[Closed] The church and homosexuality

In the modern world marriage ceremonys are not a religious monopoly and religion should not dictate terms for any who do not wish to play by their rules.

Bingo.

I hate your hate

*Pops in*

HI EMSZ! *Waves frantically*

Oh. We still arguing this? Lost cause, methinks. Everyone I know refers to He Who Must Be Obeyed as my husband, not 'civil partner', 'partner' or 'boyfriend' and says that we are 'married'.

So the intolerant religious types can go stuff it. Word meanings and society have already moved on, and they're on the losing side. I wouldn't get married in a church for all the tea in China *and* India, but, unlike the religious ones: each to their own. The Quakers, I believe, want to hold same-sex ceremonies. Who are the other churches to tell them what to do? *And* they make good porridge too. 😀

The so called all embracing church is still in the past a has been product used by those in power to control us the plebs, now with all the media we see it for what it is worthless to a a lot of people, under 40, and surely it would be more cash in the kitty for the church if they allowd gay marriges,and opened up the churches more than just weekends for some hymn singing, but they want because theyre stuck in a time continumn that needs a big stick to break it.

I will not tolerate the extension of that belief to say you can dictate the lives of others

Now this is interesting.

We do, on the whole, stop people from doing things we don't like, don't we? Some of them are even illegal.

But you are redefining something that they may be party to as something they don't believe in.

*And* they make good porridge too

*snort* tremendous. Chapeau.

We do, on the whole, stop people from doing things we don't like, don't we? Some of them are even illegal.

Such as same-sex marriage?

No molgrips specificaly "that" belief should not be extended to dictate the lives of others. Good try though.

We do, on the whole, stop people from doing things we don't like, don't we? Some of them are even illegal.

Only if it harms others.

*And* they make good porridge too.

Chocolate too.

They have a lot going for them, the Quakers, very tolerant bunch.
Shame about the whole 'God' thing.

Some Quakers are atheists.

Very interesting Mike.

Just had a quick Google, seems to be quite a modern phenomenon.

Black is very slimming too, isn't it?

In the modern world marriage ceremonys are not a religious monopoly and religion should not dictate terms for any who do not wish to play by their rules.

We are slowly getting there - this is the crux of the CofE argument, unlike many European countries, we do not have a disestablished church. Under Napoleonic law, the only marriage that has any legal meaning is a civil one hence every one has a civil ceremony, some will have a religious one as well. Here a CofE marriage has force of law, there is no difference between a religious marriage and a civil one in legal terms. Therefore a change in the definition of marriage applies equally to all. The Government fails to recognise this in their consultative document because they refer to civil marriages and religious marriages - a distinction the CofE argues that does not exist in law.

Its fascinating stuff if you are bothered to read it.

We do, on the whole, stop people from doing things we don't like, don't we? Some of them are even illegal

It is rather harder to see why two folk who love each other decide to public show their love for each other in a ceremony harms me.

Its true we need to have checks and balances and some principle to under pin our reasoning

Here a CofE marriage has force of law, there is no difference between a religious marriage and a civil one in legal terms.

I can't be the only one to see a simple solution to that issue?

Oh. We still arguing this? Lost cause, methinks. Everyone I know refers to He Who Must Be Obeyed as my husband, not 'civil partner', 'partner' or 'boyfriend' and says that we are 'married'.

Good for you, so has society has found a solution that seems to work for you within the the status quo - do you feel you are missing out on something because of the legal definition? Genuinely interested.

Would the religious be happy if they could only have civil ceremonies?

Tough questions like this need molly for I may be prejudiced

I can't be the only one to see a simple solution to that issue?

Of course, disestablishing the church is conceptually simple, implementation wise it is probably a bit more complicated that you think. Rather, dare I say it, like the previous government's attempted abolition of the Lord Chancellor.

JY - I agree the "self-styled liberal" thing was a cheap shot and the adding the reference was an attempt at humour, I think it might be my first FIFY, you are honoured.

mefty the c of e position appears flawed, there is no difference in law between a marriage resulting from a civil ceremony and a marriage resulting from a religious ceremony but there are legal differences between the two e.g. a civil ceremony cannot have a religious component hence the restrictions on choice of music .

The c of e worry they will be compelled to conduct "Gay Wedings" that is not a reason to oppose same sex marriage just a reason to have the change in the law sympathetically worded .

The only reason to oppose same sex marriage is if you deem it right to discrimonate against Gay couples and want to keep their names separate on a big gay list of civil partnerships.

Personal Belief ? Religious Doctrine ? Organised Religious Views.

Let's all stop mixing these up.

e.g. a civil ceremony cannot have a religious component hence [b]the restrictions on choice of music .[/b]

But their point is that the marriage is being redefined, the state of being in that union, how you get there is unimportant. I don't think it is flawed, I found it quite persuasive.

Marriage has already been redefined. The law just hasn't caught up yet.

"But this falls short of a legal charter to promote change in institutions, even in language. Law must prohibit publicly abusive and demeaning language, it must secure institutions that do not systematically disadvantage any category of the community. But these tasks remain 'negative' in force. If it is said, for example, that a failure to legalise assisted suicide – or indeed same-sex marriage – perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for some people, the reply must be, I believe, [b]that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law[/b], the gradual evolving of fresh attitudes in a spirit of what has been called 'strategic patience' by some legal thinkers."

And the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have a problem with that.

So mefty the arch bish is in favour of same sex marriage we just need to wait till the country is culturally ready then change the law??

The big news is that the country is culturaly ready including my 86 year old church going mum and my 60 year old church going brother who can't marry his same sex partner in the church he has attended all his life despite being good enough to run the youth club and be a school govenor.

"There are four stages in the church's response to any challenge to its tradition. First, it pretends the challenge isn't there. Secondly it opposes it vehemently. Thirdly, it starts to admit extenuations and exceptions. Finally it says: 'That's what we really thought all along'."

Mefty:

Yes, I am being discriminated against; a few times I have had to slap down some bigot who does the old "but you're not really married!" guff. It's just logical to use a single word for both; having two forms is discriminatory. Unless you think it's ok for us to swap things around and straight people have CP's and gay people have marriage? You think Christians would be happy with keeping the distinction that way?

Mefty you seem to think that "marriage" has been a constant over the millennia. It's untrue; it was around before Christianity, people of power had more than one wife (in bible too, and Mormonism obviously; I think some Muslims can have multiple wives). The same bigoted arguments were used from religious people to try to stop interracial marriage. Marriage isn't a constant, like everything else it changed over time.

So mefty the arch bish is in favour of same sex marriage we just need to wait till the country is culturally ready then change the law??

That was my reading of his argument, I appeciate that does not give much comfort to your uncle and there is no doubt quite a lot of truth in your final paragraph.

Yes, I am being discriminated against; a few times I have had to slap down some bigot who does the old "but you're not really married!" guff.

You are going to get that whether it is legal or not if they believe that. A change in law won't change their view and unless they stop you doing something that they would allow a "properly" married couple to do they have not discriminated against you in a way that would allow you legal redress.

Mefty you seem to think that "marriage" has been a constant over the millennia.

Not at all, I think again if you read the CofE response to the CD it specifically recognises the concept predates the Christian Church. It has been relatively constant for some considerable time. However, Mormonism etc. is not really reflected in the history of English society so I think that multiple wifes allowed thereunder are irrelevant.

Sorry Mefty, I disagree; the religious people have congregated together in this, so the multiple wives thing is relevant.

I have yet to see one cogent argument for discrimination on this issue. But then again within my lifetime it will happen; I guess at that point I'll have to run outside to see the sky falling in!

As our US cousins say: "haters gonna hate"!

I have yet to see one cogent argument for discrimination on this issue. But then again within my lifetime it will happen; I guess at that point I'll have to run outside to see the sky falling in!

Adam when i worked in industry i asked why we made something the way we did, the answer from the foreman was because we always have done and always will, and we are not going to change because its the wrong way, or there is another way.

Just like the church run by dinosaurs, who most probably think father christmas is real, and politicians are nice people.

the religious people have congregated together in this

Some hope of that, the CofE has its view which is certainly different from the Catholic view as reported though there are areas of common ground. I am not sure of the position of Muslims etc but I think their rationale very likely to differ.

within my lifetime it will happen

This.

Glitch

I am not sure of the position of Muslims etc but I think there rationale very likely to differ.

"Allah said" is completely different to "God said".

Sorry Mefty but your arguments are can only be described as "yeah, but" then ignoring what others have said.

Here's a link from a quick googling which shows Sikhs and Muslims joining the Catholic Church in the uk against gay marriage: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/03/20/muslims-and-sikhs-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

Again: no cogent argument except hate-speak hiding behind a religion.

Should we ban civil marriages? (19th century)
Should we ban interracial marriages?
Should we ban marriages between those unable to procreate (e.g. Elderly, infertile)?

I must admit I am perplexed. All of my straight friends (religious & non-religious) think its completely bonkers that two people who love each other isn't the same as two people who love each other. 99% of the people I know would rejoice in any love.

Oh, silly me, I forgot: the love I can feel can't be as real/deep/squishy as the love between man & woman that the religious have!

(Awaiting "yeah, but that link is for *catholics*!").

Awaiting "yeah, but that link is for *catholics*!"

Well it is - but the point is well made that the Sikh and muslim would as reported appear similar, which I had not anticipated, but there you go.

Oh, silly me, I forgot: the love I can feel can't be as real/deep/squishy as the love between man & woman that the religious have!

No one is saying it can't, indeed I am sure it can be far realer/deeper/I will pass on squishyness than that between many married couples. All they are saying is that it is not between a man and a women, which is fundamental to marriage in CofE eyes.

What additional new rights, opportunities or responsibilities would the introduction of same-sex marriage achieve? Other than the ability to say you are married, which you already do.

I've not read all that cos I don't need to. it's plain and obvious to me that if a couple of guys or a couple of ladies want to get married there should be no problem. it makes people a bit wobbly about what
marrriage "means" I suppose. I do believe in eqaulity as much as possible...

What additional new rights, opportunities or responsibilities would the introduction of same-sex marriage achieve? Other than the ability to say you are married, which you already do.

There is little difference. So why not call something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is duck shaped and has duck genes.... a duck?

Unless you want to treat people differently, of course. But if you want to do that, what is it called again?

Err.... discrimination, perhaps?

EDIT: just to add that I don't care if two christians want to get married. Why is it any of their business if I were to want to do so?

Oops, EDIT2: What about those gay people who call themselves christian that want to get their partnership blessed by their accepting church? That *is* discrimination, pure and simple, and is a difference between CP and marriage.

What additional new rights, opportunities or responsibilities would the introduction of same-sex marriage achieve? Other than the ability to say you are married, which you already do.

we always have done

Worst reason to do anything.

All they are saying is that it is not between a man and a women, which is fundamental to marriage in CofE eyes.

Then they're wrong. And we're going round in circles.

What additional new rights, opportunities or responsibilities would the introduction of same-sex marriage achieve?

By that argument, what additional rights etc etc does getting married achieve for a 'conventional' couple? Might as well abolish it completely as I posited earlier.

"fundamental to marriage in CofE eyes" does not and should not define marriage for the rest of the population. So in a mature democracy there is no reason to preclude persons of the same sex from being married.

I saw this and thought of you

"What additional new rights, opportunities or responsibilities would the introduction of same-sex marriage achieve? Other than the ability to say you are married,"

The ability to say you are married and not have some bigot or pedant say no you are not.

The dignity of being equal in the eyes of the law,

Not being registered on a big gay list ,

Why should it be necessary for people to have to justify their claim for equal treatment ? Can you give a sound moral reason why same sex marriage is wrong?

To me discriminatiion is about the absence of rights, opportunities or responsibilities. Equality involves the lack of discrimination, therefore I regard it as a not exclusive test rather than an inclusive test. That is the fundamental difference between us.

Not really Mefty, you are ignoring questions put to you.

Based on your own arguments there is discrimination: it is currently against the law for a gay Christian couple to be married in an accepting church. They do not posses the right that others have; an absence of rights, no?

Do you wish to debate this point?

They do not posses the right that others have; an absence of rights, no?

No, you have the same right to marry a woman as any other man.

Gay aren't entitled to get married under current law, but they are entitled to enter into a civil partnership, this grants them the same rights as those who can get married. You are not excluded from the same rights as married couples therefore you are not discriminated against and therefore you have equality. Likewise a man and a woman can not enter into a civil partnership, this does not mean they are discriminated against, because they have access to the same rights.

As far as accepting church is concerned, I am not sure what the question is here. Does civil law stop gay couples being blessed in church? I thought there was a prohibition on readings etc as there are for civil marriages, but I was not aware of a prohibition on subsequent blessings.

head desk interface, same sex couples are currently not allowed the right to get married for no good reason whatsoever simply because of their sexuality this is discrimination. The last separate but equal reigiem was refered to as apartheid and was generally thought to be a bad thing.