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 actually 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 – Member

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.

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 married…

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 any 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 preventing 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 Solomon, 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, sprouts. 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 sure 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.

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.

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?

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 6.3% of UK people attend church – 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.

yes the hypocrisy was my point.
The hypocrisy is yours, not theirs!

– perhaps you could explain why i am a hypocrite or defend why the religious are not
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
Other surveys tend to give around 30 – 40% non-religious, rising to 60 – 65% for young people.

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 – Member

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.

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.