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.
25 comments:
A slightly disingenuous and misleading post designed to scare-monger since the legislation is specific to the state evangelical lutheran church only and does not apply to other denominations such as the catholic church. The legislation, in effect, only rubber stamps the evangelical lutheran church's request to marry gay couples. Furthermore, there is a conscience clause which allows individual ministers not to conduct ceremonies if they object although they do have to make arrangements for a more willing minister to do so. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
The hobnailed-boot march of atheistic totalitarianism over our inherent rights and nature.
Gabriel
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.
It's like Henry VIII all over again.
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.
However you dress it up, Gabriel, the State is dictating morality to an ecclesiastical community.
Those who didn't sign were peremptorily beheaded! If many of the totalitarian atheists had there way, beheading would be reintroduced for those who wouldn't succumb to the dictates of the State's newly created morality/reality.
No bones, the state is not dictating morality to the church. The evangelical lutheran church (which 80+% of the population are affiliated to) formally requested to be allowed to marry same sex couples but to do so required a change in the law. The state responded to the evangelical lutheran church's request and built in safeguards so no individual minister would have to comply if they didn't want to. This isn't about the state forcing a church to do something they didn't want to do but the state responding to the wishes of the church.
David Icke calls this sort of thing 'totalitarian creep'.....
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....
If there's one maxim in life, its never trust a liberal. How long will it be before we see a gay rights group trying to stage a Catholic 'gay wedding' with a compliant Catholic priest and then testing it against Human Rights legislation? Not long I would say.
BJC
Gabriel
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.
"The thief comes to steal and kill and destroy" (Jn10:10)
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
I am getting sick and tired of the militant Gay mafia.
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
While 'The Bones' may be right to point out tha we are on a slippery slope, Gabriel Harrington is on firm ground. The Lutheran Church in Denmark is effectively an arm of the state. It's not clear what parallels there might be with the C of E.
Petrus,
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
Bones - the state has never tried to force any church (including the catholic church) to marry divorced couples so why would it try to compel same sex weddings? It's a fair comparison and the church's rights in this matter would be protected under the European charter of human rights. Again, it feels like you're trying to scare-monger.
@Gabriel
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.
@ Gabriel
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.
Petrus - using terms such as the millitant homosexual lobby only confirms your prejudice and sterotyping. Next you'll be tellng me can't be not prejudiced because some of your closest friends are gay. The survey clearly shows that the majority of gays surveyed supported extending marriage. I doubt you'd get a uniform response from a hetero group if you sampled them the same questions - the homo population is no more homogoneous a group than the hetero population. As you well know, the government is not proposing to abolish marriage - the assertion is simpy absurd and there are a diversity or beliefs/perspectives.
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.
@Gabriel
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.
petrus - really sounds like u have an issue with all gays not just a subset.
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.
@Gabriel
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.
Gabriel
That's enough now thank you.
No, Gabriel, I'm not having people spew their Catholiphobia on my blog. Obviously you're a bigot.
Lawrence, I'm not a catholicophobic but I am a prectising catholic. Believing that the government is trying to abolish marriage as Ptrus suggests is not an article of faith so I'm free to disagree with him. I haven't 'spewed' anything at him, I merely stated that what he says is not fact but opinion.
I considered that your comment denigrated his character.
Therefore I did not publish it.
Post a Comment