Sunday, February 13, 2011
Gay Marriage ? I don't get it
In a major concession to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's Lib Dems, the Government will announce that for the first time, such ceremonies will be allowed to have a religious element, including hymns and Bible readings. They could be carried out by priests or other religious officials.
IMO: What people do in their own time seems to be their own business, generally speaking. But something else perplexes me.
The Daily Mail says (and other papers somewhat echo) : "The move could lead to a clash between the State and the church."
IMO: Why cannot each church make its own rules, and battle it out with its congregation and others.
The Church of England has already said it will not let its buildings be used for civil partnership ceremonies.
IMO: I've always said, 'fair enough' if anyone doesn't like it let them go to Metropolitan Community Church or another church that does. There do seem to be doctrinal problems, hardly solved by mutual abuse and heckling.
The Roman Catholic Church takes an even tougher line - Pope Benedict last year described same-sex marriage as being among 'the most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good'.
IMO: Some say, with perhaps more reason, the same about the Roman Catholic Church as being 'the most insidious and dangerous challenge that today confronts the common good'. Touche, eh ?
Both the Catholic Church and Islam say marriage can consist only of a union between a man and a woman.
IMO: Sounds reasonable, though the generalisation about Islam sounds wrong. My old Imam always used to say it was up to the individual, not up to some crazy group or baradary.
IMO: Overall, surely it is best left up to the Church. Maybe the Tories will use this as a further excuse to tax the churches and various charities. To all the Churches my view is "Stand together united on this one whatever you intend to do on marriage, and don't let Cameron find excuses like this to penalise you".
IMO: What people do in their own time seems to be their own business, generally speaking. But something else perplexes me.
The Daily Mail says (and other papers somewhat echo) : "The move could lead to a clash between the State and the church."
IMO: Why cannot each church make its own rules, and battle it out with its congregation and others.
The Church of England has already said it will not let its buildings be used for civil partnership ceremonies.
IMO: I've always said, 'fair enough' if anyone doesn't like it let them go to Metropolitan Community Church or another church that does. There do seem to be doctrinal problems, hardly solved by mutual abuse and heckling.
The Roman Catholic Church takes an even tougher line - Pope Benedict last year described same-sex marriage as being among 'the most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good'.
IMO: Some say, with perhaps more reason, the same about the Roman Catholic Church as being 'the most insidious and dangerous challenge that today confronts the common good'. Touche, eh ?
Both the Catholic Church and Islam say marriage can consist only of a union between a man and a woman.
IMO: Sounds reasonable, though the generalisation about Islam sounds wrong. My old Imam always used to say it was up to the individual, not up to some crazy group or baradary.
IMO: Overall, surely it is best left up to the Church. Maybe the Tories will use this as a further excuse to tax the churches and various charities. To all the Churches my view is "Stand together united on this one whatever you intend to do on marriage, and don't let Cameron find excuses like this to penalise you".
# posted by uv : 2:59 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
