Is the 'One England' drive for same sex marriage 'rights' alienating Christians?

[Caroline]

'One England' is a party that is self-defined by its core value of equality and fairness. This means that it supports constraint being placed on the use of language, ideas, policies, and behaviour on the grounds of minimising potential offense or exclusion based upon gender, race, culture, sexual orientation and religious belief. Yes, 'One England' has a 'tick box' approach to equality.

As part of this framework 'One England' ...'believe that the current system of marriage being only for different-sex couples and civil partnerships being only for same-sex couples is wrong, and leads to division. We support opening up both forms of union to anyone, regardless of sexuality.'

While such a statement is surely welcomed by trendy 'right-on' Liberals and gay rights activists, what do those people who hold traditional Christian beliefs think? Most people I know who adhere to traditional Christian values believe that a Christian marriage, sanctioned by God's Church, is only a Godly marriage if it is between a man and a woman.

For no Christian marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put a couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear on this.

So does 'One England' advocate same-sex marriage on the basis of emotion alone - a sexless marriage? As do some Church minister's?

Or does it trample on the beliefs of Christians, including many of the recently arrived black African migrant communities who strictly adhere to the teachings of God? Is it acceptable for 'One England' to discriminate against traditional Christian beliefs, which are the historical basis for England's moral framework? And how exactly does marriage between men and women lead to 'division'?

[Caroline]

If a 'One England' state wants to offer civil partnership to same sex couples then that is up to 'One England'. But should a 'One England' state impose its views on places of faith and conscience?

Opposition to churches being compelled by law to hold gay marriages is shared by much of the population, including many equality and human rights organisations. Yet I have been accused by 'One England' supporters on here of being 'homophobic' for bringing this up.

[ron]

We had this discussion some time ago when the One England equality policy appeared. Even though some morons diverted it before it got very far, the point was made that the policy does not suggest that religious institutions will be forced to carry out gay marriages.

I never quite understood the difference between a registry office marriage and a civil partnership. Forcing churches to allow same sex marriage is not a good idea but I can't see why same sex couples can't have marriage in a registry office. Why was the term civil partnership even created? Why not just allow gay marriage outside of religious institutions that oppose homosexuality?

Your One England obsession is a bit weird by the way....

[Caroline]

We had this discussion some time ago when the One England equality policy appeared. Even though some morons diverted it before it got very far, the point was made that the policy does not suggest that religious institutions will be forced to carry out gay marriages.

What does the policy suggest, then ron?

It does categorically state that the current state of affairs is both 'wrong', and 'leads to division'. What division? The number of people entering into civil partnerships is tiny compared to those getting married every year, even if marriage numbers are drastically down on previous decades. The number of heterosexual couples wanting a civil partnership ceremony is even smaller. Many of those that do are simply showing solidarity with the gay-rights lobby.

So, is the 'One England' policy just intended as a politically correct sop to appeal to gay rights activists and the Liberal Metropolitan Elite without actually doing anything about something which the party considers to be both 'wrong' and 'divisive'?

I never quite understood the difference between a registry office marriage and a civil partnership. Forcing churches to allow same sex marriage is not a good idea but I can't see why same sex couples can't have marriage in a registry office. Why was the term civil partnership even created? Why not just allow gay marriage outside of religious institutions that oppose homosexuality?

It seems the key word is marriage. Both for those who created civil partnerships, and for the gay-rights lobby that insists they must be allowed to marry in Church and call their civil partnerships a marriage.

Your One England obsession is a bit weird by the way....

I have been a victim of the hatred and intolerance of a prolific 'One England' supporter on this forum. Because of this abuse, in which I have been on the receiving end of thinly-veiled personal threats, many insults both to my personal life and intelligence, swearing and masked swearing, and been labelled various politically correct terms such as 'homophobic' (without any evidence) I decided to look a little more closely at the deceptively murky little world of the 'One England' party.

What I have found isn't pleasant.

[Caroline]

We had this discussion some time ago when the One England equality policy appeared. Even though some morons diverted it before it got very far, the point was made that the policy does not suggest that religious institutions will be forced to carry out gay marriages.

So why have a policy which states that the current situation is both 'wrong' and 'leads to division' if 'One England' has no intention of doing anything about it?

Is it simply to send out the right (politically correct) signals?

[ron]

So why have a policy which states that the current situation is both 'wrong' and 'leads to division' if 'One England' has no intention of doing anything about it?

Is it simply to send out the right (politically correct) signals?

You have a bit of a thing about what is politically correct or not...who cares?

Marriages don't only occur in church. I would say that it is divisive to force religious institutions to undertake gay marriages but can't see a problem with gay marriage in a registry office. Also, not all religious institutions are against gay marriage anyway and if they were I can't understand why gay followers of that faith would want to go against it to get married. Given that, I don't see the point of civil partnerships at all.

[ANGLO-STAFFS]

One Englandhas been a victim of the hatred and intolerance of a prolific fascist supporter on this forum. Because of this abuse, in which One England has been on the receiving end of Lies, and various politically correct terms (without any evidence) it was decided to look a little more closely at the deceptively murky little world of the BNP and EDP reject that calls himself 'caroline!

What has been found isn't pleasant.

Information has readily been given by both past and present members of the BNP, it has not been posted on this forum!

[ANGLO-STAFFS]

Or does it trample on the beliefs of Christians, including many of the recently arrived black African migrant communities who strictly adhere to the teachings of God? Is it acceptable for 'One England' to discriminate against traditional Christian beliefs, which are the historical basis for England's moral framework? And how exactly does marriage between men and women lead to 'division'?

When you stood alongside Mark Collett all of those times that you were a fellow candidate of his in Leeds you showed very little, if any, concern for 'African Christian beliefs'. Did you object to the way in which 'your' party viewed non-whites? It seems not!

Very noticeable that you remained a loyal, and ardent, BNP member and candidate all of the time that it held to a 'Whites-only' membership policy and you only left/were kicked out, when they were forced to admit non-white members.

[ANGLO-STAFFS]

If a 'One England' state wants to offer civil partnership to same sex couples then that is up to 'One England'. But should a 'One England' state impose its views on places of faith and conscience?

.

Coming from the political background that you do you may find a problem understanding this! But!
If a One england state ever came about it would have been elected DEMOCRATICLY, this means that in an election manifesto the party would set out the policies that it intended to put into effect during the parliamentary term.

If the voters approved of the manifesto and voted One England into office then the party, as with every other party elected with a majority, would have the legitimacy to carry out the policies in the manifesto.
If the voters did not like the policies then One England would not be elected and the policies could not be put through by One England.

It would be the 'will of the people' that decided what happened, not oddball fascists with an axe to grind.

I hope that is simple enough for even you to get a little idea of how democracy works (not the Griffinite version that you are used to!)

[ron]

One Englandhas been a victim of the hatred and intolerance of a prolific fascist supporter on this forum. Because of this abuse, in which One England has been on the receiving end of Lies, and various politically correct terms (without any evidence) it was decided to look a little more closely at the deceptively murky little world of the BNP and EDP reject that calls himself 'caroline!

What has been found isn't pleasant.

Information has readily been given by both past and present members of the BNP, it has not been posted on this forum!

Even the EDP rejected her? She must be bad then. (I thought I would stick to using her forum identity as she wishes.)