Aibu to think that sueing the church over gay marriage is not acceptable?

(565 Posts)
Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 08:59:28

Here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

I supported the right of gay couples to have same rights as heterosexual ones, but I feel this is going to far. Plus my religious friends (I'm agnostic) are now having a go at my naivety. blush

Whothefuckfarted Sat 03-Aug-13 10:08:04

I wouldn't want to get married somewhere where I wasn't wanted or by someone who didn't agree with my marriage..

They are millionaires surely they can find somewhere they like that wants to celebrate their marriage.

I don't know on this one to be honest.

I think it was always going to happen. It was my one objection to gay marriage, not that I don't agree with it per se, just that no-one should be forced to perform the ceremony against their own beliefs. For me, the compromise should have been that people can get married where ever they want to, but they need to find someone happy to perform the ceremony. So, if a gay couple, couple who don't attend church, divorcees or whoever want to get married in the pretty 16th century church up the road, they have the right to do so, but might need to get a registrar from the registry office to perform the ceremony, rather than the priest/ vicar. For me, this just adds fuel to the sceptics and those people who opposed gay marriage in the first place.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 10:17:51

Doesn't this have the same chance of success as sueing the church for sex discrimination?

fatginger Sat 03-Aug-13 10:18:08

Not sure where I stand on this one. Just as an example- I was brought up a Catholic but I couldn't get married in (a Catholic) because my husband had been previously married in church and then subsequently divorced. I would not have dreamt of sueing the church, but that's probably because

a) I'm now an atheist and

b) as the above poster has said why would you want to get married in place that clearly doesn't want you there?

Having said that, they're millionaires, they have the money to do it so good luck to them. Don't think they'll get anywhere with it though.

Squitten Sat 03-Aug-13 10:20:34

I'm an atheist and think it's very wrong to force any Church to marry gay people. Just like non-religious people, gay people had myriad options for marriage now so should make use of them.

If they feel affronted that their religious community is rejecting them, then maybe they need to consider whether that community is right for them.

Iamsparklyknickers Sat 03-Aug-13 10:23:13

I was a bit hmm when I saw the headline.

I think the compromise that no church would be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony was a good one in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty of clergy members who do support gay marriage so in theory society and time would render the clause irrelevant.

In my limited experience rules of the church have relaxed a lot depending on where you are. As an example, I've been to a christening in a catholic church that was also attended by a protestant vicar as the parents were different denominations, they were also unmarried! This was in Ireland btw, who I was under the impression were a lot more traditionalist than England.

It comes across very antagonistic to take it to court.... although I haven't followed the whole thing very closely so could be missing something important.

Sirzy Sat 03-Aug-13 10:31:56

Why would you want to be married by someone who disagreed with the marriage?

Church of England allow vicars to decide when marrying divorcees if they are happy to conduct the ceremony. In the same way I don't have an issue with Gay Marriage being down to the individual to decide.

Rightly or wrongly (and IMO it is wrongly) a lot of people (religious or not) don't agree with Gay marriage - in general the "if you don't like it you don't have to do it" attitude works but its not that simple if you are asking someone to play a key role in the ceremony.

BrokenBanana Sat 03-Aug-13 10:42:13

Yanbu. I'm all for gay rights but I do think the churches should be allowed their own opinion.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Sat 03-Aug-13 10:42:20

It's absolutely true because I read it in the Daily Mail

BrokenBanana Sat 03-Aug-13 10:44:19

Iirc that couple are always out to try and shock aren't they? Or am I thinking of someone else?

pigletmania Sat 03-Aug-13 10:48:37

They shoulder be able to get married in the church, you can't change te bible, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If your Gay you cannot get married in a Mosque or a Synagogue, a church is no different. They could have a religious blessing

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 10:53:59

the 'it's against my beliefs' line is utter bullshit.

Is a church allowed to refuse to marry someone on grounds of race? Why is homophobia so much more acceptable?

I do agree though that suing so that you can get married somewhere staffed by homophobic bigots seems a bit pointless.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 10:54:58

I think it must be massively hard to be a gay christian and feel excluded from your own community because you're gay.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 10:56:58

The article doesn't seem to make it clear if they are regular church goers at the church they are wanting to get married out?

pigletmania Sat 03-Aug-13 10:58:30

If they do allow same sex marriage I the church it should be up to th individual priest, not forced upon the Church

manicinsomniac Sat 03-Aug-13 10:59:13

I thought the church had been excluded from the new gay marriage laws and wasn't allowed to do them anyway?

bemybebe Sat 03-Aug-13 10:59:36

I agree with the couple in question. Marriage venues should not be allowed to discriminate. Other solution is to allow marriages only in civil surroundings for all and if they wish a couple can later go to the church. As it is done in many European countries.

pigletmania Sat 03-Aug-13 10:59:43

Tabula tat goes for other religions, not just Christians

Stropzilla Sat 03-Aug-13 11:02:44

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought to avoid some churches allowing gay marriage and some not, the govt just banned it altogether? So surely appealing that decision would be the way to go, not blaming the people whos hands are tied by it being illegal?

Independent.co.uk link (not Daily Fail)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/church-of-england-banned-from-offering-samesex-marriages-but-all-other-religious-organisations-can-opt-in-for-gay-ceremonies-8405966.html

Personally I'd like anyone to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Hell, AdultS if they want. I stopped going to my local church due to a petition to keep marriage 1 man 1 woman (and the crazy man who was telling us not to thank doctors for saving our lives, but God as it was Him really, and if anyone tried to tell us different we could ignore them because they are ignorant).

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:03:43

OK, it's in the Mail. But it's also in The Telegraph and pinknews.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sat 03-Aug-13 11:08:16

I think it's time to separate sacramental and civil marriage. I don't see why all marriages shouldn't be civil and then you can have a sacramental one as well if you choose to. It seems to work for other countries and it wasn't that long ago that people here did it who were marrying outside the CofE. Gay people can and do get sacramentally married in my church but its absurdly clandestine and under the radar and, of course, not legally binding.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:10:31

OutragedFromLeeds, it's not bullshit at all.

It's one thing the government forcing registrars to perform a public duty and carry out the law in telling registrars 'marry this gay couple or lose your job'. Fair enough.

But this is a church: a religion-no religion should be forced to marry anybody.

And I'm afraid your homophobic line is questionable: the Church's stance is that race is irrelevant as it's the gender that matters when it comes to Christian marriage.

Can't believe I'm defending religion, lol.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:14:33

'OutragedFromLeeds, it's not bullshit at all'

It really is! Homophobic bullshit.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:15:04

Is a church allowed to refuse to marry someone on grounds of race? Why is homophobia so much more acceptable?

They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex too - female bishops? Female catholic priests?

Regardless, homosexuality goes against the fundamentals of Christian marriage. Race does not.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:17:17

OutragedFromLeeds, no it's not; it's just that marriage is seen by the Church as a way of uniting a man and woman for the procreation of children.

That doesn't mean to say that they fear or hate gay people at all. Which is what a phobia is.

(Again cannot believe I'm defending the Church, but sometimes the 'other side' are just as bad).

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:17:23

They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex too - female bishops? Female catholic priests?

Don't even get me started! That's also bullshit, but not relevant to this thread.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:19:27

Forcing them to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs is surely religious discrimination.

And yes, the sexism is relevant as a legal challenge against that is as likely to succeed as a challenge to allowing them to opt out of gay marriage. The two are basically the same.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:19:56

Orlux are you really going with the church (at least some parts) isn't homophobic? Really?

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:22:22

These two are repulsive as people.
They do anything for attention and fame.
I wonder if, when they are older, their children will sue them for not allowing them to have a mother in their lives?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:22:42

OutragedFromLeeds,

I do not understand your stance at all. Much as I think religion is hokum, I accept that it's all hokum and as long as the law of the land exists apart from it and nobody is harmed, I'm OK with it.

But why try to change it to be more politically correct?

So your left with politically correct hokum? What's the point?

TabithaStephens Sat 03-Aug-13 11:22:42

Churchs should not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:23:24

'Forcing them to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs is surely religious discrimination.'

so the choice is religious discrimination or homophobic discrimination?

'The two are basically the same'

They may have the same chances in terms of a legal challenge. I don't think gay marriage and women priests are 'basically the same'!

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Sat 03-Aug-13 11:23:43

I don't believe homosexuality goes against the fundamentals of Christian marriage, nor does my C of E vicar.

While I don't see why this couple (no idea who they are) would want to be married by someone who doesn't want them, I do think it is quite an impressive step to take, to get the publicity. Maybe it will make the government think twice about the blanket ban, and make some members of the Church realize the significance too.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:25:41

Yes I am, OutragedFromLeeds, homophobia means a fear or irrational dislike of gay people; I see no evidence of that in the Church.

Only that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman for their own (admittedly barmy in my eyes, but then I am an agnostic verging on atheism) reasons.

Saying that they're 'homophobic' for this is like saying a hosptial is 'sexist' because it won't admit men to maternity units.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:26:34

so the choice is religious discrimination or homophobic discrimination?

Your point is? Which do you choose - discriminating against someone on the basis of there religion or because of their sexuality?

They may have the same chances in terms of a legal challenge. I don't think gay marriage and women priests are 'basically the same'!

Of course they are.
Both are things which go against Christian beliefs.
Both are things which would not be allowed out in the secular world.
At their core, they are the same.

Idiocy. Horrible, horrible people. So church funds will be diverted from good works to fight this bollocks. Lovely.

Getting married is a commitment before God, not a publicity stunt or a political statement.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:27:56

'So your left with politically correct hokum? What's the point?'

because harmless hokum is fine, hokum that discriminates, isolates, hates is not.

If Father Christmas stopped delivering presents to gay children I'd take issue with him too. Equal opportunities hokum for me.

(and that's ignoring the fact that the church has power to influence society, many people disagree it's hokum!)

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 11:28:09

Pigletmania - oh yes, I know it's an issue for other religions as well, I just mean that...

Whether churches (or any other place of worship) allow gay marriages shouldn't really be an abstract idea of whether it's too far or permissible by law because there are practicing believing religious people who are also gay.

I mean what is the other side if you're gay and a Christian?

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:29:31

Surely the historically correct way to go about it is to set up a branch of the Christian church which agrees with and allows gay marriage, seeing it as equal to heterosexual marriage. It is, after all, how the Church of England came into being.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:30:05

I imagine that there are plenty of like-minded people to make it work.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 11:33:23

I still want to know if this is their own church that is refusing to marry them? As in, a church that they attend each weekend, participate in fully, cook for bake sales, type of participation? Or is it that they've seen a pretty church and think it would look great in the pictures type of wanting to be married?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:34:29

OutragedFromLeeds,

Hate? Since when has having the view that marriage is for two opposite sex people to have kids, hate?

That's the Church's view. Fine-up to them. Or are you saying that nobody should be allowed to hold a view? And that the church should be forced to perform gay marriages? That's totalitarianism.

Sorry, religion should be separate from law. If no religion wants to perform marriage ceremonies; that's up to them.

As long as the law and government servants perform same sex marriages, that is enough.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:35:04

I highly doubt that the couple in question (and I have met these two in the past) want to get married in this church to have their union blessed by God.
They are doing it for publicity (fame hungry). I doubt they go to this church, believe me they don't exactly lead church going lifestyles, they don't even look after their kids, the nannies do, those children are little more than accessories. These two are like spoilt brats in a sweet shop, just wanting whatever else anyone else has.
No church should be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:37:45

*midnitescribbler" I am a Christian - a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.' Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:39:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

DayOldCheesecake Sat 03-Aug-13 11:39:58

YANBU.

We can't just go around suing people for having a differing people lest we wish to walk ourselves into a police state.

We are in danger of losing free speech. sad

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 11:40:53

I saw that SoupDragon but it seemed very cagey about whether or not they are trying to marry in their "local parish church" that they are active members of, or a different church.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:41:14

'Or are you saying that nobody should be allowed to hold a view?'

Are you genuinely unaware of the difference between holding a view and having your discriminatory actions upheld by the law?

Say the church decided that actually the bible doesn't like mixed race marriages (just as an example) would you be so supportive of their rights to behave as they like then?

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:41:37

Renting women's wombs to have kids and deliberately and with forethought deny those children a mother sounds abhorrent to me.

No different to surrogacy for infertile couples.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:43:57

They picked the wombs/incubators for their offspring (how they saw it) from an agency in the States very much based on looks and education. It was all very cleansed. Like creating their own master race.
It was incredibly superficial (getting a clear picture of the Drewitt-Barlows yet?). The mothers are not permitted in the children's lives as mother figures and have minimal contact.
They are vile, vile people.

WilsonFrickett Sat 03-Aug-13 11:44:52

I don't really see why so many posters are surprised by this. The new law has lots of protection for churches within it, but how law works is that test cases are brought to test the law in practice. That's all that's happening here, it was 100% always going to happen as soon as the new law came in.

If the new law has been framed and written properly then the case will not be successful and the law will have been 'tested' and shown to give the protections intended. But it will be quite a 'big' case, and I imagine it will go quite high up in terms of appeals etc, again because that's what test cases do.

Now, I've read the Fail article and I've read a lot about this couple over the years, I may be doing them a disservice but they don't come across as very nice. That said, they are apparently wealthy and are bringing the case themselves, ie it's not backed by any of the official gay rights organisations. That suggests to me that the organisations don't think the case will succeed, and that these two have money to burn and like the free publicity for their surrogacy agency

EmpressOfTheSevenOceans Sat 03-Aug-13 11:45:15

Well, there's the Metropolitan Community Church, for a start. Christian church established by the gay community some years ago, now international.

DW and I wouldn't want to be married anywhere we weren't welcome.

The marriage for procreation thing though... First, that means that when my widowed granny remarried in church in her 70s she was doing it under false pretences. Second, since my friend knew she was infertile when she got married in a cathedral, she shouldn't have done it either. Tut.

As for Adam and Eve, looking at most of the partnerships in the OT - Leah tricked Jacob into marriage, Rebecca egged her son on to lie to his dad, Delilah cut Samson's hair - and Adam and Eve just seemed to want to drop each other in shit with God - I'd take David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth any day.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:45:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:45:30

'Renting women's wombs to have kids and deliberately and with forethought deny those children a mother sounds abhorrent to me. I'm not religious at all, but they make my stomach churn.

Mind you, if a gay man wants to co-parent with his child's mum, fair enough.'

Your views disgust me. At least it's clear now why you have no problem with the way (some parts of) the church treats gay people.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:48:04

BTW, welcome to MN, Orlux.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:49:02

Outraged - when I was first getting married I couldn't get married in my local Catholic church because I did not attend regularly and also my H2B was not Catholic. I accepted it because they are the rules of the church.
I did not sue.
The second time around, both me and my H2B were divorced and also did not regularly attend the church.
Again I did not sue, because those are the rules of the church and I respect that.
I did not stamp my feet and sue and phone the Daily Mail and demand they rewrite the Bible to suit me, me, me.
Get the picture?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:49:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:51:34

Like it or not Outrage, in the case of this couple, renting wombs is exactly what they did and if you knew the extent they went to to make sure they picked the best looking, most intelligent etc you'd be disgusted too (hopefully). You can't have one rule for one and one for for another and then spew vitriol.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 11:51:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:52:49

'Get the picture?'

Yeah, you're a real good egg SirRay, the catholic church are lucky to have you!

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 11:54:10

Oh gee, I've disgusted Orlux. How can I ever live with myself?

And yet despite your views, my church welcomed my donor conceived son with open arms as a member of the community.

This debate seems to miss the important point that they are apparently regular church attendees.

This is not a case of some secularist up for a bit of trouble-making. This is a case of people within the church asking for their relationship to be recognised. There are plenty of people in the pews, and priests too, who would be quite happy to do this if the law allowed.

I hope their day in court goes well, although they will inevitably lose.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 11:55:21

Orlux, what made you join MN and choose this as your very first topic to post on?

TabithaStephens Sat 03-Aug-13 11:57:19

What purpose does forcing churches to marry people they don't want to marry serve? Does it change anyone views? No. Does it make people resentful of the government and further entrench their views? Yes.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:57:21

Maybe she/he NC Soupdragon?

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:58:03

Outrage - I don't go to church, read up ^ wink

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:58:04

SirRay I don't know those men, but this isn't about them specifically. It's about religious institutions hiding discrimination behind 'it's my belief/baby Jesus told me so' bullshit.

(and also now about surrogacy it seems).

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 11:59:07

'Outrage - I don't go to church, read up'

So why did you want to get married there?!

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 11:59:39

That is how churches work and if you don't like that (and many people don't) then you don't get married in them. I think that applies to all of us does it not?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:00:18

Why not post on it, SoupDragon; it's important to bring this to people's notice.

I agree that gay couples should be allowed civil marriage. Marriage is portable while civil partnerships are not, marriage provides pension rights etc etc etc. I can fully understand why gay people want legal marriage. Fair enough. Indeed a friend said that marriage was important as civil partnerships were hard to understand.

But religious marriage? No way.

This is the road to totalitarianism and it should be opposed.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 12:02:10

What impact do you feel that a gay couple getting married in a church is going to have on your life?

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 12:02:19

Outrage - the first time I enquired I was young, and I did go to church but didn't live in that parish (the area my parents lived) any more.
Second time around I didn't want to get married in church but I also knew the rules of the church.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 12:03:05

Outrage - do you want to get married in a church? Are you religious? Do you go to church?

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 12:03:08

Why not post on it, SoupDragon; it's important to bring this to people's notice.

You missed the point. Why make the effort to join MN for this?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:04:25

If any religious organisation want to marry gay people; their choice.

But forcing one to do it is quite another.

I don't like it, my gut doesn't like it, it doesn't quite know exactly why it doesn't like it yet, but it does.

SoupDragon Sat 03-Aug-13 12:05:47

Maybe she/he NC Soupdragon?

Which would just make them a "goady fucker" or a coward who doesn't want their beliefs on this subject attached to their "real" posting name. Amongst other options like journalist fishing for comments.

Either way, that's the debate over for me.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 12:06:28

'the first time I enquired I was young, and I did go to church but didn't live in that parish (the area my parents lived) any more.
Second time around I didn't want to get married in church but I also knew the rules of the church'

So a gay couple who do live in the parish and do go to church and do want to get married there are in a completely different situation to you then? So your experience isn't really relevant.....

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 12:08:43

'my gut doesn't like it, it doesn't quite know exactly why it doesn't like it yet, but it does.'

Is there any chance your gut could be God? They share some very similar views?!

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 12:09:47

'Outrage - do you want to get married in a church? Are you religious? Do you go to church?'

No.
No.
No.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:09:56

Oh for heaven's sake, OutragedFromLeeds, the Christian church believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

End of story; they're not denying anybody's legal rights by doing this, gay people can still get married in the eyes of the law. If any government appointed official like a registrar in a register office refused to marry a gay couple, I'd think they should be disciplined.

Let them ( the C of E) hold that view; let anybody hold whatever view they wish, if people don't like it, just don't go to church.

Orlux

I reckon gay marriage is alright.

I also believe that I am a member of the Church. Am I incorrect in that belief?

WilsonFrickett Sat 03-Aug-13 12:14:48

No-one is forcing the church to marry anyone. The couple are bringing a test case. If the law is written correctly they won't win.

Talk of totalitarianism is therefore slightly premature.

And your opinions about 'denying children parents of different genders' aren't shared by everyone - either here, or in fact in the Church. Personally I find them abhorrent.

SirRaymondClench Sat 03-Aug-13 12:16:28

Outrage - they were the rules that applied to me. Therefore they were the ones that were relevant to me. That is why I mentioned them. I did get married in a church actually, a Unitarian one that covered all faiths.
Are you religious? Are you attending church? Do you want to get married in church?
I'm guessing you're not because of the venom spewed by you about 'its my belief/Baby Jesus told me'
The church is built on following the Bible and based on faith and belief. It is for those who live their lives according to the bible and believe in it.
It is based on it's rules and framework and those attending abide by them or go elsewhere. Just like a hospital, hotel whatever...
Anyway I am leaving this discussion, I've go things to do with my day.
Have fun! grin

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:17:03

ToadintheHole,

Well I say this with respect but I don't believe in god so I can't really comment on what god thinks on this issue.

If your church and its members takes some kind of a vote and decides that your church wants to marry gay people, up to you. I mean this in a non-offensive way but I don't really care.

What I am against is the forcing of the church to do this.

Mammagaga Sat 03-Aug-13 12:18:24

Ok... So the marriage ceremony in a church is a religious one, the religion does not agree with homosexuality so a) why would they want to get married there and b) how are they promising to live their married life according to that religion when that religion is opposed to their lifestyle...?! Confused!!!

The church won't be forced in this case because the law is too clear. What it will do, however, is perhaps make the church leadership think again. No harm in that, in my view.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 12:22:27

Outraged, I completely agree with you.

For those that think this is okay, would it be okay if churches refused to marry mixed race couple? This is discrimination too and is no different. The national church of the country is meant to be there for everybody, not to exclude a large segment of society.

If course it wouldn't be OK. It would be utterly absurd, but it's hardly a meaningful comparison.

PeriodMath Sat 03-Aug-13 12:30:21

These two couldn't give a stuff about getting married in church. They just want to be the first to do it, or gain a heap of publicity in their attempts to do so. They are absolute attention-whores.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 03-Aug-13 12:32:00

Duh. This was always going to happen. They're doing it to make a point. They aren't upset or traumatised in any way. But they're going to make damn sure they upset and traumatise a lot of other people.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:32:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:33:02

Mammagaga

the religion does not agree with homosexuality

That's a pretty ignorant statement.

All religions are open to interpretation, there is no consensus within any religion that homosexuality is wrong - some followers of Christianity believe that homosexuality is an abomination, others believe those passages to be nothing more than ignorance we've outgrown, along with stoning adultery and divorce being prohibited.

There are also LGBT Christians, so it's perfectly obvious why they'd want their wedding ceremony to be a religious one.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 12:33:03

I absolutely support their right to get married.but I equally support the right of a religious establishment to say "not here".

Would they sue a Mosque for the right to eat a bacon sandwich on the premises? No they wouldn't.....madness.

Not sure what their point is actually.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:34:47

Two guys/women marrying in a church would be ridiculous as it is clear that the Christian version of marriage is against that.

You mean the Christian version of marriage that once forbid divorce? Do you think two divorced people getting remarried in a CoE ceremony is ridiculous too?

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:36:13

But they're going to make damn sure they upset and traumatise a lot of other people.

It is pretty traumatizing to have your bigotry highlighted for the world to see.

Orlox,

I hardly think it's for you to say what Christian belief ought to be, given that you have just professed ignorance on the subject.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 12:36:56

because eating a bacon sandwich and getting married is the same....

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:37:37

They can be homosexual Christians, but I fail to see how they can be Christian if they don't grasp the fundamental Christian view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's like me saying I believe in football but think that goalposts are silly.

Anyway, this has now tipped from being 'fair' and just i.e. civil marriage into something else entirely and it seems that the right-wing swivel-eyed loons had a point after all.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:40:09

Orlux

Because it's not a fundamental Christian view to some Christians.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 12:40:14

I would like to see it left up to the individual priests to determine if they are comfortable performing the ceremony. I don't necessarily agree with forcing anyone to perform a ceremony which is against their personal religious beliefs.

By your own admission, you know nothing about the subject. I agree with that admission. It was very accurate, given your subsequent comments.

(last post of mine to Orlox)

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:42:45

Midnite

I completely agree, Vicars/Churches shouldn't be forced to do anything, but this law prevents those who want to perform ceremonies from being able to do so.

That's the issue as far as I am concerned.

Habbibu Sat 03-Aug-13 12:43:32

My gran married my step-grandad in a Catholic church, both in their 70's. How does that fit in with the procreation argument?

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 12:45:23

'Is a church allowed to refuse to marry someone on grounds of race?'

Well, there was that Baptist church in Mississippi last year who did exactly that. The pastor/vicar from their church married them in a church down the road that had a mainly black congregation.

That's nothing impressive. Abraham and Sarah were about twenty years older, weren't they?

Habbibu Sat 03-Aug-13 12:47:55

Ah, true. So non-fertile couples are allowed on the basis that miracles may occur?

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 12:48:38

I am yet to actually meet and talk to a priest that disagrees with same sex marriage. And yes I know quite a few of them. Our priest was happy to stand up at the commitment ceremony of a couple in our parish (gay marriage not yet legal here) and say a blessing and he has said he will be pleased to officiate at their wedding when it becomes legal for them to do so.

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 12:49:00

Only if her first husband was dead and not divorced though. Catholic priests can be picky about divorced couples.

DoJo Sat 03-Aug-13 12:50:12

I find the argument about 'why would you want to get married somewhere that rejects your sexuality' specious - would it be acceptable to have asked black people why they would want to drink somewhere where they weren't welcome during racial segregation? Challenging inequality wherever it lies is the only way to effect change, and I'm sure the church can use some of its 5.5 billion spare quid to fight their case.

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 12:51:06

Every now and then, there's a Religious that makes you feel that perhaps they're not all narrow-minded obsessives with an evangelical bent.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23464694

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:51:27

I know a lot of Christian LGBTs, but they're tend to be Quakers rather than CoE. The one CoE couple I do know have never encountered any bigotry in their local parish and they've been attending for 11 years, why shouldn't they be able to get married in their parish among their friends?

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 12:51:55

They can 'force' religious institutions to perform gay marriages without forcing any individual person to go against their beliefs. If there are gay parishioners there will be gay priests/vicars/rabbis etc. Only the ones who are comfortable with it need do the ceremony.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:53:13

MidniteScribbler, don't know what they believe in half the time, the whole thing is like a little fantasy world where the rules change day-to-day.

Anyway, my point is simple: nobody -other than government-appointed officials -should be compelled to marry anybody they don't want to.

And it's only discriminatory against gay couples to refuse to marry them if there's no viable alternative-which there is: register office, hotels, you name it.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:53:25

Eyes
He's a great man that routinely restores my faith in humanity.

There are plenty of CofE parish churches were LGBTs won't get nonsense, and they attend those parishes.

WilsonFrickett Sat 03-Aug-13 12:54:18

Marrying gay couples in a church would make a complete and utter nonsense of the church itself

Do you know what Orlux, you really need to go and find out what the various Christian Churches in the UK actually think before posting things which are based on your perception of Christianity and are utter shit.

You don't know what every church thinks about gay marriage. Because many of them are welcoming to all sorts of people and many of them are happy to celebrate love in Jesus name, wherever they see it.

And I am not a Christian, by the way. But it's common sense to fact-check before posting on others' behalf.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 12:54:26

The thing is that there ARE religious people who d t have a problem and WILL perform marriages etc. My cousin had a civil ceremony so years ago performed by a vicar.

I don't see why it can't be in a church personally.

But should we FORCE the church to do this? No I don't agree.

One reason why they need to keep their noses out of the whole marriage debate.

My friend who is a Catholic priest says that in his opinion the church should "butt out, live and let live". I doubt he would have any qualms about performing a marriage for a gay couple because in his opinion it's all about love.

I still don't think a chuch should HAVE to do this though. Fine if they agree to it and I suspect many would.

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 12:55:17

I like the idea that a couple with a strong sense of right, almost unlimited funds and a robust attitude to publicity are taking this campaign on.
Icebreakers.
Makes it easier for the ordinary folk to follow after.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 12:56:09

Orlux You're grasping at straws now, that's an incredibly stupid argument.

And it's only discriminatory against gay couples to refuse to marry them if there's no viable alternative-which there is: register office, hotels, you name it.

Boils down to - having a whites only fountain isn't discriminatory because they have a blacks only fountains available for them to use. Utter nonsense.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 12:56:19

>My gran married my step-grandad in a Catholic church, both in their 70's. How does that fit in with the procreation argument?

well, quite. Its a totally ridiculous argument.

However, I'm inclined to think that the government was right to just cut the CofE out of gay marriage - waiting for them to get their act together would take decades, just look at women bishops.

There are other churches which are happy to marry gay couples (the URC is in favour for instance, it also treats women equally, and is more similar to CofE than eg the Quakers.). Perhaps people should consider moving to a church where they'd be fully welcome? Leave the dinosaur churches to fossilise.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 12:57:16

Marrying gay couples in a church would make a complete and utter nonsense of the church itself, you just couldn't take them seriously anymore if they allowed it.

Er - bullshit? And rather a different argument from the ostensible "it's fine but they shouldn't be forced to" line of this thread hmm

Methinks some true colours are oozing out now, and it ain't pink.

(ps I'm a Christian, although not these days a churchgoing one, and I absolutely think gay people should be married in church if they want to.)

(pps I am also a single mother, which I guess makes me pretty abhorrent as I have deprived my youngest child of having a parent of each sex in his life. Burn me at the stake if you think you're 'ard enough.)

OTheHugeManatee Sat 03-Aug-13 12:57:46

So you are not personally religious an your objection to this is a libertarian one, Orlux?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 12:59:48

Anniegetyourgun, you're a Christian, you believe in a sky fairy, I don't, with respect, I can't take the views of people who are Christians very seriously.

littlemisswise Sat 03-Aug-13 13:00:41

I knew it would be those 2 before I even clicked on the article. The are attention seeking, fame whores. I am surprised we haven't seen them, or possibly their kids, rock up on the XFactor or Britain's Got Talent, tbh.

I wasn't allowed to get married in church because DH had been married before. We just got married somewhere else because that's what normal people do. They don't chuck their toys out of the pram, shout it's not fair, it's all about me, I want it so I am having it, so I must sue!

Why get married somewhere where you are not wanted, by someone who doesn't want to do it?

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:01:48

Agreed, DoJo. Its ridiculous to think that the church shouldn't and doesn't change with the morals of the times, or that the bible isn't interpreted in different ways depending on what the person interpreting it wants it to mean.

In the past, when e majority of Christian churches refused to marry mixed race couples, they hid behind quotes such as Leviticus 19:19
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of cloth" and
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly."

Some Christians think my own husband shouldn't have married me because he's a believer and I'm an atheist and 2 Corinthians 6:14 says "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

This objection to gay marriage is no different. It's ignorant bigots hiding behind biblical quotes that they interpret in a way that backs up their small minded prejudices. This too shall pass, as our society grows, changes, and learns to accept all its members as equals. The church has traditionally lagged behind in these matters, but they'll get there. Because the bible also says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

For all we know, their local parish priest does want to do it.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 13:02:57

OrluxOh look, a non-religious person trotting out the tired old 'sky-fairy' trope.

Pretty ridiculous to say 'with respect' right after you've insulted her beliefs.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:02:59

Well, I can't take the views of someone that thinks being a single parent means "depriving" a child of a well rounded home life very seriously Orlux. Fortunately, I'm secure in my beliefs, both about religion, and about my son's conception.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:03:10

OTheHugeManatee,

Absolutely. It's the road to totalitarianism; it's nothing about who believes in what per se.

The law should carry out the function of the law: no civil servant should be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple.

Forcing those that have no desire to conduct a marriage service is another thing altogether.

gettingverysleepy

Actually I'm not aware that the church historically had any objection to mixed-race marriages. The only exception I know, was during colonial times, particularly in areas settled by English-speaking people, when various churches basically caved into social pressure from government, their congregents and, sadly, their leadership.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 13:05:33

Orlux

And yet again you MISS the point that there are those in the Church who WANT to marry LGBTs who are being prevented from doing so.

Gosh, maybe if we repeat ourselves enough you'll get the fuffing point?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:06:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 13:07:04

'Gosh, maybe if we repeat ourselves enough you'll get the fuffing point?'

I really, really doubt it ANorm

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 13:07:16

>Forcing those that have no desire to conduct a marriage service is another thing altogether.

no-one is being forced to do any such thing. hmm Apart from the CofE which is currently excluded, other churches they can opt in or out at any level. If one minister doesn't want to perform the service, she or he doesn't have to.

Iamsparklyknickers Sat 03-Aug-13 13:07:45

I thought the law meant that individual churches/clergy could opt in but couldn't be made to? Could someone clarify whether that is the case off the top of their head?

Although, by it's nature the church (and most institutions) doesn't cater for lots of sections of society. Primarily they are there for practicing members of their denominations, secondly their own parish/congregations and then everyone else is subject to discretion based on interpretations of the individuals in charge. You can fit into one or all categories at any one time and still be subject to varying degrees of acceptance within a church. They may happily provide you with a food parcel but turn you down if you wanted to marry as a divorcee.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 13:08:38

>I said that those who deliberately set out to deny a child twp opposite sex parents are immoral.

In your not-very-humble opinion. There are many people within and without churches who entirely disagree with your narrow-minded 'morality'.

Lovecat Sat 03-Aug-13 13:08:43

For someone who is being quite insulting to people with religious beliefs, OP, you are claiming an awful lot on their behalves.

I'm Catholic. What kind of people (divorced, homosexual, elderly, tories) want to get married in Church is NOT 'fundamental' to my beliefs at all, it barely impinges on my day to day Christianity and when it does it's in a 'I cannot believe people who profess belief in a loving and merciful God can be such bigoted cunts' kind of way.

Marriage is a sacrament. It's not about procreation so much as it's about uniting and becoming one with God (well, that's pretty much what I've been told all my life, perhaps all those religious teachers and priests were wrong?). I have several gay Catholic friends and I would be overjoyed if I were able to attend their weddings in the faith that they follow. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen in my lifetime sad

And your comments on 'rent a womb' parents 'denying' children their mothers are quite disgusting.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:10:02

My son is donor conceived using IVF. I'm a single woman, I made the decision to have my son without another parent. So I guess I deliberately made that choice.

Fortunately, my donor conceived son, despite his lack of a father, will grow up to be a lot more open minded and accepting of other people than you are.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:10:09

There's nothing-absolutely nothing- stopping the church performing a 'wedding' ceremony to a gay couple as it stands. NOBODY can stop them saying whatever words they want.

I really think it is best for EVERYBODY to have a civil marriage in a register office and let the Church say whatever it wants to any couple in a church but for it to have no legal stature whatsoever.

That'll sort it out.

ANormalOne Sat 03-Aug-13 13:10:14

And why would it be immoral to deliberately set out to deny a child two opposite sex parents unless you believe that have two opposite sex parents was preferential to having two same-sex parents, as in, a child needs a mother and a father.

So yes you are actually insulting single parents still, however much you tip toe around it. I'm out, better things to do then waste my time arguing with bigoted idiots like yourself.

Ogg Sat 03-Aug-13 13:11:21

I'm normal very liberal - but am a bit judgy pants about this couple it always seems to be getting what they want - when they want it, regardless.

I agree that anyone in a civil - taxpayer paid position should be obliged to fulfil anything that is legal. The church should be able to decide what services it provides.

Iamsparklyknickers

I'm pretty sure the law prohibits CofE clergy from conducting a same-sex marriage. I don't think either they as individuals, or the CofE as an institution is entitled to "opt-in".

IIRC this was to avoid problems of individual priests, dioceses or the organisation as a whole being sued for discrimination for refusing to officiate in any particular case, or for refusing to exercise any "opt-in" right.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:13:55

Toad, there is a long history of the church being against mixed marriage. Read the original trial judge's religious- based justification for his decision in the landmark loving v Virginia case for an example www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

This continues right up to the present day with opposition to mixed race marriage by evangelicals blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/opposition_to_i.html and the recent case in Kentucky already mentioned.

Abra1d Sat 03-Aug-13 13:14:58

When I was trying to debate this with my elderly parents they said that something like this situation would occur. I assured them it wouldn't, that priests' and ministers' consciences would be respected, but it seems this rather entitled pair have proved me wrong.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 13:15:34

'The church should be able to decide what services it provides.'

The church is too closely linked with state in this country to allow that. If we got rid of state funded religious schools and all church influenced practices and removed the Queen as the head of the church etc. then maybe you'd have a point.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:16:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 13:17:23

Yes dear, but my point was, the sky-fairy I believe in is the same sky-fairy that you (who don't believe in it) are categorically stating has a big problem with the whole idea of gay marriage. IMO and that of quite a few other sky-fairy believers - including many priests - He/She/It does not have any such problem. It's the old fogeys in the hierarchy (and no doubt a fair sprinkling of young fogeys) who have a problem with it. Sadly, at the moment the nasty bigots are getting their way. Ooh look, I used the B-word.

I neither know nor care whether this couple doing the suing are nice or horrible, as I never heard of them outside the pages of the Professionally Disgusted Mail (which I make a point of not reading, but people will keep quoting it). This suggests to me that an objective view of their characters and motives is just not available to most of us. I am therefore quite unable to comment on them fairly as people. However if they win their case (which, I agree with pp, they almost certainly won't), BLOODY GOOD ON THEM. It is not always necessary to be nice in order to be right.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 13:17:30

' but it seems this rather entitled pair have proved me wrong'

It's not entitled to want equality.

GettingVerySleepy

I mentioned opposition during colonial times in areas settled by English-speakers. I suppose I ought to have extended that to the post-colonial era (which would cover Loving v Virginia), and Afrikaaners too.

Have you got any examples from any other time or place, because I don't know of any.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:18:29

How on earth could you think that? Surely a child is better off with two loving parents who dearly want their child. Not sure at all how gender comes into it!

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:19:35

Colonial times and the post colonial era covers all of American history and should therefore be discounted? Not sure I follow your argument there.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 13:21:07

>Of course, all else being equal, having a mother and father is better than two same-sex parents; how on earth could anybody think otherwise?

Simple - because most of us think about people as individuals. There are some utterly crap mixed-sex parents; there are some excellent same-sex parents. How on earth could anybody think otherwise?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:22:56

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

gettingverysleepy

My point is not that North American examples should be discounted, but that as far as I know they are very much the exception .

Come to think of it, even in South Africa there were plenty of Church-sanctioned mixed-race marriages during the nineteenth century. North America underwent a uniquely long period of segregation laws and that should be borne in mind.

deliberately and with forethought??

When did this topic veer onto murder?

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:24:53

Bullshit. A child is better off with someone who loves them, can care for them and will do whatever it takes to raise them well and provide support and guidance. Whether that is a man, a woman, a man and woman, two men, two women, or any ohther combination you can think of.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:25:19

Exactly, toad, the policy of the church mirrored the segregation laws and the beliefs of the people living in that society at that time. Society changed and then so did the church. The same will happen again with gay marriage.

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 13:25:27
Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:26:12

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Iamsparklyknickers Sat 03-Aug-13 13:26:39

Toadinthehole Thank you. I didn't realise the CofE had opted out entirely - I presume the same rules apply for the Catholic church?

I suppose it's a possibility, that if these two are practicing Christians it may be that they are fully supported by their local vicar if they disagree and would like to be able to opt-in.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 13:27:17

No, no, I think I can say with reasonable confidence that my views are a great deal more Christian than yours. Yours are rather more Old Testament.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:27:55

although I am a virtual atheist, I'd say that my views were more Christian than yours, lol.

Well my poor little deprived son's baptism was performed by the bishop, so I don't think so.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 13:28:17

"Of course, all else being equal, having a mother and father is better than two same-sex parents; how on earth could anybody think otherwise?"

What? Why is it better? Of course people think otherwise.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:29:06

Old Testament to say that a child needs two opposite sex parents?! OMG, lol.

Lovecat Sat 03-Aug-13 13:30:15

a 'virtual' aetheist? hmm

You're reading like a 'virtual' fundamentalist with some very backward views, OP.

My father was an abusive pig of a man who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near children yet got to father five of us. I'd much rather have had 2 mothers than the father we did have. It isn't necessarily better. Heterosexuality is not some magic parenting wand - most of the terrible child abuse cases in the news (if not all) are at the hands of male/female couples. angry

Don't preach about what Christianity is when you claim not to have the first clue about it.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:30:23

Eyes, that was fantastic, hadn't seen it before, thank you. I would give that man a standing ovation!

Ogg Sat 03-Aug-13 13:31:14

Unless they are regular churchgoers who contribute and are active members of the congregation ( they are not ) then they are ''entitled'' to want to use a church for whatever reason. Church is not just a pretty backdrop to the people who actually use it as a place of worship. I am a atheist I might add but feel we are stepping on some people rights in their 'private' lives for the sake of other peoples more trendy rights.
I would very happily totally separate state from church - as an atheist it annoys the hell out of me.

Lovecat Sat 03-Aug-13 13:32:30

As for your 'who will a girl turn to when she starts her periods if she has 2 dads?' bullshit - my mother was possibly more hung up about bodily functions than my father was, I found my information out from the girls in school.

Just admit you don't like same sex couples and are posting on here with an agenda, ffs....

Ogg Sat 03-Aug-13 13:33:48

Bishops in the house of Lords really naffs me off.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:33:49

MidniteScribbler your son is a person in his own right; he was baptised by the bishop for his sake not yours. Not that I agree with any of that stuff, but there you go.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 13:34:03

>I didn't realise the CofE had opted out entirely

It didn't - the government excluded them entirely. Only way of getting the legislation passed on a non-geological timescale. Thus clearing the way for other churches who want to be able to perform same-sex marriages to be free to do so.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:34:28

I do not believe in god or subscribe to any religion.

GettingVerySleepy

I hope you are right.

However, my point was as far as I'm aware, the church generally did not have any objection to mixed-race marriages except in very particular times. I'm certain the Anglicans, the Catholics and the Orthodox, historically the biggest groups, had simply nothing to say on the matter. This is despite multi-ethnic states and cities existing throughout history.

Whatever theological justifications were put up in north America wouldn't have much historical validity.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 13:36:15

"The truth is that a child needs to be exposed to a mother and father-who will a girl turn to when her period starts? Will two dads be able to empathise in the same way. Course not.

Will a young lad experincing wet dreams for the first time have same understanding from his mother? Course not."

Hahahaha - seriously? You think that's a big problem, I'd better go tell DS that he shouldn't be picking me over his dad to ask about things like that then.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:37:17

Our bishop supported me from the very start, when I wasactually contemplating this path, and actually counselled me in favour of proceeding. And I value his judgement over yours.

Orlox

While I can see the desirability in every child having one parent from the different sexes, surely you can see this is never going to happen in practice. Parents die, parents separate. Society has learned to cope with this. I'm sure you aren't going to argue that parents who become single for whatever reason have to surrender their children to an orphanage.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 13:37:51

>Seriously, although I am a virtual atheist, I'd say that my views were more Christian than yours

Oddly enough, I could say the same thing to the OP (only omitting the 'virtually'). Maybe because I was brought up in a church which espouses equality? Which put the two commandments of Jesus above dogma?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:42:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 13:42:57

'Unless they are regular churchgoers who contribute and are active members of the congregation ( they are not ) then they are ''entitled'' to want to use a church for whatever reason'

but wanting equality isn't 'entitled' and that's what it's about, not this specific case.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:43:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:50:15

It's the Catholic Church actually, and trust me, you're no loss to our congregation.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 13:51:02

The research actually says the exact.opposite of what you claim it does, Orlux

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.
In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:53:13

midnitescribbler

Would that be the same Catholic Church that has systematically abused and covered up child abuse for decades (if not longer)? Were kids were routinely whipped in 'care' homes?

Yeah, I'll think I'll say no thanks to their views on what is right and wrong ta very much.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 13:57:48

yawn really don't see what that has to do with your arguments. Or did you just start the thread to have a dig at religion? Neither original or clever.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 13:58:13

And yet you happily pick and choose some of their views to support.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 13:58:54

I am Catholic but fairly anti a lot of their views about things. I am pleased to say that both the priests in our Parish are very liberal and welcoming of all. I was hugely comforted by the fact that they did not sign the letter to The Times which was signed by so many priests regarding the right of marriage for people who are Gay.

Their view (which I have heard separately from both) is that the church is wrong and needs to keep quiet. They are able to say this to others but are hamstrung by others in the church.

On balance, having thought about it this morning I am not sure that these two men are asking for anything that outlandish, just the right to marry in a church in the sight of God. Why not? If there are Clergy who will perform the ceremony (and all evidence shows that there are) then what is the issue?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 13:59:59

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:00:40

Nah, I think it's just one of those "I'm not homophobic but" threads. The religion bit is almost incidental.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:01:03

....and churches are not the only places where child abuse was systematically covered up sadly. Children's Homes, schools, clubs, the home and in fact anywhere that children are in the presence of adults with power.

The Catholic Church has much to answer for......but so do many other institutions too.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:01:41

Also, what kind of Catholic priest supports deliberate (not through divorce/widowhood) single parenthood? confused

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:03:26

Annie, as the old saying goes, 'even a stopped clock shows the right time twice a day'.

Atheists can agree with the religious on certain things, you know.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 14:04:40

No response to GettingVerySleepy's post.... can you link or quote your research sources please, Orlux?

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:04:43

Maybe a human one Orlux.

In an ideal world a child would have two parents (and I couldn't give a stuff if they are male/female; male/male or female/female) but we don't live in an ideal world.

Most of the newer Priests realise that and support people no matter what their circumstances.

MidniteScribbler Sat 03-Aug-13 14:05:16

One who understands that life is not as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:06:33

Go on then, you don't believe in religion anyway, how about discussing the study quoted by GettingVerySleepy? That's real science stuff, that is.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 14:07:09

>Atheists can agree with the religious on certain things, you know.
to be sure... I agree with the URC who wants to marry same-sex couples! grin I'm sure no-one on this thread thinks the OP is the spokesperson for 'atheists'!!

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:08:41

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:11:45

Why stick at two parents, anyway? Wouldn't children be much better off with three? Four? Is five too many or even better? Who decides?

Before you try the "it's traditional" kick, or point to the undeniable biological fact that it takes two to conceive, bear in mind that the nuclear family (two parents and one generation of offspring under one roof) is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:12:59

<thinks: clearly the OP has not read any of the Stately Homes threads in Relationships>

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:13:02

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:14:09

"Playing house"?

Damn, no "spit" emoticon. I'll just have to settle for hmm

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:16:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:18:16

Ah well that is an altogether different debate.

While I think they have given these children a lovely life and there is no suggestion that they are anything but loving and caring parents I DO agree there is an element of consumerism there.

They are on record of choosing the egg donar for her IQ etc but the surrogate was someone totally different, they said they wouldn't have wanted the surrogate as a donar because she wasn't intelligent enough. (Or words to that effect). They used the same surrogate each time as far as I know.

I don't know though if this means the children miss out. My friend who is Gay is well aware that for her children to say "I've got two Mummies" is hard and may lead to a certain amount of teasing. She has to arm them against that and it isn't easy.

For these Dads though, their children's schooling will be different as it won't be the State school up the road but the best private education money can buy. As such they are less likely to face the kind of prejudice my friends children face. .(..I think)

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 14:18:22

>Jeez, seems like I've got more of a moral compass than a lot of religious folk and I'm an atheist

Apparently, it only seems so to you.
The rest of the army is marching out of step with you, so they must all be wrong.

WilsonFrickett Sat 03-Aug-13 14:18:31

it's clear from psychological studies that all else being equal a kid needs a mother and father

Source please as I would be very interested in seeing this study.

Note: studies from Bigots' weekly do not count.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:20:25

Well they wouldn't accidentally rent out a woman's womb, would they.

So you think a baby is better off being looked after by a woman who is quite happy to sell him/her, rather than by a pair of men who are desperate to have a family. That would be why?

WilsonFrickett Sat 03-Aug-13 14:20:46

All parents of surrogate babies 'take' the baby away from the birth mother. Including your preferred mix of male and female humans. It's kinda the point of surrogacy.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:22:20

My last post could equally apply to a heterosexual couple though ...going for the high IQ donar but using a surrogate.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 14:26:49

Google scholar should turn up something...

nope, refutes the OP's assertion.

Can't find any which do...

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 14:28:04

sorry, 'do support the OPs assertion'.

sonlypuppyfat Sat 03-Aug-13 14:30:29

You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it. Find a religeon that accepts you or do you just like the pretty church

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:35:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:35:37

I think many churches interpret the Bible n their own way quite honestly.

Some odd stuff in the Bible which we would not do now.

Ad yes I do like the pretty church grin. Actually it's not THAT pretty...a fairly modern building but I DO like the people within.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 14:36:39

I think all of us, from all sides of the debate, can agree that there is a fairly high chance that the OP is a complete pillock. Maybe it would be best to continue the conversation amongst ourselves and ignore his/her hateful interjections?

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 14:37:43

"You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it. Find a religeon that accepts you or do you just like the pretty church"

Why not? Plenty of other bits of it have fallen by the wayside...

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:40:08

OutragedFromLeeds Better a pillock than one who insists on forcing others to accept them.

JakeBullet Sat 03-Aug-13 14:40:20

But in creating a baby I would argue that ALL adults put their needs first.

"I want a baby"
"We want children"

Thing is that having been brought up in an abusive home I would have given anything for the kind of stability other children experience, even those with two Mums or two Dads.

Stability is important.

How do we know these children don't have access to female company? Don't know enough about them but am guessing there will be women in the family,

Wbdn28 Sat 03-Aug-13 14:41:29

There are plenty of Christians who'd be quite happy for gay couples to marry in church. It should be up to each vicar to decide for themselves, rather than banning them all.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 14:42:06

'Better a pillock than one who insists on forcing others to accept them.'

grin ok

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:46:51

Oh btw, as I accept it wasn't clear, my point about extended families is that children don't just thrive with one mummy and one daddy which have to be their biological mother and father. They can get their different needs met by different family members, as well as other role models such as nannies, teachers, friends' parents etc, who they will come into contact with more and more as they grow up. A new baby doesn't need a mother as such, it needs a loving parent who meets its physical and developing emotional needs; who cuddles it, talks to it, shows it interesting things, smiles, speaks gently and above all cares. Mothers do that sort of thing particularly well, generally, with a few dishonourable exceptions. So, spookily enough, do fathers. It's a fuckin' insult to half the human race to imply they can't.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:48:24

You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it. Find a religeon that accepts you or do you just like the pretty church

LEVITICUS!!!

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 14:48:32

"The fact is this: most people, who are not completely selfish, when starting a family, reasonably think, 'That child may need two parents of the opposite sex'."

Do they? What are you basing that on?

Don't most people when starting a family just well, start a family? It didn't cross my mind in the slightest that I might have a DS who would go through puberty and that only my DP would ever really be able to talk to him about that. hmm

Personally I don't care in the slightest what genitals parents have.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 14:49:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 14:57:36

'Better a pillock than one who insists on forcing others to accept them.'

Ummm, can you really honestly not see what is unbelievably selfish and wrong about that statement?

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 14:58:23

Oh yes, children do indeed care a lot about sameness. For example, they must all have the precise brand of trainers that the richest kid in class has. Unfortunately life is not like that. A parent's job is not to provide everything the child can possibly want, if that were even possible, but to manage its expectations. Children also have to learn not to be rude to classmates who are a different colour, or who wear glasses. They can as easily take on board that some classmates have different parental setups as that some live in different kinds of house and go different places for their holidays. It's all part of growing up.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:00:24

Annie are you seriously comparing a pair of trainers to a child's need for a mother?!! confused

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 15:01:57

>What usually matters to a child is 'sameness'. Same as peers in class.

The obvious solution to that is for more gay couple to have children so that it becomes normalised.

Oh but some people based on absolutely nothing but their own narrow mindedness think same sex couple don't make good parents so that's clearly reason enough for a whole group of people to to give up on their dreams of parenthood confused

lljkk Sat 03-Aug-13 15:04:15

CofE can already discriminate against divorced people, can't they? Refuse to marry them, I think.

In my mind a lawsuit is just stirring. sad

I think many churches interpret the Bible n their own way quite honestly.

ALL churches do this, all sects, even. They all pick and choose which bits to believe & follow from their holy traditions & literature. Read The Year of Living Biblically. One of the best NF books I've read in last decade.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 15:06:58

"What usually matters to a child is 'sameness'. Same as peers in class. They tend to be very conservative. A good parent knows this"

And instead of trying to raise children to accept differences, we should stop the differences happening?

lets get rid of all the ginger children too, and disabled ones, oh and any that wear glasses or have parents that dress a bit oddly.

Oh and very few children in my DCs classes live with both their parents, should I kick their dad out so that they fit in?

Children don't come with an inbuilt idea of what constitutes parents or a family, they see theirs and assume it is normal, meet others and learn that they come in many different forms, it's not hard to tell them that some children have two mummies or daddies and why, just like it's not hard to tell them why some children only have one parent or are raised by grandparents, or have one mummy and a daddy that lives with them and a daddy that doesn't.

I managed to do it with my children - unless you're saying that mine are clearly geniuses who understood what other children wouldn't?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:07:41

Whole group of people, GettingVerySleepy, nobody is stopping any gay person having a child at all, just that it has opposite sex parents in its life.

Not that I've met any gay man who has interest in being a father- and I know about 50- but that is not the point.

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:07:50

Thousands of children go without a Dad and no-one batters a eye-lid.
There are children without a mothers right now that are safe and happy.
A child does not need a mum anymore than they need a dad.

A child needs a loving, Safe home to be cared for both physically and emotionally. If the child has this they have had the best possible upbringing. This can be achieved by a single parent or a parent team. The sex of the parents is in no way a factor.

Wbdn28 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:09:58

> You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it

OT history is one thing, but Jesus didn't even mention homosexuality, as he was far more concerned with social justice. Many non-fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible as not being against gay marriage.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:10:47

I'm saying that children being conservative and liking to fit in with their peers is a non-argument.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:11:44

It amazes me how people are so blase about gender here. As if gender is irrelevant in their lives. It's such nonsense.

If gender didn't matter:

1, There'd be no need for feminism
2, We'd all be bisexual-after all, no difference between men and women, right?

Can't have it both ways: either gender matters ergo a child should have the opportunity to be exposed to parents of either gender or it's irrelevant and we should give up women's rights.

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:12:40

I think God has more important things to care about IMHO..

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:12:41

... oh here we go, I'm not prejudiced, some of my best friends are etc.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 15:13:51

>nobody is stopping any gay person having a child at all, just that it has opposite sex parents in its life.

So how would that work, then? I definitely agree that it's best if a child has lots of different kinds of people in its life so it doesn't grow up to be narrow minded, so in the interests of diversity it would seem like a good idea if the gay couple had a few straight family friends as well. Would that satisfy your requirement?

>not that I've met any gay men who have an interest in being a father.
Hint - see your OP and the article you linked to for an example. And they are far from the only ones.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:14:20

Do you think gender is important or not, Annie?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:15:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:16:54

A child should have the opportunity to be exposed to PEOPLE of all types. No disagreement there. And I'm quite sure they will be.

Fail to see where women's rights come into it. Just because men and women exist doesn't mean that one of each getting together is compulsory (thank God.) And just because two men are capable of bringing up a child does not mean that women will eventually cease to exist. confused

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 15:17:14

>In my mind a lawsuit is just stirring.

I actually don't understand this lawsuit. Government legislation has barred the CofE from conducting same-sex marriages. The couple should surely have brought a case against the government not the church?

>there are plenty of esteemed psychiatrists, child psychologists who would agree with me
you haven't provided quotes/links. And even if you did, individual opinions even by such people simply don't stack up against proper studies, such as the one I linked to.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 15:17:37

Why would a gay man want to have a child with a lesbian rather than with his loving partner within the confines of a monogamous stable relationship? What a bizarre idea!

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:18:47

Why can't two men have and raise a baby?? There is a young girl in my DS's class who is raised by two men. What is the problem?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:19:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 15:19:51

>Can't have it both ways: either gender matters ergo a child should have the opportunity to be exposed to parents of either gender or it's irrelevant and we should give up women's rights.

can anyone extract any sense from that statement? confused

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:22:28

Er she has two loving parents which is a lot more than some children have these days. Why is the gender important?

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 15:23:08

"Can't have it both ways: either gender matters ergo a child should have the opportunity to be exposed to parents of either gender or it's irrelevant and we should give up women's rights."

What? That doesn't make sense...women's rights is based on the premise that genders are equal.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 15:25:06

I cant extract any sense from any of the OP's posts, that one included, Grimma. So it would be selfish to have a child with his loving partner who he knows and trusts instead of some random woman who may not have the best interests of the child at heart just because she happens to have female genitalia? Makes. No. Sense.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:29:21

Whether gender is important is a very wide-ranging question and I'm not sure it is really relevant to this discussion. I would say my gender is fundamental to my personal identity, but if a specialist told me tomorrow that I had some rare genetic disorder that meant I could only continue to live if I had immediate gender reassignment surgery (!), I'd go for it. It would take a lot of getting used to though. (Might be worth it just for the amusement value when XH found out.)

If you mean is gender important in nurturing a baby: I think there are a lot of societal norms that get in the way of men taking a full part in childcare, believing they can, or receiving appropriate support in doing so. Apart from breastfeeding I don't think there's anything a sensible, emotionally intelligent man can't do that a sensible, emotionally intelligent woman can. Nor anything a stupid, self-centred woman can't louse up just as well as a stupid, self-centred man, for that matter.

Eyesunderarock Sat 03-Aug-13 15:30:28

'You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it'

Christians have been doing that for centuries, didn't you know?
They've even had special conferences about it. Much gets altered in the translations too, which is one of the reasons that the Qu'ran is still in Arabic.
I've got copies of the Gospel of Thomas, and a copy of the Bible that includes the story of Tobit and Raphael.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:30:29

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:32:22

"Gay couples (note not individuals) who have children are, by definition, selfish."

No. No, they're not.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:32:58

ps Divorce is not a tragedy. I worked bloody hard for mine and I'm proud of it.

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:35:58

they are deliberately denying a child the opportunity to have a mother and father in its life.
What a load of rubbish it sounds like some out-dated tat. We live in a society of equality (Well so we try) and acceptance that not everyone is the same. If a Women LOVES another Women and they want to start a family, it is NO different to a Man and women who want to do the same thing. It is not denying a child their "right" to have a mother and father. A child has the right to be raised in a loving FAMILY UNIT, that is what they deserve. It is not denying them anything.

Twostep Sat 03-Aug-13 15:39:53

Are they both religious? They attend church and have been confirmed? Probably not. They can get a blessing - as I did when I married my non c of e husband. I didn't seek to sue anyone, why should I? Church rules and all that.

I can't see any religion marrying a gay couple. I feel sorry for the vicar.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 15:40:16

Of course it's different. Of course they are being denied something.

I'm not a raving homophobe; if a gay man wants to co-parent with the mother of his child, that's absolutely fine.

If a gay woman wants to co-parent with the father of her child. Ditto.

I cannot believe that anybody would think otherwise.

Anyway, this has all gone seriously off topic.

Bottom line: if religions don't want to marry gay couples, up to them and they shouldn't be forced into it.

The only people who should be forced to uphold the law are civil servants.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 15:45:02

But this woman didn't want to co-parent. She sold her baby for money. Yet you want her fully involved in its life. Actually, five babies was it? Great mother material. Mate, your values are weird.

Still waiting for a rational explanation of why it is selfish to adopt a baby but unselfish to impregnate a woman you don't want to live with.

sunshine401 Sat 03-Aug-13 15:50:18

I'm not a raving homophobe; Clearly hmm
if a gay man wants to co-parent with the mother of his child, that's absolutely fine. That is very nice of you to give your permission. I am sure those "selfish parents" will be soo pleased.

Fortunately you are one of a few still popping about with your closed-minds, so we don't need to worry to much. Just try not to pass down your opinions on to the next generation.

skylerwhite Sat 03-Aug-13 15:52:08

Twostep if you read the article, you will find that the men are practising Christians, and are bringing up their children in the Church of England. Why do you say 'probably not'? hmm

PeriodFeatures Sat 03-Aug-13 15:53:55

Renting women's wombs to have kids and deliberately and with forethought deny those children a mother sounds abhorrent to me. I'm not religious at all, but they make my stomach churn

I feel deeply deeply saddened by some of the attitudes on this thread.

I am and have been a member of the church of england all my life. I was born to it, I have an understanding of the Christian Tradition that is tolerant, respectful and open.

My family have known members of the higher echelons of the church socially and this attitude IS NOT the church of england I know.

Christ's teachings were teachings of love tolerance and respect. Community, charity, self knowledge and social justice.

They were not divisive and exclusive.

Everyone is entitled to practice their faith and have their love and vows honoured equally before God. (Although this could just as easily happen in the middle of a field or in a hotel lobby - it doesn't actually matter!) If being in church helps someone connect and identify their spirituality this symbolic act of marriage in church should be open to all.

I am very sad by what i read on this thread.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 15:55:15

"I cannot believe that anybody would think otherwise."

Well I think otherwise, so you don't need to believe it, people think otherwise whether you believe they do or not.

I also think that churches aren't in fact a building, or an abstract idea -they are a community sharing a faith, gay people are still a part of that community and as such it's unfair to ban them from celebrating their marriage within their community.

It's got nothing to do with whether an individual celebrant objects, it's about whether an organization recognizes that being gay does not preclude being Christian.

Not recognizing gay marriage is not one of the founding tenets of Christianity, it's something that hasn't adapted with society in a way that many of their other incidental beliefs have, like not eating shellfish or thinking that slavery is fine.

Allofaflumble Sat 03-Aug-13 15:55:44

When I saw this thread I guessed immediately who it would be trying to sue the Church of England.

Sometime ago I was listening to a phone in on gay marriage and Barrie phoned in saying that he would not rest until the church had to marry homosexuals.

Maybe marriage will be banned for all in the future?

I think the first gay marriage took place in a reformed Jewish synagogue but I just cannot imagine it ever ever happening in a mosque, so there can not be equality in that respect surely?

ClaraOswald Sat 03-Aug-13 15:59:10

Can a person or persons be formally excommunicated from the Church of England?

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:00:59

' but I just cannot imagine it ever ever happening in a mosque, so there can not be equality in that respect surely?'

Why? Because the muslims aren't as tolerant as the rest of us? hmm

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 16:06:16

Well, to be truthful, OutragedFromLeeds, I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the Islamic faith ain't too keen on homosexuality.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 16:12:49

What about this OP and others?

Let's have your views....

My DH is female to male Transgender. We have had fertility treatment on the NHS and been treated as any other heterosexual couple in need of fertility treatment.

We have had a religious marriage. (about 4 years ago) as male and female. Legally.

Is this alright with you?

Should we just hung our heads and accepted that we can't enjoy the same privileges and membership of our religion as other people?

Is it o.k that we've got a child whose father wasn't biologically male at birth?

Is that o.k?

Have we deprived our DC of a traditional family unit?

Does it make us terrible parents?

As far as I am concerned I have a right to bear children, my DH has a right to be a father and we have a right to fully participate in religious life.

I dearly hope that these rights can be properly extended to all in the future and that institutions in this country come under the same jurisdiction as other public human rights laws.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 16:16:28

Well I guess that your child is now effectively growing up with a mother and a father so that's OK.

Anyway, I guess it's up to you to have it out with your religion.

If they accept you fine, if they don't also fine, up to them.

All I'm saying is that religious organisations should not be compelled to conduct a wedding ceremony for anybody.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 03-Aug-13 16:18:11

"Because the muslims aren't as tolerant as the rest of us"?

To be honest I wouldn't like to be a bloke walking hand in hand with another down a street of a Sharia area at night.

GettingVerySleepy Sat 03-Aug-13 16:18:37

You sound like excellent parents to me, change, and a great example to others of how diversity makes us stronger as a society.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 03-Aug-13 16:20:42

It's going to happen, no matter what. It will happen.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:24:58

'To be honest I wouldn't like to be a bloke walking hand in hand with another down a street of a Sharia area at night.'

Whereas you'd be safe as houses doing that in, for example, Uganda, a predominantly Christian country....oh no....wait a minute...

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 16:26:03

>All I'm saying is that religious organisations should not be compelled to conduct a wedding ceremony for anybody.

If that was all you were saying, you'd probably find quite a lot of people agreed with you. Its all your other stuff that nearly everyone else disagrees with.

However, the current situation is that no religious organisation is compelled to marry same-sex couples. The only lack of freedom is that the CofE and CofW are explicitly barred from doing so - even if they wanted to allow vicars who were happy to do so, they can't. This is because of their peculiar situation as a state church. If they were allowed the choice, then it was anticipated that there would be court cases - which would be difficult because on the one hand they are ministers of religion, but on the other they serve as state functionaries.

I think this case will probably be thrown out TBH. The CofE's hands have been tied by the government.

Twostep Sat 03-Aug-13 16:30:09

I couldn't read the article as my blackberry was acting up.

I assumed 'not' as I would have thought that someone with a relationship with the church (ie regular attenders) wouldn't go down the route of sueing the church. They would be aware of the church's stance and would, I assume, have spoken about it to their vicar. It sounded more like a 'stance' case.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 16:31:40

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 16:32:31

That isn't all you've been saying by a long chalk, but I understand you wanting to get back to the position that fewer posters had serious issues with.

Personally, mind you, I am currently fairly persuaded that the CofE probably should be compelled to marry people, simply because of its privileged position as the official State religion. They might be saying a lot of extra stuff when they do it, but effectively CofE vicars are conducting a civil as well as a religious marriage. They should therefore abide by the State definition of who is allowed to marry, rather than the official's personal icky feelings about what he thinks one partner might be doing with the other when he's not there to watch them. Which is basically what it boils down to, however you dress it up.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:33:52

'The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father'

You're delusional!

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 16:34:57

Dammit, x-posted, sorry Grimma. You're quite right, of course.

skylerwhite Sat 03-Aug-13 16:36:02

Anybody you meet in rl who tells you they're OK with two gay dads and two gay mums is probably either being diplomatic/sh** scared of saying otherwise/lying.

I'm ok with 2 gay dads or 2 gay mums. I'm neither being diplomatic, shit-scared of saying otherwise, nor lying. HTH.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 16:36:02

Anyway, I guess it's up to you to have it out with your religion.

Orlux, thanks for your response. To me, my religion/faith isn't really separate to me. It's hard to see it as a separate entity.

If they accept you fine, if they don't also fine, up to them

I actually don't find this acceptable. The reason being is that you are talking about what is effectively a body of people. A religious faith is something different. It is about ones relationship between themselves and God/Higher Power and how people choose to express that.

There will always be bigots and people who view people with differences to mainstream as less than human and less entitled than others. Those people will always pass judgement on others and consider themselves justified in doing so for whatever reason. That is a sad reality. BUT that agenda should not dictate a person's right to participate
in a relationship with God in a way that they choose.

The foundation of marriage, religion and family life is love.

Love doesn't judge, discriminate, or cut people out.

This foundation of love comes before some notion of how society 'should' look and function.

That to me is one of the gifts of faith. If love comes first then we can do little harm to others or ourselves.

I admire those men and it's great they are in a position to challenge. I really hope that they with their case.

Good luck to them.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 16:39:24

No, you're the delusional one, OutragedFromLeeds. You really are.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:42:31

Ok, well why don't you tell me which posters have agreed with you that a child must have a mother and father instead of 2 mothers/2 father? I seem to have missed those posts....

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 16:44:47

>The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father

on what do you base that assertion? Daily Mail polls?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 16:45:51

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PeriodMath Sat 03-Aug-13 16:47:27

MN really is a strange place sometimes.

Since the debate has moved on, here's my offering: I couldn't care one bit about a person's sexuality when it comes to raising children. I'm sure there are as many good/crap gay parents as straight ones.

But...I do care very much that children have a basic human right to be born of a woman, from her own egg, and to have the ability to know who she is. I am completely against egg donation for this reason and anonymous sperm donation leaves me pretty cold too. So for me that makes male gay surrogacy arrangements completely immoral.

I do realise that for some Mumsnetters, using anonymous sperm or another woman's egg is the only way they can become a parent. But to me it is still wrong.

Just my opinion folks - we are still allowed them, yes?

skylerwhite Sat 03-Aug-13 16:48:10

Orlux do you think it's right that a club - golf club/country club/social club - should be able to have rules prohibiting black people from fully participating in club life? Or women?

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 16:49:45

Orlux - this particular 'club' hasn't been allowed to make its rules, one way or the other.

>They're gonna like damned silly being given away and kissing the bride anyway.

are you sure you're not a raving homophobe?

sorrelthemop Sat 03-Aug-13 16:51:54

The family court system believes that a child should have the opportunity to know both a mother and a father.

I feel very sad that these two spoilt brats should be acting in this way. People like this will not stop until we've all had it shoved well and truly down our throats.

I honestly think that all churches should stop conducting marriages altogether and instead people can be married in a civil ceremony then have a religious blessing afterwards.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:52:35

It must be a wind up. No-one is that stupid.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 16:54:04

The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father

I think that children should ideally have loving parent/s, a loving extended family (whether that is biological or made up of significant life long friendships - doesn't really matter) Have positive role models of both genders. and have fun and enjoy life.

What I personally find abhorrent is the thought of a child being brought up in a household where bigoted attitudes lead them to develop a lack of trust and respect for others.

I am conscious of the messages we give when we say 'SHOULD' what is underlying this 'should'? What are we actually communicating? It's such an arbitrary word really and means fuck all apart from we are judging something as wrong on the grounds of our own flawed belief system.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 16:54:26

Nobody can stop you having your own opinions, PeriodMath. Yours just sounds a little... indefensible.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:55:24

And no-one wants equality shoved down their throats!

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 03-Aug-13 16:55:36

And no-one wants equality shoved down their throats!

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 16:59:56

>I honestly think that all churches should stop conducting marriages altogether and instead people can be married in a civil ceremony then have a religious blessing afterwards

I wouldn't be against that idea. It's common in other countries, I think, and its what people of other religions have to do (not sure if any non-Christian religions can perform the actual marriage?) . Of course for many the religious part would then be the 'real' part, the sacrament, but that'd be up to them.

MrsDeVere Sat 03-Aug-13 17:05:37

Wtf? Where do you get off asserting anyone who doesn't have a problem with the two dads/mothers set up is lying?

Gay marraige is not against the funded tall beliefs of the church either.

I left the anglican church because of this bullshit.

I won't put my name to an organisation that discriminates against gay Christians but are happy to marry non believers with the full high church rigamarole just because they have non matching genitaila

Any pimp, peadophilie, murderer, wife beater, child abuser can get married with the blessing of the CofE

But not a loving couple, in their own church, because they are Gay?

Bollocks

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:08:48

ChangeRearrange, I've got to admit that religion to me is a club. I view it as being a club, therefore, I think that if a club member doesn't like the rules that the majority of members are making then the onus of the member is to suck it up or leave

It's not a club for everyone Orlux. It really isn't. Those rituals and symbols have real meaning to lots of people and anchor them to God and observing those practices important part of their faith Jesus would be pretty pissed off with some of the stuff that goes on in churches for sure! But still it's not a perfect world and there are some amazing people, intellectual, thinking people who see beyond the church in it's isolation are try to use it as a vehicle to promote social justice in this country. As really, all the bullshittery aside that is what it's all really about.

The Quakers are different to the C of E. Thy are anti ritual and symbolism and don't have the same relationship with the trinity. It's a shame that someone should lose their right to practice their faith in the way they choose because some set of blokes (and a few women probably!) have decided that they don't fit God's box?

Who are they to say what God dictates really and honestly. A Church is just a building and a set of rituals and practices. The people in charge have a right to dictate how this is all managed but they do not have a right to dictate who comes in and out and takes part.

People have turned it into a club.

OP - You should also be aware that individual clergy can't be forced to marry anyone as the law stands now. The test case is to challenge the law the forbids clergy within the Church of England from choosing whether or not they wish to do so. That's how things work, this is how unfair laws are challenged and progress is made. There isn't anything totalitarian about it - individuals being able to challenge laws is pretty much the opposite and challenging a law that forbids freedom of choice even more so.

Orlux, I'm confused, since you aren't Christian, why are you trying to tell them what they believe? There are so many branches of Christianity, why are you treating them as a monolith? Many branches of Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam recognise more than two genders (Orthodox Judaism has 6) and love between people of any gender.

You're take on them seems more based on popular culture mythos than any academic or personal studies of the religions in question. As is your perception of gay couples with children, you act as if only parents raise a child and they will have no exposure to other people of other genders ever. And pretty much every modern study on this issue shows typically children with same-sex and/or queer parents do as well, and in most cases better, than those in the standard straight relationships, possibly because the greater effort in choosing to have them. The same standards of no harm should be placed on parents regardless of sex or gender. Your concern is hurtful and far more totalitatian to dictate how a child should be raised and spew your baseless hateful standards onto others.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:12:25

PeriodMath
Have you been faced with infertility at all?

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 17:25:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 17:32:03

>So basically, the line is that a child should have the opportunity at least to know it's mother and father

Yes, they should and that is an entirely different matter - its exactly the same issue as faces anyone who uses a donor, or adopted children. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 'right to know' now in the UK, isn't there?

It has no bearing whatever on the gender of the parents.

Wbdn28 Sat 03-Aug-13 17:33:41

> brothers and sisters meeting up; not aware of the fact that they are related

If they go through a clinic for an egg donor then that's pretty unlikely.

Anyway, why would that be a gay problem in particular? There are probably a lot more straight men fathering half-siblings who don't know they're related.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 17:36:51

Wbdn28 this is true.

Wbdn28 Sat 03-Aug-13 17:38:40

> Unless they are regular churchgoers who contribute and are active members of the congregation ( they are not ) then they are ''entitled'' to want to use a church for whatever reason.

If that were true, it would apply equally to both straight and gay couples. The CofE is supposed to be there for everyone, unlike the churches that aren't linked to the state. It's not for us to judge other people's reasons for attending. You never know whether now and again, a couple or their family and friends might be inspired by a welcoming church to come afterwards some other time.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:38:42

Orlux

I really want to ask you whether you have ever been faced with infertility.

I also want to ask you whether you have ever been faced with the extremely difficult decisions that one has to make when having an assisted pregnancy.

I also want to ask you what the definition of a parent actually is and then ask you to consider all those children raised in loving caring homes by people who are not their biological parents.

How those children would feel if 'Orlux* ruled the world and said - 'actually, that person you call Mum, Dad, Stepdad. Pete' whatever, isn't your parent, and you can't call them that. Your parent is the person that supplied the biology to have you.

THAT is denying the child the rights.

I also want to ask you if you know anything about the laws that govern the donation of gametes in this country.

BUT I actually think you might just be being a bit goady now.

I love having a good discussion and have had my views changed and challenged on MN. But I really can't be arsed when someone is being knowingly offensive and goady. It does i'm afraid feel a little like you are doing that. Sorry if i'm wrong.

Thanks for the opportunity to think about my religion a bit. i enjoyed it.

Off to do the hoovering smile

sorrelthemop Sat 03-Aug-13 17:41:35

It is fundamental to a child's identity to know about the people who created it. It is lunacy to suggest that a child who doesn't know either its mother or it's father is perfectly happy with that. Adopted children are frequently found to be searching for their birth (biological) parents. Goodness only knows how confusing it must be for a child to have two mothers through egg donation then a womb mother too.

How many of you grew up knowing both your parents? Did you take this for granted? I grew up without a father because he died when I was an infant. Not knowing him has been a great cause of sadness for me my whole life. I still feel as though I'm only half a person.

Such arrogance to suggest that a child should be denied its birthright.

These two people come across as being supremely arrogant. I hope it trips them up one day.

Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 17:43:05

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Wbdn28 Sat 03-Aug-13 17:44:52

> Goodness only knows how confusing it must be for a child to have two mothers through egg donation then a womb mother too.

Actually, the couple can decide to use a known egg donor and to work with a surrogate who wants to keep in touch.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:44:54

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 'right to know' now in the UK, isn't there?

Yes, and one is heavily screen, counselled and given implications counselling before they even begin the process. There is a lot to consider and it is a painful and difficult process. And rightly so.

(unless they decide to use private donation)

They can also screen you 'out' at this point. the welfare of the child is very much considered.

And yes, the number of children that are related and don't know it, particularly in areas with high birth rate and a not very transient population is extremely common! (often lower socio economic areas)

Gamete donation is very heavily regulated and donors donate a small number of times and then that's it! Not sure the exact amount. I think its two or three.

right...really going now.

Viviennemary Sat 03-Aug-13 17:48:54

This was an event waiting to happen. It would have been so much easier to have all civil partnership called such and carried out in a civil ceremony. And let churches decide what is marriage and who is eligible. That would have been easier.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 17:49:01

FYI HFEA rules. So dies another red herring.

You may think that psychiatrist wise. The facts as shown by actual outcomes show he was merely opinionated. One opinionated 'expert' with views matching one opinionated non-expert don't equate to 'wisdom'.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 17:52:10

You think that psychiatrist is wise? If your paraphrasing is accurate, he sounds like a bit of a twit tbh.

Presumably he's totally against step parenting of whatever sex, as then the child would not be living with two opposite sex parents. That's alienated another large section of the population then.

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:52:52

These two people come across as being supremely arrogant. I hope it trips them up one day

As someone who has had a child born by donated gametes that is really really offensive and you are also inadvertently wishing very unhappy things for a child. How nasty.

Crikey.

I would never wish infertility on anyone either. I'm guessing infertility isn't something youve ever had to experience no?

Right, really going now. As am furious!!

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 17:53:20

I'll stop stepping on your lines soon, Grimma, I promise.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 17:54:10

> It would have been so much easier to have all civil partnership called such and carried out in a civil ceremony. And let churches decide what is marriage and who is eligible. That would have been easier.

that makes the false presumption that marriage is the preserve of religion. It isn't. It would be easier - as discussed upthread - if legal marriage required a civil ceremony and then people could have whatever religious marriage or blessing in addition. It worked for my Sikh friend, I can't see the logical objection. Though I'm sure there would be objections aplenty from the religious groups currently privileged to perform legal marriages.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 17:55:23

Annie - you carry right on grin

Anniegetyourgun Sat 03-Aug-13 17:57:28

grin

ChangeRearrange Sat 03-Aug-13 17:57:30

You think that psychiatrist is wise? If your paraphrasing is accurate, he sounds like a bit of a twit tbh

Ha ha Annie, I thought that too actually.

I had the image of a very dusty man sitting in a wing backed chair and peering over half moon glasses. I imagine he probably thinks his view are very inclusive and progressive.

God, id rather sit here and get cross than do my housework!! What's the matter with me.

this isn't a thread about the rights and wrongs of whether the church should hold gay marriages. This thread was purely a platform for the OP to attack anyone who deviates from what they perceive is the 'right' path.

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 18:00:49

well, it can't have been an accurate quote ' a gay and lesbian man who get together ' unless he was deeply confused!

GrimmaTheNome Sat 03-Aug-13 18:02:17

To be sure, Binky - the OP seems to have a mind Teflon-coated against normal debating tools such as evidence.

tabulahrasa Sat 03-Aug-13 18:13:44

Why would anyone lie about same sex parents not being an issue?

Is everyone who disagrees with you about anything lying? Do you have other forms of paranoia?

nooka Sat 03-Aug-13 18:33:47

The OP appears to believe that gay people are only OK if they behave as if they are straight. This is not an unusual position for bigots to take - hide your differences so I can pretend they don't exist.

MrsDeVere Sat 03-Aug-13 18:54:11

How is the right to know parents a gay issue?

If gay couples adopt they undergo the same training as the rest of us.
The guidelines are the same.

My DS knows who his birth mother is. We don't ave much info on his bf and nothing on potential siblings on tat side.

So probably better that he stayed with his birth mum then?

You are a raving homophobe OP.
Why start a mustache and glasses thread? Why not just be straight about it? (pun intended)

PeriodFeatures Sat 03-Aug-13 18:58:44

Mrs DeVere I think because the discussion moved on to Gamete Donation? Eggs/Sperm etc. Something else that OP would be rid of if she rules the world. It's not fair on the child you know....

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Sat 03-Aug-13 20:07:28

Hello folks

It seems we've been visited by a previously banned poster. We're letting the thread stand for now because it's become a lively discussion, but please bear in mind that homophobic posts are against our Guidelines.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Sat 03-Aug-13 20:14:08

What a surprise.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 03-Aug-13 23:54:05

OUtraged fromLeeds:

'To be honest I wouldn't like to be a bloke walking hand in hand with another down a street of a Sharia area at night.' Whereas you'd be safe as houses doing that in, for example, Uganda, a predominantly Christian country....oh no....wait a minute.

Why are you talking about Uganda? Do you live in Uganda? Who is "we" when you said Muslims aren't as tolerant as "we" are? Did you mean Christians? Did you mean UK residents? did you mean mumsnetters?

nooka Sun 04-Aug-13 00:00:25

Because 'Sharai area' implies a Muslim country perhaps, and Uganda, a Christian country has had a fair share of really nasty homophobic incidents recently? I'm sure you spotted the hmm face on the other post too.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 04-Aug-13 00:36:52

'Why are you talking about Uganda?'

Pretty much as nooka says, it's a Christian country that treats gay people in a terrible way. It was to contrast your point that gay people are less accepted in Muslim countries/areas. I was demonstrating that there are as many homophobic Christians as there are Muslims. TBH I think you knew that was my point.

'Do you live in Uganda?'

No.

'Who is "we" when you said Muslims aren't as tolerant as "we" are? Did you mean Christians? Did you mean UK residents? did you mean mumsnetters?'

I meant anyone who isn't Muslim. The poster specified Mosques as being somewhere that would never allow gay marriage, as if Muslims are somehow less tolerant than 'everyone else'. I think you know that's what I meant there too. I also think you saw the hmm face.

bemybebe Sun 04-Aug-13 11:03:13

You don't need to go to Uganda to see disgusting homophobic attitudes. Go to Russia. People get killed there.

bemybebe Sun 04-Aug-13 11:07:22
PeriodFeatures Sun 04-Aug-13 11:08:09

....and what is happening in Greece at the moment is absolutely abhorrent.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 04-Aug-13 12:38:07

Absolutely, Uganda was just the first one that came to mind (I was reading about it recently), it's by no means the only one! They recently tried to introduce the death penalty for certain 'homosexual acts', they settled for life imprisonment in the end. It's not random attacks, its state endorsed homophobia in a predominantly Christian country that was my only point.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 07:44:47

I was talking about the UK and the Church of England. If you are going to bring Uganda into it we can also talk about Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Malaysia..well think you get the idea.

Would you like to read this from the Economist?

"ONE leaflet showed a wooden doll hanging from a noose and suggested burning or stoning homosexuals. “God Abhors You” read another. A third warned gays: “Turn or Burn”. Three Muslim men who handed out the leaflets in the English city of Derby were convicted of hate crimes on January 20th. One of them, Kabir Ahmed, said his Muslim duty was “to give the message”.

That message—at least in the eyes of religious purists— is uncompromising condemnation. Of the seven countries that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, all are Muslim. Even when gays do not face execution, persecution is endemic. In 2010 a Saudi man was sentenced to 500 lashes and five years in jail for having sex with another man. In February last year, police in Bahrain arrested scores of men, mostly other Gulf nationals, at a “gay party”. Iranian gay men are typically tried on other trumped-up charges. But in September last year three were executed specifically for homosexuality. (Lesbians in Muslim countries tend to have an easier time: in Iran they are sentenced to death only on the fourth conviction.)"

Don't be so naive.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 07:45:25
Lazyjaney Mon 05-Aug-13 07:55:42

This was predicted widely by the Church and others, the government and all the Gay marriage fans said don't be silly.

And here we are, a few months later......

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 08:20:03

Yes, it certainly was. In fact the response was - this will absolutely not happen and it's scaremongering to say it will. Yet it was so obvious that someone would try to make the point, someone didn't care.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 08:25:53

I have a gay friend (well, several) that uses an internet site to 'meet' guys. These two invited him to join them in a hotel when they were visiting our area once for sex. They 'promoted' themselves to him by sending him links to assorted news stories they had been featured in. This was about two years ago.

I've no idea where the kids were, but certainly not with them at the time.

Doesn't sound like the sort of behaviour I would expect from a practicing Christian.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 08:35:43

WTF is that relevant?

If we are talking about putting people on an equal footing I would say that your second hand allegations only prove that this couple are no different from a fair few church goers.

'I've no idea where the kids were..'

did you expect them to take them to hotel rooms with them? Do non-abusive parents usually include their children in their sexual shenanigans?

If I believed everything I every heard about who slept with who from some of my friends I would be an idiot.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 08:39:35

MrsDeVere - because

a) it shows their lifestyle to be all about publicity and their supposed status so I don't believe for one moment this is about anything other than yet more publicity for them
b) one of the two made a big thing about them being a "practicing Christian" but I don't think meeting strangers for random threesomes is something genuinely practicing Christians do

Sorry, I'd have thought that relevant.

wharrgarbl Mon 05-Aug-13 09:05:57

I honestly think that all churches should stop conducting marriages altogether and instead people can be married in a civil ceremony then have a religious blessing afterwards

Welcome to France.

This:
Anybody you meet in rl who tells you they're OK with two gay dads and two gay mums is probably either being diplomatic/sh* scared of saying otherwise/lying.*

is one of the larger loads of bollocks I've seen this year. What utter garbage. I'm happy to see every child a wanted child, regardless of the familial configuration. I really don't give a shit.
Don't extend your saddo prejudices over the rest of us, thanks. You don't speak for me.

AppleLady Mon 05-Aug-13 09:11:02

I want to thank everyone who has been supportive and celebratory of diversity in this thread. As one mother in a two mum, two child family, I was disturbed to read the many homophobic and hateful comments - but gratified to see that the supportive ones far outnumbered them!

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:16:55

I think the idea is that churches either bow to the demand or have to stop having anything to do with marriage. In other words: - if we can't have it we don't want anyone to have it.

Most people in this country are happy with the status quo. Most were happy with the civil partnership idea. This is trouble making. To try to compare Anglicans who prefer the status quo with people who back the death penalty in Iran and Uganda is exaggeration of the worst kind.

PeriodFeatures Mon 05-Aug-13 09:22:06

I don't think meeting strangers for random threesomes is something genuinely practising Christians do

I identify myself as a Christian and go to church. I also love drinking and dancing till 5am, the word 'cunt', and erotica.

Is that alright with you?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:23:14

Period, do you think meeting strangers for random threesomes is a Christian act?

YABU for using the word cunt at all, actually.

PeriodFeatures Mon 05-Aug-13 09:26:12

Not all anglicans prefer the status quo Crumbledwalnuts There are some Anglicans who have been quietly pushing for this for a really long time.

I know a couple of Gay anglican vicars, very committed men of great faith and integrity who have managed to hold on to their faith and integrity despite the huge wave of negativity towards them.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:27:22

I know they don't.

Do you think meeting strangers for random threesomes is a Christian act?

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 09:27:43

Period - Did I say anything about drinking, dancing until 5am, the word cunt or use of erotica? Um, don't think so. I still think that the vast majority of practising Christians would find threesomes not the done thing.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:29:59

Jessica - did your friend go to the papers with what happened?

lovecupboards Mon 05-Aug-13 09:30:03

What does the bible say about threesomes then?

PeriodFeatures Mon 05-Aug-13 09:32:12

Crumbledwalnuts I don't really know what you mean by 'Christian Act' I think christianity, for my own definition is acknowledgement of christ's teachings which are love, respect, justice, compassion, forgiveness, humanity to name but a few. We don't have to be perfect. The whole point is is that we are human.

I absolutely and honestly believe that christ did not teach us to repress our sexuality either.

For me, a threesome wouldn't be right. I am married and it is not a choice i would make as it would disrespect my vows. But i certainly wouldn't feel it to judge someone elses right to faith on the basis of their sexual choices with other consenting adults.

Yes, the word Cunt is really not nice, But i like it. Probably jesus wouldn't entirely approve smile

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 09:34:20

lovecupboards - fair point, I don't believe it does. But then we know that Christian teaching varies and some take the Bible VERY black and white and others don't. After all, if all Christians followed the Bible word for word we'd be stoning a lot of people and putting homosexuals to death. However, the general accepted teaching, I think, is that Christian marriage is about "keeping only to each other" and not committing adultery and all that malarkey, which would tend to suggest threesomes is off limits.

Crumbled - no.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:37:30

Bollocks is it relevant.

This couple are sueing largely because they have the money to do so.

They may well be z list slebs but they are putting their money to what they feel is good use.

Your unproved allegation is a distraction. It uses the age old 'gay men are promiscuous and deviant angle' for good measure.

FYI I hope you have good evidence for your allegations. This couple have money and they are not averse to litigation.

If I was them I would take a very dim view of some random putting that out there as an attempt to discredit a high profile legal case.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:37:42

So you think it's OK for Christians to have threesomes then, because Christianity is about tolerance so we have to tolerate everything.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:38:50

It's not, it's relevant, because this things is all about what Christianity is and what Christians can do. How come Uganda is relevant and adultery isn't? Just because it suits your point of view I suppose.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:39:53

Why would they sue Mrs DV if there's nothing wrong with it?

Is there something wrong and unChristian about adultery and threesomes or not?

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:44:26

What a stupid question.

You have made an allegation about them.
You have no evidence.
It is an allegation you have made purely for the purposes of defamation.

They could sue the arse of you if they so choose.

And it would serve your homophobic little self right if they did.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 09:44:49

MrsDeVere - I have no reason to believe my friend was lying. I have never known him to lie. I am not attempting to discredit a high profile case. I have not even commented on whether I agree with their case. I am merely pointing out MY OPINION (which I am entitled to express) that their prior and regular self-promoting behaviour as far as I have read about it in the papers (all of which have been with their involvement) and from what a friend tells me tends to be at odds with some of their own statements.

Personally, I have no issue with gay people of either gender getting married in church. I knew a challenge like this would come and it does not surprise me that it comes from this couple rather than a less self-promotional couple.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:46:14

I am sorry Crumbled but you seem to be confused.

You cannot argue someone's point with a person who has not made it.

i.e. I have made no comment about Uganda so your comparison is moot.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:46:54

I haven't made any allegations.

If you say it's defamatory you think there's something wrong with the threesome act. If you think there's something wrong with the threesome act then if it's true, t certainly has bearing on the case as they claim to be practising Christians.

However if you say it's irrelevant and has no bearing on the case you must think there's nothing unChristian about the threesome and adultery. Because if there was, it would have relevance.

So you can take a stand on one or the other, but not both at the same time.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 09:47:22

MrsDeVere - I made my last post before I saw your and I take HUGE offence at the suggestion I am homophobic. Without outing myself, because of the industry I work in, I suspect I know and am friends with far more gay people than you have ever even met. How dare you.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:47:27

No, somebody else brought up Uganda. You think Uganda is irrelevant then, I hope.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:48:49

You can not get away from the fact that you have made an allegation without proof on a public forum.

If you have no problem with gay people being married in church why bring up sexual practices? If you have no issue with it why the salacious gossip?

You do know that saying your friend doesn't lie is a bit of a weak defence don't you?

Does he know you have vomited his comments all over the internet?

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:50:36

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck Jessica

perhaps you should have a good hard think about what you really feel about all your mates.

You seem to have a habit of making unbackable claims. You have more gay friends than I have ever met?

Grow up.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 05-Aug-13 09:53:32

Oh FFS sake.

As part of the debate, obviously. Which is why Period and others have discussed it. Because some people would consider threesomes, whether gay, straight or bisexual, at odds with what the majority of practicing Christians would consider an acceptable part of teaching.

I don't mind what people do in their own bedrooms. Or cars. Or woods. As long as it doesn't involve children, animals or coercion. My point was clearly about what some people would regard as unusual behaviour for most self-proclaimed practicing Christians.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:53:49

They want to get married in chuch
As do thousands of other non gay couples.

The non gay couples do not have to prove they don't have threesomes or meet people on line for sex.

They do not have to have people making veiled remarks about their parenting 'I have no idea where the children were'

Non gay people do not have to prove how Christian they are to get married in most churches. Adulterers, abusers, sheep worriers....can all just get married without a care.

Gay people want the same right.

EVERYTHING else is irrelevant.

MrsDeVere Mon 05-Aug-13 09:55:07

If that was your point you took a very foolish route to get to it.

It was a nasty and bitchy point and you know it.

Having lots and lots of gay bff does not excuse it.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 09:58:45

"If you have no problem with gay people being married in church why bring up sexual practices?"

You do know that the rightness or wrongness of threesomes with strangers is nothing to do with being gay or straight? It's to do with the sanctity of marriage, which is the WHOLE POINT.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 10:03:10

Actually the fact that you have to accuse Jessica of being a homophobe despite indicates that it's always the fallback position, when an argument seems to be weakening. Just accuse people of homophobia , that should do it. So they're pretty clear that they aren't? So what.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 15:12:38

'To try to compare Anglicans who prefer the status quo with people who back the death penalty in Iran and Uganda is exaggeration of the worst kind.'

No-one has made that comparison. The comments about Uganda and Iran came in response to a comment about Mosques (not many Anglicans there!) and 'Sharia areas' (a comment that I believe you made?!).

There are several different points being made/discussions being had in this thread (threesomes now for example). Try and keep up!

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 16:15:41

Don't you have a comment on the Economist article I posted? Yes, I posted about Sharia areas. I believe one of them may be mentioned in the Economist article I posted and linked to, in the face of reference to Uganda as an example of how intolerant Christians are.hmm

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 19:45:29

What comment do you want? My view is there are cunty Muslims and cunty Christians. There are lovely Muslims and lovely Christians. The cunty and the kind exist in all groups.

A comment that suggested Muslims as a group are more homophobic than any other group needed to be addressed imo and so I gave an example of a Christian country that has massively homophobic laws as an example. Couple of other posters mentioned Russia and Greece as other examples.

I don't know what your point is?

Anniegetyourgun Mon 05-Aug-13 20:09:10

Now I have to admit I don't think I even own a Bible these days (used to have several, I rather think XH "disappeared" them when I moved out) and I do have a horribly bad memory, so I would be grateful for correction. But I seem to recall the usual suspects once asked Jesus about the case of a widow who married her deceased husband's brother - there may even have been a third brother involved, I forget - and said when she finally dies herself and joins them in Heaven, which one is she married to? To which Jesus replied none of them, as there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage in Heaven.

He also told a mob who were about to stone an adulteress that whoever was without sin themselves should cast the first stone. And nobody did.

Apart from turning water into wine at a wedding, showing Jesus had no problem with a jolly good party, I think that's about it for his pronouncements on marriage and sex, wasn't it?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:02:06

You opined that it was wrong for the op to suggest less tolerance from a mosque community. So I posted a piece showing that all the countries which currently have the death penalty for homosexuality are Muslim countries, and that some sharia communities in the are following a visibly oppressive path. Perhaps the comment I'm hoping for is a "thanks for the education", or a "gosh I had no idea I was so naïve". Of course that's not the comment I would actually expect from someone who says "cunty Muslims and cunty Christians".

PeriodFeatures Mon 05-Aug-13 21:02:11

I'm sorry but the sexual lives of two adult men has absolutely no baring on whether they consider themselves to be practising Christians or not, or have a right to request they are married in a Christian Church.

I think that what you are implying is that this case only has a right to be heard if these two men can only be considered to be living their lives in a way which is considered to be 'Christian'.

No other couple would be expected to have their lives under the same level of scrutiny.

What this couple are asking for is equal rights.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:02:31

in the UK

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:03:45

It does if true - the whole thing would stink of rank hypocrisy. It would indicate there's no practising Christianity here, so they might as well take their claim to marry to a mosque or a synagogue.

foreverondiet Mon 05-Aug-13 21:06:40

I don't think that churches should be forced to conduct gay weddings but get a grip - a wedding is just one day! What's more important is how welcoming the church / synagogue / mosque is after the wedding. Can children be baptised? Have a bar mitzvah? Etc

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:08:54

Basically it would be cherry picking the bits of Christianity which suit them and - surprise surprise - that obviously wouldn't involve anything which stops them doing exactly what they want to do, whenever they want to do it, including upsetting vast numbers of people, simply because they want to, not because it has any impact on their life, or stops them having children, or having their relationship legally recognised, or even recognised by a religious institution, or having a family life, or anything. Simply because they want to and they can, and as MrsDV so rightly points out, because they've got the money to do it. Quite frankly if they're so enamoured of gay rights there are plenty better ways to spend the money to improve the rights of gay people round the world. But they wouldn't get quite so much attention or upset so many middle-stump people. They could upset some intolerant people who would get genuinely angry and be genuinely troublesome to this couple, but there's no way they'd do that. Too much trouble in return for too little attention.

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:09:29

The Old Testament is full of multiple marriages too - well multiple wives anyway. I am fairly sure that in at least some cases it was God who set up the arrangements, or at the very least blessed them. Plus a fair few handmaids were pressed into service for the purpose of bearing children. I'm not sure that the Bible is a helpful guide to modern morals.

And in any case as MrsDV says it is utterly irrelevant. The CoE as the establishment church should not have barriers to entry, or at the very least they should not be discriminatory in nature. If everyone had to be 'pure' to get married there would be very very few marriages.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:10:42

And god forbid (!) anyone ever 'cherry pick' bits of Christianity, like that bloke in the New Testament who suggested, er, cherry-picking bits of the Old Testament. I'm sure I'll remember his name in a minute.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:11:16

Of course it has relevance. They're taking this case to the Cof E specifically because they claim to be practising Christians. If they're not, then they might as well take it to a mosque or a synagogue.

maddening Mon 05-Aug-13 21:11:24

Do the rules cover all religions? What are other religious leaders saying about gay marriage in their religions?

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:12:15

Everyone cherry picks bits of Christianity! Much of the Bible is really very unpleasant or just rather weird. Even the churches ignore great chunks of it. The central message of the New Testament is about love, not sex.

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:13:34

I suspect that they are taking it to the CoE because under the new legislation it is the only church that is specifically prohibited from marrying gay people. If it had not been I very much doubt this case would have been brought at all.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:16:07

Yup - they can have a civil partnership and a religious ceremony but they just want the one thing they think other people have and they can't. Childish behaviour, with money behind it. I don't believe there's anything genuine here, not for one minute, except a genuine desire to cause trouble and create hostility and upset.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:17:35

Many people do try to cherry pick - and the Church of England is exceptionally tolerant. Most people don't try to bring the Church to its knees while doing so.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 21:18:34

'Perhaps the comment I'm hoping for is a "thanks for the education", or a "gosh I had no idea I was so naïve'

Naïve about what? How dreadful Muslims are?

Being openly homophobic and racist (or religionist?) outs you as either very, very stupid or a goady troll, both of which are generally best ignored.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:19:30

The problem stems from the fact that the C of E is an established religion. Ridiculous, in this day and age, and that's what led to that stipulation in the bill that gay marriage in the CofE was expressly prohibited. There should be disestablishment, and then the CofE would be in the same boat as other religions ie it couldn't be forced to reform gay marriage (but not expressly prohibited either).

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:21:49

Forgive me for suggesting that perhaps if the Church spent more time on its knees, things would be better?

That is after all one of the primary functions - to pray, not to alienate and judge people.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:22:10

I have been neither racist or homophobe - but there we are - when the argument weakens one falls back on insults. You prove my point.

No, not how dreadful Muslims are, and I sincerely hope you do not believe that. You indicated that there was no more intolerance in the Muslim community/Muslim countries than where? England? Christian countries. Why would you believe that unless you didn't know about the levels of intolerance, the laws, the death penalties, the sharia communities in the UK?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:23:13

Neat elision LRD. I meant bring the Church down. But neat elision smile

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:26:03

confused

What on earth do you think I'm eliding?

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:27:48

That's right because occasionally marrying gay Christians would destroy the CoE wouldn't it? What absolute tosh.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 21:28:09

'They're taking this case to the Cof E specifically because they claim to be practising Christians. If they're not, then they might as well take it to a mosque or a synagogue.'

grin fess up, you don't even know what the law is do you?!

They're taking it to the CofE because that's the only one they're banned by law from. They can legally get married in a Mosque or Synagogue!

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:28:40

By bringing the church to its knees I meant bringing the church down, not making it pray. Perhaps I meant to say "deliberately misunderstanding" not eliding.

TiggyD Mon 05-Aug-13 21:29:05

They're probably 'picking' on the CofE because it's the official religion of the country which has permanent seats in the house of lords.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:31:34

Yes - I do grin but the other religious organisations who don't want to conduct gay marriage have what's being called a quadruple lock to protect them grin and would be just as vulnerable grin to legal action grin. If this couple aren't practising Christians they have no reason to wish to be married in a Church at all and no reason to bring this case.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:32:29

Basically none of this is about marriage or love or the sanctity of marriage. None of it. Thanks for confirming it.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:32:57

Yes, the CofE as an established religion is the problem here. Once the state accepts that gay people are allowed to marry on the same basis as straight people, then to exclude gay couples from marriage in the official state religion is discriminatory and unjustifiable.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:33:33

I'm not sure what you meant, but so long as you know. smile

I think perhaps if you pay attention to the pretty words, you will discover this couple do claim to be practising Christians, don't they? We sorted that upthread.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:34:16

Actually Nooka perhaps you don't understand the law yourself and specifically the law of establishment. Ask outraged to explain it to you, and why gay marriage is important and relevant to establishment.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:34:58

Yes, because "bringing something to its knees" is REALLY hard to understand and not at all a common figure of speech hmm

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 21:35:41

ooh I've been out-smilied!

You win! How dare gay people want equality?! Right behind you crumble. God and hate all the way.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:37:03

By the way, it was someone else - Outraged I think - who said they wanted this not because they're practising Christians, but because the Church is established and it will continue to be against the law.

If what's been said here is true, there's no practising Christianity here.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:38:16

Huh outraged answer a few points and I'll see you later. If you can't, you can't, and prefer jokes and silly rhetoric, meh.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:39:56

Crumbled would you like to respond to my point about the problem being the CofE as an established church?

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:40:01

<headdesk>

Darling, it was a pun, ok? A minor little pun.

Not an 'elision' (which means to leave something out, usually a letter or syllable in the middle of other syllables).

But I also think it matters quite a bit. You imagine that the Church would be brought to its knees if gay people were allowed to marry - as if the Church has to be proud and powerful to survive. But I think the Church is quite capable of experiencing great challenges and becoming stronger - and if it isn't, it's no longer worthwhile. After all, the whole point is that the Church is the Body of Christ. Think about that. Christ's body was broken and crucified, but also resurrected.

I feel that if the Church can't cope with a little minor challenge to its sense of integrity, such as gay marriage, then it's not being true to its origins. Sure, some people will find it hard to accept equality, but that's their problem.

I genuinely do think the problem is the Church not being willing enough to suffer and come to its knees. I'm punning but not being entirely flippant.

The C of E has got too scared of what the conservative bits of its membership will think.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 21:42:07

I'm with you! It's them Muslim countries that are the problem isn't it? All Christian countries treat gay people really well. I've seen the light!! Thanks for the education. thanks

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:43:52

You've obviously run out of arguments Outraged. Fine by me.

So why pretend you didn't know what I meant? That was a little lie?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:44:17

First to outraged - second comment there to LRD

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:45:24

Skyler - I know that's the problem, and that's why they're doing it. It's other people who question the establishment issue.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:46:38

LRD - it's not a minor challenge because of the law of establishment. Ask Skyler. In fact why don't you talk amongst yourselves for a while and sort out your argument.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:46:55

No, it wasn't a lie. hmm

Because you did not know the meaning of the word you used, and I did, I thought you might have meant I elided something. So I asked you to clarify. At which point it became clear you did not understand the word.

I don't habitually pick people up on stuff like that, but I'm dyslexic and quite capable of eliding things (usually bits of words when my brain jumps ahead). And I couldn't see what on earth I could possibly have elided there.

Is that ok for you?

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:47:50

Erm ... you do know that we're not all the same person, right, crumbled?

We don't have to sort out 'our' argument. You are wrong in so many ways that many of us can disagree with you on different grounds. Isn't that nice?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:49:55

Oh I see, fair enough. I meant that you hiccupped the two meanings to butt onto each other. Yes, now I realise you were doing it a. because deliberate misunderstanding was your only way to answer my point and b. now you're picking up on it because you ran out of arguments like outraged. Otherwise you'd be saying something about the issue.

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:49:59

I'm pro disestablishment personally, and do not think that gay marriage is a problem in any way shape or form.

I don't live in the UK any more as I moved to Canada a few years ago where gay marriage has been legal and totally mainstream for 10 years with no adverse effects. Church attendance and levels of belief are generally higher here than in the UK too. There is an opt out for 'officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.' generally the Catholic church (big in Canada because of Quebec) is outspoken against same sex marriages whilst the other denominations are either neutral or supportive.

I don't have a big problem with allowing individual churches to not perform marriages because the of the 'club' thing. I hope that they will become more progressive over time. I do have a problem with the CoE being prohibited from doing so. Apart from anything else I think this should be a matter for the church and not the government.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:50:14

Crumbled it's not this couple's fault that there is an established church in the UK. They are entitled to challenge it as they are being treated as second class citizens by an arm of the state.

I don't know what you mean by 'it's other people who question the establishment issue'.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 21:50:15

'You've obviously run out of arguments Outraged. Fine by me.'

I haven't run out, my mind has been forever changed! By you and your coherent, well thought-out, non-racist, non-homophobic arguments. You've won the thread! I think if you contact MNHQ they send you a badge.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:51:32

They're not just different grounds, they contradict each other. You cancel out your own arguments.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 21:52:25

Like I said, fine by me smile will come back to you when you have a point to make

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:53:08

No, we really don't. smile

You'd have to explain how we do that, wouldn't you? If it were true. Which it isn't.

We simply happen all to disagree with you on different grounds and with differing priorities.

There's no especial onus on us to agree with each other while we disagree with you, you know.

nooka Mon 05-Aug-13 21:54:13

Crumbled just what terrible things do you imagine might happen if the CoE was permitted to marry gay people?

As for this couple it is perfectly possible that they are both practicing Christians and would like to get married in the church which they attend AND that they believe a test case should be brought in order to move gay rights forward. Perhaps they also believe that God supports them in bringing this case forward.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:54:18

How do my and LRD's points contradict each other? Also would like to clarify that I am a different person. HTH.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 21:55:52

I think she means because you're focussed on the C of E being the establishment Church, whereas I just think it's kinda crap that the C of E hasn't got behind gay marriage yet from a religious POV, skyler.

Though, I'll take the opportunity to say I agree with you that the establishment Church bit is pretty important. It's just that as an Anglican with a pro-gay-marriage vicar, I tend to get cross about the other issue more.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 21:58:02

Those two positions aren't contradictory, though. Although it might suit Crumbled to envisage the wide range of varying perspectives as one homogenous bloc 'bringing the church to its knees'.

LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy Mon 05-Aug-13 22:00:51

I don't think they are contradictory either, but I may be missing something.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 22:02:39

Is crumbly the OP under a name change?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 22:08:09

Yes, you do LRD smile

In addition it's ludicrous to label anyone not in favour of this idea as a homophobe, and ludicrous to label anyone who's read an Economist article about the death penalties for homosexuality in Islamic countries as a racist. It's a joke. Worse, it's an attempt to silence alternative views.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 22:08:34

No outraged - still scraping the barrel there.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 22:12:41

No, one poster said they weren't going for this case because they're practising Christians, but because the CoE and CiW are specificially excluded. Another person said they were doing it because they're practising Christians. Another poster said they were doing it because it was an established church. Another poster contradicted themselves by saying at the same time that adultery didn't matter and there's no hypocrisy involved in this supposed practised Christianity - but it the adultery was simulataneously so bad that to suggest it was involved here was defamatory.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 22:13:53

It's just unusual to get two posters who say things that everyone else perceives as homophobic that aren't actually homophobic! It's just a real coincidence.

Out of interest Crumbles, what would your view be if the case were being brought by a different couple? One who absolutely never had threesomes.

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 22:21:52

Really outraged. Are you going to accuse everyone who doesn't like these ideas as homophobic, and accuse them of being the same person? I think one person escaped without being accused of being the OP but being a nasty little homophobic self. This is what happens when you run out of arguments. I suppose you're having to scrape that barrel again.

Outraged: the threesomes have no bearing at all on the principle. They have a bearing on this case. That is all I've argued about. I don't like the idea of the CoE being forced to conduct gay weddings in this way; I think there's hypocrisy and attention seeking involved here. But I haven't argued against the principle, except pointing out that it will upset so many people and could be devastating for the Church. These people could support gay rights in so many different and more effective ways. Ways that would really help. This would change something that would make little difference to few people. There are countries where gay people are really, seriously, life-threateningly oppressed.

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 22:30:09

Why do this couple's past activities have anything to do with their wish to get married in church? I thought Christians were into forgiveness and the like...

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 22:30:20

'Are you going to accuse everyone who doesn't like these ideas as homophobic'

Everybody who doesn't want equality for gay people is homophobic. In just the same way that anybody who doesn't want racial equality is a racist and anybody who doesn't want equality for women is sexist. If you believe any group of people should have fewer rights (for example the right to get married in their place of worship) than other groups you hold prejudiced views. It's really that simple.

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

Crumbledwalnuts Mon 05-Aug-13 22:32:48

Depends if they're still doing it, repent, ask for forgiveness etc Skyler, or if they just think (like so many on this thread) that they don't have to because it's irrelevant to Christianity (which they claim).

Thanks for that clarity, outraged. It seems some people need to be more equal than others, and the rights of boring, tolerant, middle stump people of faith come last in the queue.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 22:35:23

'I think one person escaped without being accused of being the OP'

Everyone on the thread has 'escaped without being accused of being the OP' except you. It's helpful if you're accurate.

Redbindy Mon 05-Aug-13 22:37:15

Crumble, I thought that the whole point of marriage was to carry on doing it, and maybe have some kids as a result.

OutragedFromLeeds Mon 05-Aug-13 22:38:22

'It seems some people need to be more equal than others, and the rights of boring, tolerant, middle stump people of faith come last in the queue.'

How does gay marriage infringe on their rights though? They may not like it, but it doesn't remove or reduce their rights in anyway does it?

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

skylerwhite Mon 05-Aug-13 22:42:46

And who are you to judge whether they have repented or not? I didn't realise you or anyone else were the arbiter of such things, an ld in fact i would have thought that this was a private matter between themselves and their god. As this is a pretty core component of reformed Christiantity. Or do you think they need to make public declarations and wear sackcloth and ashes? How nasty and judgemental you sound.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 03:46:12

One other person who expressed the view that this couple might not be all they claim to be, escaped being accused of being the OP. It helps if you don't deliberately misunderstand.

Skyler, "I didn't realise you or anyone else were the arbiter of such things" Well if I were you I would unrealise it pretty quickly. It's between them and God, but it matters, because if they don't care, then they aren't practising Christians, and this is not about an intimate, sanctified and sensitive relationship between themselves and God, it's attention seeking.

That's my main problem with this. This couple are not prevented from doing anything which has any real impact on their lives. There's good reason and previous to suggest that it's attention seeking and point-scoring. They will still be able to marry. They will still be able to live together, to have a civil partnership, to have children, to adopt, to have a family life, to bring up their children the way they want, to do any job they want, to have any interpersonal relationships they want, any friendships they want, go to church, go to a mosque, go to a synagogue, worship in any place of worship. They will even be able to have a religious marriage, just not in the CoE. At the same time they could be spending this money - which will be a lot - on campaigning for rights for gay people who can do few, or none of the above.

But they have chosen, out of a sort of wealthy pique, to stamp their feet and demand something that will cause such ructions of faith for so many people, which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code of this country for the better over hundreds of years. And the response to anyone who expresses concern about this tantrum? You're a homophobe. That's such rubbish. You think the Archbishops of this profoundly tolerant religious institution are homophobes? Really? That's the name calling you're reduced to, rather than try

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 03:48:42

to understand the depth of true unhappiness this will cause?

This is how certain children behave, when they see a toy or book another child has, and they don't want to play with that toy, or read that book, they just want to take it away from the other child and have it for themselves, simply because the other child has it. I wouldn't put up with this from two-year-olds. It's a manipulative little tantrum and a poor basis on which to resolve an issue of such devastating complexity and upset for so many thousands of people of faith.

I doubt you could ever understand.

nooka Tue 06-Aug-13 05:42:33

No one is taking anything away from anyone Crumbled. Your hyperbole is really quite laughable.

I really fail to understand why people think that another couple getting married will have any impact on them at all. People get married all the time. In CoE churches the people getting married frequently have no discernible faith they just like the idea of a church wedding, and as it is the established church they have that opportunity.

Just like my cousins who had their children christened despite having zero engagement with that community or any expectation to bring their children up as Christians let alone as practicing Anglicans. This happens every day, there is no obligation to be a practicing Christian to be christened, married or have your funeral in a CoE church. So why should it be so different just because this couple happen to be gay unless you object to them being gay?

How can you possibly know with such certainty that being married in the church which they attend is not a big deal for this couple. Do you know them personally?

As for the absolute catastrophe that you describe the church falling into should this couple potentially win their case, why on earth is it such an enormous deal? There is no commandment that says gay people cannot ever be married in a church - churches didn't even exist in Christ's day, and his message was about love and tolerance, not exclusion and bigotry.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 06:16:29

which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code

The people who will be negatively effected (whom it will be destroyed for) will be the people who's discriminatory attitudes are being propped up by the interpretation of a belief system. PEOPLE WHO DONT BELIEVE GAY PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUALITY

What you are doing is something called 'Othering'. This is a practice that is common in places where institutional discrimination takes place. People will often say, 'no, i'm not racist, but it would be uncomfortable to have an asian member of staff here because of xyz, or well it's always been like this'

You talk about Civic Code? What on earth do you mean by this? Those two men are civilians and these men are protected by Equalities Legislation in EVERY other AREA of civic life.

It stinks of the last bastion of legitimate homophobia that a small minority are clinging on to.

As I have said before, there are many in the Anglican Church that fully support Gay Marriage and have been lobbying for it for a long time.

I just do not understand how your argument can possibly be interpreted in any other way than being discriminatory.

Your comments about their sex life is completely irrelevant to this argument. You cannot be arguing the rights and wrongs of gay marriage and use that to prop up your argument. It's ridiculous and makes you appear to be reinforcing the deviant discourse that often accompanies discrimination against gay men.

You are 'othering' and promoting a deviant discourse to prop up your argument

Go and read some books and come back and try and argue that you are not being homophobic. Seriously.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:18:19

Oh yes - I forgot to add after my last post - it's now time to laugh, point, call me names, deliberately misunderstand me, amuse yourselves at the distress of others and call names again. You will, quite simply, never accept that this is a wrong and hurtful way to go about this.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:29:22

it's now time to laugh, point, call me names, deliberately misunderstand me, amuse yourselves at the distress of others and call names again. You will, quite simply, never accept that this is a wrong and hurtful way to go about this

Crumblewalnuts. I have never called you names. I have said that your attitude appears to be homophobic.

I am not 'amusing myself' at your distress. I, as you are and others, am defending my position and the position of many others.

Stop playing the victim to try and make yourself feel better because people do not and will not agree with your homophobic perspective.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:35:18

Do you think a disestablished Chruch should be forced into this?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:39:46

Who do you think is "playing the victim" at th emoment? People whose lives will be totally unaffected by this. I don't believe this couple are traumatised by being unable to marry in a church. But there are people who are sincerely troubled and torn by this issue, and who are thinking about it, praying about it, writing about it, agonising about it. You wouldn't understand that - you just WANT TO SHOUT THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:43:05

"Your comments about their sex life is completely irrelevant to this argument"

Once more: it is not irrelevant to this argument, to this case. Threesomes have nothing to do with the principle. But they have a lot to do with this case. If they aren't practising Christians then it's plainly a hypocritical attempt to garner attention.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:43:34

Yes, I actually do.

I think churches that have a role in civic life i.e conduct marriages etc have a responsibility to act under Equalities Laws.

Churches that don't wish to do operate under a legislative framework that protects people from discrimination do not have the right to conduct a legally binding wedding ceremony - for anyone.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:47:22

The role is as the established church. If the establishment is taken away it's simply a private religion. Do you think mosques should also be forced into this, and synagogues?

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:48:10

Are you a Christian Crumbledwalnuts? Do you mind me asking?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:49:09

What if no priest wants to marry a same sex couple on religious grounds? Would you force them to do that?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:51:32

Not a good one. This doesn't traumatise me, but it's troubling so many people in ways that obviously you can't imagine, because you just think they are homophobes and deserve it, even though they have no problem with partnerships, adoption, anything else at all. Do you want to answer my questions?

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:51:50

If the establishment is taken away it's simply a private religion

Absolutely. The establishment ought to withdraw from Churches which do not operate under equalities laws.

Do you think mosques should also be forced into this, and synagogues?

Absolutely. Although these religions are not our 'State' religion so i recognise that it would be more difficult to legislate.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:54:21

What if no priest wants to marry a same sex couple on religious grounds? Would you force them to do that?

There are plenty of priests that would be happy to marry a same sex couple. Churches need to make provision somehow for couples to be married. All couples. regardeless of individual priest views.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:55:05

The Church of England wouldn't be a state religion any more so they would have the same standing as mosques. It would be just as easy to legislate for mosques as for churches.

Do you think priests and imams should be forced to carry out ceremonies, by law?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:55:45

What if there were none? This is about the principle.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:56:32

Do you think there are plenty of imams willing to carry out these ceremonies? do you think imams should be forced into this?

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 08:56:55

Not a good one Me neither!

But I don't think it matters too much. No one is judging!

I've got to go. really late but thank you for the discussion. It's helped my think about things.

I might drop in later if it's still going on!

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 09:00:20

I hope you can come back and answer these questions. Or anybody, in fact, who agrees with you. They are difficult questions but to take such a strong position, you must have thought about them and come to conclusions.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 09:17:09

Just to Clarify: I believe that anyone conducting a legally binding wedding ceremony in the UK needs to be operating under the Equalities Legislation. It doesn't matter who they are.

If they are not willing to operate under laws that protect people from discrimination, they simply lose their licence to conduct a legally binding wedding.

Simple.

Individual feelings are a moot point.

People used to believe it was o.k to keep slaves. There were individual people that were unhappy with that becoming illegal.

It used to be o.k to take a cane to school children, Some people were unhappy when that became illegal.

It used to be o.k for a man to rape his wife within marriage. Some people were unhappy when that became illegal.

It used to be o.k to pay women less than men.........well...

I know these are very strong an emotive examples but i hope you can see the point I am making.

Anyway REALLY REALLY got to go now!!

If the Church of England wants to detach itself from state in order to up hold what MANY people recognise as discriminatory and prejudice beliefs then there will be some people that are damaged.

It is part of state. It needs to operate within state law. Simples.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 09:27:19

So if the right to marry people is removed from all religious institutions, because all its officiators believe marriage is between a man and a woman, what about blessings? Would they have the right to bless a marriage removed from them too?

MidniteScribbler Tue 06-Aug-13 09:31:06

But they have chosen, out of a sort of wealthy pique, to stamp their feet and demand something that will cause such ructions of faith for so many people, which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code of this country for the better over hundreds of years.

How will it cause a ruckus to the faith? How will it impact my life in any way shape or form? How will it impact my own faith if on saturday afternoons the church marries some same sex couples among the heterosexual couples it marries? It doesn't affect me at all.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 09:31:12

It's not "simples" - many people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean believing that a gay person is less than a straight person. Why would it? It means they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. You say that people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman must also believe that gay people are "lesser" than straight people. Why? Why is this implied at all? It's completely unconnected. There's no value judgement at all. It's simply they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 09:32:07

Scribbler: if you're alright, then how can anybody at all be affected? I should think that because your fridge is full, no one goes hungry.

hmm

tabulahrasa Tue 06-Aug-13 09:59:17

"many people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean believing that a gay person is less than a straight person."

How can anyone possibly think that people deserve to be treated differently without it also implying that they don't think of them as equal? Otherwise what basis is there for treating them differently?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 10:13:24

Very easily. Being different doesn't mean being lesser. I thought that was what you believed.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 10:20:21

How arrogant you are, Crumbled. So you do consider yourself the arbiter of whether this couple has 'repented' or not. Are you the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I think Period has hit the nail on the head: if a church wishes to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, then they must abide by equalities legislation. If not, the marriages are not legally binding. Civil and religious marriages should be entirely decoupled, anyway, like in France; but then we are back to disestablishment.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 10:25:29

I'm not the arrogant one here. Not in the slightest. That's a complete topsy turvy view of it. No, I don't consider myself the arbiter. It's between them and god, if they even believe in God.

All the questions to period, I repeat to you. Can you answer them?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 10:29:34

If it's between them and god - and I note your p.a. dig there - why are you insisting that it's relevant?

As for your questions to Period: I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with.

MidniteScribbler Tue 06-Aug-13 10:35:32

It means they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then those people are welcome to marry a person of the opposite sex. Just because they think that their marriage should be between a man and a woman, doesn't mean others should agree with them. I don't like smoking, but as long as it's not affecting my life, why should I dictate what someone else does?

Scribbler: if you're alright, then how can anybody at all be affected? I should think that because your fridge is full, no one goes hungry.

If my fridge is full, then I should do what I can to help others to be able to eat as well. If my faith is strong, then I should be willing to support others in their faith as well, and if that means wanting to marry in a church, then I will support that.

tabulahrasa Tue 06-Aug-13 10:53:03

"Being different doesn't mean being lesser."

Unless you're treating them as lesser - that couple is different from that one = different. That couple is different from that one and because of that difference they should not be allowed a marriage = lesser.

OutragedFromLeeds Tue 06-Aug-13 14:46:02

crumble Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

nooka Tue 06-Aug-13 15:51:07

The CoE church has come through much more significant change than this in any case. The ordination of women was a much much more disruptive change that had a direct impact on far more people than permitting gay marriage ever will, but was not the terrible act of destruction that many of the congregation or clergy who were against it predicted at the time.

I would not want to see any priest or religious person forced into something that they are adamantly against, simply the ban lifted so those that are comfortable are not restricted as is the case right now. I'd also like to see disestablishment so that the church and state are not intertwined and situations like this did not come up in the first place. Also so that people didn't feel they had the right to meaningless (to them) ceremonies in churches just because they are pretty or an excuse for a party. As there are non religious equivalents for christenings, weddings and funerals the church services should be for those that believe whatever brand of religion the church/synagogue/mosque preaches.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 17:28:44

Skyler: "I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with." So you don't mind if a church refuses to bless a gay marriage or baptise a gay man or woman? Because these aren't legally binding? You think that's OK? Why? No private individual is allowed to be biased in that way. You aren't allowed not to serve a gay man in a restaurant, or refuse to sell him a shirt. Why should these religious ceremonies be different?

It's relevant because if they aren't practicising Christians then this is meaningless to them as a religious token. It's a nothing. How can you say it's not relevant if they're not Christians?

Tabulah: They're aren't being treated as lesser. They're being treated as different, which isn't lesser at all. At least I don't think so. If you do that's up to you.

Outraged: they do have equal rights, just not the same rights. Like, heterosexual couples can't have civil partnerships, but homosexual couples can't get married. The outcomes are the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities, and child responsibilities. But the routes are different. Who loses?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 17:29:37

There seem to be quite a lot of people here who think different = lesser, which is not something I'd promote or agree with at all.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 17:40:18

Crumbled: past activities do not determine whether someone is a practising Christian or not in the present, today. Can you understand that? Your prurience on this is quite telling, really.

As for blessings and the like, I personally disagree with religious institutions refusing to bless gay couples or baptise a gay man or woman, but I respect the right to religious freedom in these matters. Where religious institutions perform legally binding and state-recognised ceremonies, that is when I believe that they should abide by equalities legislation. It's quite simple really.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 17:41:26

And nooka's point about female ordination is spot on; a much more fundamental change to the CofE than gay marriage.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 17:46:39

There seem to be quite a lot of people here who think different = lesser, which is not something I'd promote or agree with at all.

By that logic, separate water fountains for black people would be ok, because they are different not lesser. Do you see?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 18:59:59

Skyler: I'm not prurient. If people want to have threesomes that's up to them. (but I notice the name-calling again). If people want to say adultery is a Christian practice, it's not up to them. Yes, past activities are between them and God, as I said. But with that in the past, and this aggressive, insensitive, arrogant, impatient, glory-seeking act in the present, they're not giving a great impression of the humble submissive tolerance that you seem to expect from all other members of the Church of England. Your point about the water fountains is a good one, but not relevant here. This is about a specific religious act with specific religious parameters, the benefits of which are available through an entirely legitimate and certainly unshameful (I have no idea why you would disagree with that) alternative route.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 19:01:42

Would you force an imam to marry two men by the way?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 19:02:49

Sorry I did also ask about marriage blessings and baptisms, where you implied that it would be OK to discriminate against homosexuals. Could you answer those couple of questions.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 19:03:36

Specifically you said this: "I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with."

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 19:13:39

I'm sorry, I notice you answered the question about blessings. So would you support a legal challenge to a refusal to bless a gay marriage?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 20:06:31

How do we know they committed adultery? We have no idea when (or even if) this alleged threesome took place. Even if it did take place, they were not married in the eyes of the law (or god), so it couldn't have been adultery.

In any case, I hardly think they are the first couple to have had a sexually adventurous past - no other couple is asked to account for their past actions before they get married in church, so why should this or any other gay couple?

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:08:56

I rather think that everyone who's bothered to reply to you over the last half a day has already said they would not force an imam, or a priest, or anyone, to marry a gay couple. Or, I think clearly enough implied where not explicitly stated, to bless them. The objection is to the established church not being even allowed by law to marry them (though some can, and do, bless them, and quite right too).

The argument has got quite nasty here (and frankly if you're not the OP with a NC I'll change my name to Annieeatyourhat). Why does it matter whether the couple who are taking this action are themselves a brilliant example of Christian virtue? Not that I believe a word that's typed in the bloody Mail, but assuming everything the nasty rag has ever said about them is true, they are far from virtuous. But that really doesn't matter, do you see? The reason they are prevented from marrying in church is not that they are not very nice people, that they're rich, that they have acquired children through surrogacy, or that they are alleged to have attempted to carry out a threesome with someone a random poster claims to know. Or, for that matter, if they appeared on the front page of every newspaper in the land entwined in a passionate embrace with Jimmy Bloody Savill and a goat. None of these things are the reason why they may not marry in church. It is simply because they are gay.

This is what they are taking up arms against, because it is a cause that matters to them. Who are you to say they "ought to" care about some other cause? This is the one they've chosen to fight, and it's their money and time they're spending fighting it. So let them. Yes, they'll lose this time. But they will draw more attention to the issue and hopefully make a few people think a bit more deeply rather than knee-jerking the constant "Marriage is between one man and one woman" mantra (which as some have already pointed out, is not a fundamental truth even in the Bible).

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 20:14:02

No, my primary issue is with legally binding ceremonies. I believe in religious freedom, although i think that insofar as religious groups perform state-recognised ceremonies, these should be in line with equalites legislation. I suspect more forward thinking religious groups (and probably a great many progressive CofE ministers) would have no problem performing a blessing for a gay couple.

Ideally I would like all religious groups to recognise the humanity, equality and dignity of gay men and women, and their equal rights to full participation in religious life. I don't see how this will bring the CofE or any other religious group to its knees.

You're v insistent that others answer your questions, et you have been asked a few times how exactly gay marriage will damage the CofE. Can you please respond?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:24:53

Actually I was talking about whether the church was disestablished, would you still force priests to do it - and if so, would you force an imam to do it, because then the two religious institutions would have the same status. Do you see?

So Annie if the church was disestablished, would you force a priest to do it, and if so would you force an imam to do it?

There's inconsistency in Skyler's point of view: she recognises religious freedom and the "right" not to bless a gay marriage. That's very inconsistent: I'm wondering if there are any more inconsistencies in the positions held.

What do you think Annie?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:25:53

Actually Skyler that IS a good point - they can't commit adultery because they aren't married.

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:26:37

And now let's have a go at this bit.

But they have chosen, out of a sort of wealthy pique, to stamp their feet and demand something that will cause such ructions of faith for so many people, which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code of this country for the better over hundreds of years.

How come the hurt and consternation of homophobes people who do not believe in gay marriage is important, whilst the hurt and consternation of people who are prevented from marrying their deeply loved life partner in the church of their faith matters not a jot? There are a lot of them and they are the ones who are suffering, not the bigots. Bigots love to have something to froth about anyway.

You talk about their right to go and get married by another church as if changing a church is as easy as changing a pair of socks. It causes a lot of people a serious crisis of faith to change denomination, even, let alone religion. Don't you think all that killing and stuff in, say, Northern Ireland would just go away if half the population decided, sod it, I'll join that church the other half appear to be enjoying themselves in? Many people fight and die for their religion. They don't just say, oh I don't like this bit, let's switch. That the church of their childhood looks down on them and says sorry, that thing you do with that person you love, that is just beyond the pale, we can't be having it here, some of our congregation don't like the idea of it. That hurts.

Maybe the couple who are taking the legal action referred to don't really care where/whether they get married; I don't know, I haven't asked them. But many others being discriminated against in the same way jolly well do, and most of them don't have money or fame and, therefore, much of a voice, poor souls. Who is standing up for their rights? You aren't; you're standing up for the rights of the offended to not have to think about gayness in case, you know, it rubs off or something. The offended can learn to be more open-minded, but the gay couldn't learn not to be gay even if they wanted to, and why should they? There are enough of us happy to reproduce - some would say too many.

Like the T-shirt says: Some people are gay! Get over it!

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:26:39

By the way you can change your name Annie, and you can ask MNHQ.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 20:29:01

Why is it inconsistent? Exactly where is the inconsistency?

If the church was disestablished, and if church weddings were not legally recognised, then I would not be in favour of forcing any priest to perform gay marriage. I've said that numerous times, I'm not sure why you can't grasp that.

You're still ducking the question about how gay marriage will bring the church to its knees.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 20:29:57

Yes on the adultery point. So all of your prurient posts about how they haven't repented publicly enough for you are rendered null and void.

tabulahrasa Tue 06-Aug-13 20:30:09

"Tabulah: They're aren't being treated as lesser. They're being treated as different, which isn't lesser at all. At least I don't think so. If you do that's up to you."

In what way is segregation not treating someone as lesser?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 20:32:04

I tried making that point, tabulah, using the example of water fountains. She didn't get it.

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:32:11

I'd like to see disestablishment, but I think it would be a far more fundamental change than allowing gay marriage and a lot less likely to happen in my lifetime, so a bit of a straw man in this context I feel. Force an individual officiator to conduct the ceremony: gut feeling is no, I probably wouldn't, but I think if it were enabled then gradually as people got used to the idea there would be fewer and fewer conscientious objectors.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:33:20

"the hurt and consternation of homophobes people who do not believe in gay marriage"

do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury is a homophobe? do you really?

Nobody needs to get over the fact that some people are gay - I think you would hunt high and low on this thread to find someone who needs to get over that.

If it's nasty, it's not because of me - I haven't hurled insults or called names. That's the kind of comment that makes it nasty actually - implying that I need to get over the fact that people are gay. How do you know I don't have relatives who are gay? And yes, I've had this conversation with them.

So if the church is disestablished, and in addition the right to carry out legally binding ceremonies is removed, you have no problem with them refusing to bless gay marriages, because that would infringe on their religious freedom. To what? To be "homophobic" and to bring that into public life? to offer a service to some couples and not to others?

And if the church was disestablished, but still allowed to carry out legally binding ceremonies, what then? You would force a priest (and imam obv, because they'd now have the same status) to carry out a marriage or basically they'd have to give up their job?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:34:21

I didn't get the point because the point is irrelevant. I did explain why but you didn't get it.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:35:24

It's inconsistent, because the blessing then has the same status as say the landlord of the bandb. It's just a service offered to the public.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 20:35:59

And it that case religious freedom is meaningless and irrelevant - it's against the law and that's that.

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:39:16

Separate but equal, as the Land of the Free had it.

Or to quote another classic: "Some are more equal than others".

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:44:06

"do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury is a homophobe? do you really?"

Do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury suffers hurt and consternation over the idea of same sex couples marrying in church? Do you really?

Anniegetyourgun Tue 06-Aug-13 20:46:09

... as for what I think of the A of C myself, I don't much, as I've no idea what he's talking about unless it's mentioned on Radio 4 during the small slot in the day when I have the radio on. I vaguely remember he kind of likes the idea of women priests but not of same sex marriages, or was it the other way round?

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 20:54:05

...just to note. a previous arch bishop of canterbury supported the ordination of women and I am not going to discuss his other beliefs because i'm not entirely clear but i know at least one or two of his social circle (who are clergy) have supported gay marriage.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 21:07:45

Crumbled your last posts make no sense. I can't even begin to understand them.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 21:11:28

If you think a blessing will have the same status as that performed by a pub landlord, your religious faith is rather weird. Is your faith predicated on the established nature of the church?

For the third time, how exactly will the church be brought to its knees by gay marriage?

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 21:16:13

So you don't mind if a church refuses to bless a gay marriage or baptise a gay man or woman? Because these aren't legally binding? You think that's OK? Why?

I Do mind actually. I am entirely uncomfortable with anyone being discriminated against. BUT at the same time, i do not wish to live in a 'regime' which would disallow people to participate in rites and ceremonies that are important to them. If people want to bless a marriage, christening, armchair sport in the name of their higher power,what ever that is.. it would be highly oppressive to want to stop them doing that.

As I have said before. The view I think from most people who are involved in this discussion is this:

NOBODY (regardless of their religion) in any position carrying our activities with endorsement from the state, (i.e a licence to conduct a marriage) should be allowed to discriminate who can and can't use this service on the basis of any of the eight protected characteristics stated in the Equalities Act 2010. One of them being a person's sexuality.

This discrimination would make them unfit people to conduct a wedding as they would not be operating within the states acceptable boundaries. i.e boundaries of law which protect people from discrimination.

As in EVERY other area in civic life, if a person breaches this law, there are consequences.

In terms of how the Church manage this, I would suggest that there should be a respectful period where clergy who support gay marraige can go and conduct ceremonies wherever people want them, allowing those that can't cope with equality within the church to step back on these occasions. Eventually in time, the church would grow to become a church which would include everyone.

PeriodFeatures Tue 06-Aug-13 21:18:25

Can I ask you a question Crumbled?

What do you think marriage means to people and and why do you think people choose to marry?

Thank you.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 21:35:06

these two have always annoyed me their the ones who have had various children by donor/surrogate mothers all well and good but one provided the sperm specifically for the girls one for the boys a friend of mine [who is incidentally gay felt it was all very contrived] every time I see them on a programme or in the paper I just feel they think they can have whatever they want because they can pay for it. I in no way think that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people but if it is fundamentally against the beleifs of some churches and as a catholic I know it is against the catholic church,s belief[this is in no way my belief can I make myself absolutley clear] then why try to sue them some churches have I believe already said they will marry same sex couples great but I don't think anybody no matter how much money they have should try to change some churches fundamental beleifs /values[wether I agree with a particular church on this or not.]

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 22:03:39

So you don't think gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people, yet you're ok with the fact that the CofE is prohibited from performing gay marriage? That makes no sense. And this couple's arrangements for surrogacy have nothing to do with their wishing to get married.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 22:30:13

did not mention c of e I,m not c of e if the church of England is prohibited that's because of the laws of the church [cof e] I just don't get why some very rich men think they should be allowed to challenge the fundamental beleifs of some churches because they can they are incredibly rich and they think it gives them the right to have whatever they want great so find a church that will marry them there are some that have said they will so get married in those churches? but that wont get them in the papers and on programmes [yet again ] will it?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 22:32:26

Oh dear. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? It's the laws of the state that prohibit the Church of England from performing gay marriages.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 22:45:55

no I don't I,m catholic so haven't a clue about the church of England but I have seen these men in many programmes and newspaper articles and they do seem to believe they can get what they want by paying for it so why don't they find a church that will marry them?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 22:47:40

Because they are members of the Church of England. They wish to get married in their own church, which is the established church of the state, and which is the only one which is prohibited by law from performing gay marriages.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 22:54:31

well the paper I read stated they were Christian which covers not just the church of England if they were so intent on proving there love why not just find a Christian church to marry them my grandmother did she changed her religion to marry her catholic husband or are they more bothered about yet more publicity?

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 22:58:01

There are differences between the Christian churches, you know. Quite substantial ones. In fact, the Catholic Church doesn't even recognise Protetant churches as churches at all. Maybe your grandmother was happy to change religion to get married, but not everyone is.

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 23:00:09

Btw, if your grandmother was Protestant, she wouldn't have had to change religion in order to get married. That would have been her own choice.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 23:00:42

To be honest we are really not going to agree on this one I have seen this couple on several programmes and magazine articles and my opnion is that they just want to prove a point and they couldn't really give a toss about the religious side of things [this is the first time I have heard of their devotion to the church ] I think its just a publicity stunt but I will agree to disagree with you

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 23:02:12

she was Methodist and yes it was her choice but she wanted her kids brought up catholic they can still be christians

skylerwhite Tue 06-Aug-13 23:05:14

Right. So if it was some other gay couple taking this case, would you support it?

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 23:10:50

course I would as long as they are doing it for the right reasons and not for publicity everybody has a right to get married finding a church that will marry you however is a different matter and if it was truly about religious beleifs I would support this couple but I don't think it is I think its just about them thinking they can have everything they want because they can pay for it!