to think that everyone should be forced to see homosexuals as equal......

[PosiePumblechook]

In every discussion regarding gay marriage, or marriage as I like to call it, there seems to be this crazy insistence that the church/mosque/Synagogue won't be forced to perform gay marriages.... It's still okay for them to condemn it too.

Why are people, some of which are not homophobic, still following a God that, at best, is homophobic?

God isn't homophobic. People are.

Not all Christians think alike on this issue.

You can't force anyone to think anything btw.

YABU because you can't "force" anyone conform to the popular opinion on any subject. I have never been religious and have nothing against homosexuals, btw.

Because some people are homophobic?

God is a homophobe? I think it's people who are homophobes.

How will this forcing manifest itself? Surely people make up their own minds.

YANBU people should be forced. And they should be forced not to be racist, sexist or basically twats. Not sure how you actually achieve this though. If you find out pm me as I would love to be able to force some of my family to change their views.

We have (or are supposed to have) freedom of speech. No one can take away our freedom of thought.

God is not a homophobe - marriage is defined as a man made contract between one man and one woman.

Perhaps I mean from a legal standpoint. I couldn't go out in the street and say Black people shouldn't be allowed to marry, why can I say, and ask my congregation to agree, that homosexuals can't marry?

Religion seems to be an excuse for being prejudiced.

What a lovely thread for a Sunday.

Agree with the previous posters - you can't force people to think differently, all you can do is educate and set a good example and we do have freedom of speech to a certain degree so unfortunately you can't really stop them spouting all sorts of nonsense. If they cross the line though then being religious institutions shouldn't protect them from being prosecuted.

As an aside (and forgive my ignorance) I know that you can be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, is there an equivalent law regarding sexuality?

If you are a true follower of a homophobic religion then you're homophobic in my book. Claiming you're a devout whatever but you are ok with gay people is bollocks, you either subscribe to a religion and all its beliefs or you don't. It's for that reason that I'm no longer Catholic.

Marriage is not an invention of God's.

YABU because as other posters have said you can't force people to think anything. If you ask me that kind of wish to police others' thoughts is every bit as unpleasant in its way as homophobia, and I say that as someone who's experienced homophobia first-hand.

shangha: marriage is defined as a man made contract between one man and one woman

no it isn't. you can say it 'was' defined as that or that your church defines it as that or your particular religious text does but you can't say that it is THE definition.

definitions change and things are defined differently by different people, different religions (and people with the same religion), different cultures, nations etc etc etc.

Had a long debate about this an racism with my DD.
With the optimism of youth she said people should be racist in anyway, thoughts or deeds.

Her more cynical parents said that unfortunately you can control what people do, what they say to an extent, but what they think not at all.

You can only hope that after a generation or two in which racism or homophobia or indeed sexism have been forbidden by law and educated against in schools that the majority of people will grow up to feel tolerance is natural.

Sadly this will always be an uphill struggle as long as many preach intolerance in the name of religion.

Marriage is just a word at the end of the day. But it's meaning is that of a union between a man and a woman.

Why don't we create a new word which takes into account same sex unions as well as opposite sex ones?

Then the word marriage will probably become as old fashioned as the act itself.

Shouldn't be racist - I must proof

there's no way you will be able to force mosques to perform gay marriages!

however just because people don't wish to take part in these ceremonies does not mean that homosexuals are not seen as equal, they are humans like everyone else noone is denying that, but dont want to take part in the marriage ceremony.
there are other requirements for having marriage done too its not like anyone thats heterosexual can just automatically get their marriage done they still need various things like the agreement of the wali(normally the father) for the bride, either both muslim or husband muslim & wife monotheistic.. etc
why would someone want a religious wedding when they dont respect the religion? homosexuality is not allowed in various religions, so the marriage wont be valid according to the person performing it, which does not make any sense...

it's not discrimination as they can still get their civil marriage done??

i would not go and ask to have my marriage done in a synagogue or church, because i dont follow those religions. it wont be valid in some churches i think? its similar to that as i see it?

we cant change the religions for anyone. so regardless if gay people want to come have their nikah done, or anything else like someone wants to say no more hijabs, or its okay to drink alcohol these days - no we cant change anything, its not just about homosexuals we can not change on any aspect

im not bothered what people do in their own life but cant force it into other peoples place of worshiip

Yabu!!

I would leave the Church of Scotland if it said homosexual people could not be ministers, but so far, they have managed to avoid doing that. There is a huge spectrum of views within the church, and while that continues, I can accept that the church itself is not aligning itself with homophobic beliefs, but if they cross that line, I would leave.

I was very impressed with Will Young on Question Time about why he had come to have a strong view on the subject, when before he wasn't bothered. I agree that having Civil Partnerships instead of marriage, that it sets homosexual and heterosexual people on different levels which shouldnt be allowed.

I have to say though that I do object to CPs being called CPs - it's a ridiculous semantic division designed to appease intolerant people who should just unstick their noses from other peoples business. If we're going down that route why not call all civil ceremonies 'civil partnerships' as 'marriage' is apparently a religiously defined state? Should point out that I got married in a registry office as I'm decidedly not religious.

I can define it as that as it is the legal defintion:

In English law the classic definition of marriage dates back to that given by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde in 1866:

'? the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

I am not talking about the church or religion. A partnership between 2 people of the same sex is not a marriage under this defintion and is defined quite clearly under the CPA 2004:

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex formed when they register as civil partners of each other.

We live in a country which says that all people are equal and entitled to be treated as such.

As a heterosexual, I can get married in church. If gay people are to have true equality in our society, then they too should be allowed to marry in church.

If a religious institution doesn't wish to respect a person's legal right to equality, then they shouldn't be allowed to perform any wedding ceremonies at all imo, until they are prepared to recognise the rights of all people.

the thing is you can make them do things. if you've made a law saying that gay people can get married that's the new law of the land and no one is above that law. you can certainly make it illegal (and i believe it eventually will be made illegal) to refuse to marry people because of their sexuality. it's discrimination.

i can understand churches/mosques/temples etc WANTING to be above the law but no i can't understand letting them be. i also note that jesus and mohammed advocated following the law of the land and that there wouldn't be judgment to do so. there isn't a leg to stand on for ignoring a countries laws either in the secular legal system or in the teachings of their religious texts.