I agree. It’s only a shame so many left-wing commentators fail to stand up for women in the face of the barbaric and antiquated Islamic value system. For example, pre GE 2015, Harriet Harman declared it would be rude to interfere with a Labour Party event segregated along gender lines to appeal to Muslim voters. After Charlie Hebdo, there was a whole country of progressive journalists just ready and waiting to co-opt the narrative and tell us Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, while highlighting the crimes perpetrated by those at Charlie Hebdo (apparently they were being provocative).

As for same-sex marriage, I think it should be legalised. However I also deplore the hypocrisy – if the morality is ‘people should be free to marry whoever they choose’, then that same morality must extend to incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc. The progressives who label all those who take moral opposition to homosexuality as ‘bigots’ would never extend shaming tactics to anyone who was to declare incestuous marriage to be morally repugnant. Really, their bigotry is only slightly ‘superior’ (and far more hypocritical).

The explanation is well known; it says so in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are commonly cited).

As for the behaviour of the priesthood, you’re right that they have a lot to answer for.

They may be “bollocks”, but I think people get pretty upset if you try to force them to act against their beliefs. I think there needs to be a bit of sensitivity here on both sides. I don’t think there’s any need to force people to act against their beliefs over baking a cake or even a room in a B&B — there are other bakers and other B&Bs, after all.

Obviously where there’s only one option (e.g. we’re talking about the state), or where some belief is especially objectionable (e.g. FGM, “witchcraft” and so on) things are different. But using the law to bludgeon bakers and B&B owners is ugly, unpleasant and unnecessary.

Maybe the Papist Church should explain why they are aginst homosexual acts considering the priestbood is riddled with homosexuals and paedos.

🙂 I think I said pretty much the same thing you just did (except you’re right, I should have corrected “deadly sin” to “mortal sin”). The point (and it’s an important one) is that traditional Christianity has a problem with homosexual ACTS, not with homosexual PEOPLE.

Homosexuality is classed as a ‘mortal sin’, not a deadly sin within Catholicism. And as a Catholic, I was not raised to consider Homosexuals to be deviants or objectionable. In fact sexual orientation was never mentioned during religious education. And the churches teaching is, a homosexual is not a sinner, but homosexual acts are a sin. So in case you missed the point, its ok to be homosexual, as long as you do not commit homosexual acts with another.

Personally. I’m all for Gay rights, I have no problem with anyones sexual or gender orientation.

She talks about tolerance whilst denying people a vote on our EU membership.

I look forward to her losing her seat in 2019.

What, you mean they were being brought up as Catholics? (Shock, horror!)

To be clear, Catholicism, in common with various other branches of Christianity, views homosexual acts as a deadly sin. But it does separate sin from sinner, and merely being homosexual is not itself a sin — it’s only acting on it that is supposedly sinful, and they cite the Bible as authority for this position.

To be ENTIRELY clear, I am not religious. I do, however, think that it’s important not to misrepresent the views of those who are on these kinds of topics. Christians have, in my view, been treated rather unfairly in the press on this issue because of a total failure to understand that it’s homosexual acts and not homosexuality itself that they find objectionable. You might well retort that they have no business worrying about what you do in your bedroom, and I think most of them would actually agree with you — but when it’s actually *their* bedroom (e.g. they run a B&B and you’re staying in it), it wouldn’t hurt for you to show a little sympathy.