‘State shouldn’t interfere on gay marriage’ says Cumbria uni Chancellor

Last updated at 12:56, Monday, 30 January 2012

Ministers should not overrule the Bible by allowing same-sex marriage and David Cameron would be like a “dictator” if he lets homosexuals get married, the University of Cumbria’s Chancellor has said.

Have your say

i think if religion was wiped right of this earth we'd all get on a little better ...the end

Posted by sarah on 13 February 2012 at 03:10

@Rich, but the point is, Rich, that you are opposing giving rights to others for no good reason. Without a good reason, how can you justify this discrimination?

Posted by Bob T on 12 February 2012 at 19:24

BobT, don't worry about Rich, he's possibly still annoyed that they changed the law and let women and poor people vote. "The law's the law, y'know!"

Asides from religious reasons (which don't deserve airing) there's no excuse not to let any adult marry whichever adult they want in a consentual arrangement. Anything else is a purposeful attempt to deny one group of people the same rights enjoyed by another.

Posted by Nathan on 12 February 2012 at 19:02

@Bob T. I couldn't give two hoots either way about your agenda or argument. I really don't care. I'm just stating a fact.

Posted by Rich on 12 February 2012 at 13:03

@Rich, So let me get this straight: you don't want the law changed because it is the law?

Once again I repeat: Give one way that equal marriage rights for gay people would be bad for non-gays? Just one.

Posted by Bob T on 12 February 2012 at 09:25

@Bob T. The legal definition.

Posted by Rich on 11 February 2012 at 19:01

@Rich. Who's definition? Is it up to you, or your church to define words?

Posted by Bob T on 11 February 2012 at 16:50

You can spout on all day. The definition of marriage is The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognised by law by which they become husband and wife.
Now you can live together and have whatever ceremony you like but by definition it's not marriage.

Posted by Rich on 11 February 2012 at 09:21

Morals can never be outdated. People try but then look at the sorry state that society is now in.

God didnt just refer to one group, but many.

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I see plenty warnings for hetrosexuals in there dont you?

As the Bible makes clear: only a small remnant will be saved. Jesus refered to `as in the days of Noah` (only 8 people were saved)

So I dont know why the homosexuals make such a fuss when they can read that the same warnings also apply to drunks, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and probably the war-mongerers too.

The Bible states: not to judge, least we be judged. Jesus taught to love everyone, but we dont have to love or condone their actions, whatever they are.

Posted by Francis on 10 February 2012 at 13:43

Given the Christian bible is a rewrite of older texts, obviously not "the word of god" and that we all now live in future or 2012, as I like to type it, why then is this gentleman insisting the government be ruled by a set of outdated morals?

Morals written by people over two thousand years ago that have little or no relevance in modern society.

Also is this the same bible that was once used to justify other historical atrocities he is quoting from?

Posted by LD on 9 February 2012 at 13:07