Jump to content

Gay marriages in church


hypochondriac

Recommended Posts

I am christian and go to church.

 

I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it?

 

You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am christian and go to church.

 

I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it?

 

You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.

 

Sadly, the church is being left out of more and more of what goes on in society....and they miss out on the revenue too. As a religious person not tied to a dogma I see this development as progress. Others like you wont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fervent Liberal, but i'm struggling to think of any mainstream religious institution which will accept gay marriages. It's a great idea in principle but it won't work in reality because religion has set values whereas society does not.

 

Money talks.....its a good earner for the church - potentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible is riddled with hundreds of contradictions. I don't see why a gay couple (or a straight couple) would want to put such an evil book like the Bible in their wedding. The book is sexist, racist, homophobic, says genocide, slavery, infanticide, rape, murder etc are all okay. Really it should be banned from publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am christian and go to church.

 

I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it?

 

You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.[/QUOTE]

Apparently you can. It`s about "Human Rights". It doesn`t matter about what you actually feel or believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am christian and go to church.

 

I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it?

 

You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.

 

Yeah I've never known a 'Christian' country to mess around with an Islamic country...

 

...ah, oh dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible is riddled with hundreds of contradictions. I don't see why a gay couple (or a straight couple) would want to put such an evil book like the Bible in their wedding. The book is sexist, racist, homophobic, says genocide, slavery, infanticide, rape, murder etc are all okay. Really it should be banned from publication.

 

really? These days it would be considered sexist and homophobic as society has "progressed", you're going to help me on the rape, murder, genocide, slavery etc though. Though shall not murder? Thou shall not commit adultery? and aren't some of the early book about Moses releasing the Israelites from Egyptian slavery? Hardly saying they are all okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am christian and go to church.

 

I know CofE and Catholic churchs will not let this happen even if the law is passed. You cannot force a priest/vicar to marry someone against the religious beliefs that he or she believes in. How can it be enforced? Are we going to be hauling the clergy into the dock because they wont allow it?

 

You cant mess around with peoples religous beliefs even if you dont like them.

 

It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo.

 

A b and b in lyndhurst is in trouble for putting a sign out saying "pooftas welcome " lol !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo.

 

well they should not open it has business its got nothing to do with pc a term what alot of bigots hide under or do you want signs saying no blacks,no dogs,no irish as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really? These days it would be considered sexist and homophobic as society has "progressed"

 

Surely the laws of God are timeless! If they can change to meet modern society then you didn't need them from God in the first place and society can make its own laws?

 

you're going to help me on the rape, murder, genocide, slavery etc though.

 

Plenty of examples I could use, here are a mere handfull. Look them up for yourself!

 

The Bible condoning...

 

Rape

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Judges 21:10-24

Numbers 31:7-18

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

 

Murder

 

Judges 21:10-24

Numbers 31:7-18

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

 

Genocide

 

Joshua 6:20-21

Judges 20:48

Judges 18:27-29

Jeremiah 50:21-22

 

Slavery

 

Leviticus 25:44-46

Exodus 21:2-6

Exodus 21:7-11

Exodus 21:20-21

Ephesians 6:5

Timothy 6:1-2

Luke 12:47-48 (Even Jesus thinks slavery is okay)

 

Infanticide

 

Samuel 12:11-14

Isaiah 14:21

Isaiah 13:15-18

 

It is an evil book and should be banned from publication under the Public Order Act 1986 (and its subsequent amendments). But because it is The Bible it won't happen. :(

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is wrong, but alas, those two who ran a B&B, were found to be wrong in the eyes of the 'law', even though it was against their religeous belief. This my friend, is what the country is coming to, a series of laws, supporting the few, and sod the majority, it is PC gone mad imo.

 

How ****ing dare the laws of this country protect people from small-minded discrimination! What a national ****ing disgrace!11!!!111!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So gay people cant be Christains and celebrate their partnership in their place of worship?

Religion is so full of contradictions and bullsh1te,so how can they tell people how to live their lives?

The Church of England was started because Henry V111 wanted to keep marrying and didnt agree with the Catholic church,the same Caltholic church that has recently apologised, because for years a lot of Catholic priests were peadophiles.

Yet people on here are up in arms because two people want to get married??

Lets get some perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So gay people cant be Christains and celebrate their partnership in their place of worship?

Religion is so full of contradictions and bullsh1te,so how can they tell people how to live their lives?

The Church of England was started because Henry V111 wanted to keep marrying and didnt agree with the Catholic church,the same Caltholic church that has recently apologised, because for years a lot of Catholic priests were peadophiles.

Yet people on here are up in arms because two people want to get married??

Lets get some perspective.

 

I think our more delicate flowers would prefer a full-blown moral panic.

 

On that subject - hypo, i'm still waiting for your list of personal indiscretions so that we can start a thread condemning you as a moral degenerate. Hope it's soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global financial crisis, wars, religious extremism, nations building nuclear weapons, genocide, global warming, terrorism... And people are getting worked up because some gays want to get married in a Church?

 

Do you understand that these are the reasons why people get worked about gay marriage, etc? Because they are the things within the realm of their control. They are the things that are tangible to them. It's what thick people do in times of unrest. They can't grasp hold of global religious extremism, so they go and graffiti a local Mosque instead. They can't control the global economy, so they post a thread on an internet forum about a gay singer adopting a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people okay with people using churches as pretty back-drop's for their photo albums?

 

Thats really the nub of it. I didnt have my two children baptised because although it would have been a nice family event, I thought it was hypocritical to make all kinds of promises about bringing them up as Christians when i knew we wouldnt because neither parents were believers. I dont think its discrimination for churches to try to ensure that the people being blessed, christianed or married by them actually believe in their teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i bet there's loads of young brides out there who'd love to have their ceremony straight after a gay wedding, the floral decor would be better than any straight girl could muster even with the help of daddy's life savings and mummy's chrysanths.

 

i have attended weddings where the straight groom has got off with am ex at the reception hours after promising himself to one woman, I have also been to weddings where the I have known the groom only through gay friends.

 

It's not always the church that is the bigger hypocrite.

Edited by Big John
missed a few winkey thingies out, insert where applicable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of genuine lols on this thread from people who dont have a clue what they are talking about. Im a semi-regular church go-er (CoE). We have gays (OH NOEZ!!111) at our church, so all this "you cant be a gay Christian" is laughable. Yeah, some higher churches frown upon it, some certainly reject the idea, and some extreme denominations vociferously oppose it - but not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375

 

Absolute disgrace IMO. How on Earth can you use a church? And potentially bible readings??? What is the world coming to. I'm not against a civil partnership but this is crazy.

 

Aren't there more important things to worry about than same sex partners (who shouldn't be categorised with offensive terms) getting wed? And how many "throw their arms up in horror" types actually go to church and have a faith? Not many i'm guessing.

Edited by Special K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew your understanding of the bible is unbelievably wrong! It is full of truth and if you take the time to understand it rather than condone your life will be much better!

 

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I don't see how you can say the bible is full of truth. It's mostly a collection of folk tales that have changed over the centuries and been interpreted by the various churches to reinforce their particular prejudices.

 

If you want to believe what's in the bible, that's fine, but I wouldn't say that it's full of proven facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I don't see how you can say the bible is full of truth. It's mostly a collection of folk tales that have changed over the centuries and been interpreted by the various churches to reinforce their particular prejudices.

 

If you want to believe what's in the bible, that's fine, but I wouldn't say that it's full of proven facts.

 

Proven facts, no! It's mostly written, and censored, by Romans, in order to turn the tenets of a small Jewish sect into a state religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Verbal is on about Constantine, Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity, then made it the religion of Rome as opposed to Paganism. He supposedly compiled the Bible. Or something like that.

 

So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a fact or speculation based on your opinon?

 

You'll never know.

 

But for others, there's a big difference between the history of religions (quite interesting, and based on some pretty well documented material) and religious beliefs (not as interesting, in my opinion).

 

Of course, historians end up falling foul of religious 'authorities' all the time. The biggest row is about to break - concerning new theories proposed by historians about the origins of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc.....

 

Who gave 'first-hand accounts' exactly? Be specific - I bet (for very good reasons) you won't be able to name one first hand account in the Bible. Of course, all the Old Testament stuff was swiped from Jewish texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not "mostly written" by Romans at all then. Unless they are brilliant at giving first hand accounts of things that happened in other lands 1,000's of years before, like Moses taking the Israelites from slavery, King David etc.....

 

From what I once read (memory a bit sketchy so may not be true) he sent out people to obtain the scrolls and whatnot from back in the day, then put all the ones HE wanted to show off Christianity into the Bible. Something like that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gave 'first-hand accounts' exactly? Be specific - I bet (for very good reasons) you won't be able to name one first hand account in the Bible. Of course, all the Old Testament stuff was swiped from Jewish texts.

 

Weren't the first five books written by Moses, much of which was about leading the Jews out of slavery and across the wilderness, which he did himself. I'd say that's pretty first hand wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't the first five books written by Moses, much of which was about leading the Jews out of slavery and across the wilderness, which he did himself. I'd say that's pretty first hand wouldn't you?

 

Wrong. You clearly won't take my word for it. So do a bit of research if you're genuinely interested. None of what I've said is remotely unorthodox among historians - in fact, there's wide consensus on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. You clearly won't take my word for it. So do a bit of research if you're genuinely interested. None of what I've said is remotely unorthodox among historians - in fact, there's wide consensus on it.

 

Why woud i take your word for it? I've done research on it before and In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Many of these accounts are of when Moses was instructed to take the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and to the promised land. He was there, he wrote the books, how is this wrong? How is this not first hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why woud i take your word for it? I've done research on it before and In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Many of these accounts are of when Moses was instructed to take the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and to the promised land. He was there, he wrote the books, how is this wrong? How is this not first hand?

 

He didn't write the books that now exist in the Bible. They are not first hand. You are confusing two things. Religious beliefs - which are what you are talking about. And historical scholarship - which in this case has LONG held that the Bible was conceived, written and edited to underpin a new state religion in Rome. It's one of the reasons - if not the main one - why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important: they give a much more contemporaneous account of what was happening in the founding years of Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...