tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post8449323640212155717..comments2024-03-20T08:06:18.312+00:00Comments on Benny's Blog: More harm than good...?Benny Hazlehursthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11106740133903626260noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post-43740469269411032592011-09-07T19:50:32.410+01:002011-09-07T19:50:32.410+01:00Thanks everyone for your thought provoking comment...Thanks everyone for your thought provoking comments.<br /><br />I am not unormally the 'conservative' voice in my blog, and I do take seriously the comments that question why churches should be allowed to opt out of something that is fundamentally about equality of access.<br /><br />I think that the difference may be found in the peculiar relationship between the Church and the Sate on marriage. Churches (even the CofE)do not simply act as a agent of the State when they marry people. The relationship is much deeper and richer than that.<br /><br />Similarly there are significant differences between the marriage service offered by the church and those in a registry office. My fear is that the rich theology and understanding of marriage which churches offer would be damaged if they were compelled to do something they didn't believe in. <br /><br />This in turn would impoverish this key ministry of the church to everyone's detriment - gay or straight.<br /><br />So for me, the route is persuasion, not compulsion, but there is much which I need to reflect on further. Thank you all.Benny Hazlehursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11106740133903626260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post-90401427945500796222011-09-05T09:21:26.709+01:002011-09-05T09:21:26.709+01:00There has to be a balance between the rights right...<i>There has to be a balance between the rights rightly given as we progress towards equality for all, and the right of people of faith to follow their religion, where that does not cause harm to others.</i><br /><br />Discrimination, bigotry and prejudice cause harm.MadPriesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120376342802143188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post-63862054343478060682011-09-03T20:53:47.994+01:002011-09-03T20:53:47.994+01:00I do agree, Benny. I would rather win hearts and m...I do agree, Benny. I would rather win hearts and minds than force churches or ministers to act against their conscience. At the same time, I can see that, from a purely legal point of view, it is discrimination. I can envisage a time when a couple might win such a case - perhaps on the grounds of European law and the Human Rights Act.<br />I can understand why conservative Christians might be fearful.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post-18627358064372342392011-09-03T20:07:49.847+01:002011-09-03T20:07:49.847+01:00I would not want to have a wedding service in a ch...I would not want to have a wedding service in a church where it would not be welcome. Yes, there might be in civil law a provision that registrars (who are public servants) may not refuse to conduct a same-sex ceremony. However, I'd be a bit nervous about requiring clergy to conduct them or requiring a denomination to allow clergy to conduct them if the clergyperson felt called so to do. <br /><br />The analogy with adoption services is flawed. Adoption is not a religious rite. When a church-based organisation facilitates an adoption, it is acting as an agent of the state. As long as marriage is viewed as a religious ceremony, it is outside the competence of the state to require any religion to hold a religious ceremony not of its choosing.<br /><br />The ultimate solution for this question is for denominations that do not agree with the idea of same-sex marriage to refrain from conducting the civil part of any marriage ceremony (signing the register). This works well in Mediterranean countries, where a civil marriage is conducted in the presence of a civil officer, and those who feel called to have a religious ceremony then repair to their church, where that happens. Those churches and places of worship that wish to conduct both parts of the marriage rite (in the UK) might then do so for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples if they like.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06534842755063770798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146780325302102876.post-65331087373463286972011-09-03T19:13:47.435+01:002011-09-03T19:13:47.435+01:00I tend to agree with Mike Weatherly. If it was rac...I tend to agree with Mike Weatherly. If it was race or another group there would not be the same question of letting faith groups pick and choose. The law of the land is the law of the land. I believe that we have to get tough just as with the gay adoption issue. Not humour those who would discriminate . It is because opponents of women's ordination were humoured that there have been such entrenched issues there. The church should not be above the law whether we are talking gender or sexuality discrimination.Islelassiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01934357203291485467noreply@blogger.com