|
|
|
|
Just thought you'd like to know that a new law came into force on Tuesday: Gay couples can now register their status, giving them equal rights with str8 couples, eg. inheritance, adoption etc. But still the Lutheran Church here won't give its blessing.
greetings
[Updated on: Mon, 13 November 2006 14:31] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to party. The Lutherins are going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was once said "Render therefore unto Ceasar the things that which are Ceasar's; and unto God the things that are God's". So I dont know what there is to concern you Brian; are you suggesting that the church be forced to give these unions their blessing? This has been my exact point in all that I have been debating with everyone, that it is simply not enough that gay couples be given the same rights and priveledges as any other union.
I must say that you are going too far with decrying the church's stand on this subject; it is what religious freedom is all about isn't it?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken, they can do anything they want, I personally dont care. but they are going to be lookiing around themselves at everybody else accepting it and then they are going to find themselves loosing members. There are thousands and thousands of closeted gays who attend all these churches. so they can refuse to accept things and be smug in thier self rightiousness and watch their membership dwindle.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here in the UK the situation is different.
A Civil Partnership (ie a legal union between two persons of the same sex) may by law not be registered in a religious venue (even if the church, the celebrant, and all participants wish to do so). (source: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/civilpartnership/cpbooklet2005.pdf - the official UK government guide).
This isn't religious freedom - this is bigotry enshrined in law.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are close historical ties between Iceland and Norway and our churches. Do you know what the reactions have been in Iceland to the news that a large number of priests and bishops in the Church of Norway are now ready to give gay couples their blessings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Yes, the restriction is discriminatory, but ...
... It was an appeasement to the religious opposition, and eased the progress of the Civil Partnerships Act through Parliament. The Act represents a huge step forward, and I think that this small compromise was worthwhile in pursuit of the greatest good of the greatest number.
... UK society is predominantly secular, especially in comparison with the United States. Around half of UK heterosexual partnerships are unregistered, and of the half that are formally registered as marriages, only a small proportion involve a Church ceremony. There is no reason to suppose that religious ceremonies would be any more in demand among same-sex couples, so only a small group will actually lose out by reason of the restriction.
... It's possible to get around the restriction in spirit, if not in form. One of the first couples to register in the North-East included a Church of England clergyman; immediately afterwards, the union was blessed in a Newcastle City Centre Church by a former (very) senior bishop. One of the current local bishops got his knickers in a twist, but the local press gave him no support.
... The restriction is so manifestly unreasonable that it should easily be possible to overturn it within a few years - but at that stage the future of the rest of the Act will not be jeopardised.
It's surely yet another example of the gentle art of the possible. I also object to the refusal to use the term 'marriage'; after all, the majority of UK marriages have no religious element, so why should same-sex relationships be treated differently? But that, too, will surely come in the fullness of time.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I quite agree that it was the most workable compromise possible, and that the remaining problems can be ironed out if we can re-visit the law in a few years time.
But the current situation does certainly prove that - at least here in the UK - the idea that the idea that churches are able to do what they choose to is just not true: churches that desire to host gay weddings are legally prevented from doing so.
My own view, as a gay man and as a Christian, is that the *civil* registration of a marriage (gay or straight) should not be conducted as part of a religious ceremony ... it already may not be conducted where food is being served!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Marriage is over-rated, it's traditionally about the ownership of women, anyway. I'm not sure if I support gay marriage simply because I'm not sure that I support marriage at all!
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good point, Saben: I'd certainly agree that in Western societies there has tended to be a strong patriachal element in marriage.
But I DO nevertheless think that - for those whose inclinations are towards longterm partnership of whatever variety - marriage has a role to play. It seems to me to mark a defining point, where one's "next of kin", "nearest and dearest", whatever one wants to call it, is no longer to be found in the birth family, but in the new family being created.
Many gay men, of course, have been rejected by their birth families. Many others seek their support and "family" in a circle of friends, rather than in one individual.
But it seems to me that when two guys decide that they are sufficiently important to each other that the relationship will be a deciding factor in decisions about where to live, what job offers to accept, long-term financial and healthcare decisions, etc, a new social unit is effectively in existence, and it helps both the partners and society to have a formal recognition of that.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... that the creation of a 'new family unit', accepting mutual commitment and dependence, is a defining and desirable step.
I'm entirely with Saben in his view that the history of Western marriage displays a strong bias against the female, but that doesn't invalidate the concept, and in any event is wasn't a universal truth.
I grew up in an 'extended' family; when I was born the 'household' consisted of my father and mother, my grandmother, an uncle, an aunt and a cousin. There was a family commitment to look after family members who were unable to look after themselves. Changing social conditions have all but destroyed such relationships; I accept that this is inevitable.
What I do not and cannot accept as inevitable is the irresponsibility of having children without any commitment to share responsibility for their upbringing and welfare. In this sphere, the UK Courts display a strong bias in favour of the mother - just as undesirable as the previous bias towards the male partner in a marriage.
If we are to protect the interests of parents, or indeed the interests of the parties to a marriage, we need the law - and the law is a very imperfect instrument unless there is some kind of express contractual relationship which it can uphold.
I don't care what it's called, but I do believe there is a need for some kind of formal relationship, to ensure that freedoms are balanced by responsibilities.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
gay = str8 
