S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay marriage raises prospect of disestablishment, says Church of England
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Yet another thing in favour of gay marriage!
S
sedonaman
Guest
Cut off your legs to keep from getting flat feet.Yet another thing in favour of gay marriage!
“The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new, and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths.” – 2 Timothy, 4:3-4
S
Skeptic92
Guest
The disestablishment of the Church of England is something in favour of Gay Marriage? Hardly, as it opens up a can of worms whose rights trumps whose? The homosexuals seeking ‘marriage’ or the established Church defending the faith, liberals would say the homosexuals and would preach intolerance of the Church of England (which lets be serious, 99% of liberal politicians hate Christianity, and no hate is not to strong of a word to describe how they feel about us).Yet another thing in favour of gay marriage!
Anyway the Church of England has been heading for schism for at least a century, I don’t believe it will be long before the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Church of England will break off and seek union with either Holy Orthodoxy (and Constantinople) or Rome. In that case though I believe they would seek union with Rome, as they are 99.9% Catholic anyway and the Holy Father has given them an easy (and pre-defined) way of reuniting with Rome through the Ordinariates.
H
Hokomai
Guest
No one is harmed by gay marriage. Even if one accepts that homosexual relationships are harmful to society (which I do not, for a moment), it cannot be reasonably argued that homosexuals formally committing to each other and calling it marriage, and having it recognised by the state is an ‘additional’ harm. In fact, it provides useful stability and legal security. If approving something which does not harm leads to the removal of something which is harmful to society (such as giving special status to one religion), then it is a good thing to approve.The disestablishment of the Church of England is something in favour of Gay Marriage? Hardly, as it opens up a can of worms whose rights trumps whose? The homosexuals seeking ‘marriage’ or the established Church defending the faith, liberals would say the homosexuals and would preach intolerance of the Church of England (which lets be serious, 99% of liberal politicians hate Christianity, and no hate is not to strong of a word to describe how they feel about us).
.
S
scipio337
Guest
There is no compelling interest for the state to overturn 2000+ years of tradition, and re-define what has largely been a religious rite.No one is harmed by gay marriage. Even if one accepts that homosexual relationships are harmful to society (which I do not, for a moment), it cannot be reasonably argued that homosexuals formally committing to each other and calling it marriage, and having it recognised by the state is an ‘additional’ harm. In fact, it provides useful stability and legal security. If approving something which does not harm leads to the removal of something which is harmful to society (such as giving special status to one religion), then it is a good thing to approve.
Period.
The issue isn’t about “legal security”, that was provided in CA in 1999 with Domestic Partnerships, which wasn’t enough. The issue is de facto moral acceptance.
Your claim that it “does no harm” is a bare assertion fallacy.
S
sedonaman
Guest
It’s an attempt to shift the burden of prove and make his opposition prove “Why not?” instead of his having to prove “Why?”.…
Your claim that it “does no harm” is a bare assertion fallacy.
“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.”
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
It is as if the devil’s house is divided.
The church should never have broken with Rome (Henry VIII) and so should never be part of the state. This initial break with the true faith brought untold damage and a wasted spirituality in England.
Now, the secular demonic forces that have upended chastity are now cracking apart that same church. (Of cource they’re warring with every church)
They think that by converting that church they will have won legitimacy, when it actuality it only will give clarity to the lovers of Jesus about where they, the sheep, belong.
My 2 cents.
The church should never have broken with Rome (Henry VIII) and so should never be part of the state. This initial break with the true faith brought untold damage and a wasted spirituality in England.
Now, the secular demonic forces that have upended chastity are now cracking apart that same church. (Of cource they’re warring with every church)
They think that by converting that church they will have won legitimacy, when it actuality it only will give clarity to the lovers of Jesus about where they, the sheep, belong.
My 2 cents.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
I’m honestly surprised to read that the Church of England has problems with gay marriage. I mean… aren’t they the ones who have priests and bishops who are not only gay, but living with men in their diocese-provided housing?
So this Church objects to gay marriage? Well, good luck C of E, you’re going to need it… because I don’t see how you’re going to convince even close to 50% of your own parishioners if you’ve got practicing gay clergy, not to mention the women priests too. This Church lost its moral compass a long time ago.
Thank God that the Holy Spirit has protected this from happening to the Catholic Church.
So this Church objects to gay marriage? Well, good luck C of E, you’re going to need it… because I don’t see how you’re going to convince even close to 50% of your own parishioners if you’ve got practicing gay clergy, not to mention the women priests too. This Church lost its moral compass a long time ago.
Thank God that the Holy Spirit has protected this from happening to the Catholic Church.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
No one is harmed by non-violent racism. Doesn’t mean I should tolerate it.No one is harmed by gay marriage. Even if one accepts that homosexual relationships are harmful to society (which I do not, for a moment), it cannot be reasonably argued that homosexuals formally committing to each other and calling it marriage, and having it recognised by the state is an ‘additional’ harm. In fact, it provides useful stability and legal security. If approving something which does not harm leads to the removal of something which is harmful to society (such as giving special status to one religion), then it is a good thing to approve.
B
beehumble
Guest
By that standard a man can marry a jackass. No one is harmed.No one is harmed by gay marriage. .
The standards for a ‘good’ to the society is not what it does *not *bring to society, but what it does bring to society. Positives, not negatives. Gay marriage is a self-centered, selfish act which brings no good to the kingdom of man, or of God. And that is why society does not allow men to marry jackasses, or men - for society’s sake, and for their sakes.
But we live in a time when professed Christian people’s minds/reason have been clouded by sin and apostasy, just as St. Paul prophesied would come during the time of the end.
God bless you.
E
epan
Guest
Are you aware that the term, “compelling interest” has a specific legal meaning in constitutional law. For any statute which restricts the practice of a fundamental right, or distinguishes between two people due to suspect classification, then there must be a compelling interest of the state by furthering the statute.There is no compelling interest for the state to overturn 2000+ years of tradition, and re-define what has largely been a religious rite.
Period.
The issue isn’t about “legal security”, that was provided in CA in 1999 with Domestic Partnerships, which wasn’t enough. The issue is de facto moral acceptance.
Your claim that it “does no harm” is a bare assertion fallacy.
It has been adjudicated that the state has no compelling interest in laws which restrict the rights of gay people. To my knowledge, nobody has tested current marriage law in the area of compelling interest. I think the most successful cases in the marriage litigation has been the equal protection argument.
S
Santi2
Guest
Marriage between two people of same sex is not a fundamental right. Henceforth, there is no compelling interest under constitutional law to protect rights which do not exist… Parliament also cannot pass laws which bind future Parliaments. It just so happens that current lot of Parliamentarians a.k.a. Camoron & Co are constitutionally illiterate and the gay militant is no longer gay and proud.Are you aware that the term, “compelling interest” has a specific legal meaning in constitutional law. For any statute which restricts the practice of a fundamental right, or distinguishes between two people due to suspect classification, then there must be a compelling interest of the state by furthering the statute.
It has been adjudicated that the state has no compelling interest in laws which restrict the rights of gay people. To my knowledge, nobody has tested current marriage law in the area of compelling interest. I think the most successful cases in the marriage litigation has been the equal protection argument.
As to case law, you can refer to ECHR Schalk and Gas and Dubois.
E
epan
Guest
My post was concerning a compelling interest in the US.Marriage between two people of same sex is not a fundamental right. Henceforth, there is no compelling interest under constitutional law to protect rights which do not exist… Parliament also cannot pass laws which bind future Parliaments. It just so happens that current lot of Parliamentarians a.k.a. Camoron & Co are constitutionally illiterate and the gay militant is no longer gay and proud.
As to case law, you can refer to ECHR Schalk and Gas and Dubois.
S
Santi2
Guest
The legal principle is the same. It only happens to be the case that a few states in the US “created” rights to accommodate same sex “marriage”, which by all other laws and fact remains outside the remit of fundamental rights as SSM is not and will never be universally recognised. Universality is the basis of fundamental rights.My post was concerning a compelling interest in the US.
E
epan
Guest
If marriage is legal (as state right to confer), then it does become a fundamental right. This was recognized with the newly acquired legal status of slaves after emancipation, and with the striking of the miscegenation laws. The courts have further found that because there is no legal distinction between genders in marriage, in terms or rights, roles or responsibilities, that marriage must be examined in that light. Further, equal protection rights come into play wherever SSM is legal, but the SS married people are singled out for lesser benefits, or otherwise uniquely identified as compared to OS married people.The legal principle is the same. It only happens to be the case that a few states in the US “created” rights to accommodate same sex “marriage”, which by all other laws and fact remains outside the remit of fundamental rights as SSM is not and will never be universally recognised. Universality is the basis of fundamental rights.
So, these created rights you refer to were not suddenly “created”, the evolution of the women’s rights movement led logically to the gay rights movement. Eliminating the legal differences between genders leads logically to not considering gender at all in a legal contract, such as marriage. There is nothing sudden about this. It started at the turn of the century, and then accelerated in pace in the 1960’s. Without this “progress”, the matter would not even be a topic of discussion.
S
scipio337
Guest
Precisely. And to restrict the traditional, fundamental right of marriage being between two members of the opposite sex, there would need to be a compelling state interest to further to same sex couples.Are you aware that the term, “compelling interest” has a specific legal meaning in constitutional law. For any statute which restricts the practice of a fundamental right, or distinguishes between two people due to suspect classification, then there must be a compelling interest of the state by furthering the statute.
Not so. The in RE marriage cases highlighted that equal protection was provided through CA domestic partnerships, it was the implicit approval, and equal moral standing that the label “marriage” afforded.It has been adjudicated that the state has no compelling interest in laws which restrict the rights of gay people. To my knowledge, nobody has tested current marriage law in the area of compelling interest. I think the most successful cases in the marriage litigation has been the equal protection argument.
E
epan
Guest
Yes on discriminatory laws, it came down from the Colorado Supreme Court, and the ruling was not appealed. In that case, the state has not compelling interest. Marriage has not been tested on these grounds yet.Precisely. And to restrict the traditional, fundamental right of marriage being between two members of the opposite sex, there would need to be a compelling state interest to further to same sex couples.
Not so. The in RE marriage cases highlighted that equal protection was provided through CA domestic partnerships, it was the implicit approval, and equal moral standing that the label “marriage” afforded.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I thought all laws are discriminatory, i.e., to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars; the draft law distinguishes male from female; voting laws distinguish between children and adults, and place of residency; etc…Yes on discriminatory laws, …
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.
N
neophyte
Guest
It can’t be argued that legally declaring something to be something it’s not, is a harm?No one is harmed by gay marriage. Even if one accepts that homosexual relationships are harmful to society (which I do not, for a moment), it cannot be reasonably argued that homosexuals formally committing to each other and calling it marriage, and having it recognised by the state is an ‘additional’ harm…
The how about we legally declare that nitric oxide is oxygen? Or that pine gum is iron? There’s no harm to that?
By definition, it’s harmful to treat things as if they were other than what they are.
And by definition, the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than one between two women or two men. It’s intrinsically not possible for a homosexual relationship to fulfill the biochemical complimentarity of a heterosexual relationship, and it’s intrinsically not possible for a homosexual relationship to result in the procreation of children. And given that the heterosexual relationship is fundamentally different, it requires a different name… and the name for it is marriage.
This idea that homosexuals have no right to marry is nonsense. All homosexuals have the right to marry, the problem is that they themselves do not want to be married: they don’t want to be in a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.