The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Same sex marriages
With new laws coming in shortly, will they apply to all faiths & their places of worship? I haven't actually read the fine details yet.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DSJ. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
a bit of scaremongering going on at the moment... some suggestion that the CoE might go to the courts to ask for a decision upholding Canon law as it only permits marriage between a man and a woman and I'd like to see what happens if a same sex muslim couple approach the mosque and insist on being married...
Nope
The Church of England is a special case because it's the "established church"
It is the national faith and has a special place in law, its leaders are approved by the pm and the monarch and get to sit in the house of Lords etc.
Of course if it were to become disestablished and give up these privileges (which IMHO it should) it would be under no compunction to conduct any suh services
The Church of England is a special case because it's the "established church"
It is the national faith and has a special place in law, its leaders are approved by the pm and the monarch and get to sit in the house of Lords etc.
Of course if it were to become disestablished and give up these privileges (which IMHO it should) it would be under no compunction to conduct any suh services
See http://
The proposed law means that the Church would have to relinquish its role as official marriage officers because they would discriminate against homosexuals. Of course, a registrar could officiate at a church service where a vicar blesses a marriage between a man and a woman and the church could refuse to bless homosexual unions without any legal consequences.
A Stonewall spokesman this morning said that the new proposals for same sex "marriage" would not result in the church being prosecuted for discrimination. This is nonsense see: http://
Personally I resent having the meaning of words changed by law. "Marriage" is an ancient term for the union of a man and a woman. It has had a legal significance because laws have been required for such unions but it always meant a union of a man and woman. If someone introduced a new usage of the word "cats" to mean both dogs and cats no-one would use it, it would diminish the power of language. If the law introduced such a change then people would be forced to adopt it and this is wrong. It restricts our freedom. Leave the language alone! Invent a new word for two men or two women entering a legal union.
Words are designed to differentiate features of the environment, both social and physical, this is not discrimination in the legal or human rights sense.
The proposed law means that the Church would have to relinquish its role as official marriage officers because they would discriminate against homosexuals. Of course, a registrar could officiate at a church service where a vicar blesses a marriage between a man and a woman and the church could refuse to bless homosexual unions without any legal consequences.
A Stonewall spokesman this morning said that the new proposals for same sex "marriage" would not result in the church being prosecuted for discrimination. This is nonsense see: http://
Personally I resent having the meaning of words changed by law. "Marriage" is an ancient term for the union of a man and a woman. It has had a legal significance because laws have been required for such unions but it always meant a union of a man and woman. If someone introduced a new usage of the word "cats" to mean both dogs and cats no-one would use it, it would diminish the power of language. If the law introduced such a change then people would be forced to adopt it and this is wrong. It restricts our freedom. Leave the language alone! Invent a new word for two men or two women entering a legal union.
Words are designed to differentiate features of the environment, both social and physical, this is not discrimination in the legal or human rights sense.
Having been in a long term lesbian relationship If I'd wanted a commitment ceremony I would feel the civil partnership was very much a second class deal
As it happens I hopped back on the regular bus and will be able to marry the male partner of my choice... I do feel it is unfair perhaps all civil ceremonies should lose the wedding status regardless of the gender of the partners
As it happens I hopped back on the regular bus and will be able to marry the male partner of my choice... I do feel it is unfair perhaps all civil ceremonies should lose the wedding status regardless of the gender of the partners
The proposals for marriage equality specifically exclude religious marriages. They will only legalize civil same sex marriages.
The CofE is arguing that the new law will contradict the recent anti-discriminatory law which makes it illegal to withold goods and services based on sexual orientation, and that churches will be forced to conduct same sex marriages.
It's an argument that, on the face of it, seems to make sense...but it has a few holes in it.
For instance, can you imagine any same sex couple really wishing to celebrate their happy day in a place that has been forced against its will to perform the ceremony?
I think the best way around this is for an exclusion to be drafted into the existing anti-discrimination laws which specifically excludes churches from performing same sex marriages.
This may be enshrining discrimination in law, but Churches by their very nature, are hotbeds of discrimination (eg. divorced couples cannot get married in church etc etc).
The CofE is arguing that the new law will contradict the recent anti-discriminatory law which makes it illegal to withold goods and services based on sexual orientation, and that churches will be forced to conduct same sex marriages.
It's an argument that, on the face of it, seems to make sense...but it has a few holes in it.
For instance, can you imagine any same sex couple really wishing to celebrate their happy day in a place that has been forced against its will to perform the ceremony?
I think the best way around this is for an exclusion to be drafted into the existing anti-discrimination laws which specifically excludes churches from performing same sex marriages.
This may be enshrining discrimination in law, but Churches by their very nature, are hotbeds of discrimination (eg. divorced couples cannot get married in church etc etc).
"Personally I resent having the meaning of words changed by law. "Marriage" is an ancient term for the union of a man and a woman."
It hasn't been changed by the law - it's been changed by a wider cultural and social change in our attitude towards love and marriage. All the law is really doing (at last) is reflecting it, quite passively.
It hasn't been changed by the law - it's been changed by a wider cultural and social change in our attitude towards love and marriage. All the law is really doing (at last) is reflecting it, quite passively.
Another thing that I find curious in the argument is that people feel that allowing same sex marriages will somehow damage the institution.
However, the same people are not campaigning for a return to the 1950s and the pre-liberation of divorce laws.
The same people do not say that Britney Spears 30 hour marriage or that 72day marriage of the Kardashian girl damages the institution...
However, the same people are not campaigning for a return to the 1950s and the pre-liberation of divorce laws.
The same people do not say that Britney Spears 30 hour marriage or that 72day marriage of the Kardashian girl damages the institution...
The Church will never be forced into it. If they did then the Muslim churches would have to do the same and no one will want to risk offending a minority.
Personally I dont see what the fuss is about. Who wants anything to do with a bunch ofpeople who believe ina fairy tale anyway. Why they are still so enshrimed into our instution is beyond me.
Personally I dont see what the fuss is about. Who wants anything to do with a bunch ofpeople who believe ina fairy tale anyway. Why they are still so enshrimed into our instution is beyond me.
yes, the church and all flavours of religion are far more dangerous that whatever an same sex couple want to do. Why anyone takes any notice of any religion is baffling to me. Civil partnerships bestow the same legal status as those married so why all the fuss? Same sex couples can already get "married", why do they seek the approval of a load of religious nutters anyway?
d9f1c7
I think a lot of it comes from what you've just written. You wrote the word 'married' in inverted commas, because a civil partnership isn't a proper marriage, and will always be seen as second best and not real.
Also, we really HAVE to get past the idea that people are campaigning for CofE gay weddings.
This is what the CofE are telling people, and it's a lie. The change of law will allow CIVIL same sex marriages.
Anyone telling you differently is lying.
I think a lot of it comes from what you've just written. You wrote the word 'married' in inverted commas, because a civil partnership isn't a proper marriage, and will always be seen as second best and not real.
Also, we really HAVE to get past the idea that people are campaigning for CofE gay weddings.
This is what the CofE are telling people, and it's a lie. The change of law will allow CIVIL same sex marriages.
Anyone telling you differently is lying.
// Also, we really HAVE to get past the idea that people are campaigning for CofE gay weddings.
This is what the CofE are telling people, and it's a lie. The change of law will allow CIVIL same sex marriages. //
In that case I don't get it. Why would the church be objecting to civil same sex marriages?
This is what the CofE are telling people, and it's a lie. The change of law will allow CIVIL same sex marriages. //
In that case I don't get it. Why would the church be objecting to civil same sex marriages?
Latest Posts
News59 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
ChatterBank87 mins ago
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|