stateless;
I'd say churches people actually go to tend to expect more of their members than a social club would.
Well, yes, I really only meant in terms of the people, routines and so on, not that they don't try to help the community, pray for people etc. I'm not trying to say that people go because they are bored, lots of Christians clearly do care and try to make a difference.
It doesn't mean only that but it does mean we start at home before telling others what to do.
It's a small world nowadays. Everything is local. I'm sure there's a British Christian somewhere, trying to implore fellow Ugandan Christians not to adopt policies like 'kill the gays' that will literally destroy lives. At least I hope there is. It's a choice of course that people make. Maybe to some gay people getting married (especially in their locality) is more pressing than gay people being imprisoned or being killed. Maybe for others, it's a feeling that they wouldn't be listened to.
The U.S goes round i circles. As soon as they find a Republican candidate that actually does what he's meant to do ,rather than talking about lucky pants, they'll be back in and gay marriage will be banned again as will stem cell research.
The supreme court eventually rule on some aspects of these issues (as they are due to in a few months), and so although it does matter who is in power, significantly changing the make-up of the court takes a very long time indeed. On a state level, where people have voted to approve it, it cannot be banned anyway (though it does not have to be federally recognised). Also, the exit poll of the last election revealed that a slim majority of the entire population now support gay marriage so being "anti" isn't really a vote winner like it was 8 years ago. Interestingly the support for gay marriage in the states now, is the same as it was for interracial marriage in the 90's.
Well, yes, I really only meant in terms of the people, routines and so on, not that they don't try to help the community, pray for people etc. I'm not trying to say that people go because they are bored, lots of Christians clearly do care and try to make a difference.
I agree.
It's a small world nowadays. Everything is local. I'm sure there's a British Christian somewhere, trying to implore fellow Ugandan Christians not to adopt policies like 'kill the gays' that will destroy lives. At least I hope there is.
I expect so but i don't see any evidence that everyone is called to go to Uganda. A lot are very busy serving communities here.
It's a choice of course that people make. Maybe to some gay people getting married is more important than gay people being imprisoned or being killed. Maybe for others, it's an issue of physical distance, or a feeling what we wouldn't be listened to etc.
That may be tha case for some but,speaking only for myself, the reaso i wouldn't do it unless i specifically felt God call me to it is because i believe God puts us where we are fore a reason.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
The supreme court eventually rule on these issues (as they are due to in a few months), and so although it does matter who is in power, significantly changing the make-up of the court takes a very long time indeed.
I wouldn't assume the decision. I just know what i suspect.
Also, the exit poll of the last election revealed that a slim majority of the entire population now support gay marriage so being "anti" isn't really a vote winner like it was 8 years ago.
Sorry but you're not going to gett me to believe their polls anymore than i believe ours. Their were polls saying that the election would be closer and others saying Romney could win.
Interestingly the support for gay marriage in the states now, is the same as it was for interracial marriage in the 90's.
That may be interesting for you but their isn't a Christian teaching against interacial marrige in the Bible so comparing the 2 doesn't work.
Anyway,i'd better get some sleep cos i need to be up soon. God bless.
That may be tha case for some but,speaking only for myself, the reaso i wouldn't do it unless i specifically felt God call me to it is because i believe God puts us where we are fore a reason.
I suppose everything always seems more pressing on our doorstep too, no matter if we're religious or not. I can see how some people could especially feel this way considering what you said.
Sorry but you're not going to gett me to believe their polls anymore than i believe ours. Their were polls saying that the election would be closer and others saying Romney could win.
Certainly a valid concern, but the exit polls have been extremely accurate in recent US elections, so unless people lie about how they feel, they might be on this issue too. Of course there have also been many state gay marriage votes, most of decided against, but more recently there have been a few yes votes stateside, with states legalising gay marriage as a result of public opinion.
Okay night. Sorry for keeping you up, and sorry for being so abrasive early on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales. Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.
The answer is one or the other dependant on the democratic view.
Exactly. Which is what is happening now. Of course if the church was a little more open minded then we wouldnt be having this mess at the moment but there you go.
Otherwise what you suggest is that the right to discriminate is dependant on who you are. Which is exactly the situation we are repeatedly told is wrong as that is exactly the same as saying the right is denied because of who you are not
That happens all the time, I discriminated when I chose the woman I married (I had options..I really did...honest). However that discrimination had no negative effect on anyone else...well apart from all the broken hearts I left behind but what ya gonne do huh.. So it the nature of discrimination that is important (which goes back to my disagreement with you when you say the nature of the discrimination is irrelevant).
However that discrimination, in that case has no impact. You seem to see everything as black or white (no pun intended) when not everything is the same. For example why should you have the EXACT same rights as a church on one issue (discrimination against gay people) when you are not a church and cannot do anyway what they are not being allowed to do. Does it bother you that, under law, your discriminated against when it comes to baptising people ? I'm sure it doesnt yet thats one rule for them and one for you. So what is unique about this situation ? There is a myriad of things you cannot do that others can do for reason of faith, profession, posistion, education and so on.
What this seems to boil down to (and I;ll happily be corrected on this) that your bothered you cannot discriminated against people when the church can, even though you dont want to....strange thing to be bothered about given the thousands of people who can do things your banned from doing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales. Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.
Possibly of interest to people.
Such a shame that voices like his (which I cannot help think are more in tune with the Christian outlook on life) arent more prevalent in the CoE.
This issue plus the EU could reshape politics in the England if UKIP can make some more headway.I wonder why Cameron risked bringing this up now this now , when UKIP are steadily gaining votes of fed up Conservatives and the government was already so unpopular.It wasnt even in their 2010 manifesto so its not like he had to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales. Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.
Possibly of interest to people.
The ban was to shut up the liars and scare-mongerswho claimed the church would be sued etc, yet it seems that these ones aren't happy still (not saying the guy in the article is a bigot) as marriage is closer
cameron shouldn't have needed a ban to appease the bigots and liars
This issue plus the EU could reshape politics in the England if UKIP can make some more headway.I wonder why Cameron risked bringing this up now this now , when UKIP are steadily gaining votes of fed up Conservatives and the government was already so unpopular.It wasnt even in their 2010 manifesto so its not like he had to.
Maybe he's a rare thing - a politician who does something because it's right and it's about equality, imagine that
I don't even support tories so it's hard for me to say that about him
This issue plus the EU could reshape politics in the England if UKIP can make some more headway.I wonder why Cameron risked bringing this up now this now , when UKIP are steadily gaining votes of fed up Conservatives and the government was already so unpopular.It wasnt even in their 2010 manifesto so its not like he had to.
From what I understand Cameron has been pro gay marriage for many years, maybe he feels so strongly about it that he'd like it sooner rather than later.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales. Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.
Exactly. Which is what is happening now. Of course if the church was a little more open minded then we wouldnt be having this mess at the moment but there you go.
That happens all the time, I discriminated when I chose the woman I married (I had options..I really did...honest). However that discrimination had no negative effect on anyone else...well apart from all the broken hearts I left behind but what ya gonne do huh.. So it the nature of discrimination that is important (which goes back to my disagreement with you when you say the nature of the discrimination is irrelevant).
However that discrimination, in that case has no impact. You seem to see everything as black or white (no pun intended) when not everything is the same. For example why should you have the EXACT same rights as a church on one issue (discrimination against gay people) when you are not a church and cannot do anyway what they are not being allowed to do. Does it bother you that, under law, your discriminated against when it comes to baptising people ? I'm sure it doesnt yet thats one rule for them and one for you. So what is unique about this situation ? There is a myriad of things you cannot do that others can do for reason of faith, profession, posistion, education and so on.
What this seems to boil down to (and I;ll happily be corrected on this) that your bothered you cannot discriminated against people when the church can, even though you dont want to....strange thing to be bothered about given the thousands of people who can do things your banned from doing.
Well it is not exactly what is happening now because it is not a no one discriminates or everyone discriminates it is most cannot discriminate but a church still can.
I agree that it is the 'nature' of what the discrimination is because the equality laws are quite specific and they state clearly that thou shalt not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their protected characteristic. Not only directly, but indirectly, or intentionally or unintentionally or any Uncle Tom Cobley way and all. This law is so sacrosanct that people who do are reviled in the media and shunned socially by pressurised consent as the 'equality police' hand out their details. Fair enough, but wait a church says I do not believe that I should be forced to give gay people an equality in a specific issue and bang that is a law. Everyone else is forced by law and the threat of fines, imprisonment and social banishment to adhere to the 'chosen way'. In the ordering of my own estate and with considering what I believe, whether that is right or wrong, I am, and many others are, not only legally denied to discriminate but if challenged have to actively prove that I, or they, have not been discriminatory directly or indirectly.
You seem to infer that if a law does not impact my right directly then I should ignore it even if I believe it is wrong. Society does not work like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales. Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.
Possibly of interest to people.
Since the CofE (and Wales) will not be able to conduct a same sex wedding - even if they want - then I don't see how it affects them. Unless, of course, the Archbishop is saying that they should have the "freedom" to marry who they want.
Since the CofE (and Wales) will not be able to conduct a same sex wedding - even if they want - then I don't see how it affects them. Unless, of course, the Archbishop is saying that they should have the "freedom" to marry who they want.
Just shows the split within CofE over this. They don't even know themselves if they want to allow gay weddings or not.
you can almost see them looking over their accounts, seeing the missing revenue...
Since the CofE (and Wales) not be able to conduct a same sex wedding - even if they want - then I don't see how it affects them. Unless, of course, the Archbishop is saying that they should have the "freedom" to marry who they want.
If the governimg bodies of the CofE and CofW don't want to be prohibited from carrying out same sex marriages, there is nothing to stop them contacting the Government now and that wouldn't be part of the legislation.
If the governimg bodies of the CofE and CofW don't want to be prohibited from carrying out same sex marriages, there is nothing to stop them contacting the Government now and that wouldn't be part of the legislation.
Anyone get the feeling that this will lead to a delay via the HoL?
If the governimg bodies of the CofE and CofW don't want to be prohibited from carrying out same sex marriages, there is nothing to stop them contacting the Government now and that wouldn't be part of the legislation.
Exactly and they have been specifically excluded according to the government because they had explicitedly stated strong opposition to it.
Exactly and they have been specifically excluded according to the government because they had explicitedly stated strong opposition to it.
This is what I don't understand. They explicitly stated that they wanted nothing to do with same-sex marriage and made it very clear that they would not be forced into providing it. However, now that the government has made sure that they won't be forced into it they are moaning about how this new law would stop "freedom of choice" and the freedom to marry who they wish.
Dr Barry Morgan says that the CiW were never contemplating allowing same-sex marriage anyway, so what's he bleating about? As for "...he said the church believed in "nurturing family life". He said the law had "curtailed" the church's freedom." I thought same-sex marriage was going to bring about the end of families as we know it? :rolleyes:
This is what I don't understand. They explicitly stated that they wanted nothing to do with same-sex marriage and made it very clear that they would not be forced into providing it. However, now that the government has made sure that they won't be forced into it they are moaning about how this new law would stop "freedom of choice" and the freedom to marry who they wish.
They were never going to allow it so why start getting upset about not being allowed to offer it?!
To be fair so far only the Archbishop of the CoW has voiced concerns.
This issue plus the EU could reshape politics in the England if UKIP can make some more headway.I wonder why Cameron risked bringing this up now this now , when UKIP are steadily gaining votes of fed up Conservatives and the government was already so unpopular.It wasnt even in their 2010 manifesto so its not like he had to.
The UKIP's party is interesting on this as the only of the main parties who are against it. I've always thought that UKIP were a libertarian party who supported the rights of the individual. Gay marriage should be compatible with that.
The UKIP's party is interesting on this as the only of the main parties who are against it. I've always thought that UKIP were a libertarian party who supported the rights of the individual. Gay marriage should be compatible with that.
I found the UKIP statement rather woolly to be honest - they say they oppose it because they are a libertarian party but then don't support the right of churches who want to marry gay people, only those who don't. Which is not what I understand libertarian to mean.
The ban was to shut up the liars and scare-mongerswho claimed the church would be sued etc, yet it seems that these ones aren't happy still (not saying the guy in the article is a bigot) as marriage is closer
cameron shouldn't have needed a ban to appease the bigots and liars
Barry Morgan (Archbish of the Church in Wales) supports same sex civil marriage and I believe, from what I have heard) supports individual CIW churches from marrying gay couples if they want to. He's actually doing his utmost to change Anglican perceptions on this.
I think the 'ban' was sadly necessary to get the matter passed in parliament. I hope the CoE and CiW decide to ask the government to free them from this restriction as soon as possible and allow individual priests the choice many of them want.
Since the CofE (and Wales) will not be able to conduct a same sex wedding - even if they want - then I don't see how it affects them. Unless, of course, the Archbishop is saying that they should have the "freedom" to marry who they want.
They would always have the religious freedom needed to bless a same sex marriage which the government would be unable to intervene in. It would mean that the couple would have the added inconvenience of paying for a second legal ceremony.
However in introducing such a ban in legislation the government is contravening human rights legislation.
Comments
Well, yes, I really only meant in terms of the people, routines and so on, not that they don't try to help the community, pray for people etc. I'm not trying to say that people go because they are bored, lots of Christians clearly do care and try to make a difference.
It's a small world nowadays. Everything is local. I'm sure there's a British Christian somewhere, trying to implore fellow Ugandan Christians not to adopt policies like 'kill the gays' that will literally destroy lives. At least I hope there is. It's a choice of course that people make. Maybe to some gay people getting married (especially in their locality) is more pressing than gay people being imprisoned or being killed. Maybe for others, it's a feeling that they wouldn't be listened to.
The supreme court eventually rule on some aspects of these issues (as they are due to in a few months), and so although it does matter who is in power, significantly changing the make-up of the court takes a very long time indeed. On a state level, where people have voted to approve it, it cannot be banned anyway (though it does not have to be federally recognised). Also, the exit poll of the last election revealed that a slim majority of the entire population now support gay marriage so being "anti" isn't really a vote winner like it was 8 years ago. Interestingly the support for gay marriage in the states now, is the same as it was for interracial marriage in the 90's.
I agree.
I expect so but i don't see any evidence that everyone is called to go to Uganda. A lot are very busy serving communities here.
That may be tha case for some but,speaking only for myself, the reaso i wouldn't do it unless i specifically felt God call me to it is because i believe God puts us where we are fore a reason.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
I wouldn't assume the decision. I just know what i suspect.
Sorry but you're not going to gett me to believe their polls anymore than i believe ours. Their were polls saying that the election would be closer and others saying Romney could win.
That may be interesting for you but their isn't a Christian teaching against interacial marrige in the Bible so comparing the 2 doesn't work.
Anyway,i'd better get some sleep cos i need to be up soon. God bless.
I suppose everything always seems more pressing on our doorstep too, no matter if we're religious or not. I can see how some people could especially feel this way considering what you said.
Certainly a valid concern, but the exit polls have been extremely accurate in recent US elections, so unless people lie about how they feel, they might be on this issue too. Of course there have also been many state gay marriage votes, most of decided against, but more recently there have been a few yes votes stateside, with states legalising gay marriage as a result of public opinion.
Okay night. Sorry for keeping you up, and sorry for being so abrasive early on.
Possibly of interest to people.
Exactly. Which is what is happening now. Of course if the church was a little more open minded then we wouldnt be having this mess at the moment but there you go.
That happens all the time, I discriminated when I chose the woman I married (I had options..I really did...honest). However that discrimination had no negative effect on anyone else...well apart from all the broken hearts I left behind but what ya gonne do huh.. So it the nature of discrimination that is important (which goes back to my disagreement with you when you say the nature of the discrimination is irrelevant).
However that discrimination, in that case has no impact. You seem to see everything as black or white (no pun intended) when not everything is the same. For example why should you have the EXACT same rights as a church on one issue (discrimination against gay people) when you are not a church and cannot do anyway what they are not being allowed to do. Does it bother you that, under law, your discriminated against when it comes to baptising people ? I'm sure it doesnt yet thats one rule for them and one for you. So what is unique about this situation ? There is a myriad of things you cannot do that others can do for reason of faith, profession, posistion, education and so on.
What this seems to boil down to (and I;ll happily be corrected on this) that your bothered you cannot discriminated against people when the church can, even though you dont want to....strange thing to be bothered about given the thousands of people who can do things your banned from doing.
Such a shame that voices like his (which I cannot help think are more in tune with the Christian outlook on life) arent more prevalent in the CoE.
The ban was to shut up the liars and scare-mongerswho claimed the church would be sued etc, yet it seems that these ones aren't happy still (not saying the guy in the article is a bigot) as marriage is closer
cameron shouldn't have needed a ban to appease the bigots and liars
Maybe he's a rare thing - a politician who does something because it's right and it's about equality, imagine that
I don't even support tories so it's hard for me to say that about him
Not really.
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Well it is not exactly what is happening now because it is not a no one discriminates or everyone discriminates it is most cannot discriminate but a church still can.
I agree that it is the 'nature' of what the discrimination is because the equality laws are quite specific and they state clearly that thou shalt not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their protected characteristic. Not only directly, but indirectly, or intentionally or unintentionally or any Uncle Tom Cobley way and all. This law is so sacrosanct that people who do are reviled in the media and shunned socially by pressurised consent as the 'equality police' hand out their details. Fair enough, but wait a church says I do not believe that I should be forced to give gay people an equality in a specific issue and bang that is a law. Everyone else is forced by law and the threat of fines, imprisonment and social banishment to adhere to the 'chosen way'. In the ordering of my own estate and with considering what I believe, whether that is right or wrong, I am, and many others are, not only legally denied to discriminate but if challenged have to actively prove that I, or they, have not been discriminatory directly or indirectly.
You seem to infer that if a law does not impact my right directly then I should ignore it even if I believe it is wrong. Society does not work like that.
Since the CofE (and Wales) will not be able to conduct a same sex wedding - even if they want - then I don't see how it affects them. Unless, of course, the Archbishop is saying that they should have the "freedom" to marry who they want.
Just shows the split within CofE over this. They don't even know themselves if they want to allow gay weddings or not.
you can almost see them looking over their accounts, seeing the missing revenue...
If the governimg bodies of the CofE and CofW don't want to be prohibited from carrying out same sex marriages, there is nothing to stop them contacting the Government now and that wouldn't be part of the legislation.
Anyone get the feeling that this will lead to a delay via the HoL?
Might make HoL reform a priority for Cameron
Exactly and they have been specifically excluded according to the government because they had explicitedly stated strong opposition to it.
Dr Barry Morgan says that the CiW were never contemplating allowing same-sex marriage anyway, so what's he bleating about? As for "...he said the church believed in "nurturing family life". He said the law had "curtailed" the church's freedom." I thought same-sex marriage was going to bring about the end of families as we know it? :rolleyes:
To be fair so far only the Archbishop of the CoW has voiced concerns.
The UKIP's party is interesting on this as the only of the main parties who are against it. I've always thought that UKIP were a libertarian party who supported the rights of the individual. Gay marriage should be compatible with that.
It makes me wonder whether the real reason they are against same sex marriage is to attract dissatisfied Conservative voters over this issue. This article suggests the same: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/12/12/ukip-ready-to-exploit-gay-marriage-tensions
I found the UKIP statement rather woolly to be honest - they say they oppose it because they are a libertarian party but then don't support the right of churches who want to marry gay people, only those who don't. Which is not what I understand libertarian to mean.
Barry Morgan (Archbish of the Church in Wales) supports same sex civil marriage and I believe, from what I have heard) supports individual CIW churches from marrying gay couples if they want to. He's actually doing his utmost to change Anglican perceptions on this.
I think the 'ban' was sadly necessary to get the matter passed in parliament. I hope the CoE and CiW decide to ask the government to free them from this restriction as soon as possible and allow individual priests the choice many of them want.
They would always have the religious freedom needed to bless a same sex marriage which the government would be unable to intervene in. It would mean that the couple would have the added inconvenience of paying for a second legal ceremony.
However in introducing such a ban in legislation the government is contravening human rights legislation.