Tag: Heterosexuals

Fast-track to Polygamy?

Here’s an interesting idea. Wait until you see who wrote it. So there’s one aspect of the pro-gay-marriage brief that deserves a mental asterisk. A second argument that has always been a bit weak has been the attempt to minimise

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

C4M – 10 Reasons – Number 1

This is the start of a blog series looking at the “Ten Reasons” booklet put out by the Campaign for Marriage. I will copy below the reason and then a short commentary. Please do comment below but please stay on

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More on Anglican Mainstream’s Sexual Exclusivity Post

You might have noticed, if you read Anglican Mainstream, that Lisa has posted two responses to my critique of her piece a few days ago. I am of course disappointed that she couldn’t engage in open discussion on the comment

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some Thoughts on Sexuality from the Fulcrum Forum

In the middle of a sometimes heated debate over on the Fulcrum Forum, commenter Ken Petrie has written an absolutely brilliant piece on the complexities of this issue. Enjoy! As I see it, there are several aspects to the problem:

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Brief and Loving Sexual Engagement

Colin Coward has responded to my challenge to explain what he means by a “brief and loving sexual engagement”, but the answer just leads to more questions. Within the post he makes a point that I wouldn’t disagree with: Conservative

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Top