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?

'eviction art'

'evolutionary'

In essence I agree with you. But you can't "force" anyone to believe anything.

I have been thinking about this this morning and concluded that an organised church which turned a blind eye to child abuse by its supposed priests for so many years, and locked up women who had been raped or had mental illness, really should not be allowed any influence.

So, Catholic bishops, my message to you is: get over yourselves and get stuffed

The blanket statement asks all religions not to be homophobic.

Is religious freedom to be prejudiced more important than a homosexuals right to be equal?

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

But of course marriage long pre-dated this (I appreciate you're not trying to suggest this Lord Penzance dude invented marriage in 1866) and indeed long pre-dated Christianity. Arguably a religious marriage and a civil one are not the same thing, it's just that most people who have a religious marriage are also able to have that recognised as a civil marriage at the same time.

The question under discussion in the government is the definition of civil marriage, which by and large can be 'anything that the law says is civil marriage'. If the major religions of the UK wish to define it differently - well, in the words of Father Ted, 'that would be an ecumenical matter'. (And equivalent terms for the other religions, but we use the Father Ted phrase at work a lot for 'stuff we are not going to consider' so I wanted to get it in!)

Posie I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I am not homophobic because of my belief in God and that we were all made in his image etc. I get so tired of fundamental Christianity (a small part of C in the UK) being all some people base their opinions on.

I've been nodding in agreement with you throughout the thread, Swallowed. I wonder if Posie would agree with me that you can change legislation but not what people believe. WRT not being able/permitted to go out into the street and say that "Black people shouldn't be allowed to marry", Posie, why should you not? I don't agree with the sentiment (as I'm sure you don't) but as long as you're not saying it in such a way as to incite violence you have as much right imho to say and believe it as you have to say that you prefer violets to pansies.

I think a religious leader can abstain from performing these ceremonies... I think. Because by the same token couldn't mosques me compelled to have female imams? ( that would be fabulous)

"MI....Does that mean infertile couples cannot marry?"

I suppose quite often you wouldn't know about your own fertility until you were married, but you only have to be open to the transmission of life or whatever, there is no requirement to actually reproduced.

Actually remember in the press an article about a priest refusing to marry 2 disabled people as they couldn't consumate the marriage and so there was no possibility of children. In fairness though, this was seen as an extreme view by the church as well.

posie - The reality though is lots of people do have a tendency to pick and choose from any religion the bits they want to believe and follow. So imo a religion can be homophobic, but individual adherents may reject the homophobia of their religion.

it's a freedom of association. I don't see where the equality argument comes into it unless they begin to violate employments laws wrt discrimination etc.
It's their freedom to believe whatever the hell they want and set their own criteria for membership. If people want to start a church which allows same sex marriage or one which only allows for same-sex couples then have at it.
I think that not allowing religions to set their own criteria would infringe too greatly on rights to freedom of association.
If you put this legislation in place for churches which forces them to now perform same-sex marriages then what protects all other groups which set their membership criteria along gender/sexual/race/age lines? surely if you force one group to accept everyone in line with the type of equality laws we place on employment, then surely this has to apply across the board.

I know I'm making silly statements, and that the law governs the incitement of racial hatred as opposed to racist views.

Also structural changes do influence people's beliefs - so civil partnerships are a major stepping stone toward legitimising homosexual relationships, equality and race discrimination legislation has change attitudes to what is acceptable in our society.

Gay marriage is another step on the way to making these partnerships equal to heterosexual marriage.

it would be fabulous littlealbert

Why would two people want to be married in a church that has been "forced" to do this and doesn't believe in this....? Surely you would chose to do this where you felt accepted...so in some ways I can't see the point in enforcing the issue....

How would we enforce this forcing?

Interested in the "God isn't homophobic" line.

Does that mean the Bible believing Christians who are homophobic and quote scripture to support their views are wrong?

The question of infertile couples marrying or having sex in the Catholic Church is an old one. Some theologians have claimed that once you find out you are infertile then you should abstain since sex should be purely procreative.

Others claim that sex should be procreative but also has the function of keeping the marriage tohether and strengthing marital love and affection and this function is still valid even if you are infetile. Also infetile sex is ok whereas sex with contraception is not since if not for factors beyond your control then you would have the possibility of procreation wheras this is not the case if you are using contraception. This is why the rhythm method of contraception is allowed but artificial means are not.

Back to the original point, I think that same sex marriage should be legislated for in law to be exactly the same as hetero marriage. To do otherwise is discriminatory.

It is already the case that religious institutions can refuse to marry you for various reasons and I think this should be allowed to persist. If you don't follow the rules of thier club then they don't have to let you in thier treehouse. I don't agree with this but it would be far too much trouble to legislate for.

whoneedssleep - There are gay people who regularly attend church/mosque already.

some would want to get married there because it was their church and their religion was as much or more of their identity as their sexuality i'd imagine.

that's like saying why don't black people who find they can't get promoted because their boss is a racist just get another job?

I wouldnt go to a Church that refused to marry gay couples.
I wouldnt to to a church that refused to employ a female vicar
I wouldnt go to a church that refused to baptise a child born out of wedlock.

Christians can make choices. Its probably easier for those of us who are members of more umm wibbly wobbly wishy washy parts of the Church. If you are a Muslim I expect it would be much harder to find somewhere to worship that met your criteria.

But things have changed in the Anglican church so why shouldnt they change in other religions/movements

A church is not a church if all its members get up and walk out. Its an empty building with some pretty glass and a few bits of chunky silver.