MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
But what if you have two regular members of the congregation who decide they want to be married in that church but they just happen to be the same sex?
Would that even be likely as the same sex couple would not be accepted as part of the congregation or even the religion?
You think there are no gay christians?
Have you ever been in a catholic church?
that is unfair druidh, not all the priests are gay 😉
I think I've already made the point that churches can marry who they choose to marry. They can also allow into their congregation whoever they wish to allow into their congregation. Being part of a religion is not obligatory, not in this country anyway, if you don't like a religion's rules then don't follow it - that's what most people do.
You think there are no gay christians?
Obviously I don't know becuase it would be incredibly hypocritical of the church, and certainly help them lose any credibility in the argument.
Have you ever been in a catholic church?
No, I don't believe I have.
JY I see the cuppa and vegan treat haven't relaxed you yet. Go to bed and sleep on it. You will do yourself a mischief taking on the Church on your own tonight 😉
we know all this ernie we are objecting to their rules being forced onto to those who dont believe in their god/s...the argument being that most of those opposed to gay marriage are christian, though i am sure there are also some bigots ...it was in zulus link that the main objectors were religious.
I think I've already made the point that churches can marry who they choose to marry. They can also allow into their congregation whoever they wish to allow into their congregation. Being part of a religion is not obligatory, not in this country anyway, if you don't like a religion's rules then don't follow it - that's what most people do.
You could say that about the bus companies in the USA in the 1950s until Rosa Parks came along. Before having the freedom of opting out you need the freedom to opt in.
Junkyard anyone can start their own religion if they don't like the rules - Henry the 1/8 proved that a while back. If gay christians want, they can start their own religion - no one will stop them. There are no legal restrictions on religions, not in this country anyway, and anyone can declare themselves a priest, vicar, rabbi, mullah, whatever. Isn't the Rev. Ian Paisley self-ordained ?
The church thing is all well and good (and a whole thread in its own right) but doesn't [i]actually[/i] have much to do with the OP. the proposed change is from 'civil partnership ceremony' to 'civil marriage ceremony' and would not in any case have any bearing on what godish types can, can't, should or shouldn't do.
Indeed anyone can start their own religion. L Ron Hubbard the 60s SF writer did. He decided it was the best way to get rich - and he founded scientology as a completely mercenary and cynical act
I have no problem whatsoever with churches refusing to marry gay couples. As the church drifts away from popular opinion it becomes irrelevant.
Stuff the establishment; Love needs no approval.
what if you have two regular members of the congregation who decide they want to be married in that church but they just happen to be the same sex?
I have to admit I find it slightly bewildering why they would want to be members of a congregation that believed people like them shouldn't get married. But in any case that's an internal discussion for believers and nothing to do with me.
konabunny - MemberI have to admit I find it slightly bewildering why they would want to be members of a congregation that believed people like them shouldn't get married.
That's religion innit. No different from being the future head of the church of england and wanting to get divorced then remarry.
Would you be allowed to have "sympathy for the devil" played at a civil ceremony? or does the church own the rights on ALL music at weddings/partnerships? If so HowTF did that happen?
I have to admit I find it slightly bewildering why they would want to be members of a congregation that believed people like them shouldn't get married. But in any case that's an internal discussion for believers and nothing to do with me.
They're currently part of a country that believes people like them shouldn't get [i]married[/i]...
As I understand it, CofE vicars aren't allowed to marry same sex couples but they can perform a blessing, if they choose to.
The rules for divorcees are similar. A CofE vicar can choose whether or not to allow the ceremony in their church. And, unlike homosexuality, Jesus specifically said that remarriage after divorce was wrong*.
*according to the bible. So, you know....
Would you be allowed to have "sympathy for the devil" played at a civil ceremony? or does the church own the rights on ALL music at weddings/partnerships? If so HowTF did that happen?
I believe, there's not allowed to be [i]any[/i] religious content in a civil ceremony. They had to make a special rule up to allow Angels by Robbie Williams to be played.
non-religious content is fair enough I guess but angels and god only knows (despite the name checks) don't sound very religious to me. Just wondering what other stuff (I'm thinking classical) could be vetoed on spurious links to god
A CofE vicar can choose whether or not to allow the ceremony in their church.
I can think of at least one vicar of my acquaintance who would jump at the chance to do a same sex church wedding. Many people in the C of E are actually pretty groovy about equality and that sort of thing. Presumably they read the bits of the Bible that say things like 'Judge not lest ye be judged' and 'Love thy neighbour' and skipped the crazy bits about prawns and buggery.
They had to make a special rule up to allow Angels by Robbie Williams to be played.
When I am in charge there will be a special rule [i]preventing[/i] Angels by Robbie Williams from being played. Ever.
When I am in charge there will be a special rule preventing Angels by Robbie Williams from being played. Ever.
When I'm in charge, Robbie Williams won't exist. He will never have existed. Anyone who claims otherwise shall be force fed sprouts in a small, windowless cell until they recant.
Just wondering what other stuff (I'm thinking classical) could be vetoed on spurious links to god
Actually, thinking about it, we were allowed to replace God Only Knows with 'Arrival of The Queen of Sheba' by Handel. That's right, from [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_(Handel) ]Solomon[/url], named for the main character whom you may recall from such other famous works of secular literature as "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament".
I don't know why I didn't have that argument properly at the time, probably I was distracted by organising the sodding place settings for the wedding breakfast or something. 🙄
When I'm in charge, Robbie Williams won't exist. He will never have existed. Anyone who claims otherwise shall be force fed sprouts in a small, windowless cell until they recant.
VOTE TOAST FOR A WILLIAMS-FREE FUTURE.
Anyone who claims otherwise shall be force fed sprouts in a small, windowless cell until they recant
Mmmm, [i]sprouts[/i]. With riesling and bacon for maximum impact, but frankly I'd eat them raw.
And I'll happily admit to seeing Robbie Williams live - cheesy pop done well is no bad thing. Lots of stage presence too; he's no Freddie Mercury, obviously, but then who is? Men made up, ooooh, 2% of the audience.
🙂 @ handel, what about electrasy's angel, is that allowed?
Mrs Toast
When I'm in charge, Robbie Williams won't exist. He will never have existed. Anyone who claims otherwise shall be force fed sprouts in a small, windowless cell until they recant.
I suggest that is cruel and unusual punishment and will get you into a lot of bother.
"I believe, there's not allowed to be any religious content in a civil ceremony."
...which is crazy.
Men made up, ooooh, 2% of the audience.
were any of them straight?
You cannot have any religious overtones to any wedding or civil ceremony that does not take place in a church..the registrar checks this out hence why even angels can be disallowed [ though it is far from religious]. You may sneak something under the radar but it is strictly not allowed
Yes it is bonkers that christians decide who marries whim and then how as well ...how do you think they would react if we banned them from marrying in churches and said they could not mention religion at their weddings?
They are happy to stop fee choice of others and force their will on us all but would be most unhappy* if the majority tried to do this to them. we constantly have to tolerate their intolerance as they are special FFS can we enter an age of enlightenment?
I dont mind folk believing in gibberish , some people think trail centres are fun....but I do object to being forced to do what they want..imagine only being able to ride trail centres ...shudders or not being able to marry who you want.....no one has the right to decide this
* they might be happy they quite like to be persecuted for their faith
it is bonkers that christians decide who marries whim and then how as well
Who are these powerful Christians that are blocking equal marriage? As far as I can see, the reason is homophobia, whether religiously-inspired or not.
how do you think they would react if we banned them from marrying in churches and said they could not mention religion at their weddings?
I'd imagine they'd feel it was an unwarranted interference in their civil rights, just as one being prevented from marrying someone just because they're of the same sex as one is.
yes the hypocrisy was my point.
The you gov poll pages back made the point that the strongest objection to gay marriage is from the religious.
You think there is no link between their religious beliefs and their views on homosexuals ?
were any of them straight?
My answers to the obvious questions I was asked were:
(1) Yes, I am
(2) To a woman, yes
(3) I'm as certain as I can be
(4) Honestly never really been tempted, though never say never
yes the hypocrisy was my point.
The hypocrisy is yours, not theirs!
the strongest objection to gay marriage is from the religious.
The religious may have the strongest views but believers and fundamentalists are simply not that politically influential in the UK. They're too small a minority. Most opponents to marriage equality just don't like gay people, simple as.
nickf - what was question 3? i think i've worked out the others.
(3) Are you [i]sure[/i] you're not gay? Not even a little bit?
This was from a quite remarkably pissed woman, who rather liked my flamboyant/'challenging'/hideous (delete as applicable) lime green shirt, and questioned whether any straight man could wear it.
AFAIK man (and lady) love has been going on a long time, it's not some new fangled thing that old fuddy duddies dissapprove of coz it's new, hmm, now what else has been around for a long time and most definitely does disapprove of it?Who are these powerful Christians that are blocking equal marriage? As far as I can see, the reason is homophobia, whether religiously-inspired or not.
Where does entrenched, historical, deep seated homophobia come from then?
I'm not saying it is 100% religion that's just the one I can think of, feel free to enlighten me of other sources, I'm sure there are some.
As an aside - to add a few facts.
You do get certificates after a CP. I had to pay (I think) £3.50 each for them and they were half price (sale?!) if I ordered them before the ceremony but £7 each afterwards.
I have met a number of questionnaires which have a box for 'Civil Partner' in the past few years.
There are some churches (e.g. the Quakers) that actually want to perform same-sex ceremonies for those who are members and want them. While I don't really like religion per-se, more power to them. At the moment they are banned from doing so by the law. I personally would think someone was bonkers if they were gay and their church hated them. I'd find a different church (see Quakers, above). Churches should be exempted from carrying out ceremonies that they disagree with, and they are. Let them fade into insignificance by their actions.
And experience:
Everyone I know says that me and MrAdamW are 'married'. CP is too many syllables to continue saying. Also it winds up jobsworths, which is fun. I refer to MrAdamW as my husband, which winds them up further.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and has a freaking great 'Duck' sign above it, I think most people consider the item to be a duck. It's generally the blue-rinse brigade and bigots who are dead set against use of a word.
Where does entrenched, historical, deep seated homophobia come from then?
Why not ask some non-religious homophobes, of which there are many? You're not suggesting that every - or even a majority - of homophobes in the UK can be considered "religious", are you? Only [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5349132.stm ]6.3% of UK people attend church[/url] - even if you double it to be on the safe side, that's still not anywhere close to the number of people that are opposed to equal marriage.
Where does entrenched, historical, deep seated homophobia come from then?
It's always been seen as A Bad Thing because the first duty of a species is to provide replacements. Too many gay people means lower population growth. Not a consideration now, but I'll bet you it's one of the driving forces behind the religious edicts. It's the same thing that makes the Catholic Church so opposed to abortion.
- perhaps you could explain why i am a hypocrite or defend why the religious are notyes the hypocrisy was my point.
The hypocrisy is yours, not theirs!
Is this just an attempt at an internet argument
EDiT: Ah I get your point [ though not why you are calling me a hypocrite]but using church [ ie christians only]going as the measure helps your figure look lower - that why you used it. The majority of the UK, in the census for example, class themselves as religious.
No one is saying that everyone who dislike gays is religious or that some are not just homophobic bigots.
even the humanists dont claim the majority dont class themselves as non religious
[b]Other surveys tend to give around 30 – 40% non-religious, rising to 60 – 65% for young people. [/b]
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-surveys-statistics
Nickf omosexuality has not always been seen as a bad thing, Greeks for example took young male lovers when they were married and it was ok as did Romans - see catamite {NSFW to Google as a rule]
konabunny - MemberThe religious may have the strongest views but [B]believers and fundamentalists are simply not that politically influential in the UK[/B]. They're too small a minority. Most opponents to marriage equality just don't like gay people, simple as.
The Lord Spiritual? They have a disproportionate amount of political influence.
Emsz, be grateful you live in a country where you can enjoy your magic carpet ride without fear of getting stoned to death for your actions.
sputnik - Member
Emsz, be grateful you live in a country where you can enjoy your magic carpet ride without fear of getting stoned to death for your actions.
What has that got to do with anything?
sputnik - Member
Emsz, be grateful you live in a country where you can enjoy your magic carpet ride without fear of getting stoned to death for your actions.
Lifer - Member
What has that got to do with anything?
+1
Some places are worse, so we should be happy with inequality? That's some pretty amazing logic right there.
We far too often reflect on what we don't have and not on what we do have.
Calling the people that run the country idiots for not keeping all of the people happy all of the time is pretty amazing logic.
So many twist and turns this thread, i'm going back to the where Emsz described a naked body, I enjoyed that bit 😛
Your claim is that our inequality is not as bad as others inequality so we should be grateful odd argument
No one is expecting the govt should [] or could] keep everyone happy but they could treat everyone equally -they have the power to do the later if not the former
No one has made the argument you just attacked.
What a strange word homophobia is. I suspect that the majority of people who are accused of being homophobic are not in any way at all afraid of homosexuals but rather have a personal view that it is not something they agree with. For whatever reason. That does not make them homophobic it just means they have a different view.
I would also suspect that the reason behind civil ceremonies banning religious content is because they are intended to provide a marriage service without the religious bits because people find that offensive. Quite possibly the driving forces behind the civil ceremonies being introduced were strongly anti-religious and therefore wante to create an opportunity for people to have the ceremony wthout the "hypocrisy" of a religious service just so that they could get married.
I don't really understand why people who are so strongly anti-religious even consider wanting to get married in a church either. Why do that?
Chill Junkyard, I'm attacking no arguments, just saying be grateful for what you have...
what you have is less than what a heterosexual has ..I dont see why you should be grateful for being treated less equally than others in this society
I could steal one of your bikes and say hey be grateful I did not steal them all for example...its a weak argument but I can see your point of view.
this is mye chilled you read some of my other stuff 😯
sputnik - Member
Chill Junkyard, I'm attacking no arguments, just saying be grateful for what you have...
If the step were not being taken, if the stumbling-forward ache were not alive, the bombs ...would not fall, the throats would not be cut. Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live - for every bomb is proof the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live - for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken. And this you can know - fear the time when the Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.
sputnik - MemberChill Junkyard, I'm attacking no arguments, just saying be grateful for what you have...
Your claim that Emsz should be "grateful" that she won't be stoned to death is quite frankly absurd.
I've decided not to track you down and set your house on fire........how "grateful" does that make you ?
Very grateful Ernie. Thank you.
Ps Why did you want to set my house on fire and what changed your mind?
Pps [url= http://www.ranker.com/list/7-worst-capital-punishments-for-being-_illegally_-gay/joanne ]Absurd you say?[/url]
And if you can't be bothered to click linky:
Sudan is one country that uses stoning as part of their punishment for homosexual behavior, particularly against women. Lesbian women in Sudan are stoned and given thousands of lashes on their very first offense. They are buried up to their neck in the ground while being pelted with stones at the head.
woosh you are somewhat missing the point there..no one is arguing that homosexuals are not treated worse in other countries but your argument is that they should be grateful that our unequal treatment is not as bad as other countries unequal treatment and they should accept theirlot so to speak.
As others have tried to show this is a weak argument.
Ernie and I could kidnap you and agree to break only one of your legs rather than them both would you be grateful we only did one leg or angry we did one leg?
Very grateful Ernie. Thank you.
You see.....be thankful for small mercies.
Ps Why did you want to set my house on fire and what changed your mind?
Well I was thinking of ways which I could murder you, as they do in Sudan. Did you know that you can get away with murder in Sudan ? IIRC they haven't had a government in Sudan for 17 years, so pretty much anything goes.
But then I remembered that I don't live in Sudan, so I changed my mind. Lucky ol' you sputnik eh ?
To clear one thing up, I'm NOT saying homosexuals should be treated differently, OK? And agree that they should be able to marry just like anybody else, OK?
What I AM saying however is look on the briiiight side of life, ta da, la ta ta da ta da.
And it is not just Sudan:The following are countries that find homosexuality punishable by death: Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, parts of Nigeria and parts of Malaysia .
So we all agree that homosexuals could have it worse, much worse. We mostly agree that they should have it better and at least have access to the same institutions the rest of us either participate in or otherwise dependent on personal choice not sexual orientation.
Fair summary?
I reckon.
Good summary Atlaz 🙂
Fair summary?
Homosexuals have always been able to marry in this country.
In fact, it has generally been encouraged, particularly in the institution of which the OP originally complained (the Conservative Party).
Edit: but fair summary too atlaz
atlaz - Member
So we all agree that homosexuals could have it worse, much worse. We mostly agree that they should have it better and at least have access to the same institutions the rest of us either participate in or otherwise dependent on personal choice not sexual orientation.
NO, just a limited number of people who have botheresd to read a cycling forum, which in no way is the rest of the uk society.
Like ive said before, perhaps ask your gay freinds for details of homophobic bullying, where they have been sidelined or ignored for promotion, where they have ben bullied out of their jobs, beaten up on the street etc.
Its nice to see support for the gay comunity on here, just perhaps it can spread into the real world someday.
I wonder how WH feels about all this?
let homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, there's no reason not to.
but can happy people and girls with the name have the word 'Gay' back please.
I've no doubt there are, but for the past couple of hundred (thousand?) years homophobia has been accepted/embraced by society, hetero was the norm, anything else was to be scorned, maybe you even got locked up for it (if not worse) There's a few dinosaurs lagging behind who find still take offense at such things but where do you get your ideals and values from? Family and friends mostly, i reckon there's a fair few 'isms and various bigotry handed down father to son and this is one of those that is stil lingering but hopefully will soon be wiped out. Now I'm wondering who were the main drivers behind the original anti gay legislation/stuff? Was it only religious factions or were there otheers?Why not ask some non-religious homophobes, of which there are many?
Don't want to start an attack on religion BTW was just something I wondered while reading the thread.
Mind you, recent events have shown you still get people at the top residing in the closet but are publicly anti gay - quite strange.
but can happy people and girls with the name have the word 'Gay' back please.
Boys name as well.
also people who are religious and maybe even found a congregation who accepted them but ultimatley the religion's head man decided their sexuality/lifestyles/being married before, excluded them from marrying their chosen partner. They of course can get partnerised at the moment but even if they themselves are religious they can't have owt religious at the ceremony, not even a dodgy pop song crooned by some bloke from stoke apparently.Quite possibly the driving forces behind the civil ceremonies being introduced were strongly anti-religious and therefore wante to create an opportunity for people to have the ceremony wthout the "hypocrisy" of a religious service just so that they could get married.
tru dat.
Gay Byrne (oirish TV chap) is the only male Gay i know of.
i work with a gay, people dont even like saying her name when told what it is
perhaps you could explain why i am a hypocrite
I can't explain why you're a hypocrite - you'll have to look into your own soul for that one.
[i]How [/i]you're a hypocrite is that you talk about tolerance like it's a good thing but advocate a position that is intolerant of religious freedom. Bigots, on the other hand, never claimed to be tolerant in the first place.
EDIT : Actually no, i'm not going there. Apologies to anyone who read that. That was something for another thread.
How you're a hypocrite is that you talk about tolerance like it's a good thing but advocate a position that is intolerant of religious freedom.
they are free to do and believe in what they want but they are not free to impose that view on others who dont believe their big book of truths.
I would not force the churches to marry gay people for example however they have no right to decide what others do re marriage.
Tolerance is great but obviously there will be a limit and conflict when it impacts or violates other principles. I am intolerant of paedophilia ,the freedom to rape , murder, steal etc but I dont see why this makes me a hypocrite
Have some total awe from me for your supercilious answer , just how smug/proud did it make you feel? I did look into my soul but it is empty without your approval 🙄
See this is the problem with STW, can we not just accept that some things are complicated [ very little is an absolute] and explore them openly and honestly without behaving like smug arses ?
I only can if you can or else I treat folk how they treat me...well anything else would be hypocrisy right Kona 😉
