The church and homosexuality

How would these generate money for the church?

rich man on his deathbed priest comes to visit, very difficult for rich men to get into heaven you know, might be an idea to get rid of it all and of course I’ll pray very hard for you…… if you want, nudge nudge

Like I said I’m very cynical

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can’t you be tolerant of that?

Nobody is forcing those people to get married to someone of the same sex. But those people are preventing people who want to get married from doing so.

Nobody is forcing those people to get married to someone of the same sex.

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

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can’t you be tolerant of that?

Some people believe that brown people are second-class people to white ones. Should I be tolerant of that too?

I’m not tolerant of it because it’s wrong. Not in the sense of ‘incorrect’, but in the sense of being morally bankrupt.

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

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to ’em, they’re not people I want to share an island with.

We have to choose which is best here
Discrimination or not discrimination

its not a tough decision for me if I am honest

What if I decide religious folk blessing marriage offends me can we stop that – would that be reasonable of me or discrimination

They’re defining something that others want to be a part of in such a way as to deny them access.

It is Prejudiced to think a person who has dedicated to their life to god and risen to serve the church within the house of lords and be an archbishop is more likely to have views based on religion than a lay person.

I’m not at all desperate, I have a point.

You seem to be assuming that the bishops are not capable of making an objective decision independent of their personal beliefs. I don’t know if they vote on religious grounds or not, but I suspect many of them are intelligent enough to know the difference. That is just a hunch though, and I’m not going into any internet arguments armed with just that 🙂

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to ’em, they’re not people I want to share an island with.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

You should read Williams’s speech I linked earlier, you would learn alot.

mefty – Member

Why should we treat people differently?

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can’t you be tolerant of that? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom? Does even the majority have such a monopoly or are we tending to ochlocracy?

Mefty, I am tolerant of their views.
I don’t agree, but I understand that they believe this.

However, we live in a democracy and our democratically elected government have decided that same sex marriage is to happen.
In this case, this makes me happy.

They have also decided to implement many other policies that I don’t agree with.
I accept these things as part of the democratic process, as my opinion is no more valid than anyone elses.
Religious belief is an opinion and deserves no more respect or special considration than any other.

mefty – Member

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to ’em, they’re not people I want to share an island with.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.
Yes. It’s part of the human condition and not exclusive to those who dislike people of faith.
I could equally apply the quotation ‘the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant’ to religious believers who refuse to accept gay marriage.
It would be equally as meaningless.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

I’m intolerant of prejudice. If that offends your sensibilities, I suggest you stop reading speeches on the Internet and have a look at yourself.

You should read Williams’s speech I linked earlier, you would learn alot.

I will when I’ve got time. Cooking tea ATM.

Glitch bump.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

Are you tolerant of racists or paedophiles? Why/why not?

“Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can’t you be tolerant of that?”

I am absolutly tolerent of your belief “that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman” You can believe that all you want you can even live by your belief and not marry someone of the same sex if you want . I will not tolerate the extension of that belief to say you can dictate the lives of others and prevent those who do wish to enter into same sex unions a marriage ceremony and an equal right to marry.

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.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

this is always used but it is pointless and lazy. I am tolerant but i wont tolerant sexism. homophobia, racism etc.

I would not tolerate folk burning churches either or shooting the believers either

There is a limit to tolerance where your freedom to believe impacts on someone else freedom to be do as they please.

What I am intolerant because i imprison rapists and child abusers – how daft d o you wan to go ?

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.

just to clarify the argument isn’t that churches should marry same sex couples it’s that same sex couples should enjoy exactly the same rights and nomenclature as straight couples. And if treating someone differently due to their sexuality isn’t homophobic what is it? It looks pretty close from where I’m sitting.

*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

I dont think anyone is unaware of the fact that arresting thieves stop them from stealing but the reason is the harm their behaviour has on others

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.was anybody mixing them up? I thought we were arguing about the second two, you can have whatever personal beliefs you want, acting on some of the dodgier ones may get you in trouble tho.

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

had forgotten about that, churches have got the rights to music ffs, bang out of order.

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, that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law, 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’.”