Criticism for PM over gay marriages

Banbury Cake: The Rt Rev Philip Egan The Rt Rev Philip Egan

A CATHOLIC Bishop has said marriage could be “destroyed” if David Cameron pushes ahead with allowing same-sex weddings.

The Rt Rev Philip Egan, Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, has said the plans to extend the right to marry would have “catastrophic consequences”.

The Diocese of Portsmouth covers Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, the Channel Isles but also parts of Berkshire, Dorset and Oxfordshire.

He writes in response to the Prime Minister and Witney MP’s backing for a role for churches in performing same-sex marriage ceremonies.

The Bishop wrote: “Such a change is of immense significance. By this change, he is luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us a brave new world, artificially engineered.

“If the Prime Minister proceeds with his intentions, he will pervert authentic family values, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations.”

His office declined to comment on the Bishop’s comments, but last week David Cameron said: “I'm a massive supporter of marriage and I don't want gay people to be excluded from a great institution.”

Related links

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:41am Mon 10 Dec 12

snert says...

When will the church wake up to the fact that we're in the 21st century and they need to change as time progresses?
When will the church wake up to the fact that we're in the 21st century and they need to change as time progresses? snert

12:59pm Mon 10 Dec 12

EMBOX1 says...

snert wrote:
When will the church wake up to the fact that we're in the 21st century and they need to change as time progresses?
Too late for it to be of any help. Its a shame about the Church, but they really don't help themselves...
[quote][p][bold]snert[/bold] wrote: When will the church wake up to the fact that we're in the 21st century and they need to change as time progresses?[/p][/quote]Too late for it to be of any help. Its a shame about the Church, but they really don't help themselves... EMBOX1

1:30pm Mon 10 Dec 12

gymrat34 says...

Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines what marriage stands for.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines what marriage stands for. gymrat34

3:24pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Headington_angel says...

gymrat34 wrote:
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines what marriage stands for.
And what would you say marriage stands for? Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

Marriage therefore is no different either if it is between a same sex or opposite sex couple. It is the 21st century and everyone around the world in most countries have equal rights.

Rights to vote,
Rights to freedom of speech,
Rights to be treated as an equal,
and the rights to have acknowledged, the love of one and their partner.
[quote][p][bold]gymrat34[/bold] wrote: Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Allowing same-sex couples to marry undermines what marriage stands for.[/p][/quote]And what would you say marriage stands for? Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Marriage therefore is no different either if it is between a same sex or opposite sex couple. It is the 21st century and everyone around the world in most countries have equal rights. Rights to vote, Rights to freedom of speech, Rights to be treated as an equal, and the rights to have acknowledged, the love of one and their partner. Headington_angel

5:39pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Pavinder Msvarensy says...

Personally I don't know why they want to get married, the break up of gay adult relationships is over double that (pro-rata) of straight, so why risk all the expense involved in a divorce, when at the moment they can simply walk away without making the divorce lawyers rich. But I can understand the worry of the church, because although our new law will not force them to hold gay weddings, our new law will mean nothing when the European Court of "uman rites", over rules it and insists that The Church must hold them.
Personally I don't know why they want to get married, the break up of gay adult relationships is over double that (pro-rata) of straight, so why risk all the expense involved in a divorce, when at the moment they can simply walk away without making the divorce lawyers rich. But I can understand the worry of the church, because although our new law will not force them to hold gay weddings, our new law will mean nothing when the European Court of "uman rites", over rules it and insists that The Church must hold them. Pavinder Msvarensy

8:18am Wed 12 Dec 12

chinwuba says...

All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favor of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by same-sex couples however well-intentioned they may be. Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined to mean two men or two women, why stop there? Why not three men or nine women? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three, four or five adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?
All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favor of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by same-sex couples however well-intentioned they may be. Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined to mean two men or two women, why stop there? Why not three men or nine women? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three, four or five adults who love each other be prevented from marrying? chinwuba

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree