You are here . on the pale blue dot

Blog notes

Anonymous comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.
The blog owner is unable to ‘unfollow’ Followers.

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Oh what gay day!

If God had intended this, why did He make male and female? He could have done without men and perhaps tucked something under Eve's arm to go with her hand bag. 

Apparently the Church of England has pledged not to allow any of its buildings to be used for civil partnership ceremonies. Now call me cynical but haven't we had promises and pledges before? Civil partnerships were not weddings but that didn't last long. As the Google headline puts it:

I have no problem with civil partnerships or with gay and lesbian couples. The treatment that many have experienced and still experience around the world is shameful but why is it that liberals can't let things be? Grab an inch and take a mile is their motto with the consequence that religion is becoming irrelevant to many leaving a vacuum to be filled by the one that appears untouchable.


  1. I don't mind being inclusive but to actually start blessing civil partnerships is beyond the limits of Christian charity.

  2. No doubt my arguments will fall on death ears but, given that there are some religions that don't have institutionalised prejudice against gay people (such as various non-conformist churches, Buddhism, Druidism, etc) then why shouldn't they be allowed to bless a civil partnership in their place of worship? No one is going to force CofE or Catholic priests to marry gay couples or bless their civil partnerships - all this is is allowing gay people the same right to the legal state of marriage as everyone else. And if they want a religious component to it and can find a willing priest then why shouldn't they?

  3. No deaf ears George and thanks for your comment.

    There is no 'institutionalised prejudice against gay people' in the Anglican church in this country. If you go to the following link and tab down to the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, you can read the official attitude to sexual orientation:

    Gay and lesbian people are present in many congregations and play an active part in church life. There will be people for whom homosexuality is unacceptable but in my experience they are in a minority. I suspect the majority consider what people do in their private lives is a matter for them. Their objection to gay 'marriage' is that marriage is between men and women for the procreation of children. It is a simple as that.

  4. But marriage is not just a religious state, it is a legal state as well. Our law has a legal state of marriage between two partners which entails certain benefits and responsibilities. The civil aspects of this should, logically be open to everyone since everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, orientation or gender.

    However, the religious state of marriage as defined by the CofE is different and can only be between a man and a woman. However, other sects, such as Quakers, hold that marriage need not just be between a man and a woman. In that case, why should gay members of those sects not be allowed by law to have the religious aspects of marriage if their congregation permits it?

  5. I'm sorry for the delay in replying George.
    I am not concerned with gay members of non-Anglican 'sects' going through permitted forms of service but I would be against same sex unions being described as 'marriage' for the reasons already given. Why would couples want to describe it thus anyway? Is it not sufficient that they are together?