The Tesco Executive Who Describes Christians As "Evil"

According to 'The Telegraph,' religious groups are boycotting Tesco after a senior executive at the supermarket giant described Christians as “evil” for opposing gay marriage.

Nick Lansley, Tesco’s head of research and development, said he was actively taking a stand “against evil Christians” who opposed the right of same-sex couples to marry.

In a message on his profile page on Flickr.com, he said:

“I’m … campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.”

REMARKS REMOVED

The remarks, which have now been removed from the photo sharing website, caused outrage among Christian groups, who said they would refuse to shop in the chain’s stores in protest.

Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “I won’t be shopping at Tesco this Christmas, and I am repeatedly hearing from other Christians who have already come to the same conclusion.

Mr Lansley is entitled to his opinions, and Christians are entitled to choose not to shop at Tesco.”

ONE ASSAULT AFTER ANOTHER

The row comes a month after Tesco provoked controversy by reducing its support for the charity Cancer Research’s Race for Life while deciding to sponsor 'Pride London,' Britain’s largest gay festival.

A Tesco spokesman said: "Mr Lansley’s comments, made in a personal capacity in 2008, in no way reflect the views of Tesco.

Our values as a company are such that we abhor criticism of any religion, and we knew nothing about Mr Lansley’s comments until they were brought to our attention.

We are very sorry that anyone might have thought that there was any blurring of the boundary between his personal comments and his work for Tesco. We have therefore asked him to remove the comments, and he has done so."

____________________________________________________________

CHURCHES HAVE NO APPETITE FOR 'GAY' MARRIAGES

A study last month showed that only six places of worship out of more than 40,000 across the country want to host civil partnership ceremonies.

The Government Equalities Office’s consultation on the plan to allow same–sex unions on religious premises in England and Wales from next month, found that as many as 532 faith groups would 'opt–in' to allow the events on their premises.

However, congregations of just four small churches and two Quaker groups said they would definitely consider "applying for approval of their religious premises for the registration of civil partnerships."

Most of the country's 46,155 places of worship where marriages may be solemnised opposed the plan, saying they believed it would blur the line between marriage and civil partnership.

FEAR OF FURTHER LEGALISED PERSECUTION

They also feared it could lead to challenges under the Equality Act or human rights legislation from homosexual couples who want to be "married" in church.

The Government admits the response risks "a significant proportion of the demand not being met." It predicted as many as 1,593 same–sex couples could want to hold their ceremonies in church each year.

Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland Strikes Again for Sodomy

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission took the Stormont Executive to court today (Monday, 12 December 2011) on account of its refusal to extend adoption rights to same sex and unmarried couples.

This Commission - already infamous for its support of sodomy in our country (cf. its submission to the Belfast High Court during the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' case in 2005) - has launched a judicial review.

Its argument is that the law in Northern Ireland is discriminatory and differs from the elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

However, our current law accurately reflects the expressed wish of an overwhelming majority of our countries' citizens. A Stormont consultation five years ago revealed colossal opposition to extending adoption rights. Of those who responded, 95% did not want to see unmarried and same sex couples given the chance to adopt.

Since then, controversy over the issue is believed to have delayed any wider reform of the adoption laws.

When he appeared on the 'Inside Politics' programme the Human Rights Commissioner Professor Michael O'Flaherty said his lawyers had instructed him not to comment in detail but confirmed the judicial review is set to go ahead.

"On Monday the Human Rights Commission will go into court in Northern Ireland in a judicial review, seeking to widen the basis for the adoption of children in all unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual," he said.

The promotion of homosexuality is obvious a principal 'hobby horse' for O'Flaherty. According to one personal profile, he "has contributed significantly to the international definition and protection of gay rights: in 2006 he led the drafting of the 'Yogyakarta Principles' on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity."

Once again, a small minority, representing a perverted lifestyle choice, is determined to foist their dsyfunctionality and depravity on everyone else - no matter how distasteful their chosen activity is in the eyes of both God and man.

Exactly as Scripture says:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ... 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (cf. Romans 1:18-32).

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAIN REASONS WHY ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE OUTLAWED

With the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland currently locked in a legal battle in Belfast’s High Court, arguing for homosexual couples to be given the right to co-adopt children, this is an appropriate time to ask some key questions.

The obvious one:

Should people involved in homosexual or lesbian relationships be allowed to adopt children?

And another, of equally significant moment:

Are children who grow up in single-sex parented homes advantaged or disadvantaged?

Statistics are available from the United States that show the tragic consequences of fatherless and single parent homes:

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes.
• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
• 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

While these statistics apply to children who grow up in fatherless homes, it must be acknowledged that mothers are equally important in the lives of children and the results of ‘motherless’ homes are equally tragic. Children who grow up with two mothers and no father, and those who grow up with two fathers and no mother, will be horribly disadvantaged in life.

An immediate obstacle to homosexuality - and, by extension, homosexual marriage and adoption - is:

THE BIBLE

God’s Word, the Bible, is unmistakably plain with regard to homosexuality. This practice is:

• unnatural and depraved (Romans 1:25-28);

• an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13);

• a sin that closes the door of heaven to the one who remains in it (1 Corinthians 6:9&10);

• certain to bring upon itself the crushing judgment of the Almighty (Genesis 19, Romans 1:32, Jude 7);

• not to be pursued, but turned from (1 Corinthians 6:9&10).

God’s Word is equally clear on the subject of marriage: only a man and a woman can enter into marriage. This is the proper foundation for the family.

• Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

• Malachi 2:15 says that God made a man and his wife one because He seeks godly offspring.

• Jesus endorsed this Old Testament teaching on what constitutes a proper family when, in Mark 10:7-9, He stated: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

We were created to a plan - male and female complementing each other - and so enabled to enhance each others’ lives and produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). Cain and Abel had neither ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies,’ but a father and mother. In this they fulfilled God’s own model for family life.

HOMOSEXUALITY STRIKES AT THE HEART OF GOD’S PLAN FOR MARRIAGE

By way of contrast, homosexuality strikes at the heart of God’s plan for marriage and family life.

THE HOMOSEXUAL HOME

Homosexual relationships are:

- short-lived and less faithful than biblical marriage.



Even in those homosexual relationships, in which the partners describe themselves as ‘committed,’ the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different from marriage.

• In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently ‘in a relationship’ admitted to having had “sex” with people other than their partners in the past year.

• In the book, ‘The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop,’ the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called ‘couples’ with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.

- more violent than traditional marriage.

While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are far more violent than heterosexual marriages.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.

Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:

• ‘The Journal of Interpersonal Violence’ published an article entitled, “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships.”

Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.

• A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.

The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.

• In their book, ‘Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,’ D. Island and P. Letellier report that, “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”

- typically more criminal than traditional relationships. 



A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:

• exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);

• more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);

• more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and

• more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards, inextricably linked to the sexual activities in which they engage.

- much more liable to engage in substance abuse.

• A study published in ‘Nursing Research’ found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women.

The study found that: like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%).

In addition, “46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness.”

• The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.

• A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: “Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”

• ‘The Washington Blade,’ a homosexual newspaper, reports that, “various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight.”

- typically have shorter lifespans than other people.

A study in the United States found that the median age of death of married men was 75 and unmarried heterosexual men, 71.

By comparison, homosexual men who died of non-AIDS causes, had a median age of death of 42 (41 years for those men who had a long-term sexual partner and 43 for those who did not). Homosexuals who had long-term partners lived shorter than those who do not.

The study also found that homosexuals were 24 times more likely to commit suicide and had a traffic-accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males.

The 140 lesbians surveyed had a median age of death of 45 and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. The study showed that 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide or accident - a rate 512 times higher than that of white females of similar age.

THE BEST WE CAN DO?

Are these kinds of homes the best we can offer to the children of this generation?

What is best for the child? What kinds of homes can homosexuals and lesbians offer children?

- Children of homosexuals less sociable and achieve lower grades.

Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia, did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst.

• Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt “uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with” and were the least sociable.

• Although homosexual couples gave their children “more freedom,” married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible.

• Children of homosexuals were “more confused about their gender” and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender).

It is not fair of our society, our government and our courts to establish public policy that encourages this social engineering and pretends that homosexual ‘families’ are normal, healthy and desirable. Instead, public policy should work toward mitigating the harmful effects of divorce and single parenting that results in motherless and fatherless homes - not promoting it!

- Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to explore homosexuality themselves.

While this is "not exactly rocket science," still this is a point disputed by militant homosexuals.

A study by two pro-homosexual sociologists from the University of Southern California, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, showed that these children, “seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations (getting involved in homosexuality).”

Stacey said that in the past “sympathetic researchers” have defensively stressed an absence of difference, but a re-evaluation of past studies showed that there are significant differences.

Homosexual activists were pleased about this.

Aimee Gelnaw, director of ‘Family Pride Coalition’ (a pro-homosexual organisation) responded to the research, “Of course our kids are going to be different. They are growing up in a different social context.”

Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based ‘National Centre for Lesbian Rights’ said homosexuals should be elated by the study which shows that, “our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay.”

However, English MP Julian Brazier raises this point: “This sort of social experiment may be exciting for the people who take part in it but they should ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the child.”

Cornelia Oddie of the U.K. based ‘Family and Youth Concern’ think tank says, “It must be extra confusing for the children. With homosexual couples the majority of their friends would be presumably part of the homosexual culture, so the children grow up with a skewed idea of relationships. This is bound to give children an unbalanced view of social and sexual relationships.”

The implications are severe. With the acceptance of two homosexuals as joint parents, the family is torn from its traditional and God-inspired balance of a mother and a father both giving of their commitment, love and essence to the children.

TESTIMONY OF A FORMER LESBIAN

Former lesbian Cherie Tayler had three children by artificial insemination. Her lesbian partner shared the parenting. After the break-up of their 16-year relationship, Cherie admitted that her life as a lesbian has been spurred on by her unloving mother and sexually abusive father.

She said that having children had been a cruel mistake.

She reported on a 60 Minutes TV documentary that she saw the hurt in her children's faces every day. Her 11-year-old son wanted to know about his father’s job, what he looked like, the colour of his eyes - and Cherie was unable to answer.

She said, “I (now) believe that children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents.”

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN

When Health Minister Paul Goggins launched a consultation document that was designed to overhaul adoption legislation in 2006, the claim was made that changes to the current adoption law were aimed at putting the needs of the child at the heart of the adoption process.

Even apart from whether we think homosexuality is normal or deviant, emotionally healthy or not, the fact is that we should do what is best for the children.

People who live homosexual lives say that they have a right to do what they want in their bedrooms and private lives. But adopting children is not about their ‘private’ lives as it intrudes into the life of children who will not have a choice, and are not old enough to make a mature and informed choice.

Special privileges, like adoption, for men or women who engage in homosexuality, are hotly debated worldwide, with the vast majority of countries, and the vast majority of people across the world, saying, “No, let’s stick to what is best for the children.”

NEED FOR HOMES

We realise that many children in Northern Ireland require adoption and that the number of adoptions in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly since its 1970 peak of 554 to an average of about 150 per year.

On their website, the Barnardos children’s charity describes adoption in these terms: “Adoption is a way of providing a new family for a child when living with their own family is not possible. It is the means of giving a child an opportunity to start again: for many children, adoption may be their only chance of experiencing family life.”

Barbara Hutchinson of the ‘British Association for Adoption and Fostering’ said in 2006 that she was concerned the number of adoptions had fallen in recent years.

“We hope this new framework will result in more children having the opportunity to grow up with the secure family life adoption can provide,” she said.

A SECURE FAMILY LIFE?

What “chance” of a “secure family life” are we giving children if the “family life” they are introduced to is a home in which the ‘parents’ are two homosexuals, where they will witness firsthand expressions of human sexuality that the Bible describes as “unnatural,” “unclean” and “vile affections” - all of which merit the judgment of God (cf. Romans 1:18-32)?

The statistics cited above show that homosexual homes are less stable, more unfaithful and relationships are shorter, and the presence of drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence is significantly greater. Plus children in homosexual homes score lower grades and are more sexually confused and unsociable than other children.

If one homosexual couple wins the right to co-adopt children, the door will be opened for this social experiment, without further research, study or discussion into the issue.

EFFECT OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATION FOR HOMOSEXUALS HAS LIMITED ADOPTIVE HOMES FOR CHILDREN

It should not be forgotten, but rather hugely regretted, that the promotion of a previous piece of the ‘gay rights’ agenda in the battle for the Sexual Orientation Regulations (2007) resulted in the forced closure of several adoption agencies. In this tragic act, let us lay the blame where the blame is due, firmly at the door of the militant voices who campaigned for this unnecessary and repressive measure to be thrust upon us.

It would be yet another colossal and crude irony that, should the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland be successful in their campaign for homosexual couples to be given the right to co-adopt children, another layer of legislation will be set in place that will further cheat vulnerable children out of the opportunity of a secure home and increase the possibility of them being placed in a morally dangerous environment.

The majority of children needing permanent families today are no longer relinquished babies. Instead, these children have often experienced neglect or abuse and can have multiple difficulties. To increase those difficulties by placing children into a homosexual home is distinctly unconscionable.

URGENT: Consultation on Marriage

The Nationalist-led Scottish Government has confirmed that its consultation on gay marriage is open to anyone in England and elsewhere outwith Scotland.

Pro-gay marriage campaigners have been urging people outside of Scotland to respond to the consultation. And now the Scottish Government has publicly confirmed it will accept non-Scottish submissions.

CRITICISM

This move has been criticised by 'Scotland For Marriage,' a group that supports traditional marriage.

This is in spite of Alex Salmond’s SNP conference speech in October which said only the Scottish people should decide Scotland’s independence from the UK. Now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, he is inviting submissions from outside Scotland.

A Scotland for Marriage spokesman said: “Clearly, the pro-gay marriage groups can’t get enough people in Scotland to back their campaign. That’s why they’re desperately asking metropolitan elites in London to bail them out of a consultation flop – and, shamefully, the SNP Government is allowing it. Whatever side of the debate you’re on, this should be a Scottish consultation for the Scottish people.”

END OF CONSULTATION

However, the consultation period expires at midnight tomorrow - Friday, 9 December 2011.

Please respond now by visiting the website of the Christian Institute and answering the questions they have highlighted on their site:

http://www.christian.org.uk/marriagescotland/#wpcf7-f4-p5212-o1

Please indicate "Yes" or "No" to each question. You can also summarise your reasons why you are giving each answer. To help you, here are the answers I have submitted to each of the questions:

Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same-sex marriage?

- No

REASON:

Basic teaching on marriage and family life is found in the first two chapters of the Bible, Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

God, in this portion of Genesis, teaches us that, “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan - male and female complementing each other - and so enabled to enhance each others’ lives and produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). Cain and Abel had neither ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies,’ but a father and mother. In this they fulfilled God’s own model for family life.

When Jesus, in New Testament times, was questioned about marriage, He referred back to these two chapters at the start of Genesis (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).

Man has no right to redefine marriage to accommodate homosexual practice, and so contradict the fundamental and historical basis of the institution of marriage. The historic foundation of our society - the great tenets of Bible Christianity - confirms the feeling that is innate within the human psyche that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, a perversion of God’s created order (Romans 1:26-27).


Question 11: Do you agree that religious bodies and celebrants should not be required to solemnise same-sex marriage?

- Yes

REASON:

The message of the Bible, (which is our only rule of faith and practice), is unmistakable with regard to homosexuality:

• this practice is unnatural and depraved (Romans 1:25-28);

• an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13);

• a sin that closes the door of heaven to the one who remains in it (1 Corinthians 6:9&10);

• and is certain to bring upon itself the crushing judgment of the Almighty (Genesis 19, Romans 1:32, Jude 7).

The only way anyone will ever be able to uncover acceptance for the sin of sodomy from either of the biblical testaments is to rewrite them.

To ask a minister who implicitly believes the Bible to be the Word of God - the arbiter in all disputes, his guide and counsellor - to perform a wedding ceremony between two homosexuals would be to commit a gross sin against the revealed will of God in the Scriptures, and cause grievous offence to his own conscience.


Question 1: Do you agree that legislation should be changed so that civil partnerships could be registered through religious ceremonies?

- No

Relationships between homosexual people can never constitute true marriage, therefore legislation should not be changed in order to pretend that they can.

Real Marriage is:

- an institution designed for a man and a woman.

Marriage is not genderless. It is a union of two different sexes, not just a union of two different people. Real marriage (a man and a woman) is not rooted in discrimination. It is rooted in common sense, for the common good. For marriage to flourish in our culture, it must be protected from redefinition; because if marriage can mean anything, it will mean nothing.

- best for children.

While thousands of single mothers and fathers struggle against all odds and earn the respect of people every day, to raise healthy children who become productive citizens, there is but one gold standard for which we should strive as a society – that every child should be reared by a loving mother and father.

- the ultimate solution for our nation’s problems.

Prisons fill, schools fail, and welfare rolls grow because of the breakdown of marriage and shattering of the home. Governments and charities have spent millions of pounds for many decades treating symptoms. It is time for governments, churches, communities and businesses to come together to treat the cause.

- an intimate, healthy relationship.

Real Marriage means communication, commitment, respect and selfless love. These are the keys to a healthy, happy, affair-proof life, “til death do us part.” Successful parenting and warm, enduring bonds with children comes from true intimacy in marriage.

- worth working at.

Divorce and dissatisfaction can be avoided. A good marriage is worth the effort it requires.

- built on faith.

Marriage is a God-designed institution that predates governments, constitutions and laws. Marriage works best when God is the foundation and central unifying presence, and our law foundation is the Ten Commandments.

“Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain” (cf. Psalm 127).

‘Gay marriage’ undermines society and the meaning of marriage.


Questions 5 & 7: Do you agree that religious bodies and individual religious celebrants should not be required to register civil partnerships?

- Yes

The subordinate standards of our denomination include the famous Westminster Confession of Faith, formulated by an assembly of godly ministers - “learned, godly and judicious Divines” - in 1646.

These men of clear Reformation principles were commissioned by the British Parliament to write a lengthy statement explaining what the Bible means on issues of church worship, doctrine, government and discipline. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the Westminster Confession of Faith. This document was approved by the British Parliament. For almost four centuries, various churches around the world have adopted this Confession (in some cases with some minor modification) as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

In a chapter of this Confession that specifically treats, ‘Of Marriage And Divorce,’ Biblical Marriage is defined in an excellent manner. The following statements appear in this definition:

24.1 Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live.

24.2 Marriage is designed for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character; for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

24.3 All persons who are able with judgment to give their consent may marry, except within the limits of blood relationship forbidden by Scripture, and such marriages are valid before God in the eyes of the church. But no marriage can be fully and securely Christian in spirit or in purpose unless both partners are committed to a common Christian faith and to a deeply shared intention of building a Christian home. Evangelical Christians should seek as partners in marriage only persons who hold in common a sound basis of evangelical faith.

24.4 Marriage for the Christian has religious as well as civil significance. The distinctive contribution of the church in performing the marriage ceremony is to affirm the divine institution of marriage; to invoke God's blessing upon those who enter into the marital relationship in accordance with his word; to hear the vows of those who desire to be married; and to assure the married partners of God's grace within their new relationship.

24.5 It is the divine intention that persons entering the marriage covenant become inseparably united, thus allowing for no dissolution save that caused by the death of either husband or wife ... .

It is immediately evident from these statements of faith that no provision can be afforded to two males or two females to marry each other. Such a relationship attracts only the punishment, not the approval, of God. The Church is therefore obligated to play no part in such immoral and forbidden unions. For the State to dictate otherwise is to thrust an unwarranted and mischievous imposition upon consciences that are bound by love to God and His Word.


Question 6: Do you consider that religious celebrants should not be allowed to register civil partnerships if their religious body has decided against registering civil partnerships?

- Yes

Both on grounds of democracy and of decency.

The Articles of Faith of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the denomination to which I belong, requires all ministers and elders to affirm as one part of their Ordination Vows that they, “believe the Presbyterian government and discipline of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster to be founded on and agreeable to the Word of God,” and that they, “promise to adhere to it and support it and to yield submission and be in subjection to their brethren as is taught in the Word of God” (cf. Ephesians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Peter 5:5).


Question 9: Religious bodies may not wish their premises to be used to register civil partnerships. Do you agree that no legislative provision is required to ensure religious premises cannot be used against the wishes of the relevant religious body?

- No

With the introduction of Sexual Orientation Regulations (2003), the assurance was given to Christians that they still retained the right of free speech that enabled them to articulate what the Bible says about homosexuality. However, a rash of court cases since the advent of this law has shown that Christian Churches will require a legislative shield from civil lawsuits should they deny homosexuals the right to use their facilities for marriage ceremonies.

Also, when the Equality Act (2010) in England was being formulated, a coalition of secular campaigners, gay rights activists, transgender organisations, trade unions and “progressive faith” groups united to remove all religious liberty safeguards from the Bill.

Calling itself the Cutting Edge Consortium (CEC), this group called on Parliament to remove what it calls ‘religious opt-outs’ from the Bill.

The Bill already dramatically narrows safeguards in sexual orientation employment laws which protect the religious liberty of churches and other faith groups.

Any further erosion of the right of Church denominations to abide by Scriptural teaching and live by an informed conscience must be opposed, therefore legislation is required to prevent certain ministers operating against the expressed wishes of their denomination on this issue.

Prime Minister's Bible Plan: A KJV To Every School in the Country

In a move intended to help every pupil access Britain's cultural heritage, the Prime Minister plans to send a copy of the King James Bible to every state school in England.

This new copy of the 1611 translation of the Bible will contain a brief foreword by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to mark the 400th anniversary of its translation.

According to Number 10, the exact details of how the Government intends to commemorate the anniversary are yet to be confirmed, but every primary and secondary school should be in possession of a new copy of the KJV by next Easter.

ATHEISTS ARE ANGRY

Predictably, this proposal has been criticised by atheistic groups, which believe it is a bad use of public money.

• The National Secular Society (NSS) questioned why the Department for Education could not put a message up on its website and save the country “tens of thousands of pounds.”

“It’s not as if Bibles are in short supply in schools,” NSS president Terry Sanderson said. “But if (Mr Gove) intends to go ahead with this, will he also please ensure that a copy of On the Origin of Species is sent out on Darwin Day.

This book is much harder to find in schools and would be in line with his policy of promoting science and evidence-based education. I’m sure that he could write an excellent foreword to this, too,” Mr Sanderson added.

• And the British Humanist Association (BHA) said it was “highly unacceptable” for the Government to promote a particular religious text in every school.

“Either the Government is funding this initiative itself at a time when it is making severe cuts elsewhere, or the Church is funding it but using the Government as a vehicle through which to promote Christianity - both are unacceptable,” said BHA campaigns officer Richy Thompson.

“All state-funded schools and the Department itself should be neutral on matters of religion and belief, so that they can aim to be equally inclusive for all pupils and staff, regardless of their background,” he added.

A CRITICAL MOMENT IN THE LIFE OF THE NATION

The Government, however, is insistent that one does not have to be a Christian to believe the translation of the Bible was a “critical moment” in giving knowledge to the masses and therefore hugely important.

BEAUTIFUL

Michael Gove, who is proposing to write a two-line introduction for the bibles sent to schools, said of the 1611 translation: “It's a thing of beauty, and it's also an incredibly important historical artefact. It has helped shape and define the English language and is one of the keystones of our shared culture. And it is a work that has had international significance.”

“Some people look at certain battles, or some look at certain parliamentary acts, as hinge moments in history,” Mr Gove said. “I actually think the translation of the Bible into the vernacular is a critical moment in the life of the nation.”

He went further, adding that the King James Bible was the most important book written in the English language.

“It’s a thing of beauty, and it’s also an incredibly important historical artefact,” he added. “It has helped shape and define the English language and is one of the keystones of our shared culture. And it is a work that has had international significance.”

The Government is reportedly looking for private funding for the scheme.

Letter To Tesco PLC re their Sponsorship of Sodomy

Sir Richard Broadbent
Chairman
Tesco PLC


28 November 2011

Dear Sir,

It was with a sense of deep disappointment that I recently learned that ‘Pride London’ (which will host ‘World Pride 2012’ in London next year), has identified Tesco as a “Gold Sponsor” of World Pride 2012.

RECORD ON CHARITABLE GIVING
I am well aware of the support that Tesco gives to a plethora of excellent charities and good causes. I was especially delighted that Tesco chose ‘Alzheimer’s Society’ and ‘Alzheimer Scotland’ as its Charity of the Year for 2011 - generating support that runs into millions of pounds. I have also been informed that one of your officials, in response to letters you have received that may be of a similar nature to mine, has been citing the fact that 1.8% of Tescos pre-tax profits are channelled into charitable and good causes. This, of course, is very commendable and I congratulate you on this very considerable effort.

However, I was dismayed to read that Tesco has pledged a significant sum of money towards World Pride 2012 (building on its former sponsorship of Pride London during 2011), and is committed to organising an area for families at this event. In my opinion, there is no way in which this can be construed as promoting a good cause, since it is promoting a behaviour that is inherently detrimental to family life and empirically dangerous to those who adopt it as their lifestyle of choice.

One lesbian who was present at Pride London this year enthused about Tesco’s “family area” on her internet blog. Her report on the day’s events commences with the intriguing caveat, “I’m not sure how much of the language we used on that day will be allowed in this article ... .” She continues: “If you ever feel low on hope, please just imagine a little grassy area full of little kids and babies with either two mums or two dads. Happy children and happy parents. All eating discount fresh fruit salad from Tesco.”

This may well be an idyllic scene in the eyes of a fraction of 1% of the population, but I am quite confident you are aware that the overwhelming majority of people in our country view such a “family area” - and worse, Tesco’s sponsorship of it - as a bizarre anomaly.

PROMOTING PERVERSION
The reason they are of this opinion is because the historic foundation of our society, the great tenets of Bible Christianity, simply confirms the feeling that is innate within them that homosexuality is both unnatural and perverse (Romans 1:26-27).

GOD'S MODEL FOR THE FAMILY
Basic teaching on family life is found in the first two chapters of the Bible, Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

God, in this portion of Genesis, teaches us that, “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan - male and female complementing each other - and so enabled to enhance each others’ lives and produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). Cain and Abel had neither ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies,’ but a father and mother. In this they fulfilled God’s own model for family life.

When Jesus, in New Testament times, was questioned about marriage, He referred back to these two chapters at the start of Genesis (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).

The Bible provides the foundation for the Christian’s faith - and this foundation has become the focal point of homosexuality’s aggressive assault against Christianity.

THE PATRONS OF PRIDE LONDON
That such a struggle is ongoing is brought into sharp focus by the public activities of at least several of the patrons of the event you have sponsored, ‘Pride London.’

For example:

• one patron of Pride London, Elton John, has opinioned: “I would ban religion completely,” arguing that religion’s product is “hateful lemmings.”

• another patron of Pride London, Sir Ian McKellen, boasted in an interview with the ‘London Telegraph’ that he rips out the book of Leviticus, which condemns homosexuality, from the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in which he stays. He followed this statement up with a further attack on the Bible when he insisted that Scripture should carry, “a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction.”

• Peter Tatchell, another of Pride London’s patrons, has stated: “More than any other institution in British society, Christianity has waged an almost ceaseless 2000-year-long war against homosexual people.” He is also responsible for the horrendous allegation that, “The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust.”

TESCO AND EQUALITY FOR ALL
Judging by a sentence that appears in a letter sent from the Chief Executive’s Office to some who have complained about Tesco’s sponsorship of Pride London - “We believe that everyone should be welcome at Tesco” - I assume that Tesco prides itself on pursuing a policy of equality for all.

A CASE STUDY IN LIVERPOOL
A recent discussion about the opening of a new Tescos store on High Park Street in Liverpool appeared on the Equality Law website under the banner headline, “Promoting Equality. Preventing Discrimination.”

Store manager Richard Hatley seemed to articulate Tesco’s own commitment to the promotion of equality and the prevention of discrimination when he explained concerning the choice of an appropriate name for this new store:

“We had a problem. Do we call it Tesco Toxteth or Tesco Dingle? The border lies literally right here at our feet. Dingle’s got a bit of a reputation for drugs and crime and Toxteth’s got the riots. Both sides wanted it [the name] because it’s good for the area.”

In the end you plumped for Tesco Park Road after the name of the busy road on which the store sits. “And both sides are happy,” Richard Hatley affirms.

We believe that everyone should be welcome to shop within your stores. After all, this is what is expected from a major retailer, providing a service for all the people in any given community in which you have a store.

However, in your decision to become a headline sponsor of ‘London Pride / World Pride 2012’ - an event fronted by many who are openly intolerant of the Christian Faith and virulently opposed to the Bible on which this faith is founded, and also an event that showcases a practice that is particularly abhorrent to true Christianity - it is evident which side you have espoused.

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
This discriminatory promotion is further emphasised by the fact that:

• the Tesco Board sponsor and support a corporate initiative, ‘Out At Tescos’ - a grouping within Tescos that has been established for the specific purpose of, “creating, supporting and publicising the LGBT network.” Evidently this group is encouraged to turn out ‘en force’ at ‘London Pride’ and has been given special permission to adapt the company logo so that it reflects a homosexual symbol, the ‘rainbow flag.’

In explaining your promotion of this group, the answer to the first question in the list of FAQs on the ‘Out At Tesco’ site states: “At Tesco ‘no one tries harder for customers’ and ‘treat people how we like to be treated’ are two of our key values and are at the core of everything we do.”

I wonder if any other group has been reserved for such indulgence?

Or has Tesco made any attempt to strike a balance between the protagonists on this modern battlefield by offering support to the Christians who many prominent homosexuals so clearly ‘love to hate’?

Or, indeed, has Tesco raised even a voice of support on behalf of Christians who are being persecuted in some of the countries in which it operates, or financially assisted any of the Christian charities that provide solace for these persecuted souls?

I have searched for evidence of Tesco’s involvement in this good cause – but all my investigations have drawn a complete blank.

BLASPHEMY AGAINST CHRIST EMANATING FROM THE HEART OF TESCO
Additionally, Tesco’s discriminatory behaviour in favour of homosexuality and against Christianity once more rises to view when you appear to be turning a blind eye to the virulently anti-Christian activity of one of the ‘founding fathers of Tesco.com,’ (currently a key player in your ‘Research & Development’ team and a known participant at Pride London), who is featured on the internet reciting one of the most vile poems ever written about our Lord Jesus Christ.

This activity is patently blasphemous and highly offensive to Christians. Should we conclude that you view this as acceptable behaviour for a person who occupies such a key role in your company? And once again, is this the image you wish to cultivate - that of aligning yourself with persons and groups who take such obvious delight in offending Christians?

400th ANNIVERSARY OF KJV
It cannot have escaped your attention that 2011 is the 400th Anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible - a Book widely hailed by world renowned linguists as:

• “the fountainhead of good English prose” (John Dos Passos);

• “the greatest English text” (Mark Schorer);

• “unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world” (H. L. Mencken).

It may shock you to learn that some of these eminent linguists made no profession of Christianity; in fact the last quote is from a notorious nonconformist and self-confessed “infidel,” who did not believe in God and who despised bigotry.

What continues to shock me is that Tesco, the third largest retailer in the world, appears to have allowed this historic anniversary to slip by without significant recognition or support and, at the same time, has chosen the year of this anniversary to donate further funds towards an event whose patronage includes persons who denigrate the Christ of this Book in the foulest manner possible and gleefully rip out its pages.

This is certainly a strange way in which to promote equality and prevent discrimination, or to ensure that Christians remain happy shopping at Tescos.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Brown

The Printer, The Baker and The Flower Arranger

THE PRINTER

On 24 February 24, 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Commission found Scott Brockie guilty of discriminating against homosexuals according to its code.

Brockie, the owner of ‘Imaging Excellence, Inc.’, maintains that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject a request by the ‘Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives’ in 1996 to print materials for the group.

The Toronto-based CGLA provides a clearinghouse of information about homosexuals and their history.

A board of inquiry appointed under the Ontario Human Rights Code ordered him to pay damages of $5,000.

“Their position was that you must serve every customer who walks through your door with no exceptions,” said Janet Epp Buckingham, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which defended Brockie in court.

But the Gay and Lesbian Archives argues that Brockie's refusal of service is equivalent to racial discrimination: “If we were black, this would be a case of asking Rosa Parks to get off the bus again,” said the group’s board president, Matt Hughes, referring to the famous incident during the American civil rights movement.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s board of inquiry asserted that, “it is reasonable to limit Brockie's freedom of religion in order to prevent the very real harm to members of the lesbian and gay community.”

The board added that, “Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and practice them in his home and in his Christian community.”

But Buckingham points out that the code, which was established in 1962, requires employers to accommodate the beliefs of their employees. “It’s unfair to say your religious and conscientiously held beliefs are of no value,” she said.

The appeal was lost - however, it was decided that Mr Brockie or his business would not be required, “to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs or creed.”

THE FLORIST

Homosexual activists protested outside the home of a Christian florist in Canada because she would not provide flowers for a lesbian wedding.

The protestors dropped flowers tied with rainbow-coloured ribbons on the front lawn of the florist’s suburban home, and demanded that she be hauled before the courts.

The intimidating protest was sparked when the lesbian couple’s ‘wedding planner’ wrote about the Christian florist’s stance on Twitter.

PROTEST
Florist Kim Evans runs her business from her home in Moncton, New Brunswick.

She previously told the lesbian couple by email: “As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter.”

Outside the florist’s home, protestors spoke to news reporters, claiming they were ‘spreading a message of tolerance.’

The lesbian couple’s wedding planner did not disclose their names, but said he was appalled and outraged by the Christian florist’s stance.

Kim Evans was not initially told that the couple were lesbians, but when she discovered this, she politely declined their business in an email.

DESIRE TO PROSECUTE
Homosexual activists in Canada and the US are calling for the florist to be taken to the Human Rights Tribunal, even though no case or complaint has been lodged by the unnamed lesbian couple.

Mike Judge of The Christian Institute commented: “These activists are spreading a so-called ‘message of tolerance’, yet the one thing they will not tolerate is this Christian lady’s freedom to disagree with them.”

THE BAKER

A Christian baker in the US state of Iowa may face legal action and has been sent hate mail after she politely told a lesbian couple that she could not make them a wedding cake.

Victoria Childress, who runs a cake baking business from home, said: “I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle.”

She also commented: “I did not belittle them, I did not speak rudely to them. There were no condescending remarks made, nothing.”

Lesbian couple Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers thanked her for being honest. However, they may lodge a civil rights complaint over the incident.

Victoria owns Victoria’s Cake Cottage in Des Moines, Iowa, and has received hate messages for her actions.

But she has also received support for her actions. She told FOX that she has also receive plenty of positive feedback, including support from local businesses glad that someone is standing up to bullying by homosexuals: “People are telling me they were proud of me for standing up for my beliefs because not many people do that these days.”

STATEMENT
The lesbian couple released a statement which said: “Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

They said they hoped “we have prevented someone else from experiencing the same type of bigotry.”

THE FALLOUT
Reaction from the homosexual ranks to the stance adopted by the baker has shown the usual measure of restraint and tolerance:

• The incident attracted the attention of Des Moines television station KCCI, which gave Trina Vodraska a platform to voice her anger at being snubbed by Childress.

“It was degrading,” she told the television station. “It was like she chastised us for wanting to do business with her. I know Jesus loves me. I didn’t need her to tell me that. I didn’t go there for that. I just wanted to go there for a cake.”

• Soon Childress began receiving hateful emails – so many and so disturbing that she stopped reading them.

“It’s really hard to read things like that,” she said. “I’m a pretty quiet, soft-spoken person. But when I stand up for my convictions against things, I’m very strong when it comes to that.”

• Pro-gay activists have launched a boycott of this Iowa baker.

• The two lesbians who were denied their cake said they are mulling possible legal action against the principled baker. In 2007 Iowa’s civil rights laws were expanded to ban discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation, with religious exemptions allowed only for qualified institutions such as churches or schools. This may possibly leave Childress exposed to being cited for discriminating against the lesbians.

The Queen of England and the King James Bible

Queen Elizabeth II is ending 2011 after the pattern of 2010 - by paying special tribute to the King James Version of the Bible.

CHRISTMAS SPEECH 2010

The Queen’s message broadcast on Christmas Day, 2010, came from Hampton Court where, she told viewers, King James had “convened a conference of churchmen of all shades of opinion to discuss the future of Christianity in this country. This was to become the King James or Authorized Bible, which next year will be exactly four centuries old.”

In the course of this message the Queen highlighted the book’s “glorious language,” saying it has, “given many of us the most widely-recognised and beautiful descriptions of the birth of Jesus Christ.”

And the Queen went on to add that the KJV is: “Acknowledged as a masterpiece of English prose and the most vivid translation of the scriptures.”

SERVICE AT WESTMINSTER ABBEY

On Wednesday, 14 November 2011, the Queen attended a special service at Westminster Abbey marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible - the culmination of a year of events, including lectures, educational programmes and theatre performances, held around the world to mark this anniversary.

The Queen was accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and around 2,000 other worshippers.

During the service the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams described the King James Bible as an “extraordinary text” which remains of “abiding importance.”

He also commented that the landmark English translation of the Bible, designed in 1611 to be read aloud in public gatherings, should be celebrated for its determination to find words that express “the almost unbearable weight of divine intelligence and love pressing down on those who first encountered it.”

At the start of the service historic copies of the famous Bible translation were carried through the Abbey.

THE PEOPLE'S BIBLE

The Westminster Abbey event also celebrated the ‘People’s Bible’ - a hand-written version of the King James Bible completed by more than 22,000 people around Britain.

A bound copy of the Book of Genesis from the People's Bible was presented at the altar during the service.

The first two verses of the Bible have been hand-written by the Prince of Wales, with others completed by people including Prime Minister David Cameron, and representatives in more than 200 towns across Britain - from the Orkney Islands to the Isle of Man, and Jersey, Whitby, Swansea and Wrexham - took part in the project.

Wednesday’s service was the culmination of a year’s worth of events, organised principally by the King James Bible Trust, to mark the 400th anniversary of the text.

Professor Pauline Croft, a trustee of the King James Bible Trust, said: “People are always surprised how much of the language they use without thinking.”

Precisely.

LET PRACTICE FLOW FROM THE PRAISE

And another truth is this: if only the Bible was as much practised as it is praised, our country would not be in the middle of the moral crisis it now endures.

In light of the Queen's involvement in celebrating this 400th Anniversary of the KJV, it is appropriate that we should quote one of the typically majestic portions of this peerless volume (1 Timothy 2:1-3):

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.”

Bible Verses on Christmas Stamps to Celebrate KJV

Bible chapter and verse references have been printed on the face of this year’s Christmas stamps, unveiled by Royal Mail to mark 400 years of the King James Version.

The series of seven stamps feature Bible references taken from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The stamps also include pictures of nativity scenes.

Royal Mail, which alternates between religious and secular themed stamps each Christmas, released the new designs last week.

GOSPEL
Stephen Agar from Royal Mail said: “Christmas stamps help deliver festive messages of good cheer and celebration across the UK and around the world.

This year’s stamps feature scenes from the Nativity, together with the Gospel references from the King James Bible which inspired them.”

Royal Mail also commented that many of the KJV’s “distinctive sayings have found their way into our everyday way of speaking, with more than 200 phrases such as ‘the apple of my eye’, a ‘den of thieves’ or ‘the land of the living’ have become part of modern English.”

CELEBRATE
Last year it was revealed that Royal Mail was to commemorate the KJV anniversary, following numerous requests from the public.

Mervyn Storey, MLA for North Antrim, was one of those who called for the stamps. He said “the King James Version didn’t just influence our literature and language,” it also “had a beneficial influence upon political and constitutional affairs.”

Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London has also marked the anniversary with a cover-to-cover reading of the text.

And in their festive messages The Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury also celebrated the occasion.

SCHOLARS
Work on the KJV began in 1604, with the permission of James I of England and VI of Scotland, and carried on until 1611.

A team of 47 of the best Bible scholars of the day worked on translating the text into English, and the King James translation became the version read by many English speaking nations.

[ Sources: 'The Christian Institute' and BBC News UK ].

Tesco to Sponsor Sodom’s Show but not Cancer Charity

Global retailer Tesco has generated a storm of controversy by dropping its support for the Cancer Research ‘Race for Life,’ and announcing shortly after that it would now become a headline sponsor of Britain’s largest 'gay' festival.

The supermarket giant has supported Cancer Research for more than a decade, helping the charity raise hundreds of millions of pounds towards combating an illness that is estimated to affect one-in-three of the population.

But now the retail chain has signed a deal to become a major sponsor of ‘Pride London’ (and, by extension, ‘World Pride 2012.’ London’s annual ‘gay pride’ parade, ‘Pride London,’ will be extended to two days next year when it hosts the global World Pride 2012 festival in the summer).

So, instead of providing funds to potentially produce a cure for a virulent disease that forcibly invades the bodies of 33% of the population, Tesco is narrowing its focus to cater to the perverse choice of a fraction of 1% of the population.

'Family Area' At The Sodomite Festival

Apparently Tesco's sponsorship - to the tune of £30,000 - will host the festival’s “family area” for the second year running. This family area is meant to provide entertainment and activities for younger children.

It is hugely ironic that by sponsoring the “family area” of ‘Pride London,’ Tesco is striking at the heart of the family ideal and helping to destroy the basic family unit on which our society is built.

God’s Model for Families

The foundational teaching on family life is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred back to these two chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12).

God, in Genesis, teaches us that, “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan - male and female complementing each other - and so enabled to enhance each others’ lives and produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). Cain and Abel had neither ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies,’ but a father and mother. In this they fulfilled God’s own model for family life.

A Militant Son of Sodom’s View on the Family

A quick snapshot of the kind of vision for Britain that Tesco is sponsoring is obtained by consulting the printed comments of that archetypal homosexual activist himself, Peter Tatchell.

In ‘Teenage Sex - What Should Schools Teach Children?’ he writes:

“Until very recent times, all sex education was overwhelmingly biased towards promoting heterosexuality, marriage, parenthood and traditional family life. Anything outside this exclusive framework was either ignored or condemned.”

“This old-style monocultural sex moralism is now totally out of sync with our modern multicultural society where there is a great diversity of cultures and communities, lifestyles and love-lives.”

“Nothing must be off limits.”

“Sex education, to be effective, needs to start at a very early age, beginning gently in the first year of primary school and gradually becoming more detailed and explicit at secondary level.”

Tatchell proceeds to candidly mention some aspects of this “more detailed and explicit” teaching, but those details are much too vile to mention on this blog (cf. Ephesians 5:3).

It is evident that many homosexuals have little use for the biblical model of the family - and feel obliged to run roughshod over its core values.

Bullied in/out of Business: A Christian Family Victimised

Peter and Hazelmary Bull are an elderly Christian couple who run a bed and breakfast business in their own home in Cornwall. Like Tesco, they are in the business of providing goods and services. But, unlike Tesco, they refused to bow to the dictats and bullying of gay pressure groups.

At the beginning of 2011 they were informed that they had contravened the ‘Sexual Orientation Regulations’ (SORs) in that they had discriminated against two homosexual men, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, in refusing them use of a double bed in their guesthouse.

These men knew perfectly well how deeply offensive it would be to Mr and Mrs Bull to have anyone performing sodomy under their roof - whether married or unmarried, male or female. They could have followed the mantra, "Live and let live," respected the convictions of this Christian couple, and gone elsewhere. They had a choice of many double beds in Cornwall catering for their ‘tastes,’ but rather chose to drag this elderly couple into court.

In addition to having to pay damages of £3600 to them, other homosexuals then besieged the Bull’s guesthouse with demands for double rooms - a crude attempt to completely collapse their business.

Mrs Bull, 66, also received abusive and menacing phone calls, at the time when her 71-year-old husband lay critically ill in hospital.

A key question is: does Tesco want to be seen to sponsor the kind of people from which such behaviour emanates?

And when law-abiding citizens like foster parents, Mr and Mrs Johns, or the Manchester housing officer Adrian Smith, plus a burgeoning catalogue of victims of homosexual hate that includes teachers, therapists, councillors, counsellors, magistrates, paediatricians, registrars, nurses, firemen, policemen and clergy - people from every walk of life - are publically humiliated, fined, forced out of their occupation, compelled to close down their business, dragged through the courts, threatened with violence by homosexuals, and expected to pay for their own oppression through their taxes, simply for trying to defend the values and morality of traditional marriage and the family, with whom does Tesco sympathise?

It has been clear for many years that a disturbed minority, aided and abetted by our institutions (like Tesco), are attempting to impose homosexuality on our children - and silence the parents of those children when they articulate their Bible-based opposition to this aberrant and abominable activity.

The Aftermath

Shall many more of us, who express our disgust at the promotion of sodomy, be forcibly made to attend a diversity course at the national headquarters of the homosexual lobby group, ‘Stonewall’ in London, as was the case with Bristol councillor, Chris Windows, when he expressed his concern about ardent homosexual Ian McKellen proselytising homosexuality to Bristol schoolchildren?

Can we be comfortable with the appalling prospect of Tesco using some of our money to help promote something ‘World Pride 2012’? Such blatant promotion of what is so militantly anti-God can only result in driving more customers away from its stores.