Breaking: Danish Government Overrides Church on Gay Marriage
Oh, but that's in Denmark so its different. It would all be different in the United Kingdom because we've got this tradition of 'fair play'...
Denmark introduced gay and lesbian 'civil unions' in 1989. I expect that Churches who opposed the move received reassurances that the Church would never be forced to go against its teachings, just as they have been in the United Kingdom. 23 years later, however, the newspapers declare that the 'right to marry in Church' has been extended to homosexual and lesbian couples. One man's 'right' is, of course, another man's duty towards the State.
Comments
Your argument makes no sense.
Let's say the Church of England is to be put down this road (they have received worthless reassurances that they won't be) - it obviously divides viar against Church.
It means that vicars are no longer taking their morality from their Church but from the State.
Ergo, the headline is not misleading. The State's morality trumps the Church.
If the Church taught one thing but a thousands of its priests were dissenters then some will take their cue from the State.
It deliberately pits the individual against the Church to which he belongs, creating disharmony, tension and emnity between the faithful person and his church, whether that person be layman or priest.
It puts the individual in a new relationship with the State - rather than respecting the individual relationship with the Church.
Some will sign, some won't. Those who don't - "Well, we'll find plenty who will!"
It's divide and rule. It's politics.
Regardless of where an individual stands on any particular government policy, it's always safe to bet that they're never being 100% honest in their position statements. I'll stay vigilantly skeptical for now....
BJC
The Bishop doesn't sound convinced by the case for same sex church weddings.
Oh, but he's just one bishop. Of course, the reality is that just one Bishop stood up against Henry VIII - St John Fisher.
Whatever way you look at it the net result of this is to sow division and reap destruction. When that happens you know the devil is at the root of it. The UK government will do exactly the same thing. There will be a clause in there on allowing 'gay marriages' where religious bodies 'desire it'. After that of course the pressure will grow for all religious bodies to offer it whether they like it or not and there will be the inevitable clash with Human Rights legislation. No prizes for guessing who'll be interpreting that one.
BJC
It does appear that they don't speak for the majority of homosexuals though. The following came from a recent study of homosexuals on the topic of "gay marriage"
• More than a quarter (26%) believe there is no need to change the law on marriage because civil partnerships give the same rights, while fewer than half agree with Stonewall’s view that not allowing same-sex marriage worsens public attitudes to gay people.
• Almost half believe “David Cameron is only trying to extend marriage to LGBT people to make his party look more compassionate rather than because of his convictions”, while only 19% disagree.
• More than two-thirds (77%) of gay people disagree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and the same number (72%) believe “marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing children”.
• But only half (50%) of the LGB population think it is important to extend marriage to same-sex couples, while just over one in four (27%) would marry their partner if the law allowed it – just one percentage point more than those not in a civil partnership who would seriously consider one.
• A clear majority (61%) of gay people believe that “true equality” would mean same-sex couples could marry in religious, as well as civil, locations – and a third (35%) believe in forcing faith groups to perform same-sex weddings.
http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/06/cv-publishes-first-ever-poll-gay-attitudes-same-sex-marriage
I don't understand your comments as the survey you cite clearly shows that the majority of those surveyed do support marriage equality for same sex couples. Are you confused or just prejudiced
My point is that the militant homosexual lobby do not represent all homosexuals. When even the view within the homosexual "community" is divided it hardly strengthens the case of those who want to abolish marriage.
Make no mistake, what this government is proposing is the abolition of marriage and its replacement with something else.
I keep seeing this point being made. But there's no equality legislation directed at the divorced. There is however a lot (and growing) legal and political pressure not to 'discriminate'against homosexuals.
However, why is it that this topic is so emotionally salient to you that it causes you to over-react, dramatise and exaggerate your response so much, I wonder? Since prejudice is an emotional or affective response to disliked individuals/groups (not simply a rational cognitive process based on objective information), Im picking up that you do have an irrational adversive affective response to gay people which primes you to make systematically negative attributions towards them - aka the definition of homophobia.
I am prejudiced - I don't hide that. I have a huge issue with the militant homosexual lobby - not homosexuals just a loud and shouty subset.
Please don't try and assert what I do or don't know. The government's proposal will result in marriage as we know it ceasing to exist. That is a fact, not an opinion.
you didnt assert that the govt were going to change marriage, u said they were going to abolish it which is totally different, preposterous and a lie not fact.
Marriage as it currently stands will be abolished and replaced with something different. That isn't a complicated concept to grasp is it?
Oh, and well played in playing the "homophobia" card. That is the modern version of Godwin's Law and I guess you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Now run along and troll someone else.
That's enough now thank you.
Therefore I did not publish it.