Forcing gay marriage in church

[Bubbles]

.

[jeremyp]

Really? So they weren't being truthful in their tweet then?

Yes, they are a couple of lying Christians.

No wait, in their tweet they were not arguing that church's should be forced to marry gay couples only that they should not be prevented from marrying gay couples if they want.  This latest stunt might be a way to push that agenda forwards.  They might not be lying Christians after all.

[Sebastian Toe]

Back in 2012 when gay marriage first went through I received this tweet from
Tony Drewitt Barlo.
This is what they tweeted to me when gay marriage first went through in the UK.

Tony Drewitt-Barlow (@DrewittBarlow)
17/12/2012 09:49
@juwinrosebud not forcing issue at all. Asking that the CoE should not be legally banned from making its own decision

They have changed their tune.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html


Really? So they weren't being truthful in their tweet then?

 

That story is nearly 2 years old.
Are there any updates?

[jeremyp]

I put a lot in store, in personal integrity.

I'm shocked by their lack of it.

The fact they are gay is actually irrelevant.

Nobody on the thread said their being gay was relevant until you brought it up in this post.  Why did you do that?  I notice that you haven't denied that their being Christian is relevant in spite of the fact that I specifically mentioned it.

[Hope]

As I understand it, they married back in 2014, on the first day that such marriages were legally permitted, at Greenwoods Hotel & Spa in Stock.  (http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk - March 26th 2014).  Apparently, they still believed that thir case against the Church would be heard - somewhere - Europe, perhaps?

Does the ECHR even have jurisdiction over the CofE?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

As I understand it, they married back in 2014, on the first day that such marriages were legally permitted, at Greenwoods Hotel & Spa in Stock.  (http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk - March 26th 2014).  Apparently, they still believed that thir case against the Church would be heard - somewhere - Europe, perhaps?

Does the ECHR even have jurisdiction over the CofE?

I get the impression that they found another band wagon to jump on.

[jeremyp]

I put a lot in store, in personal integrity.

I'm shocked by their lack of it.

The fact they are gay is actually irrelevant.

Nobody on the thread said their being gay was relevant until you brought it up in this post.  Why did you do that?  I notice that you haven't denied that their being Christian is relevant in spite of the fact that I specifically mentioned it.

I was shocked that they could say one thing and do something totally different.

I only came across the news report today ( even though it was 2013-14 ) which was posted by an American today  worrying about the "gay" agenda in the states.

It made me think, and I thought them saying one thing and doing another, didn't inspire confidence in what people's real aims were.

It tended to validate what the American Christian was saying.


If people arn't consistent no wonder other people think they have an agenda.

But why did you specifically deny that being gay was relevant when nobody had mentioned it?  You sound like Baldrick saying "we definitely did not eat this plump pigeon".

[BashfulAnthony]

I put a lot in store, in personal integrity.

I'm shocked by their lack of it.

The fact they are gay is actually irrelevant.

Nobody on the thread said their being gay was relevant until you brought it up in this post.  Why did you do that?  I notice that you haven't denied that their being Christian is relevant in spite of the fact that I specifically mentioned it.

I was shocked that they could say one thing and do something totally different.

I only came across the news report today ( even though it was 2013-14 ) which was posted by an American today  worrying about the "gay" agenda in the states.

It made me think, and I thought them saying one thing and doing another, didn't inspire confidence in what people's real aims were.

It tended to validate what the American Christian was saying.


If people arn't consistent no wonder other people think they have an agenda.

But why did you specifically deny that being gay was relevant when nobody had mentioned it?  You sound like Baldrick saying "we definitely did not eat this plump pigeon".

Why do you always insist on being so pedantic?

I wondered that, too!

[jeremyp]

Why do you always insist on being so pedantic?

It sounds to me that you actually do think being gay is relevant.