1500 years (Antiquity to the Renaissance) the vast majority of the European population were convinced that Roman medical man Cladius Galen had comprehensively covered all aspects of medicine, surgery and anatomy, yet the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution led to the alteration, and even abolition, of traditional medical theories in place of concepts that were scientifically sound.

This links to the situation occurring on this forum and in the whole if humanity as the majority of people display strong beliefs in either religion or science and believe that the concepts they support are impossible to debunk and therefore will be used as a source of knowledge for the origins of life on Earth for eternity. However, like I have said, we have much to learn in the fields of science and religion and so don't commit yourself to particular views/beliefs this early on as such knowledge may be abandoned during the coming centuries and millennia since scholars may have discovered the truth.

I agree with your idea that the British Empire used religion as a pretext for violence, yet an arguably even more important factor was the emergence of Social Darwinism as the extension of 'survival or the fittest' so that it encompassed race afforded occupying Britons the excuse to oppress and ill treat indigenous communities and have these people work themselves to death. This was knowing that, they, as so-called 'lesser breeds ' due to their allegedly lower brain mass and undeveloped physical features, we're destined to be exploited by their Aryan superiors.

vic gamble

...actually Oh Dear God created light on the first day...and the moon and the sun and the stars on the fourth day...bloody clever that....those scribes wot wrote the Bible never thought that one through I fear.


But in the advance of science it could find that the universe and life would be impossible without some divine intervention. There`s a lot of junk science out there dressed up as facts.

For example the common believe on how the planets formed which to my mind has for a long time been portrayed as an issue solved with scientific "facts" but having watched some interesting clips by Dr Paul Francis it seems the "facts" my not be as clear after all?.

Lawrence Krauss and a universe from nothing has a rather misleading title also.

Too many science celebs i`m afraid and taken at their word often fills our minds with what we think are indisputable facts which often need more clarity on only to find some things are not quite as we been told.


Like I said, bcb, we are most probably still in the inchoative phase of scientific development; our knowledge of the earth and universe is still rudimentary and, although we may feel that we are advanced when comparing to ancient 'humoural' therapies and the archaic concept of a flat earth, it would still be naive to assert the universe was definitely created in one way or another as we simply lack knowledge.

Think how advanced our comprehension of the universe would be if in Ancient Greece, for example, they had our current level of technological and scientific expertise...

Ancient scholars were just as intelligent as what modern intellectuals are, the former just lacked sophisticated technology and acceptance from the majority of the population.


Does this mean Gay marriages in mosques etc?

Although I am in favour. Is it going to be forced on religion, or will they have a choice.


Religious institutions will not have to perform gay marriages if they don't want to in the UK.

This does extend to mosques as well. Some mosques already perform gay marriages in other parts of the world. There are 9 Muslim MPs to my knowledge. 5 voted for gay marriage, 1 opposed and 3 didn't vote.

Oh Dear

So Islam which is always under scrutiny appears to be more accepting than Christianity. What a shock(!)


Depends where you look. Try organising a Pride March in downtown Tehran or Riyadh and let me know how you get on....

Oh Dear

Well yes the extremists will always have different views. Just the same as the extremist Christians on this page.

PLP I respect you as a Christian who is open to new ideas. It's always the minority that give the majority a bad name.


Oh Dear - My Christian values are considered outmoded by many in society - that's OK, I can accept that. I cannot agree with those Christians who think the Bible affirms gay marriage - that's OK, I can deal with that. Two adult men want to have a legally recognised homosexual union - I can handle it, it's a free country and they're not answerable to me anyway.

What I can't deal with is people who try to impose their views by force, either violently or by legislation - whether they be socially conservative Christians, Islamic fundamentalists or gay liberals. They are the real extremists.

Legislation does not exist to interfere with consenting adults - it exists to protect the weak and vulnerable.



I don´t know where you get your information from, but homosexuality is against the teachings of the koran, therefore it is illegal in all islam countries. In some it is punishable by death and in others a five year imprisonment.

All forms of organized religion should be abolished and if homosexuals want to get married then let them. It´s not going to make much differnce if they have a piece of paper or not.

Oh Dear

Jonno, she said nine MPs not nine countries.

donkey's Wotsits

As a Christian, I would be the first to admit that religion has been responsible for many problems through history, but so has oil, money, race, geography etc. Religion certainly isn't perfect but very little is and the shortcomings are the fault of man, not God.


Ar!! so you admit it!!!.. only trouble is Oil, Money, geography etc, wasn’t done in the name of god

Oh Dear

Surely money and oil come under the same category?


As does the church, O.D, bearing in mind the enormous amount of wealth it's generated in 'gods name'....

Can't find the passage in the bible that says the church should do that...can someone point it out to me...?


Doesn't the Christian doctrine say something along the lines of everyone being equal in the eyes of God?

Doesn't it also say something about eveyone being made in God's image?

Isn't Christianity based on the belief that God made us all?

If you beleive in that stuff then surely all Christians - regardless of whether they are gay or straight - are God's creations and have a right to equal treatment by the Church?

Seems to me that these Chrisitian fundamentalists so full of moral righteousness that they can pick and choose which of God's creations do or don't qualify for equal treatment in the eyes of their deity.



You are absolutely correct about the Christian doctrine advocating equality for all. Many Christian factions are beginning to gradually align their articles if faith with that of a changing social environment by rejecting outmoded Old Testament concepts that teach that homosexuality is morally unacceptable, putting emphasis upon teachings such as "God made humankind in his image and likeness" and accept that homosexual feelings are natural for those individuals and that they must be respected for they do not choose their homosexual 'condition' ( it shouldn't be considered a disease or the result of environmental or psychological factors and changes unless extensively substantiated with fully accurate corroboration).


If homosexuals are so set on this path and it is so important to them to get married, why don't they build their own churches, set up their own religion, and re-write the bible to exclude the passages that condemn them. Judging by the anti church rhetoric used by those posting on here they would not have a shortage of those willing to help them achieve this either by actually offering their services to help build said church or putting their hands in their pockets to help financially with such a project. Remember all you egalitarians and liberals courage of your convictions or in this case putting your money where your mouth is!!!!


Or of course, we who don't adhere to your concept of organised religion could just continue to be forced to pay for the buildings you worship in, whilst your church retains ownership and insists on ultimate control over them...

That seems equally fair, doesn't it....?


Could compare this to paying my taxes. There are many projects that the states embark on that I do not agree with and which my taxes go towards paying for but none of us can cherry pick what our taxes are used for.


Is there some way of ensuring that our taxes go towards projects that are favourable to our long-term interests ? I think the time for a mini, non violent revolution has arrived- change the tax system and convince the government using both rhetoric and extensively corroborated claims that the present state of affairs is unfavourable to our interests. Perhaps we could also influence them to invest capital into ventures that are truly of avail for us...


I've been putting my money where YOUR mouth is for years Verdique by having to pay for the upkeep of churches with my parish rates to support YOUR faith even though this goes against MY beliefs as a free thinking soul.

Another typical bigoted narrow minded Christian view, Christ no wonder they threw you lot to the lions.


Good reply Frost ........But VERIDIQUE has a point, anyone can set up a recognised religion you Simply need a certain amount or signatures … Some star wars fans did just that “the church of Jedi”…May the force be with you!!!


Forest - To repeat I too pay my taxes etc which contribute to projects and things that I don't agree with, get over it and live with it, I do. As to your abusive comments calling me a bigot and narrow minded, I have the right to voice my opinions as do you. We live in a democracy where freedom of speech is permitted without fear of censure. However hurling abuse and insults at those of us who do not agree with you demonstrates an attitude of "its my way or the highway" Definition of a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than there own. By indulging in name calling you have displayed the very trait you accuse me of. This is suppose to be a discussion on opinions regarding gay marriage, being abusive and indulging in name calling does not contribute in any way to an intelligent exchange of opinions.



Go back and read your words I stand by what I said that you are bigoted and narrow minded.

You also demonstrate exactly how intolerant you are of others who do not fit into your neat little christian shaped mould by calling gays 'abominations' who should have their own church - how very 'christian and tolerant' of you Verdique. It's no wonder that people have turned their backs on the church when it has sad individuals like you in it.

Oh Dear

I'm surprised you suggested that. I have a feeling if that were to happen, more people would attend the new churches. They won't contain texts that are out of date and bigoted.


VERDIQUE, you are missing the point here. Every atheist on the planet could stump up enough cash to turn the Greffe into an atheist cathedral that would put St Paul’s to shame, and it wouldn’t make any difference. Under the current law, any gay marriages carried out there would still not be legally valid.

This debate is about changing the LAW.


PC hedonists ruling over common sense again. Everyone here concerned about the selfish 'rights' of 2 people who don't want to have sex in the conventional way to propagate the species - no-one has mentioned the impact of same-gender on children, and if children aren't included in the equation what's the point of insisting on marriage? Most people's best friends, those that they really love and have enormous affection for, are of the same sex but you don't think of sleeping with them - it's pure SEX!


Renard, I have some bad news for you. Gay people are already having sex.

And if you honestly think that the only reason straight people get married is to have sex in order to propagate the species, then you are so delusional that I wonder how you can function in society.

Oh Dear

Renard, you must be either autistic or asexual. Marriage isn't for breeding, it's about feelings and emotions much more complex than "getting your end away".

The same applies for homosexual couples.


The Bible tells us that, "we are all equal in the eyes of God," note, not "equal in OUR eyes," which becomes a totally different meaning.

For as long as I can remember no one 'must be' married in Church to make it legal.To be married in the offices of The Greffe is just as legal as being married in the Church. The Church service involves two parts as I understand, One being a religeous service performed by a Priest,followed by the signing (and witnessing)of the civil register,which is usually carried out in the Vestry.In other words one part of the ceremony is 'religeous' Whilst the other is 'civil.'

My question is "why do Gays/lesbians need to be married in a Church?"


I don't want my children to grow up believing that kissing, holding hands or having sexual intercourse with another man is normal human behavior. As far as I'm concerned it is a taboo subject. I want my children shielded from any kind of homosexual activity but everywhere I look nowadays there are gay people.

vic gamble

...HBC... you say,'everywhere you look there are gay people...I want my children shielded'...ever thought about how you might react if one of your perfectly nice and balanced children said "Mum, I' going to come out...I'm gay."

So who is this child going to hold hands with, with or without your permission...I bet you are tempted to say "There but for the Grace of the Lord go I"..or some words of even weaker effect...


Wind your neck in Vic and remove the key from your back.

You are entitled to your opinions (and you have a lot) and I'm entitled to mine from time to time.


Fair question Vic - a friend of mine who is gay wondered the same thing and asked me what I would say to my daughter if she "came out." My answer was the first thing I would say is "I love you."


I feel sorry that your children have to grow up with such an ignorant and small minded parent as you for a role model. The world is a big bad nasty place and being gay is far far from the worst things they will come across. You will raise children who will become adults ill equipped to live in the real world. Taboo subject?!? Your very belief that sexuality is a taboo further perpetuates prejudice, if you do not discuss you will never understand. And yes, maybe you don't want to understand and that is fine but you have no right to make another human being feel less of a person than you because of something that has absolutely no effect on your everyday life.


It usualy the shelterd ones that end up that way!!

Oh Dear

You are a fool. You're children will grow up knowing about these things whether you like it or not. Children these days know that it's normal to be a homosexual. If you want your children bullied in the playground you're going the right way about it. Apart from those of course that lead such sheltered lives they end up socially retarded. Sex is part of what people talk about even at a young age. You're going to have to get over your own homophobia to ensure your children get the best chance in life.


Core hec the shout me down brigade is in force here! No one else is aloud to have an opinion except for those that are pro-homosexual - so much for free speech. If anyone has any sort of opposed opinion they get labeled a fool and ignorant just for stating that they don't want their children to be gay, just as they would not want them to be drug dealers, pimps or axe murderes.

Oh Dear

That's the problem HBC.

Comparing them to drug dealers, pimps or axe murderers is very extreme. Ignorance actually sums you up very well. We're entitled to freedom of speech just the same as you are.

We're utilising it to tell you what we think of your views.

vic gamble

Hbc...that's a neat little bag of bad cats...murderers, junkies pimps & GAYS..something a bit twisted in your thinking, not to mention your application of logic, I'm afraid.

Homophobic to the core Hbc it would appear.

Doug White

I doubt most kids want their parents to be racists or homophobes.


Twist my words as much as you like, interpret them as you wish, it really couldn't care less. You two are very sad individuals. I would advocate the both of you getting married, you deserve each other.


Its called cause and effect, Hbc, something else, that along with homosexuality, your kids will learning about in the modern world that appears only to exist outside of their home.

-it's 2013, for the record.

The way you express your views says a lot more about what you are like than the views themselves, and added to the fact you've revealed you're bringing up kids within your personal doctrine (I don't want my kids to be gay!) gives many people, including me, some cause for concern,

Children need guidance, support and to be prepared for real life, not domination, control and out of touch thinking.

If one of your kids does end up gay, will they be thrown out of the family? What if their friends are gay? Will they be banned from seeing them? what if they want to go to gay clubs? Will they be allowed?

Like it or no, homosexuality has been around for many centuries and is here to stay. It's not about choice, it's just the way some people are made, and whether you like or approve of the way other people live their lives, unless it is harming you personally in some way, of course, is none of your business.


I believe that marriage is the union of one man to one woman.

I have no problem with civil partnerships but if you allow same sex marriages on the grounds of not discriminating against gays where do you draw the line?

Do we allow polygamy on the grounds that not to will be discriminating against swingers?

Why is it illegal for men to marry their sisters or their daughters? Isn't that discrimination?

What if I decide I have fallen in love with my horse, the feeling is mutual and we intend to tie the knot at the Greffe. Surely I should be allowed to?


Yes John you should be allowed to marry your horse. In Washington DC Bestiality is still legal, so you and your horse could move


The reason that marriage between siblings is not allowed is due to cross breeding

Which would lead to generic problems.

Sarnia expat

Sorry, horse gone, Find Us Keep Us....

Re genetics and interbreeding, take a look at the old registers for inmates at Castel Hospital. Makes for astounding reading, i am talking the 1930s and 1940s here, so not so far back.

1946 er

Sarnia Expat,

You are way off beam with your comments about the Castel Hospital. In the period you mention it was known as the Country Hospital and served as the maternity hospital for the Island ! The "inmates" were pregnant local women !

Doh !


I agree with you John, in Guernsey marriage is the union of one man with one woman.

However, I believe the law should be changed.

Would you be happy with a civil partnership which was identical to marriage in everything but name? If so, what is it about the name that is so important to you? (I don’t want to answer a question that hasn’t been asked, but if anyone wants me to I am happy to explain what about the name is so important to me.)

Alternatively, I have a counter proposal for you. Same sex marriages are legalised, but if you want you can enter into a special “religious partnership” instead, identical in every way but the couple has to be of different sexes. What do you think?


So glad I moved to Canada where I am legally married in a same sex relationship. So sad that my niece and nephew are growing up in a place where such hate and bigotry still seem to exist.



. If being a slave to a book that has been written and re- written to suit, and allows some people on here to make vile, bigoted, self righteous comments,and they then have the audacity to call themselves Christian's, you are indeed in the right place.

Island Wide Voting


Thanks for the info on your niece and nephew,but what do your own children think?


How is your question relevant? Not everybody has children - I don't. I'm 43, female and married to a man.

Jack could have children if he wants them or maybe he could be like me, and choose not to.

Does the fact that I don't have children, nor did I get married in a church, make my marriage any more legal or recognised than somebody who did get married in a church and have children? Does it make it any more important than Jack's?


HBC anywhere you look in history there are homosexuals, biological mismatches are a part of nature.

I beleive that up to a certain age children should be protected from malign inflences but they must also not be kept ignorant of the real world because that ignorance makes them vunerable.

If people of the same sex wish to be "married" I don't see who has the right to stop them. But if a congregation of a church doesn't want it to happen in their church I also don't see who has the right to force them to let it happen.


In your opinion, is the 'malign influence' against which you say children should be protected homosexuality, or the bigotry that tell them homosexuality is 'wrong'?


Does ignorance include spelling errors ? Does 'beleive' come to mind, Pete ?

More seriously, surely if so-called 'biological mismatches' are a part of this world they ought to be embraced, not met with irrational dislike ? ...


Last September I was lucky enough to celebrate my "marriage" to a guernsey man on your beautiful island. The sun shone and we stood in front of 150 people and thanked them for showing us their support and commitment to us. Now after reading these post my husband/Partner/lover/friend/sin on earther is devastated by the hate that flows. I have read none of the posts but have been read the worst. I will not read any replies to this but am sure he'll tell me the best ones. I just have a few things to mention and am under no illusion it will make naff all difference to anyone's opion but here goes.

Have you read the bill? The changes that are being made will not allow you to marry your horse, although I'm sure you can find someone to bless you match. There are many other religions you can join if you want more then one wife or if you want to marry someone in your close family. I beileve it is actually the core of a few rather well known religions. It is your choice to follow that path if you want. I hope no one judges you or throws hate at you.

Secondly, if when I die I have to face god I will do it as a proud gay man, I know I have lived my life with the best morals I can. I have not judged others, I do unto others as I would have them do to me, I do not think my self better than I am and in a position to point out others sins with out first looking at my own. If God does not want me then it will be his loss and I accept that and will trundle down to hell with all the other sinners. I just want to point out that the bible says lots of things that I am sure you all do without knowing it is a sin and I do not lay with a man as if he were a woman. I lay with a man like we are both men.

Thirdly if these comments offend I am sorry, just as I am very sorry that your hatefulness has offended others. Please look to yourself and ask who you are to judge anyone. The C of E was created so a king could get divorced, Catholicism was created from Judaism. Religion has always evolved. It is time that religion moved forward and promoted love and understanding and a place to worship and people need to stop hiding behind it and just say that they think being queer is icky. At least that would be honest.

And to my husband .... Stop reading these comments, you are loved by me and our families and you will be loved by our adopted child. And if god doesn't like it then heaven will be less of a place for us not being there - if he doesn't exist then at least we were true to ourselves in our lives. I love you.


We are all sinners. It is not for us to judge people, God does that.

God loves sinners. But he is against sin.

1. Should there be ethical principles about sexual activity?

2. If yes, what should they be in your opinion?

3. If no, on what grounds can polygamy, bestiality, the encouragement of adolescent experiment be rejected?

The difficulty that I have with your post is that it seems to be based on the axiom 'we were true to ourselves'. That could be advanced by heterosexuals as a defence for adultery [which is generally considered to be sinful, as it undermines trust and the institution of marriage.].

I also have a problem with the English word 'love'. It translates 4 different words in Greek, which reflect different aspects of 'love'. I love mushrooms, I love my relations, I love my friends, God loves me. It helps discourse if we distinguish.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage wish to push demands beyond that. I appreciate their candour. It is that agenda that gives rise to legitimate concerns about the future.

I sincerely hope that you will outline what you consider should be the ethical principles that underpin sexual morality. I have asked the question many times and have never received a direct answer. Insults, yes; answer, no. If we are going to alter the paradigm of the structure of society, it is reasonable to discuss what is planned.


As a postscript I would add that, in my opinion, much heterosexual activity is sinful. Pornography and contraception have all too often turned a sublime, life-giving sacramental union into a debased expression of hedonism.

Oh Dear

Well said. Don't worry about the bigots they don't represent a large proportion of our society. They just like to shout loudest.

Nick Le P

One could say the same about the gay community.


He should also be re-assured that not everyone is as bigoted as some of the people who write on this blog xxx

Donkey's Wotsits

All sin is wrong and although there are lots of different ones, some do get precise mention.

'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind - it is an abomination' Lev c18, v22.

The Christian faith should not change its view on any sin because God doesn't - 'For I am the Lord, I do not change'. Mal c3, v6.


'But thou is allowed to use thy position of trust to sexually abuse boys if thou art a catholic priest and hideth behind thy church who will cover upeth your abominal sins.'

Hypocrocies v12

Fed up ratepayer

"Thou is also allowed to fleece thy non believing brethren and get them to pay for thy places of worship, and operate a secret court where money will flow into thy coffers"

Donkey's Wotsits

Clearly that would be sin too and unacceptable in the eyes of God.

Forest, I can't imagine for one minute that you are suggesting that Christians think that such action by a very small minority of religious leaders is, in any way, permissible behaviour. Society has always had individuals with problems like this - why would the Catholic Church be any different?


Those that tamper with kids should be held accountable and so should any organisation or party that cover for them.

It doesn't matter whether religious, celebrity or political.

Whether they are sick or just plain evil, I don't know, but every one of them when discoverd should not be given scope to offend again.


Je. It has been now proven that for years and years the church's governing bodies deliberately and repeatedly ignored and covered up widespread child abuse perpetrated by 'gods representatives' upon children.

The only reason the finally 'fessed up and dealt with it, rather than just covering up and moving the child abusers around, was because the got caught.

Just the other day I heard about rampant child abuse at a children's home where a bishop was implicated as being involved.

What do these actions say to you about the church?

To me, it says that it is nothing to do with god (whatever you perceive that to be), a spiritual path, or (the ultimate hypocrisy), their self proclaimed christian 'righteousness' and how they are there to provide (I can hardly bring myself to say it) 'moral guidance', but more about power, money and the abuse of an arrogantly self appointed title, which they appear to think not only puts them above the law, but also their 'own' laws, and indeed, above their own god, who, according to them, they will be answering to when they ring the bell at the pearly gates and are summarily told they're not welcome.


Jeffers I was going to post a reply but Scarlett has said it far better than I ever could.

I love you Scarlett.


Why thank you Forest!

I would say 'I love you, too' only as I suspect we're both chaps, it's perhaps not appropriate on this comments board as it may be misconstrued........;)


Please don’t quote Leviticus unless you try to comply with all of the Old Testament Laws. (Perhaps you do, in which case you have my unstinting admiration – that one about not wearing mixed fibres must be a nightmare.)

For those of you who are Christians, my understanding is that the relevant verses against homosexuality are from St Paul’s letter to the Romans.

(Which also comes down heavily in favour of circumcision.

“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” Romans Chapter 3, verses 1-2)

Terry Langlois

is there anything else mentioned in Leviticus that we shouldn't do?

just wondering...

Oh Dear

I'm sorry but quoting from a book that begins with a talking snake and a woman being born from a man's rib isn't exactly the best citation. It must be so useful having a fairy tale as your guide to life. When you fancy being a bigot you can hide behind the Bible.

To know that's the Bible is ridiculous all one has to do is read Genesis. Very imaginative stories that appear to be aimed at small children. My 7 year old nephew lauged when I told him that people actually believed it. I didn't even need to encourage him. Even before science became popular both of the things I quoted above were nonsense.

I've even heard some Christians saying that they don't believe in Genesis but they believe in other parts. IF all the Christians against gay marriage on this page are doing the same, they are obviously just bigots.


Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind...

Does this mean if I want sex I have to have it with a woman. Wouldn't that make me a lesbian?



It depends which way you are lying.


You want to discuss positions with me?

I'm sorry, the quote was 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind' so from that I assume that I have to lie with another woman.

Herbert Roth

It is only a 'sin' in the eyes of christian 'bible'bashers', who like so many religions wish to foist their antiquated belief systems onto the rest of us.

Live & let live I say. If gay people wish to commit to each other in a more permanent fashion, then why the hell shouldn't they? Wake up, this is the 21st century now!

They don't need to do it in a church if the church isn't keen on the idea, but if the church wants to start banning certain sections of society from churches perhaps they should start paying us rent for them (sorry, strayed into another topic for a second there!).

BTW Oli, nice post and please don't think gay people are hated in Guernsey, there are a lot of supportive posts on here too.

Klaus Fluoride

John (post 40), yours is the kind of post that sooner or later fundamentalist types resort to when they realise their main argument is losing credibility.

Allow me to take your points in turn:

Marriage was originally intended to be purely for the union of one man, one woman. This was to promote procreation when a growing population was a good thing, back when most people didn't live too long & there was a thousand different ways to die.

These days under population is not a problem, so same sex marriages are no longer 'against the interests of society'.

Personally I see nothing wrong with polygamy either, perhaps one day it'll be the only way people can afford to get on the Guernsey housing ladder!

Regarding the men marrying their sisters or their daughters suggestion, I believe someone has already pointed out that isn't a good idea genetically.

And if you decide you have fallen in love with your horse, I would suggest that the feeling is not mutual as you claim, unless your horse can speak English, in which case..


If all the people who want to fiddle kids, marry the same sex, legalise drugs, have drinking 24/7, abortion on demand, euthanasia etc went to live in Jersey and those who believe in family values, hard work, honesty and above all common sense, lived in Guernsey,which island would be the best to live?

I only put category one in Jersey, because there are more of them.

Oh Dear

No one wants all of those things just because they advocate same sex marriage.

You really do consider it to be that bad don't you. It's love between two people, it's that simple. They're not killing anyone, they're not injecting drugs, they're not anti-family and they're not all alcoholics.

I have common sense, family values, hard work and honesty but I also advocated same sex marriage. Probably due to common sense, honesty...oh and respect.


A wise man once had this to say on the division of authority between church and state

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

If people feel they have to abide by the teachings of some texts that are thousands of years old ( whilst ignoring other contemporary texts ..... And ignoring some of the teachings in the texts that are followed ) then fine ... And I would gladly uphold their right to do so.

However if the state wishes to change civil law to suit the 21st century, then religion has no place in stopping it ....


Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

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 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 them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

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?

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?

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

Lev. 25:44 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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

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 fan,


Oh Dear

Best post on the page. Oddly enough one which hasn't been argued against by any Christians.


I believe in church marriage of man and woman.

Give birth and teach siblings the value of love between male and female and not same sex love.

I disagree with same sex marriage in church but will accept in a registry office.

I am against same sex adoptions of children having no father/mother to raise them.

We siplings were all born through man and woman and should continue in this process.

Nick Le P

Reasonable viewpoint.


No I don't oh dear.

Given the choice I'd suggest two loving heterosexual foster parents would be a much better choice than having two loving homosexuals raising a child.


Hbc, can you provide a substantial justification for this idea please.


Try this Ed. I haven`t read it all yet.



The Family Research Council (sic) does not practice what it preaches.



There are many cogent ideas, yet whenever some ostensibly revolutionary findings are made ( not necessarily this one as it hasn't led to any apparent radical changes thus far), one, fascinated by such a discovery, always believes that nothing will ever debunk it. But, inevitably, something will- it may take years, decades or even centuries- will disprove it. Scientific development, whether incremental or radical, will eventually catch up...


Hbc that is what i meant heterosexuals.male and female as foster parents

vic gamble

Hi Ed...I re-wrote the surrealism bit about Pink Elephants in an attempt to try and concentrate your confusion about "proving, not proving" existence of ancient men in the sky...but you seem to have truncated that little debate...most unlike you?


Sorry, Vic, I have moved on to discussing the concepts of morality and normality- different content, but of tantamount philosophical significance. I am also contemplating assessing the validity of claims made by a recent study, the website of which bcb has apprised me of.

vic gamble

Ed....that's perfectly OK...enjoy your trip down the Ho Chi Minh Trail of life...



"Freak show", you ought to be deeply ashamed of yourself, King Maker ! Do you lack the capacity to embrace alien phenomena as you fear it may shatter your provincial world ?

Something can only be considered a true disease if it can be extensively substantiated by fully accurate corroboration. Though you do not explcitly state that homosexuality is an illness, your idea that it is something that has "gone wrong" suggests that you believe it is an aberration from 'normality'. I say normality with inverted commas because establishing what is truly physically, psychologically or spiritually sound is probably impossible as the universe, as I have said, is a perpetual grey mass that human beings interpret as black or white to accomplish their own ends. We are, after all, in the inchoative phase of humanity and we have a lot more to learn...

With relation to this is the concept of 'morality' as, given that you regard homosexuality as morally reprehensible. The only difference between human and animal communities is that we, due to a greater capacity to communicate and, to a degree, to ratiocinate, have developed a universal 'code' detailing what we consider 'right' or 'wrong', the unique aspects of different civilisations' or religions' articles of faith notwithstanding. The degree of so-called 'righteousness' or 'immorality' is based upon whether it impacts unfavourably upon the welfare of another individual-something that is judged by how it affects the human being who witnesses, hears of or reads of such phenomena emotionally.


I don't know what happened, but this was supposed to be posted at the bottom of the page. Hopefully, King Maker will relaise that it is being directed towards them...


Like Oli, I have the wonderful honour of being married to my same-sex partner, who has lived in Guernsey the last 20 years. I am Canadian and we now make our home in Toronto.

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. Since the law changed to allow two consenting adults of the same sex to marry:

Not a single person has married their cat, dog, donkey, horse or any other domesticated animal. Come to think of it, likely not any non-domesticated animal either - but no official statistics are available. However, we do love our moose.

Pedophilia is still illegal, and adults of any variety are not allowed to marry children.

It is still illegal to marry your sister, brother, mother, father, son or daughter - regardless of your gender.

No officiants/priests/clergy have been forced to marry a same-sex couple against their will.

I won't address every single ludicrous suggestion that those that oppose gay marriage cite as the certain outcome of legalization of gay marriage, but I'm sure you get my point.

Here's what HAS happened in Canada since the legalization of gay marriage:

A same-sex partner benefits from the medical and health benefits through their spouse's employer.

The spouse automatically becomes the official "next-of-kin". This is important in the matters of providing (or withholding) consent for medical and other purposes. Imagine being told that you can't be with your dying partner because their mother doesn't like the way you live your life.

There are other specific Canadian-centric legal advantages to do with rights to the "matrimonial home", survivor benefits and litigation. In simple terms it means that loving same-sex spouses of X number of years, are entitled to the same legal rights as opposite-sex spouses.

Not earth shattering. Not terribly noteworthy to those that aren't directly involved.

Which of these benefits is so threatening to those that oppose same-sex marriage? None of the rights or privileges of heterosexual married couples have changed. Not one.

Why is it important that it's called marriage, and not a civil union, partnership or otherwise? Because Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's taught us that "separate but equal" is still discriminatory. As some other commenters have pointed out, "marriage" is not exclusively the domain of the church. Those that get married in a registry office instead of a church are not required to use a "separate but equal" term to define their relationship.

In addition to Canada- Argentina, Belgium, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden have all granted marriage rights to same-sex couples on an equal footing with heterosexuals. South Africa. Imagine trailing South Africa in granting equal rights to your citizens. I don't have statistics, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen any news stories from any of these countries to say that their social or economic fabric has frayed or been destroyed as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage.

I would encourage those of you that are so strongly opposed to consider how your vitriol and intolerance affects those around you. Rather than worry about our children, worry about the legacy you leave for your own. Should single mothers not be permitted to raise their children because there is no “male” role model involved?

Gay marriage does not demean or lessen the perceived “value” of marriage. Divorce, abuse, neglect and other negative outcomes already exist in heterosexual marriages; I fail to see how my marriage is going to change any of those things.

It pains me to see how much my wife is affected by such abusive and hate fueled responses to this issue in Guernsey. We worry for the gay and lesbian youth in Guernsey who may be subjected to this hate and discrimination, and who don’t have the support networks and experience of age and love on their sides. The impact of your discrimination is costly not only in terms of personal suffering, burden to healthcare, loss of talented individuals from the island, but also in terms of lives.

In the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada- “"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."


Lisa - I agree with you that gay marriage will not devalue heterosexual marriage. I am married to my lovely wife - I don't measure its value against other peoples relationships or how the law defines it; I measure it based on our love for each other, our commitment to each other and our belief that it is uniquely sacred in the eyes of God. Society could outlaw marriage completely and it wouldn't change my values one iota.

Whatever your position on homosexuality or gay marriage, quite frankly anyone who thinks their own marriage will be devalued by this could do with reassessing who exactly is defining their value system.


A Homosexual friend of mine once told me he could always tell closet Homosexuals when he met them because they were the people who got all hot and bothered when they learned he was. Those that didn't weren't.


Could I then similarly conclude that those I meet who get all hot and bothered when I say I'm a Christian are actually closet happy clappys? ;-)


you shall not convet your neighbours house.

you should not convet your neighbours wife.

nor his male servant

nor his female servant.

nor his ox

nor his donkey

nor anything that is your neighbours.

We are the human seed of life to reproduce new seeds of hybrids.Male to female.

Same seed production will not germinate female to female.male to male

You can sow your seeds and scattter but only the good seed will harvest.

Love and respect your neighbours views.


Convet or covet? If you're going to preach to me, at least get it right.



COVET means wrongly desires



It's always slightly concerning to me to think that there are millions of christians around the world that are incapable of intelligent free thinking, and instead when faced with moral challenges or otherwise in life refer to a book which lets face it is not the word of God, but was written by man and then re-written several times over (as and when necessary) in order to control people like yourself who then repeat it verbatum without ever asking yourself the question 'what do I think?'

I suppose it's a lot easier and a lot less hassle to just pick up the bible and find a quote to fit your latest dilemma (in this case gay marriage) rather than putting yourself outside of your comfort zone and into real life situations where you could experience life and all its amazing differences before forming your opinion of the world and your place in it.

How about finding a quote in there that teaches a bit of tolerance for your fellow man and woman.

Oh Dear

Very well said Forest!

King Maker

Opinions, we all have them - or is it just the liberals and gays who are allowed them?

Oh Dear

Everyone is entitled to an opinion King Maker.

I doubt it's just liberals who are pro-gay here. It's called modern times. If you want to live by an outdated, contradictory book then so be it. But Christianity should no longer have an affect on the state.


My parents would have not cared either way if I was gay. In fact when I was a teen my mum would joke it would be better as she wouldn't have to worry about me getting pregnant.


Contributors to this page:

Put forward your views, but please corroborate them with concrete evidence. I am sorry that I keep going on about substantiating claims, but one is only going to regard what you say as credible if it is based on scientifically and philosophically sound reasoning, not emotional sensivity or half baked clap trap that stems from fear, prejudice influenced by others or dislike that emanates from the wish to avert discontent associated with one's poor ego.

I will be impartial and say that this applies to both homophobic individuals and advocates of homosexuality.

Lacy dress man

Okay. Men in lacy dressers telling us what is right or what is wrong I don't think so.

Just look at the past record of the churches every thing they touch they stuff up the list is never ending......

King Maker

Purely having my opinion Rainbow Roy, Scarlett 'you wish' to coin a phrase.


The monologue by Jeremy Harding on the newquiz this week was simply quite brilliant and hugely entertaining on the whole subject.

Obviously one doesn’t want to get involved in name calling and some peoples’ objections to gay marriage are based on deeply held religious bigotry

But frankly all of the arguments that have been put forward against it are just unsustainable tosh

But people were standing up and saying “Marriage is between a man and a woman”

I thought not any more princess it’s changed

That’s the thing with the law you see.

The law is one thing then it changes and then its something else

And then of course theres the argument “Well what next?”

Nothing next that’s it

“Well what next, will a man be able to marry his brother”

…. No,no

When Catholics were first allowed to stand in Parliament it didn’t then change so that furniture could stand.

When the franchise was extended to women it wasn’t then extended to sandwiches or carpets it does work like that, they’ve just changed the law to make it equal for gay and straight people and that’s all there is to it.

But there’s this huge fixation with other peoples’ private parts, I was listening to Charles Moore who used to edit the Telegraph was being interviewed and I thought if you didn’t have a posh public school accent, if you sounded like a cab driver they wouldn’t be bothering with you, you’d have to phone up Any Answers with all the rest of the personality disorders.

In fairness Cameron is trying to save the institution of marriage which not many people are interested in, he’s hoping that gays will do for marriage what they did for musical theatre…..