Scottish Bishop says 'not now, not ever' to 'gay marriage'

[rlg94086]

Betts,

The onus is on parents to tell children what is right and wrong, NOT THE STATE.

The fact that the state is even involved in marriage is a joke. People should be allowed to get “married” in whatever faith floats their boat.

Two people who love each other don’t need lawyers and courts to prove it.

People can get “married” in whatever faith floats their boat…if the faith will allow it. The Catholic Church will never allow it, as the bishop says.

The State question is not really about who can marry whom…it is about which marriages the State should recognize. Since marriage does provide important benefit to the state (i.e. family), it is logical for the State to determine the framework of marriages it deems have societal value. The heterosexual, nuclear family is the best framework for society, which is why the State should recognize it. Homosexual unions have no particular benefit to society, which is why the State should not. In the meantime, homosexual couples can continue to get “married” in any ceremony in any faith that will have them.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

‘not now, not in the future, not ever’ to a push to legalise ‘gay marriage.’

While I agree 110% (obviously) with what the bishop is saying, I’m glad he’s not an American bishop. That wording is way too similiar to George Wallace’s “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

 

[Adeodatus]

While I agree 110% (obviously) with what the bishop is saying, I’m glad he’s not an American bishop. That wording is way too similiar to George Wallace’s “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

That’s a sad, sad commentary. If it’s true then democracy itself is a grave moral evil that should be abolished, because clearly people who do not have the intelligence to draw the distinction between the two have no right to govern themselves.

 

[CWBetts]

While I agree 110% (obviously) with what the bishop is saying, I’m glad he’s not an American bishop. That wording is way too similiar to George Wallace’s “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Do you disagree or don’t you? If yes, then why not an American Bishop, if not, then why claim that you do?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That’s a sad, sad commentary. If it’s true then democracy itself is a grave moral evil that should be abolished, because clearly people who do not have the intelligence to draw the distinction between the two have no right to govern themselves.

In case you’ve missed the debate for the past 20 years, the pro gay marriage side has always likened opposition to gay marriage to segregationalists. The legal issues over interracial marriages are thrown out there as a comparison to gay marriage. Therefore, in America, using wording that is extemely similiar to a pro segrationalist speech would not be too bright. You’d practicaly be writing the next viral youtube video juxtaposing the two speeches…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Do you disagree or don’t you? If yes, then why not an American Bishop, if not, then why claim that you do?

As I said, the wording is horrible for the debate in this country. We’re compared to people who opposed interracial marriage by the gay marriage crowd. Using similiar wording to the segregationalists is not helpful for our side.

 

[OriginalJS]

I don’t see the hoopla here. The standard teaching of the church is not to recognize gay marriage. Church rules are not governed by state law and never have been. Many states in the world recognize divorce; the church does not etc. Isn’t this old hat?