Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Minister defies Kirk on 'gay weddings'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
11 February 2007
THE Kirk's fragile alliance over gay weddings has been blown apart after a minister revealed she would use her church to bless the civil partnerships of four homosexual couples.
Aberdeenshire minister the Rev Kim Cran will go ahead with the blessings, even though she risks disciplinary action if an official complaint is made.

Traditionalists have condemned the move as inflammatory, and warned it risks splitting the Kirk. Last year, the majority of the Kirk's local branches - the presbyteries - voted to reject a new rule allowing clerics to conduct the ceremonies without fear of punishment.

But church leaders are anxious to avoid the acrimony over homosexuality that has divided the Anglican Church internationally, amid concerns that it would further weaken Presbyterianism's already diminished influence in Scottish public life.

Cran, the minister of Chapel of Garioch and Blairdaff, in the Presbytery of Gordon, confirmed she had been approached by four couples with a view to holding ceremonies in the church to bless same-sex civil partnerships.

Although civil partnerships may only be conducted by registrars, some gay churchgoers want the opportunity to give their legal union a church "seal of approval".

Cran said: "As a parish minister, I have been approached by four couples, and I have the four dates in the diary for later this year. I plan to conduct the ceremonies."

Prior to being a Church of Scotland minister, Cran served in the US with a denomination which did allow blessings of gay relationships. Last year, she called for practising homosexuals to be allowed to be ministers.

She said: "My views on this matter are well known. I believe in an open and inclusive Church which does not turn people away."

Whether she will be breaking Kirk rules by blessing civil partnerships will be hotly debated.

The Church's General Assembly last year narrowly decided not to pass a Declaratory Act - a ruling which would have said that a minister blessing such a relationship could not be disciplined.

The assembly decided instead to canvass its 46 presbyteries across Scotland and abroad. Last November, it emerged four-fifths of them had thrown out the proposal, effectively leaving the door open for disciplinary action.

However, experts in Kirk law argue that rejecting the Declaratory Act does not necessarily mean a minister will be disciplined for blessing the partnerships, as no clear rules on such ceremonies exist.

A senior Church insider said: "From the point of view of writing rules and law, the overall effect [of not passing the Act] is that there is no effect on the rules. It will still basically be up to local presbyteries to decide."

Cran's insistence that she will go ahead with the blessings has provoked anger from Kirk traditionalists, who argue the Bible teaches that homosexual relationships are sinful.

The Rev Ian Watson, secretary of the evangelical grouping Forward Together, said: "The presbyteries have decided decisively to reject the Declaratory Act. While, legally speaking, there may be no change in the law, to go ahead and mark a civil partnership with a religious ceremony shows contempt for the mind of the Church."

Watson said neither he nor other senior members of his group planned to raise a complaint about the issue.

But there was a possibility, he added, that any churchgoer, or even someone outside the church, could lodge an official complaint. It was then up to the local presbytery to decide how to act.

But the OneKirk grouping - a middle-of-the-road body between ultra-liberal and traditionalist extremes in the Church - said it was up to Cran whether she should go ahead or not. "How a minister gives a blessing is for themselves to decide, based on what they believe scripture to say and how they feel themselves," said the Rev Peter Johnson.

The Church of England has been split over the issue of sexuality since the ordination of the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in the US in 2003.

Meanwhile, a high-flying estate agent claimed yesterday he was sacked from his £50,000 job for being gay.

Gordon Lockhart, who marketed the £6m Lee Castle near Lanark in 2005, has claimed he lost his job shortly after telling his bosses about his sexuality. He is taking the case to an industrial tribunal.

His company, RE/MAX, has denied the claims and has sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that Lockhart was not technically their employee but an associate.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 February 2007 7:04 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Gay and Lesbian issues
 
1

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 00:34:03

#1 HC
I'm waiting for old Pax to put in an appearance & then I'm away!!!!

2

Scaramouche,

11/02/2007 00:50:08

I'm repeating myself I know, but the ONLY Kirk woth listening to, captains the Starship Enterprise!

3

Em,

11/02/2007 01:02:14

Well the anglican church is pretty much flying in the face of their doctrine anyway since they ordained Gene Robinson, so they would seem a bit hypocritical if they got upset, on the other hand, if the likes of Gene Robinson is not a practicing homosexual then that is a different matter, as it is not so much homosexual attraction that is against bible teaching, but the sexual activity.

4

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 01:04:19

I don't think it's the ceremonies people object to - it's that bl**dy cake!!!!

5

Bill, Dunblane,

11/02/2007 01:20:22

2 - JG - Pax AND Media 1.

Out o' here!

Scaramouche - even YOU coudn'a dae a song aboot this! (And DON'T try!)

6

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 01:22:12

#8 Bill
Oh I'll bet he could!!!

7

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 01:30:56

Aye, I spotted him anaw. I think Media1 has many names - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of these "strings" were really just him talking to himself!!

8

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

11/02/2007 02:33:04

Comment@5 Horrible Cankers..........I'm Spartacus :)

9

Bill, Dunblane,

11/02/2007 02:50:53

16 - scottwebb - so you have a very close relationship with Kirk Douglas? (post 5) Tenuous, tenuous ....

10 - HC - TCW's no THAT bad!

11 - JG - who else would listen?

10

Pete39,

Tassy 11/02/2007 03:40:51

If they are church members it would appear to be a reasonable request. The problem with holding traditional views is that the world now has over seven billion inhabitants. If that had been the case two thousand plus years ago one tradition may have been that you can only enjoy sex when there was not an "R" in the month. I don't know, Christianity has always been a living religion so should reflect modern day conditions. Nuff said.

11

Black & White Triumph,

bottom of the barrel 11/02/2007 04:08:30

# 16 No I'm Sparticus

12

Pete39,

Tassy 11/02/2007 05:18:54

#20 Bob, I agree with you but only if they are not a member of the church concerned. I previously said that Christianity allowed even three people to form a church, two to organise the rules and rituals and one to prevent a deadlock. If they are members and pay their dues, they should be offered due consideration. I may add that I no longer feel Christian non denominational but have a distinct leaning to religious humanists.

13

Guga,

Rockall 11/02/2007 05:27:23

They should never have given them the vote, let alone made them ministers.

14

john montgomery,

11/02/2007 08:23:01

problem here is the CofS condones gay adoptions and so should not feel agrieved when one minister gives blessings to gay marriages.

I do not support either as I am sure the majority of the population don't. Gay anything is wrong and is unnatural. I now await the usual vitriolic backlash. The facist gay lobby do not want free speech as it is obvious with less then 1% getting their way with legislation we know who are the pressure groups. Definitely NOT the churches.

15

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 08:25:43

Let's get a few things straight (!)

They're HOMOSEXUALS - not gays.

They CANNOT get married.

Christian teaching specifically forbids the homosexual act.

16

john montgomery,

11/02/2007 08:28:26

pete39 if we always change with the times then we have no absolutes.

17

,

11/02/2007 08:37:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360147, Article id was mapped to record!
18

Garry Otton,

Scotland 11/02/2007 08:49:39

In that case Peacock-features, people who eat seafood and wear mixed fibres should also be banned from marrying.

Now all of yeez stand back and watch while us queens finish the church off!

19

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 08:51:35

27,

not a clue what you're on about, sweetie.

Homosexuals are NOT banned from marrying.

They just CANNOT do it.

Just like men CANNOT have babies.

20

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 08:55:17

oh.....and have fun wi that "finishing off the church" game, sweetie.....

at the last count there were cl;ose to 2000 million christians in the world.

21

big big fun,

on the road to rome 11/02/2007 09:03:50

NO IM SPARTUICUS

22

Cadgers,

Perth 11/02/2007 09:04:24

"How could a congregation respect a Minister when they know he has spent the 30 mins before service soddomising the hairy erse of another man?"


#26 Oh, so only catholic priests are allowed to do that BDP? And only to the choirboys?

Where's God when you need him? He wants to get down here touty sweetie.

23

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 09:14:56

Bigot Cadger 31,

I'm saddened to see you make the link between homosexuality and paedophilia, Cadger.

There was no need for that.

Only a ransid anti Catholic bigot would make such a comment. For your information, Priests were responsible for 0.03% of sex abuses against children.

24

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 09:27:30

Ref my #32,

for the hard of thinking (like Cadger) 0.03% is under one thirtieth of 1%.

25

Gnasher,

11/02/2007 09:30:17

Someone asked "How could a congregation respect a Minister when they know he has spent the 30 mins before service sodomising the hairy erse of another man?"

Well first of all it's none of their business, especially if the meenister disdains to discuss such things with them.

More than that, how could a congregation respect a Minister when they know he has spent the 30 mins before service ploughing the fragrant depths of his missus, or she has spent the 30 mins before service riding the crest of the waves with her significant other, boy or girl?

Again, of course, none of their business.

26

,

11/02/2007 09:41:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360244, Article id was mapped to record!
27

Joanna (really),

11/02/2007 09:44:11

#24 Peacock -- I'm with #25, if by Christian teaching you mean taking the old testament literally then you shouldn't eat shellfish or pork, and if you're a woman you don't have a soul, and you better watch out before you fall off the edge of th Earth!

I agree though that it's crazy to allow adoption & not marriage. Marriage was originally for protecting children, and while I'm happy to have it protect childless couples as well, I do think conceding one must imply you should concede the other.

But in my mind, it was a mistake to ever give up marriage by declaration de presenti --- we had it from pre-history until 1939. What business has the church in our marriages?

28

,

11/02/2007 09:44:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360249, Article id was mapped to record!
29

,

11/02/2007 09:48:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360258, Article id was mapped to record!
30

,

11/02/2007 09:50:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360262, Article id was mapped to record!
31

Cadgers,

Perth 11/02/2007 10:10:43

#38 And I'M the bigot BDP? Perhaps you should go look up a dictionary.

32

Johhny M,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 10:14:13

The Bible is quite clear (in Leviticus) that homosexual acts are banned. No room for uncertainty there.

The same section of text is also very clear that eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibres is also banned.

Should people who eat shellfish be banned from being Ministers? If not then please tell me why some instructions from the Bible can be flaunted while others can not?

33

bill, england,

11/02/2007 10:16:02

There should not be any same sex civil partnerships to bless.

34

,

11/02/2007 10:21:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360315, Article id was mapped to record!
35

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 10:25:38

41,

I see that you've studiously avoided my earlier comment re shellfish. I guess such evasion allows your warped view to continue to exist.

This aint about solely homosexuality.

Christianity expressly forbids FORNICATION, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Were a Minister to live a life of overt heterosexual fornication, he too would be unsuitable.

But if he admitted he ate some pork and shellfish last night, I for one, would forgive!

36

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 10:41:48

Oh, not me, HC 45, but imagine I were THAT sort - I guess I wouldn't be ideal as a CoS Minister, eh?

I can just see Reginald (wi the hairy erse) and Raymond (the Cos Minister) dressing up reeeaaaallllyyyy nice Monday - Saturday, and Raymond changing into his Minister garb on a Sunday morning to lecture some strict Presbyterians on Stornoway re the teachings of JC!!!

37

Johhny M,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 10:42:55

but Big Drew, why would you forgive someone for flouting one rule in the Bible and not for flouting another?

Is it up to you to judge which rules God wants to be obeyed and which he was only being half-hearted about?

38

Gnasher,

11/02/2007 10:44:57

"Big Boy" Drew Peacock - you clearly have this scenario stuck in your consciousness. The kitchen table, and a man called Reginald.

I know - it's the 80s, and the telly's on in the kitchen, and Reggie Bosanquet's reading the news. Mummy's been preparing scallops and pigs in blankets. You're wearing your new poly-cotton Rangers top.

Then the minister calls....

39

Cadgers,

Perth 11/02/2007 10:46:37

#43 Excuse me who exactly made the first comment about hairy erses and sodomising? Twas not I.

Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

40

Derek Williams,

11/02/2007 10:50:04

in case it's not already obvious, Big Drew Peacok = Pax Vobiscum = Pex Vebescum not sure what moniker's next, Pox Voboscum?

41

,

11/02/2007 10:52:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360384, Article id was mapped to record!
42

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 10:54:46

#49,

Yip - you got it!

I made those comments.

Well done!

So.......where's the bigotry?

43

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 10:56:32

Oh and Cadger 49,

the dedfinition YOU provided covers YOU.

there was no place for your bigotted anti cath\paedo priest comment here.

44

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 10:57:33

48,

you got it - well done.

i'm just off to sunday school now, and bb's on wednesday night!

45

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 11:05:17

A core teaching of Jesus Christ? Could someone point me to the page where he talks about gay issues?

It would be great if someone could tell the likes of me which bits of the bible we should live by, and which of God's Words we can now ignore.

Many of these posts make me wish we could bring back discrimination against religious types. I dont see why I shold be forced to employ one or allow one to sleep in my B&B.

46

Toast,

11/02/2007 11:05:48

wake up,the bibles a story ,not real life.

47

THE James,

Lincoln 11/02/2007 11:11:48

Homosexual acts are forbidden by Christian beliefs. That does not rest solely on Leviticus. It is also condemned in the New Testament.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. He lived in a society that condemned homosexual acts and said nothing about it. Homosexuality is not a sin, but acting on those impulses is. As BDP says, ALL sex outside marriage is condemned by Christian belief, so homosexual acts can never be acceptable to Christians, as marriage is a sacrament reserved for the union of a man and a woman.

That does not mean active homosexuals should be condemned. Each to their own, but they cannot expect, surely, to have their actions condoned and celebrated by any real Christian church.

48

Randy Reggie,

Under a golden shower 11/02/2007 11:13:07

Baby.....you remember....after all of this time!....Do you still have a 'Back, Sack and Crack?' done every six weeks?....still moaning about my hairy erse and its been what, 2 years now? I still dream of you stud...especially when I look at that kitchen table we used to eat at....I believe I can still see the crack in it that gave you that nasty bobo and made you cry....ahhhhh dumpling, they were the days eh?...I miss you, your still my funky hunky and want you home, here with me, where you truly belong......no use fighting it beautiful you know you'l break out the leather again....its only a matter of time. Speaking of which...you left your chaps and cuffs here....fraid Fifi gnawed on the erse of your pvc jock but I'l buy you a new one...soon as you get your butt back on that table !

49

Helen,

11/02/2007 11:14:35

Well done Kim Cran!!! You are in my thoughts and prayers today. The Church (of all denominations) needs clergy with your vision and willingness to question things.

50

,

11/02/2007 11:15:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360445, Article id was mapped to record!
51

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:19:10

56 Toast,

Is that YOUR opinion?

Great! Well done!!!

Is it OK if I hold a different opinion?

Are you sure now?

52

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 11:20:21

#57

"Homosexual acts are forbidden by Christian beliefs. That does not rest solely on Leviticus. It is also condemned in the New Testament."

Which page is that on?

53

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:29:24

60,

No, Andy, the lie is YOURS.

Christainity is perfectly clear: it forbids FORNICATION.

54

Scaramouche,

11/02/2007 11:29:45

Sorry, Bill @ #8. I LOVE a challenge!!!

You by my side
that's how I see us
I close my eyes
And I can see us
We're on our way
To say "I do-oo"
My secret gay dreams
Have all come true-oo.

I see the church
I see Big Drew Peacock
Your folks and mine
Happy and smiling
And I can hear
Cadgers and Cankers singing
Ave Maria

Oh my love
Gnasher
This can really be
That some day you'll mince
Down the aisle with me
Let it be, make it be
That I'm the one for you.
I'd be yours
(and maybe Bill and JG's)
Now and forever.

I see us now
Your hairy mitt in my hand
This is the hour
This is the moment
And I can hear
Cadgers and Cankers singing
Ave Maria
Ave Maria
Ave Maria
Ave Maria

*with many, many apologies to Julie Rogers and my fellow commentators!!

55

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:30:35

58

LOL!

56

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:31:28

64

LOL!

57

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:32:53

59,

questioning is good.

Appointing FORNICATORS to Ministry is radio rental.

58

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:34:41

55, Pete,

dont recall anything about gays.

think there's lots of stuff about HOMOSEXUALS though...

59

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:39:21

55

such religious discrimination already exists, and new stuff being added to the Statute Book soon.

60

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:40:11

55

QUOTE:

It would be great if someone could tell the likes of me which bits of the bible we should live by, and which of God's Words we can now ignore.

obey the even pages.

ignore the odd pages.

61

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 11:46:53

Big Drew:

"think there's lots of stuff about HOMOSEXUALS though..."

Where?
Which pages?

Merely continually repeating the same thing without backing it up, don't make it so.

62

,

11/02/2007 11:48:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360530, Article id was mapped to record!
63

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 11:51:17

72,

you're the one who keeps saying there is, and that it is against the teachings of JC.

Prove it.

Where in the new testament does JC say anything on the subject?

64

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 11:53:30

And you're the one that says there's not!

My position has consistently been that Christianity forbids FORNICATION.

Agree\Disagree, please, Andy.

65

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 11:53:35

#72 Big Drew Peacock
Is that you Pax?

66

alicia,

11/02/2007 11:55:16

the gutless wonder won't answer that, will you pax aka unbending wrist, limp wrist or bending wrist and all the other pathetic aliases you use. Some so appropriate to you.

the hypocrite is cherry picking what he wants as per usual. The whole purpose is to vent (from the safety of an anonymous PC) his debatable foul opinion and to think it's *OK* to gay bash from a safe position.

your posts are being reported, as is a request for the moderators to take note of your ISP addy. Leave it up to them to take filth like you off of here.

67

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 11:55:28

69,

"such religious discrimination already exists, and new stuff being added to the Statute Book soon."

Good. I look forward to religious types being banned from all public places, and signs on doors saying no caths, prods etc, christians being banned from adopting and running schools.

We've had 2000 years of witch burning, crusades, pogroms, burnings at the stake etc. It's about time it stopped.

68

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:00:08

78

Intolerant Secularism = bigotry.

We've had 2000 years of witch burning, crusades, pogroms, burnings at the stake etc. It's about time it stopped.

1/ When was the last one?

Good. I look forward to religious types being banned from all public places, and signs on doors saying no caths, prods etc, christians being banned from adopting and running schools.

Why?

69

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:00:27

74,

Earlier we were told that homosexuality was specifically against the teachings of JC.

Unable to back that up with a single page number/quote, now you are using the word "fornication" which is something different altogether and which you do not define.

And still no page numbers/quotes/references........

Do you have a leg to stand on?

If you are basing your views on "what the bible says", then at least have the courage to show where it says what you think it does.

70

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:01:04

76,

try a dictionary love

gay = happy

homosexual = man on man \ woman on woman.

71

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:03:19

80

Correction: UNWILLING to substantiate.

You wont answer MY question.

Why would I answer YOURS?

Let me know if you want a proper debate.

It will involve YOU answering MY questions too.

72

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:05:56

"Good. I look forward to religious types being banned from all public places, and signs on doors saying no caths, prods etc, christians being banned from adopting and running schools.

Why?"

The point is, I think, that none of these things will happen! Nor are they being proposed. And were they, there would be an uproar, quite rightly.

Yet the churches lobby hard to ensure that another minority, i.e. gay people (or indeed anyone who disagrees with them) are subject to discrimination.

Can you imagine what would happen if it was suggested that Jews could not marry? JC said that the only way to god was through him, ergo Jewish people are condemned to hell, they are therefore against biblical teaching. Ergo they should not be allowed to get married or adopt.

73

,

11/02/2007 12:06:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360573, Article id was mapped to record!
74

Cadgers,

Perth 11/02/2007 12:07:21

#64 Lol Scaramouche but I dinnae think we'd set the hill alight! Cankers?

75

,

11/02/2007 12:08:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360580, Article id was mapped to record!
76

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:10:08

82,

I think I have won that one!

You are the one defending the bible, yet you can't come up with a page number!

How dumb is that?

And there was me thinking that book was infallibe, if you are so keen on it, why not share it with the rest of us?

Is it maybe because you can't? And you know fine well that the new testament says bvgger all (excuse the pun) about homosexuality?

So your statements fall 'cos you can't defend it!

77

Bill, Dunblane,

11/02/2007 12:11:16

64 - Scaramouche - you have absolutely EXCELLED yourself. My ribs are sair wi' laughin' A definite no. 1 (although that might be taken the wrong way looking at some of these posts!)

I would imagine 90% of these posts will be removed when the censor wakes up.

;D

78

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:11:18

STILL struggling #80?

Frightened?

Come on - let me know if\when you're up for a proper debate!

79

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:12:50

87,

STILL struggling with the reading?

Delete CANT.

Insert: WONT.

Not until you decide you're up for an adult debate.

Are you FRIGHTENED?

80

,

11/02/2007 12:13:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360596, Article id was mapped to record!
81

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:15:34

Did I read that right?

She wants to allow a practising homosexual to be a Minister of the Church?

How could a congregation respect a Minister when they know he has spent the 30 mins before service soddomising the hairy erse of another man?

82

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:19:21

Big Drew

I've got my bible handy - just waiting for you to tell me where it says that homosexuality is against the teachings of JC....

Then we can have an adult debate.

Who's the coward?

83

,

11/02/2007 12:20:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360610, Article id was mapped to record!
84

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 12:20:56

#92
Pax - you seem to be obsessed by "the hairy erse of another man". Is there something you want to tell us all? I'm sure we would all be very understanding.

85

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:23:41

Not running at all!

Just waiting for you to come up with the goods.

But you can't can you?

I dont have to defend anything - you're the one with the Big Book of Rules that you want the rest of us to live by.

yet you can't give me a page number.

86

,

11/02/2007 12:25:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360627, Article id was mapped to record!
87

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:27:28

frightened of what exactly?

88

Cadgers,

Perth 11/02/2007 12:29:37

#97 I rather think we are all now deaf dbf

89

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:30:19

GOOD QUESTION - WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU FRIGHTENED OF?

COME ON, ANDY - ADULT DEBATE PLEASE.

ENOUGH OF YOUR HIDING!

90

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:31:14

cadger, then perhaps it's time for andy to participate in adult debate!

91

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:34:16

Adult, as in hairy erses?

If I recall correctly, you said that homosexuality was against the teachings of JC, which was why we could not have gay ministers.

But we are still waiting for you to say where precisely it states that in the bible.

So far, all we have is your word for it.

So what are you afraid of? Give us page numbers/quotes from the BIg Book of Rules, if you are not too scared.

Caps lock is to the left of the keyboard, btw. Typing stuff in capitals doesnt make it any more true.

92

,

11/02/2007 12:37:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360654, Article id was mapped to record!
93

,

11/02/2007 12:38:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360657, Article id was mapped to record!
94

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:39:58

andy

QUOTE:

If I recall correctly, you said that homosexuality was against the teachings of JC, which was why we could not have gay ministers.


I DIDNT SAY THAT. YOU LIE.

WITHDRAW AND APOLOGISE, PLEASE.

95

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:40:26

I've been trying to help out here, but not sure what fornication has to do with being gay.

And without any references to look up, it's a bit hard.

Just had a quick scout through the gospels, can't see anywhere where JC makes any points about homosexuality.

He does say that slavery is OK though........ woops!

96

Scaramouche,

11/02/2007 12:41:20

Am I the only one who sees a somewhat protracted courtship going on here with Big Drew and others?

Drew, I'm sure you're really a nice boy, but lighten up, willya?

Who are you to say that homosexuals can't marry? The Bible? That's a book that's really on a par with Hans Andersen or Grimm's Fairy Tales. As is the Koran, The Talmud, The Mahabharata, The Kalevala and every other "sacred book".

You and no-one else have any right to determine how others live their lives. Only your own. The only time you have a right to speak up and give your opinion on another person is when that person breaks a commonly held law everyone agrees on. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as you do. It's enshrined in our commonly held laws.

Frankly though, I think you're only doing this because you're a troll (not the mythical ones!)

97

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 12:42:14

Maybe Andy will engage in an adult debate when he finds an adult to debate with!!

98

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:43:08

Big Drew

In your post number 35 you wrote

"Of course, he wouldnt come into Church and tell his assembled flock that he had spent the last 30 mins buggering Reginald.

But, my point is, he would overtly be living a life of homosexual fornication that directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ. "

But you won't back that last statement up.

You made the opening statement, and were asked to back it up with proof. But you can't.

No apologise to Andy, and answer his question.

99

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:43:29

106,

I'll come back to you in a few mins, pete.

Just waitiong for Andy to trawl through.......then withdraw\apologise.

100

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:45:35

petepete,

not bad....but NOT what andy attributed to me.

let's just wait on andy's withdrwa\apologise post.

101

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:46:56

While we are waiting Big Drew - please re read your post 35.

Then answer the question!

Where does JC say what you say he does?

Honestly - it can't be that hard. People quote from the bible all the time.

Chapter number and verse please!

102

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:47:02

done a runner, andy?

103

,

11/02/2007 12:49:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360695, Article id was mapped to record!
104

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:52:16

No - just a bit confused.

I asked you to back up your claim that homosexuality was against the teachings of JC, as you stated in your post 35.

That's all I asked.

Still waiting for an answer.

PS - cheers Andy Th

105

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:52:35

112

Read it - great stuff!

Now, where's your withdrawal\apology?

106

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 12:53:29

apologise for what?

107

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 12:56:39

for attibuting to me views i dont hold.

QUOTE:

If I recall correctly, you said that homosexuality was against the teachings of JC, which was why we could not have gay ministers.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

look back - throughout i have made clear JCs block on FORNICATION.

108

AndyPandy,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:01:08

you havent even come up with a page number for that!

stop hiding and come up with quotes, references for your claims.

it can't be difficult.

and what has fornication got to do with being gay?

can straight people not fornicate?

btw - signing off now, I'll check back later to see if Big Drew has provided one single bit of evidence from the teachings of JC to substantiate his claims that we cannot have gay ministers.

We need to hear it from the words of JC himself, not someone called Big Drew Peacock!

109

alicia,

11/02/2007 13:01:52

if it wasn't for fornication, you would just have been another mess in a tissue, what a missed opportunity for the world.

be grateful for it, you revolting specimen.

110

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:04:53

It strikes me that Big Drew is hiding behind semantics because he can't find anything that will prove what he is saying!

The bible is there to be quoted from, so what are you waiting for?

PS - Alicia, who is the revolting specimen?

111

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:09:16

you want a page number?

really?

but no apology.

no withdrawal.

still REFUSING adult debate.

lying.

still REFUSING to answer MY questions.

112

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:09:26

As ever, some religious nutter comes along, spouts bile about this or that pet prejudice being against the teachings of JC, yet refuses point blank to quote directly.

And they remain silent on what JC does say about slavery.

Astounding.

What delusions some people live under.

113

,

11/02/2007 13:11:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360759, Article id was mapped to record!
114

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:14:04

what?

what happened to adult debate?

......... and still not a single quote or reference.

And what has that do with gay ministers?

is BGP saying that ministers should all be celibate? Is he RC?

115

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:15:05

sorry - BGP should have been BDP, i.e. Big Drew

116

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:15:09

124,

can i help the name my parents gave me?

when they said ANDREW they should have known better!!!

117

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:19:47

So, Big Drew

Why won't you give any references from the teachings of JC to back up your statement that a "life of homosexual fornication that directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ". (post 35)

How about if I say please?

PS - note that you said explicitly "homosexual" fornication, which implies that JC spoke explicitly about this subject.

118

,

11/02/2007 13:19:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360786, Article id was mapped to record!
119

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:20:53

130,

andy,

i cant help you.

you've lied.

you refuse adult debate.

let me know if\when you can do the adult debate thing.

120

,

11/02/2007 13:21:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360794, Article id was mapped to record!
121

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:21:44

we won't get any references, cos there are none!

122

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:22:33

i have no problem with ministers being gay, guys.

i think everyone should be happy in their work.

123

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:23:02

Big Drew - yes I am denying that.

You gonna prove me wrong?

Please do.

124

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:25:30

134

errr...did i say there were jc references to homosexuality?

125

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:26:23

136,

nope!

so...you're telling me that jc was kinda ok with fornication?

126

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:26:58

Yes! get a grip.


...."life of homosexual fornication that directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ". (post 35)

127

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:27:45

138

>so...you're telling me that jc was kinda ok with fornication?

yes I am

128

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:28:19

139,

err great.....but - let me ask again -

errr...did i say there were jc references to homosexuality?

129

,

11/02/2007 13:29:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360816, Article id was mapped to record!
130

,

11/02/2007 13:31:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360821, Article id was mapped to record!
131

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:33:18

Big Drew.

YES YOU DID.

In your post 35 you said specifically that "homosexual" fornication was against the teachings of JC.

Maybe you didnt just mean homosexual fornication, just fornication in general. In which case, there is no problem with gay ministers in the church. IN which case, what is your problem?

But I think you have got yourself in a bit of a pickle and are hiding behind semantics and re-defining what you meant/said in previous posts because you have been challenged several times by several people to actually back up what you claim that JC says.

But you point blank refuse.

It's all getting a bit boring really. Your utter inability to quote what JC says (which is the basis for your argument about how you think things should be) just undermines everything else you say.

A bit sad really.....

132

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:34:02

cheers Alicia!

133

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:35:41

142 - Big Drew

I dont think Pete Pete has a problem!

134

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 13:36:25

#124 HC
Dae ye no' smell the incense and fire and brimstone now? Pax/Pex/Pox/Droopy Cock has obviously reared his ugly head again (is that offensive?). He's got a fixation on "hairy erses" today - I think he has serious personal issues and is probably more to pitied than scorned!!

135

,

11/02/2007 13:37:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360840, Article id was mapped to record!
136

,

11/02/2007 13:38:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360841, Article id was mapped to record!
137

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:38:57

146,

for a man wi nae problem, he's done lot's of whingeing!

138

,

11/02/2007 13:40:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360854, Article id was mapped to record!
139

,

11/02/2007 13:41:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360857, Article id was mapped to record!
140

,

11/02/2007 13:41:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360859, Article id was mapped to record!
141

,

11/02/2007 13:42:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360860, Article id was mapped to record!
142

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:42:41

152 - pure comedy!

Back with the hairy erses again!!!! You are obsessed!

Is it that you like writing rude words?

143

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:43:51

Guys\Gals\Whatever

See 152

I've asked it several times.

STILL no satisfactory answer.

144

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 13:44:04

154 sex is sinful!

Now we are at the nub of the problem!

That says it all - SEX IS SINFUL

We're all doomed

We're all going to hell, gay or straight!

sad

145

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:44:13

155,

ashamed?

146

,

11/02/2007 13:45:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360869, Article id was mapped to record!
147

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 13:46:28

#152 BDP
Have you considered professional help for your sexual fantasies?

148

Mark j,

Leith 11/02/2007 13:49:06

If the middle of the road, conservative Jews can interpret Leviticus in a more enlightened sense while actually practising their faith as Jews following Jewish law. Why cant Christians who attack homosexuality learn from our 'elder' brothers and sisters in faith?
It all comes down to scripture and translation. The right wing evangelicals,ultra traditionalists or orthodox choose to believe in a more literal bible with less consideration on historical context. But as Christians they pick and choose which laws of leviticus (old testament and foundation laws for Jews) apply to all of us as Christians today. There is much in the Bible good and bad. Christ has shown us love. Evangelicals traditionalist and orthodox Christians ignore that message. Conservative Jews have become so enlightened seemingly without Christs message of love and forgiveness but by reading the Bible within its historical contexts. They know scripture and they arent condeming homosexuality. All this is still irrelevent to civil authority and law within a multitheocratic society.

The highest legal body in Conservative Judaism, the centrist movement in worldwide Jewry, voted yesterday to allow the ordination of gay rabbis and the celebration of same-sex commitment ceremonies.Conservative Jews Allow Gay Rabbis and Unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/us/07jews.htmlei=5088&a...

149

alicia,

11/02/2007 13:52:33

161 - that's good to hear that they are enlightened and moving with the times.

It's true there is no point continuing to take the bible on a purely literal reading rather than accepting that society and cultures have changed over the centuries and some things are just not as relevant in this day and age.

I'm pleased to see a kirk minister standing up for her own beliefs. If the kirk decide to make a martyr of her then it reflects badly on them, not her. I am sure that these couples are regular church goers and live their lives a good deal better than many that would choose to condemn them.

150

Mark j,

Leith 11/02/2007 13:54:59

The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships in the Hebrew Testament: e.g. 'ahabah or ???? (see Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon, Hebrew word #160; Gen. 29:20; 2 Sam. 13:15; Pro. 5:19; Sgs. 2:4-7; Sgs. 3:5-10; Sgs. 5:8) When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace" in Jonathan's eyes. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David. However, this may be due to Jonathan's acceptance that David was God's anointed king of Israel.

The covenant made between the two men is thought by a few to strengthen a romantic rather than political or platonic interpretation of their relationship. At their first meeting, Jonathan strips himself before the youth, handing him his clothing, remaining naked before him. When they first make their covenant, not long after their first meeting, the reason supplied is simply because Jonathan "loved [David] as his own soul." (1 Sam. 18:3). Each time they reaffirm the covenant, love (thought not necessarily sexual in nature) is the only justification provided. Additionally, it should be observed that the covenants and affectionate expressions were made in private, like a personal bond, rather than publicly as would a political bond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

151

,

11/02/2007 13:55:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360894, Article id was mapped to record!
152

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 13:57:10

163,

hey, you're right.....sex IS natural and sex IS good.

153

,

11/02/2007 14:00:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360908, Article id was mapped to record!
154

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 14:05:59

#165 BDP
I don't particularly like your euphimisms - I would prefer to call it "making love". I have also never been tempted to envisage two men having sex with each other but if that's what you enjoy, carry on!! So, you would have no problem with the minister blessing a lesbian union? It's just the male thing you don't like, eh?

155

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 14:08:21

168

and now YOU attribute views to me that I dont hold. Ho hum.

You call it making love? Fair enough.

156

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 14:09:15

169,

and now YOU attribute views to that I dont hold. Ho hum.

157

Scaramouche,

11/02/2007 14:16:03

I think "Droopy" is here to wind us all up. He (or she) know exactly what they were on about when they chose the name. And to pretend to be stupid regharding "fornication" defies belief.

Don't get sucked in people. Well ..... not by Droopy anyway!

158

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 14:17:57

172

No stupidity here, scar!

I know exactly what fornication is, and I know it's sinful in the eyes of the CoS.

159

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 14:20:21

#170 BDP
YOU said "now, two girls......errrr......yes" that sounds like approbation to me. YOU are the one who keeps going about "hairy erses", "sodomising" etc.. How do you know what homosexual men do with each other? I don't - and I am not interested enough to consider what it might be - you obviously are (considering the number of times you've mentioned it!!!).

160

THE James,

Lincoln 11/02/2007 14:23:40

Read the letters of St Paul in the New Testament. They are full of condemnations of "sexual immorality." Whatever could St Paul mean by that? He meant a lot of different things, including sex before and outwith marriage.

Both Jesus and St Paul came from a society which condemned homosexual acts. Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Are we to take his silence on this matter to mean that he actually approved? Jesus was never slow to tell the religious authorities of the time when they were wrong. If he approved of homosexual acts, he would surely have said so, as the overriding attitude in his society was against it.

Christianity forbids sex before marriage. Two men, or two women, cannot be married (in Christianity), because it is a sacrament only for the union of a man and a woman.

I sympathise with any Christian who happens to be homosexual, but core Christian beliefs cannot be changed to suit individual preferences. It is not homosexuality that is sinful, but acting on those urges.

161

alicia,

11/02/2007 14:25:11

CoS? You were claiming in the eyes of the catholic church the other week - when you couldn't even spell correctly the alias you took on.

Make your mind up which religion you are going to play at being today and stick with it.

You're a joke

162

,

11/02/2007 14:26:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360955, Article id was mapped to record!
163

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 14:29:14

176,

alicia,

more nonsense...

whatver the rights and wrongs of my contributions here, my spelling is better than most. IF I spell something wrong, it is because I choose to do so.

I havent claimed to be CoS, Alicia. You lied. YOU are a joke.

164

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 14:38:34

#177 BDP
Hang on - I'll type this really slowly so you can take your time reading it. I never said these lesbians would be ministers - only that if you have no moral problem watching them together, you should have no moral problem with the minister blessing their union. Otherwise that would make you an immoral hypocrite.

By the way, there is only one "d" in sodomy - cretin!

165

,

11/02/2007 14:41:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360975, Article id was mapped to record!
166

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 14:48:55

#181 HC
Oh No!! I never actually thought of that! I'd hate to think I was helping him on his way- I'm away for a bit of chocolate!! (oh that's ACTUAL chocolate, not a euphamism for ANYTHING!!)

167

,

11/02/2007 14:49:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 360991, Article id was mapped to record!
168

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 15:03:53

Yours were better, right?

Droopy cock?

Knocking one out?

Ooooooohhh how VERY clever is that?

If you want to play silly little adolescent name calling games, then dont whinge about the quality of the retort.

169

Randy Reggie,

Waitin on my big droopy cock to come back to me 11/02/2007 15:04:17

Now that was something we really loved to do 'Cyber Cruising'...God it was great and you could be anybody you wanted to be..remember sweetheart how you described yourself as a 'more muscular and hirsute Tom Cruise'....oooooh they came beatin at your door with that description....talking of beatin yesssss we were naughty and he did love to give it I'm the big bad Preacher Man and I am gonna teach you the word of God.....thats how the spelling problems and big caps lack of caps start...he loses concentration you see..when he's spanking the monkey....made such a mess of the keyboard and I'M the one that had to clean it.....

170

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 15:15:47

189,

see ya sweetie.

xxx.

171

taylor,

11/02/2007 15:22:24

A question for the readers do homosexuals and the problems they all seem to have, get so much publicity.
I know they are very vocal, they all so have a foot hold amongst our mps, as a few of them are also homosexual.
The way I see it we as a nation have a lot more important issues to discuss and sort out, instead of those constant homosexual problems.

172

,

11/02/2007 15:31:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361077, Article id was mapped to record!
173

Garry Otton,

Scotland 11/02/2007 15:50:53

Peacock you're such a sad queen.

174

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 15:59:22

Oooooh garry, you bitch!

175

Garry Otton,

Scotland 11/02/2007 16:04:15

Well... I s'ppose it's a step in the right direction Paxo Peacock. But you don't have to be camp to be gay. By the way, do u like doing 'top' or 'bottom'?

176

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 16:29:40

Well, he's absolutely fascinated by "hairy erses", apparently

177

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 17:04:20

Anyway, having read the article again she isn't doing the actual weddings, only blessing the people concerned (who she says are regular church goers). What's so wrong with a minister wishing people well?

178

,

11/02/2007 17:16:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361252, Article id was mapped to record!
179

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 17:22:30

#199 BDP
No change of tune from you, then? You're still having flights of fantasy about men and what they do to each other! Still, at least you've learned how to spell "sodomy" properly, so the day isn't entirely wasted!!!!

180

educational snob,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 17:23:40

What are they teaching ministers these days? Rev Kim Cran 'aint' so reverend when she doesn't know that the Christian Bible - Old and New Testaments - condemns the practice of homosexuality. It's consistent with the character of Jesus to say that he clearly would have shown love and concern towards people with homosexual tendencies - but without a doubt, he wouldn't have blessed their union. He would have said something like he said to the woman who escaped being stoned: "I do not condemn you, but go and sin no more".

181

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 17:24:38

200

I bow to your superior knowledge of the topic, JG.

182

,

11/02/2007 17:26:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361272, Article id was mapped to record!
183

Kdv,

11/02/2007 17:34:05

Big Drew Peacock
I totally agree with you it is good to speak your mind.
This homosexual nonsense is well out of control.

They can now marry they can stand for parliament
They can adopt little children (when we aware paedophiles are normally homosexual) heaven for bid when is it going to stop.
Homosexuality is wrong
We need a mass campaign to convert the homosexuals from Gayisim to heterosexuality and if they don’t co-operate castrate them. It is the only solution and it should be none negotiable.
(Only kidding live and let live)

184

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 19:07:01

204,

aye, live and let live - it's just a pity homoseuals wont!

185

Bonnie Laddie,

11/02/2007 19:07:38

What are homosexuals?

186

,

11/02/2007 19:15:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361411, Article id was mapped to record!
187

Big Drew Peacock,

11/02/2007 19:16:49

207

men attracted to men.
women attracted to women.

188

,

11/02/2007 19:24:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361423, Article id was mapped to record!
189

Garry Otton,

11/02/2007 20:25:23

Not so fast, Peacock, old boy! Unlike you, I have a life.

As for all those militants religionists who think any gay story is an opportunity to bible-bash rather than confront their latent homosexuality, read academic John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. It appears that old sandaled gay boy, JC, is not as homophobic as you would like.

190

,

11/02/2007 20:28:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361492, Article id was mapped to record!
191

,

11/02/2007 20:30:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361501, Article id was mapped to record!
192

IWright,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 20:43:56

"More sex please we're Scottish" - 69 posts.Minister defies kirk on gay weddings" - 215 posts.

193

Pete39,

Tassy 11/02/2007 20:54:34

#25 John, if we do not consistently seek improvement we become old fogeys.

194

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 21:05:09

#215 BDP
Are you still bumping on about this yet? Ah've been oot fir ma tea, looked in to see how things are, and discover you're still banging on about homosexuals, what they may or may not get up to and their private "bits". Huv ye nuthin' better tae dae?

195

Randy Reggie,

Sighing over old photo albums 11/02/2007 21:05:21

Yeahh yeah...that one right there...thats old droopy cock winning 'Mr Gay Chaps 2003'....boy I was proud of you that night sweetcheeks....you kissed all those other tarts right off that stage and we were all a cheerin and a hollerin like it was New Year. Thats the night you asked me to marry you and I turned you down and you know I wasnt ready for that kind of commitment...and well...look how its ended...I'm stuck here with Fifi and you started coming over all strange and bashing your private parts with a bible. They say rejection does terrible things to a man and I guess they're right cos you'r only hurting the one you love.....yourself!

196

,

11/02/2007 21:12:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 361559, Article id was mapped to record!
197

IWright,

Edinburgh 11/02/2007 21:13:03

#216
Ah, just read all the posts, now I see why there's so many. Never mind the quality, feel the width.

198

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 21:13:53

#219 Reggie
He wasn't singing that old country and western favourite "I used to kiss you on the lips but it's all over now", was he?

199

Randy Reggie,

Cryin over my darlin Droopy Cock 11/02/2007 21:40:45

Nuhhuh *sob*..sniff JG...Droopy was a Slim Whitman fan and did a wonderful rendition of 'When I'm calling you'...yodelling an all..used to sing it to me over the phone when he was away on his sales trips, selling them darned glow in the dark pop up JC bibles. I think it was them bibles that did it...some of that there neon stuff got into is brain and fried it up good and proper. I worry for that boy...oh momma what we gonna do now..*sob* *choke* *splutter*

200

AJ,

Fife 11/02/2007 22:04:07

What's the problemo?

The Big Man(JC) was the boy who knocked aboot wi his boyfriends aw day, every day - arsin' aboot the countyside, performin' tricks and so on!! He obviously liked male company a lot mair than female company!!!!

Wi' that sort of backgroud, The Big Man would've been the first to bless a couple o' hoofter woofters gettin' hitched!

201

nycmark,

nyc 11/02/2007 23:01:31

doesn't "christian teaching" also teach not to have sex before marriage? yet, i'm sure there are many man-woman couples out there who were married by the church who had sex before marriage ... and in certain cases, where the bride was already pregnant-! it also isn't very "christian" to JUDGE and CONDEMN those whose beliefs and opinions are different than our own. you don't have to agree with another's views, but we need at least to RESPECT them-!!! (christian, my .......)

202

Bri,

fife 11/02/2007 23:07:57

Save us from the Christians, rattling on about the Bible and what good Christians should do and not any of 'em caring that Jesus Christ said not any word about gays or much else having to do with the bedroom.

What he did say, though, was that divorce was not acceptable!

What are you but hypocrites, worshipping Leviticus and Paul because it suits your prejudice and where is the outcry against divorce? Nowhere, and that's because you don't want to give it up.

Fine lot of Christians you are! More like Pharisees - and you well should know that Jesus condemned them more than any sinner he met for the hardness of their hearts.

203

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:20:48

I see a whole batch of the filth posted by BDP was removed. He's needing psychiatric help - I can't see why he makes such a fuss about a few unconventional people - are these things not just part of life's rich tapestry?

204

Yane,

melbourne 11/02/2007 23:23:44

My god you guys are so funny -- I'm sitting here sipping tea & nibbling on ma morning toast & falling aboot laughing -- Horrible Cankers & Randy Reggie -- you should write whole books cos I would read em...

205

maestra,

11/02/2007 23:25:17

#191 - Couldn't you come up with a new post for this thread?

206

maestra,

11/02/2007 23:26:30

Well, I, for one, am happy (but I am gutted not to be name-checked in Scara's latest oeuvre...)

207

AJ,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:28:41

Yane,

Horrible is the best! In fact she's just about to be published!

Watch this space!

208

AJ,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:31:07

JG,

I came to the board really late and reading the Big Droops posts, I reckon he has a touch of the Mr Bumsfelts - remember him?

209

Helen,

11/02/2007 23:37:15

204 - your comment that paedophiles are normally homosexual is totally out of order. The fact is that there are both heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles. And all decent heterosexuals and homosexuals would condemn paedophilia as totally unacceptable.

210

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:39:33

AJ
Oh yes - there is evidence of HIM all over the place - he has numerous nom de plumes. I am sure I haven't got them all (Henrietta Carruthers - which was what threw me a bit with Horrible Cankers (same initials), Media1 and a few more I'm too tired to remember) but there are quite a lot. I found some of his comments today quite distasteful (and I'm no prude) although I see several have been removed.

211

Yane,

melbourne 11/02/2007 23:42:58

#231 That is great news -- you'll have tae plug that book somehow!

212

Kdv,

11/02/2007 23:44:09

233. Helen
I accept your criticism and I do apologise for any upset I may have caused.

213

AJ,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:47:02

JG,

I'm not sure about Media 1, he seems pretty consistent. Bumsfelt was a bit all over the place - Echelon, Rosford?

This sort of discussion will bring him out, cos he hates the fact there are groups of people who regularly have a friendly discourse!

Horrible is the genuine thing, although she also posts under a different name! I'm sure you know who it is! She doesn't exactly hide it. She is brilliant entertainment!:))

214

AJ,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:51:53

Yane,

It's going to be called "Is that a ladder in your tights, or a stairway to heaven". It's a book on about a hardy Glaswegian bus conductress, who leads a double life as a male stand up comedian!!

The early signs are good. Melvyn Bragg reckons it could be the biggest hit of 2007!

215

JG,

Fife 11/02/2007 23:52:48

AJ
Yep - I know Horrible is genuine and agree about the comments she posts!!

I think Bumsfeld is ALL of the above - including Media1 (although the Media1 persona is one you can enter into a "discussion" with)

216

AJ,

Fife 12/02/2007 00:01:47

JG,

I suppose it's a hazard of this type of site! It makes for heated discussion at times.

However, I think it's a good laugh and pretty informative most of the time!

217

Venango,

Pennsylvania 12/02/2007 00:31:35

The scripture for against allowing gays to be ministers is in 1st Timothy. It states that elders must be a man of one wife. That means no sodomites as a minister (teaching elder) or men who have been divorced.

218

Derek Williams,

Edinburgh 12/02/2007 00:58:27

It's hard to take the hard core anti-homosexual bible basher posters seriously when they only cherry pick the bits of the bible that suit them to obey - until the authors of these postings can prove that they take on slaves, stone adulterers to death, stop eating shellfish, stop wearing coats with more than one fabric, sell their daughters into slavery, forbid women to teach, (have I reached my character limit yet?) they just don't make sense. If they were really sincere, they would go ahead and do ALL these things in open defiance of our laws proscribing them and willingly suffer imprisonment as martyrs for their religion.

In reality, most sensible people realise that many of these rules of religions, specifically those on homosexuality have to be quietly sidelined as they predate scientific knowledge. Religions can provide a great many useful rules of thumb for living a life considerate of others, and provide comfort and social opportunities for those who need them without any need to constantly foster hatred of gays.

219

Venango,

Pennsylvania 12/02/2007 01:36:05

It is hard to understand why secularists call us names and blame us for cherry picking scripture when they cherry pick themselves. they choose various passages without taking note of what those passages mean and not including the relevant passages proceeding and following them.
What we have is a Book telling us to live by God's Law, eventhough we are SINFUL creatures and aren't willing to follow those rules without God's gift of Grace and Salvation.
After the Fall of Adam and Eve, the human race became imperfect and to this day is incapable to fully follow God's Law. That was why Jesus came to sacrifice himself for his elect

220

Venango,

Pennsylvania 12/02/2007 01:58:59

As per # 242,
In ancient Isreal, most slavery economic (paying off debts) dealing with a short period of time. usually 7 years.
Adultery was a crime (and still is in parts of the world) and most serious crimes were dealt with by capital punishment.
Not eating shellfis was a food safety thing.
The prohibition of wear clothing made of wool and linen is dealing with the way other gods in Canaan region was worshiped. the priests of these gods wore garments of two fabrics.
One needs to read these scriptures closely and study what they mean before blasting off a critic not knowing what they they are misrepresenting

221

Pilrig,

Livingston 12/02/2007 06:55:38

Venango - wharrabout the witches, are they deserving of death ?

222

Derek Williams,

Edinburgh 12/02/2007 10:49:40

#243, 244
1. "God's law" is basically the 10 Commandments Moses brought down from Mt Sinai - none of which refer to homosexuality, and the teachings of love proclaimed by Jesus Christ who never referred to homosexuality either as behaviour or as condition
2. The Bible does not refer to homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestism, transgenderism, hermaphroditism as 'conditions' as these were not defined or understood until 19th-20th Centuries; neither does it refer to the molecular weight of hydrogen.
3. Any allusions to homosexual 'behaviour' as distinct from 'condition' are exceedingly vague in the Hebrew Old Testament based in Exodus Leviticus largely on long extinct colloquial understandings of the terms 'to know' and 'to lie with', and the Greek New Testament. Their eductions depend very much on the interpretations (and prejudices) of the men doing the translations. Even if their interpretations are accurate, they are inappropriate in the light of empirical scientific research and psychological analysis now readily available and widely accepted.
4. Your clarifications of my points about various biblical rules that religious people choose not to obey do not release you from your obligation to carry them out if you are 100% serious about your religion. If in your opinion the passage of time and the abundance of scientific research now available does not permit homosexuals to live in a state of grace, then neither does it release you from your obligation to execute adulterers and eschew [sic] shellfish.

223

Derek Williams,

Edinburgh 12/02/2007 11:12:58

#246 my typo in para 3 - should read Genesis and Leviticus (not Exodus - pasting error)

224

Freethinker,

Penicuik 12/02/2007 14:40:02

I often wonder why gay people struggle so hard to reconcile their sexuality with their faith. Oil and water methinks.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism - to name but three - are INSTITUTIONALLY HOMOPHOBIC - read their archaic texts.

Why anyone would wish to be a member of an organisation that is so fundamentally bigotted towards them - on the grounds of who they share a duvet with - baffles me.

The CofS minister sounds like a decent, liberal-minded person. Let's hope she soon realises the fundamental truth. Religion is superstitious (and often deadly) poppycock.

Onwards to secularism!

225

Big Drew Peacock,

12/02/2007 17:22:42

248,

intolerant secularism, by the sounds of it.

226

Andrew Peacock,

12/02/2007 17:26:54

Freethinker,

read earlier posts you'll see other (intolerant) seculars argue that Christianity allows fornication, homosexuality etc.

So, what's your probblem?

227

Andrew Peacock,

12/02/2007 17:27:20

Freethinker,

read earlier posts you'll see other (intolerant) seculars argue that Christianity allows fornication, homosexuality etc.

So, what's your problem?

228

Freethinker,

Penicuik 12/02/2007 18:52:14

250
Anyone - religious or otherwise - who doesn't think that the 3 main religions have negative views on gay people are simply ignorant of the facts.

Religious persecution of homosexuals contributes to a deep-rooted feeling in society that individuals who prefer the intimate company of their own sex are deviant and a subject of derision, ridicule and hate.

Being gay is a risky business - whether it be some drunken bigots in the UK out for a bit of "queer-bashing" (which translates to some poor innocent bloke getting his head turned to mush in a darkened street or park) to the vile institutional hatred against homosexuals in countries where backward philosphies and laws - such as Sharia - hold sway and the punishment for being homosexual is death.

Religion has plenty to answer for - and prejudice against gay people is just one example.

As I say, I can't understand why so many gay men and women try and stick with such backward and reactionary organisations.

229

Andrew Peacock,

12/02/2007 19:46:46

252

I'm not at all familiar with the teachings of the other two, but though I'm familiar with Christian teachings, I cant think of anything homophobic about Christianity.

Can you give us any examples?

230

Andrew Peacock,

12/02/2007 20:03:08

252,

What's your view of insitutional, indeed constitutional discrimination against millions of decent, law abiding, hard working, tax paying citizens of this country because of their RELIGION?

Can you think of any Statute that sets out to discriminate against homosexuals?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.