Gay Marriage

[aintforever]

In Islam homosexuality is forbidden. Why would two blokes who claim to practise Islam firstly, be gay and secondly want the approval of the religIon that forbids them?

 

In catholicism sex before marriage is forbidden. Why would two people who claim to be Catholic firstly, have sex before marriage and secondly want the approval of the religIon that forbids them?

 

There will be religious places that want to marry gays, why should they be deprived that right?

[egg]

No, gays can do what they do and religious people can do what they do without the State making judgement on one or the other. Your position is intolerant because you are demanding that people compromise their faith.

 

I'm demanding only that gay people are treated the same as straight. You're saying that outdated intolerance should be allowed to stand in the way. We'll have to agree to differ.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Repeat after me:

 

No church is to be FORCED to marry same sex couples in their churches / mosques / synagogues / temples if they don't want to.

 

Churches WILL be allowed to marry same sex couples if they want to.

 

Understand?

 

Do you really believe that BTF? Of course any Church can and should marry who they want but the agenda is very much designed to undermine the religious institutions that preach their disapproval of gay lifestyles. The first opportunity that comes along this will go to court and the longer term results will be people being criminalised for practicing their faith. That is what I find unpalatable.

[hypochondriac]

In catholicism sex before marriage is forbidden. Why would two people who claim to be Catholic firstly, have sex before marriage and secondly want the approval of the religIon that forbids them?

 

There will be religious places that want to marry gays, why should they be deprived that right?

 

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.

[Turkish]

You are tiresome mate.

 

You are unable to comprehend the point. We have a legal position that fails to recognise that gay couples should be allowed to enter into a legally recognised union that is identical to that for straight people.

 

There can be no place for such discrimination.

 

Should we have slightly different voting rights for men and women and call it something different?

 

Ditto for different races in, say, the ability to claim benefits?

 

Bestowing different rights on different people is plain old discrimination. The argument should not be why there should be equality. That should be the presumption.

 

You have not put forward one argument in favour of why straight couples and gay couples should be treated differently.

 

I've put forward the argument that why don't gay people celebrate civil partnerships as being their thing, see it as a great thing for homosexuality, why not celebrate being different? You seem to be suggesting it might be bad thing. Why does everyone have to be the same? Why not be proud of what you are? That is my arguement.

 

If they want to be married so they can be like everyone else then fine, let them, but why do they need the approval or claim to be part of an organisation which may not approve it even forbids them? We are constantly told religion is bigotted and out of dated why would people of a modern all embracing society want the approval and blessing of such a terrible thing?

 

Do gay people even actually want it? Serious question, or is it other people thinking they want it?

 

And Prehaps all of you in favour of homosexuals being married in churches could give us your views on Islam a religion which openly forbids it.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I'm demanding only that gay people are treated the same as straight. You're saying that outdated intolerance should be allowed to stand in the way. We'll have to agree to differ.

 

I am saying that it takes all sorts to make up our society and the State should respect all segments and their lifestyles not start judging them.

Edited 10 December, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Turkish]

You don't even read my post that you quote in your response do you. If logic and reason don't answer your 'questions' it's no wonder I resort to being patronising. I, and others, have answered every single one of the points you raise.

 

However, like a needle stuck in a record, you repeat your 'questions' ad nauseam - attention seeking, maybe?

 

You keep saying logical answers, where? I haven't seen any, all I keep seeing is people banging on about choices. No logical explanation of why gay people would want the blessing of an organisation that disproves of them. No explanation as to why gay people can't celebrate civil partnerships as a great thing for homosexuality. No explanation as to who is pushing for this legislation, gays or people deciding this for them. I won't repeat myself again because you've been unable to answer all day and just resort to sneering comments and patronising so I doubt that this is going to change now.

 

Of course the irony being you're against religion and against marriage so not really sure why you are involving yourself in this discussion anyone. One might think you were just a liberal bandwagon jumper.

Edited 10 December, 2012 by Turkish

[egg]

I've put forward the argument that why don't gay people celebrate civil partnerships as being their thing, see it as a great thing for homosexuality, why not celebrate being different? You seem to be suggesting it might be bad thing. Why does everyone have to be the same? Why not be proud of what you are? That is my arguement.

 

If they want to be married so they can be like everyone else then fine, let them, but why do they need the approval or claim to be part of an organisation which may not approve it even forbids them? We are constantly told religion is bigotted and out of dated why would people of a modern all embracing society want the approval and blessing of such a terrible thing?

 

Do gay people even actually want it? Serious question, or is it other people thinking they want it?

 

And Prehaps all of you in favour of homosexuals being married in churches could give us your views on Islam a religion which openly forbids it.

 

Unless you can give a credible argument as to why a christian would want to marry in a mosque, your last point is a tad silly.

 

I'm advocating parity for gays and straights, not something as random as christians marrying in mosques.

 

On your main point, is the best you have "be gay, proud and different"?

 

Marriage is an institution which the law should recognise equally for all. In determining the law, my personal opinion, is that the church shouldn't have a say.

 

I've said my piece and have bored myself. Mr Turkish, reply away, have the last word etc.

[Turkish]

In catholicism sex before marriage is forbidden. Why would two people who claim to be Catholic firstly, have sex before marriage and secondly want the approval of the religIon that forbids them?

 

There will be religious places that want to marry gays, why should they be deprived that right?

 

Sorry, I didn't realise they had to push thorough legislation for heterosexual marriages in catholic churches, maybe you could post th links to it?

[Turkish]

Unless you can give a credible argument as to why a christian would want to marry in a mosque, your last point is a tad silly.

 

I'm advocating parity for gays and straights, not something as random as christians marrying in mosques.

 

On your main point, is the best you have "be gay, proud and different"?

 

Marriage is an institution which the law should recognise equally for all. In determining the law, my personal opinion, is that the church shouldn't have a say.

 

I've said my piece and have bored myself. Mr Turkish, reply away, have the last word etc.

 

Who said anything about Christians marry in mosques? I was quite obviously referring to two Islamic gays wanting to marry in a mosque, a religion which openly forbids homosexuals. Surely the legislation would refer to all religions would it not?

 

So the church in your all encompassing modern society doesn't have freedom of worship at all, it has to compromise its faith to suit what is being dictated to them. Hardly a modern all encompassing society when religions can't practise wha they want!!

 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a civil partnership is any less of a relationship than a marriage, the irony being is you are the only one who has suggested this is the case, I don't think anyone else sees it this way. It's in fact arguable that a civil partnership is better than a marriage.

 

And yes be gay and proud, enjoy what you have, why do you want to be the same as everyone else?

Edited 10 December, 2012 by Turkish

[Hamilton Saint]

 

1 WHy would you stay in a religion if you did not adhere to its teachings and principles?

2 Why would you stay in a religion that did not approve of your way of life?

3 Why would you want the blessing on your marriage of this religion that you do not follow correctly so are clearly not devout?

 

1) Millions of Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception. That doesn't mean that they ought to leave the Church.

2) It's not the "religion" that is not approving of a way of life - it's the opinion of some of that religion's leaders. Opinions and principles do change.

3) Because you disagree with one particular aspect of your Church's doctrine does not mean you are not following it "correctly". Nor does it mean that you cannot be devout.

 

Last time I checked there were three main divisions in Judaism, two main branches of Islam, two main traditions of Catholicism, and hundreds of different sects of Protestantism. The struggle really is between the notion of a narrow, orthodox view of the faith (whatever it is) and a liberal, compassionate view that embraces everyone. Sometimes the faithful are ahead of their leaders.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a civil partnership is any less of a relationship than a marriage, the irony being is you are the only one who has suggested this is the case, I don't think anyone else sees it this way. It's in fact arguable that a civil partnership is better than a marriage.

 

Just had a little look. In terms of legal rights it is exactly the same with the somewhat bizarre exception that peerage titles aren't extended to civil partners in the same they are for 'married' spouses. I guess that those pushing for gay marriage want to be able to call it marriage, rather than civil partnership, as they feel they're not yet quite 'equal' to heteros - i.e. it is symbolic, they want to be able to say "marriage" rather than "civil partnership".

 

You're right that it doesn't make sense to force religious institutions to offer gay marriage. Any new law should allow gay "marriages" to be conducted by any institutions that already offer hetero marriage and want to offer gay marriage as well (I don't know, but I'm guessing some more right-on churches will be happy to offer it).

 

And yes be gay and proud, enjoy what you have, why do you want to be the same as everyone else?

 

I guess its because there's been a history of discrimination and persecution and they just want to feel like normal citizens like everyone else. Isn't the more pertinent question why should anyone want to treat gays differently to everyone else?

[dubai_phil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20649021

 

Think he's gonna be a bit late for the 21st Dec.

 

OK I accept maybe some churches are so weird that maybe they deserve to be allowed to marry Adam & Steve

Edited 11 December, 2012 by dubai_phil

[dubai_phil]

Good post Turkish.

 

I'll add my bits before I rush off to the airport to go to Krakow to finalise my Marriage Licence..

 

I was quite obviously referring to two Islamic gays wanting to marry in a mosque, a religion which openly forbids homosexuals. Surely the legislation would refer to all religions would it not?

 

I'd like to see a Government push that one through .

PC is all well and good and the rights of people are fine but this one?

Lol can just see a Gay married Muslim couple of Soccer fans turning up to try and share a room at the World Cup in Qatar. Who would their families then sue when they get sentenced to death by stoning?

BUT in PC land the law MUST apply to all EQUALLY......

(Talk about tying up in knots!)

 

So the church in your all encompassing modern society doesn't have freedom of worship at all, it has to compromise its faith to suit what is being dictated to them. Hardly a modern all encompassing society when religions can't practise wha they want!!

 

Ah yes where did that happen before? Oh yes, Communist Russia. The State dictates. Well why is The State not dictating that Catholic Churches must allow an unmarried person marry their partner who happens to be divorced? How many Politicians make a mistake and are yet allowed to repent and continue in office? Doesn't Christianity preach FORGIVENESS for sins?

OR is there some DEEPER meaning to the term Marriage than that being brought into play in this argument?

 

Oh and Parliament passing a Law that affects Religions.... WRONG

It creates a "precedent" do you lot STILL trust your Politicians? Surely you're not THAT thick these days?

 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a civil partnership is any less of a relationship than a marriage, the irony being is you are the only one who has suggested this is the case, I don't think anyone else sees it this way. It's in fact arguable that a civil partnership is better than a marriage.

 

Many countries do NOT recognise the term Civil Partnership. We have seen many examples here where a couple in a "Civil Partnership" come on vacation, get drunk, do something stupid and get arrested. Besides the "Something Stupid" offence, they will do jail time for being drunk (without an alcohol licence) AND they will get EXTRA Jail time for being in a sexual relationship WITHOUT being married.

 

Likewise, in many countries, their Children will be Bastards and will have no legal rights.

 

Point is that although in UK your statement is true (and in fact is what me & FMDP would be happy with, but here it is illegal and not recognised), it is NOT the same as a Marriage and in many places it is a problem. (Yes I know we could just move back to EU, that is not my point, I'm just saying that your statement IS correct but is limited and has other often unseen implications in the years to come for people)

 

And yes be gay and proud, enjoy what you have, why do you want to be the same as everyone else?

 

Totally agree with this. BUT (having watched the Gay Rights Parade in Sydney) many don't actually WANT to be the same as everyone else!

 

However. My issue with this is more simplistic. Marriage is a GLOBAL institution, built from CORE Religious principles and which confers the same rights across MANY religions. Those Religions were from a time when being Homosexual was "A Bad Thing", call it a time of "Less Understanding".

 

BUT. What we are now saying is that on the issue of Marriage, a fundamental core of our society is wrong and we should change it. Hang on, WHO THE HELL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY RELIGION IS WRONG?

 

In how many OTHER areas is Religion "Bad" because it came in a time when we were less "Aware". Go and find a zillion other things that Religion is wrong about and change the laws..... Where does THAT stop?

 

I am TOTALLY in favour of allowing Gays to marry. BUT what MUST be passed FIRST is a "Definition of Gay Marriage Law". That Law MUST give every right that a Christian Marriage Law gives. BUT it CANNOT be built upon the Christian/Muslim/Hindu definition of a Marriage. It can be identical but just add two words to the service - By The Powers invested by me in the Marriage Act section X. "God" (and Budda etc) and his (their) Prophets created the concept of Marriage, Parliament should NOT be so Arrogant as to change His word.

 

The rights are the same the name is the same BUT it is NOT the Religious version that the rest of the planet understands.

[CB Saint]

Unless you can give a credible argument as to why a christian would want to marry in a mosque, your last point is a tad silly.

 

I'm advocating parity for gays and straights, not something as random as christians marrying in mosques.

 

On your main point, is the best you have "be gay, proud and different"?

 

Marriage is an institution which the law should recognise equally for all. In determining the law, my personal opinion, is that the church shouldn't have a say.

 

I've said my piece and have bored myself. Mr Turkish, reply away, have the last word etc.

 

By doing what you say here, you run roughshod over the beliefs and values of a huge number of people of many denominations.

 

Civil marriages I have no issue with, and to be honest I don't why they didn't extend this to gays instead of civil partnerships. But how can we as a society force a section of it to fundamentally change their belief system? That in itself is not right.

[sussexsaint]

Easy solved

 

 

 

That would be an ecumenical matter

[egg]

By doing what you say here, you run roughshod over the beliefs and values of a huge number of people of many denominations.

 

Civil marriages I have no issue with, and to be honest I don't why they didn't extend this to gays instead of civil partnerships. But how can we as a society force a section of it to fundamentally change their belief system? That in itself is not right.

 

Religion, as you say, is a belief. It's a belief made by choice.

 

Homosexuality is not a belief. Like gender, race, disability etc it's something that is not a belief or choice.

 

In my opinion society should not discriminate against those who do not have a choice in favour of those who do.

[sussexsaint]

See there is the rub , I'm not sure that everyone who has religion made a concious choice

 

Its not like at 7 years of age we are presented with pamphlets of all the major religions and we choose. Some do. Some start off indoctrinated and change. Others are so deeply buried in the culture that it is unthinkable to change.

[Clapham Saint]

By doing what you say here, you run roughshod over the beliefs and values of a huge number of people of many denominations.

 

Civil marriages I have no issue with, and to be honest I don't why they didn't extend this to gays instead of civil partnerships. But how can we as a society force a section of it to fundamentally change their belief system? That in itself is not right.

 

I haven't read all of this thread but I don;t think that is what people are suggesting.

 

As I understand it the existing law expressly prevents gay people from marrying in a church. In fact they can't actually get "married" at all they can only enter a "civil partnership".

 

What I belive is being proposed is that this restriction should be removed.

 

If the churches then decide that they don't want to marry gay people then that will be left to them.

 

I think that Anglicans have said that they won't but some other church (I forget which) has said that it would.

[dubai_phil]

I haven't read all of this thread but I don;t think that is what people are suggesting.

 

As I understand it the existing law expressly prevents gay people from marrying in a church. In fact they can't actually get "married" at all they can only enter a "civil partnership".

 

What I belive is being proposed is that this restriction should be removed.

 

If the churches then decide that they don't want to marry gay people then that will be left to them.

 

I think that Anglicans have said that they won't but some other church (I forget which) has said that it would.

 

Quakers I believe.

 

The point will come however that somebody will one day state "I am equal in the eyes of the law" and go running off to the European Court of Human Rights to claim discrimination because they want to marry in an Anglican Church.

 

The Church will then get walloped for being discriminatory...

 

(or words to that effect)

[dingbattigger]

There's been some very good posts on this, particularly Turkish, but I still don't understand why people, gay or heterosexual, want to get married in a church when normal attendance is not, never has been or will be in the future, part of their everyday life? Why should any church have to provide this service for people who just want the big day with no real belief?

[Turkish]

See there is the rub , I'm not sure that everyone who has religion made a concious choice

 

Its not like at 7 years of age we are presented with pamphlets of all the major religions and we choose. Some do. Some start off indoctrinated and change. Others are so deeply buried in the culture that it is unthinkable to change.

 

But you get to an age where you can. Loads of kids are brought up as a religion yet stop being part of it when they get a bit older and dont agree with the teachings, can't be bothered anymore or don't live their life the way the religion says they should. There are loads of kids that I went to school with who were like this. And if they are deeply buried in the doctrines and culture of a religon then they would surpress any homosexual desires and lead a celebite life if the religion condemned it or at th very least not openly be gay. I'm sure some will say 'why should they?' but it goes back again to are the devout or not. If they choose to be then Their faith would prevent them from willingly breaking any rules or principles of their church.

 

Which brings me back to my point yet again which no one could answer. Why would a gay person want th blessing of a religon that condemns them and if they aren't following that religion properly why do they care, as they clearly aren't devout.

Edited 11 December, 2012 by Turkish

[Turkish]

1) Millions of Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception. That doesn't mean that they ought to leave the Church.

2) It's not the "religion" that is not approving of a way of life - it's the opinion of some of that religion's leaders. Opinions and principles do change.

3) Because you disagree with one particular aspect of your Church's doctrine does not mean you are not following it "correctly". Nor does it mean that you cannot be devout.

 

Last time I checked there were three main divisions in Judaism, two main branches of Islam, two main traditions of Catholicism, and hundreds of different sects of Protestantism. The struggle really is between the notion of a narrow, orthodox view of the faith (whatever it is) and a liberal, compassionate view that embraces everyone. Sometimes the faithful are ahead of their leaders.

 

I think You'll find homosexuality is condemned in the bible and the Quran. The religions based on this do forbid it, however as time has gone on and society has become more liberal some of the leaders in those faiths have grown or been forced to accept homosexuality.

[Turkish]

There's been some very good posts on this, particularly Turkish, but I still don't understand why people, gay or heterosexual, want to get married in a church when normal attendance is not, never has been or will be in the future, part of their everyday life? Why should any church have to provide this service for people who just want the big day with no real belief?

 

Yep, I agree with this too. I find this strange if not hypocritical.

[trousers]

There's been some very good posts on this, particularly Turkish, but I still don't understand why people, gay or heterosexual, want to get married in a church when normal attendance is not, never has been or will be in the future, part of their everyday life? Why should any church have to provide this service for people who just want the big day with no real belief?

 

Nail on head for me.

 

I've not read back through the thread so perhaps this has been mentioned before but, surely, the most sensible way to achieve "equality" as far as marriage is concerned is for the various religions to clamp down on EVERYONE who tries to get married in a religious place of worship when they don't subscribe to the beliefs of said religion?

 

I, hypocritically, got married in a CoE church but I would not be fighting for the right to do so if the CoE decided to only allowed devout christians to do so.

 

To me, sexuality doesn't need to come into the debate to make things "equal"....religions just need to tighten up their own 'rules' to apply to everyone, regardless of sexuality.

 

(One assumes that religions allow non-religious people to marry in their churches for financial reasons - i.e. it's a good money spinner for them?)

Edited 11 December, 2012 by trousers

[egg]

Why would a gay person want th blessing of a religon that condemns them and if they aren't following that religion properly why do they care, as they clearly aren't devout.

 

This one bothers me. A Christian can choose to follow the religion and believe in it entirely. He may be gay though, and has no choice about that.

 

Clearly he's in conflict with a particular part of his faith but surely he can still be a practicing, christian.

 

In that situation why should he precluded from marrying in a religious setting, and in a faith, that he believes in?

 

I get the point that on a strict interpretation of his faith his sexuality will be looked down upon, but should he not be able to decide that he can tolerate the intolerance of others?

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

wow, the paranoia from the CofE is coming through strongly. I guess they fear a lot of in-fighting if some its members opted in and some didn't.

[Hamilton Saint]

I think You'll find homosexuality is condemned in the bible and the Quran. The religions based on this do forbid it, however as time has gone on and society has become more liberal some of the leaders in those faiths have grown or been forced to accept homosexuality.

 

I think you'll find that there are some despicable things recommended and sanctioned in The Bible, which many people believe is the word of God. Unless you're a fundamentalist, this means interpretation and exegesis is required.

[Turkish]

This one bothers me. A Christian can choose to follow the religion and believe in it entirely. He may be gay though, and has no choice about that.

 

Clearly he's in conflict with a particular part of his faith but surely he can still be a practicing, christian.

 

In that situation why should he precluded from marrying in a religious setting, and in a faith, that he believes in?

 

I get the point that on a strict interpretation of his faith his sexuality will be looked down upon, but should he not be able to decide that he can tolerate the intolerance of others?

 

There is no grey area. Homosexuality is condemned in the bible and in the Quran. As time as moved on some leaders have from have to or chosen to accept gays, but a lot don't. If anyone who followed Christianity or Islam properly they would know this. They would know the book that their religion is based on condemns them. They may be born gay, but if they want to follow the faith properly then they should remain celebrate should they not? People may not like it and it might not sit well in the modern, all encompassing world you speak of but that is how it is. Why would someone choose to be part of a religion which condemns them? Why would someone want the blessing of that religion for a marriage that they don't approve of?

[Saintandy666]

There is no grey area. Homosexuality is condemned in the bible and in the Quran. As time as moved on some leaders have from have to or chosen to accept gays, but a lot don't. If anyone who followed Christianity or Islam properly they would know this. They would know the book that their religion is based on condemns them. They may be born gay, but if they want to follow the faith properly then they should remain celebrate should they not? People may not like it and it might not sit well in the modern, all encompassing world you speak of but that is how it is. Why would someone choose to be part of a religion which condemns them? Why would someone want the blessing of that religion for a marriage that they don't approve of?

 

Religions aren't uniform. As you acknowledge, many Christians no longer take the Bible at a literal level and are completely indifferent to homosexuality. As such, your latter point of a disapproving religion falls apart in many cases.

 

Also, many followers of churches which do still disapprove of gay marriage may still disagree with that interpretation and may wish to express their faith when they get married.

[Turkish]

Religions aren't uniform. As you acknowledge, many Christians no longer take the Bible at a literal level and are completely indifferent to homosexuality. As such, your latter point of a disapproving religion falls apart in many cases.

 

Also, many followers of churches which do still disapprove of gay marriage may still disagree with that interpretation and may wish to express their faith when they get married.

 

You are funny young Andy, so cute, so misty eyed. Earlier On this very thread you demand that religions move with the times, that they are out to date, yet now here you are saying they aren't out of date at all as many Christians don take the bible literally anyway, so which is it?

 

The simple fact is that the bible and the Quran clearly express tht homosexuality is wrong, regardless of if some have moved with the times and accepted gays, or have they? Who knows, it seems to change every day with you! Why would a gay person choose to associate themselves with a religon that didn't approve of them? Why would they demand a blessing in a church or mosque, based on the bible or Quran, books that condemns them?

[egg]

There is no grey area. Homosexuality is condemned in the bible and in the Quran. As time as moved on some leaders have from have to or chosen to accept gays, but a lot don't. If anyone who followed Christianity or Islam properly they would know this. They would know the book that their religion is based on condemns them. They may be born gay, but if they want to follow the faith properly then they should remain celebrate should they not? People may not like it and it might not sit well in the modern, all encompassing world you speak of but that is how it is. Why would someone choose to be part of a religion which condemns them? Why would someone want the blessing of that religion for a marriage that they don't approve of?

 

Pretty much what saintandy says.

 

I've dealt with your last two questions before and frankly we're going around in circles.

 

You think that gay people can't be christians and shouldn't have the right to a proper and/or church wedding. I disagree.

 

You think that because a church may disaprove of gay marriage, a gay couple shouldn't be given the choice to marry there. You confuse the ability to have a free choice with the wisdom of a particular decision.

 

Your first question, well I can't disagree more. Assume for one moment that someone discovers faith before their sexuality. Must they then take a vow of celibacy? Should they give up their faith? Why should they give up either?

[Turkish]

Pretty much what saintandy says.

 

I've dealt with your last two questions before and frankly we're going around in circles.

 

You think that gay people can't be christians and shouldn't have the right to a proper and/or church wedding. I disagree.

 

You think that because a church may disaprove of gay marriage, a gay couple shouldn't be given the choice to marry there. You confuse the ability to have a free choice with the wisdom of a particular decision.

 

Your first question, well I can't disagree more. Assume for one moment that someone discovers faith before their sexuality. Must they then take a vow of celibacy? Should they give up their faith? Why should they give up either?

 

If they follow the faith properly then yes they should give it up or be celibate. I've said before I know of several people who were brought up religious but decided to leave it when they got older as the way they wanted to live their lives prevented them from committing to their religion of birth. And no they didn't go running back to that religion demanding its blessing for their marriage. If they want to pick and chose what they follow and what they don't then they aren't truely following that faith and therefore shouldn't really be too upset that if their faith disapproves of gays then it doesn't bless their wedding. It reslly isn't difficult.

 

The problem with your modern, all encompassing world that you speak of where everyone has as many choices as they want is that it's the world of the selfish and spoilt where everyone can have everything they want. Real life isn't like that, sometimes you have to make decisions you don't want to and have to compromise, otherwise we'd all spend all our time wailing that it's our right and choice to do this that and the other and no one can tell me otherwise. if you follow th religon properly then fine, let you marriage be blessed by it, if you don't, then don't moan if it doesn't work out for you. It's like anything.

 

Also in this type of world someone still has to compromise. Why should religions which has been around for 1000s of years change its core values because political correctness says so and gays are Apparantly not happy with just having civil partnerships, which in reality are no real difference to marriage? Your modern , all encompassing world means they can't be true to their faith if they don't want to bless a gay marriage but feel they have to, how is this right?

Edited 11 December, 2012 by Turkish

[Saintandy666]

You are funny young Andy, so cute, so misty eyed. Earlier On this very thread you demand that religions move with the times, that they are out to date, yet now here you are saying they aren't out of date at all as many Christians don take the bible literally anyway, so which is it?

 

The simple fact is that the bible and the Quran clearly express tht homosexuality is wrong, regardless of if some have moved with the times and accepted gays, or have they? Who knows, it seems to change every day with you! Why would a gay person choose to associate themselves with a religon that didn't approve of them? Why would they demand a blessing in a church or mosque, based on the bible or Quran, books that condemns them?

 

I don't see any contradiction between what I have said. Clearly, I have stated in this thread that some Christians are quite welcoming of homosexuality and others are not. I have made it quite clear that I disagree with the latter group, and it is those who I said should move with the times. There is no contradiction there.

 

As for the rest of your point(re: why would a Christian want to get married in a church?), I believe it has already been answered by many people on this thread and other threads(iirc) multiple times. I think you either need to come up with a counterargument to what people are saying in reply to your point or move on to something else.

[Turkish]

I don't see any contradiction between what I have said. Clearly, I have stated in this thread that some Christians are quite welcoming of homosexuality and others are not. I have made it quite clear that I disagree with the latter group, and it is those who I said should move with the times. There is no contradiction there.

 

As for the rest of your point(re: why would a Christian want to get married in a church?), I believe it has already been answered by many people on this thread and other threads(iirc) multiple times. I think you either need to come up with a counterargument to what people are saying in reply to your point or move on to something else.

 

 

I think you'll find my point which hasn't been answered is why would a homosexual claiming to be christian or Muslim want to be married in building of the religion they claim to follow yet does not approve of their practices. You need to stop banging on about what some religions and religious leaders think the ones that they accept gays and concentrate on the ones that don't. Lets move away from christians for somthing neutral to us both so we arent Biased. Let's take Muslims for example, couple of gays claiming to be Muslims go and nip down their local mosque and tell the Imam they want to use the mosque for their big day and him to bless the wedding. What should he tell them?

[egg]

I think you'll find my point which hasn't been answered is why would a homosexual claiming to be christian or Muslim want to be married in building of the religion they claim to follow yet does not approve of their practices.

 

This has been answered.

 

To answer, again, is that they should have the choice. It may be hypocritical, and perhaps unwise, but they should not be precluded the option.

[Turkish]

This has been answered.

 

To answer, again, is that they should have the choice. It may be hypocritical, and perhaps unwise, but they should not be precluded the option.

 

So gay people can have the choice, but people can't have the choice to disapprove of something that doesn't sit well with them?

 

Unfortuantely the real world isn't like that, we have to compromise and be realistic at times. All of us do, that is what being part of a modern, all encompassing society is all about isn't it? Or should some people having the choice mean that others have to miss out, be hypocrites or compromise?

Edited 11 December, 2012 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

The Government Minister responsible for this bill was on R4 news this evening and said that although what is being proposed is a 'marriage', there will be no definition or acceptance of 'consumation' or 'adultery' in relation to this legislation. It strikes me that this has not really been thought through; there are far too many caveats and special exemptions in this dog's breakfast of an idea. Should just stick with Civil Partnerships.

[aintforever]

Or should some people having the choice mean that others have to miss out, be hypocrites or compromise?

 

So if two gay people get married why would you miss out, be a hypocrite or compromise?

[egg]

So gay people can have the choice, but people can't have the choice to disapprove of something that doesn't sit well with them?

 

Unfortuantely the real world isn't like that, we have to compromise and be realistic at times. All of us do, that is what being part of a modern, all encompassing society is all about isn't it? Or should some people having the choice mean that others have to miss out, be hypocrites or compromise?

 

Question 1. Yes, imo. Society has moved on. Others have a different view. That leads to Questions 2 and 3. I can't see how their can be compromise on the church issue. Civil partnership, outside of church, and without an assumption of an exclusive relationship, is a compromise too far imo.

 

We ain't going to see eye to eye on this del. You've made your point and we'll have to agree to differ.

[Turkish]

So if two gay people get married why would you miss out, be a hypocrite or compromise?

 

What on earth are you on about now?

[aintforever]

What on earth are you on about now?

 

You said "Or should some people having the choice mean that others have to miss out, be hypocrites or compromise?"

 

Who exactly misses ot etc?

[Turkish]

You said "Or should some people having the choice mean that others have to miss out, be hypocrites or compromise?"

 

Who exactly misses ot etc?

 

The religion that has to compromise its beliefs in order to allow gays to marry in their buildings Prehaps? Or have to totally missed what this discussion has been about?

[Thedelldays]

The religion that has to compromise its beliefs in order to allow gays to marry in their buildings Prehaps? Or have to totally missed what this discussion has been about?

the church of england are exempt from all of this...apparently

[aintforever]

The religion that has to compromise its beliefs in order to allow gays to marry in their buildings Prehaps? Or have to totally missed what this discussion has been about?

 

But the legislation gives religion the opportunity to decide for itself. It doesn't force religion to do anything.

[Turkish]

But the legislation gives religion the opportunity to decide for itself. It doesn't force religion to do anything.

 

As usual you missus the point. The discussion with Egg was that in his modern, all encompassing world gays have a right to choose if they want to marry in a church or not, regardless of this is hypocritical. This would means church has to compromise its faith. This discussion has been going on for a page or so and ive no wish to go though it again with someone as thick as you. Read th whole thread if you want to catch up with it.

[Turkish]

the church of england are exempt from all of this...apparently

 

How long until the first legal case when a gay wants to be married in a church that doesn't approve of it. Then the church is accused of discrimation......

[Thedelldays]

How long until the first legal case when a gay wants to be married in a church that doesn't approve of it. Then the church is accused of discrimation......

i bet you dont hear a peep from the muslim community...I bet there is not even a discussion about it

[aintforever]

As usual you missus the point. The discussion with Egg was that in his modern, all encompassing world gays have a right to choose if they want to marry in a church or not, regardless of this is hypocritical. This would means church has to compromise its faith. This discussion has been going on for a page or so and ive no wish to go though it again with someone as thick as you.

 

Calm down dear. LOL