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?

I think there are churches who would willingly conduct services, but are prevented from doing so by the people higher up in the church organisation. So I don't think it would be a question of many people insisting on having ceremonies, conducted by hostile vicars. More that they would have ceremonies conducted by people that are supportive.

at antagonistic instead of agnostic. not laughing at you btw mrshoarder it was just a fantastic typo/spelling mistake that made me smile.

whoever said forcing people to do things is as bad as homophobia - that's nonsense - you are forced to tax your car or bear the consequences when caught, to fill in your electoral roll form or be fined £1000, to offer equal opportunities for male and female job applicants etc etc etc.

we have a system of law. it's generally seen as one of the key marks of a civilised society and the duty of it's citizens to follow the law or face the loss of freedom potentially to live in that society.

MrsHoarder - do you mean agnostic? Thing is, a church is supposed to represent universal, eternal values, not one that changes in order to remain popular. In the New Testament Jesus frequently asks people to do difficult things in order to follow him - not burying one's father who had just died for instance. I am 100% behind homosexuals forming partnership and being seen as equals in the eyes of the law but churches have a right to retain their sacred teachings, even if it means excluding some (see, they would argue that homosexuals could choose to remain celibate, as ordained Roman Catholics do, and therefore be accepted into the church - in their eyes that IS a possible choice). - just because in our society the idea of asking people to be celibate is seen as a best laughable and at worst oppressive, does not mean it is not a consistent theory. RCs have the same approach to the spread of AIDS in areas of the world where they hold sway. They maintain the ban on condoms because they argue that IF people abstained from sex apart from within marriage there would be no need for them. If they wish to make themselves unpopular and out of touch that is their right - if they cease to exist as membership falls, that's their look-out.

We allow all sorts of words to change meaning, ultimately marriage is a legal contract between 2 adults, an institution with special legal rights. Their genders or whether they ever have sex was always secondary.

So would a church refuse to marry two elderly people, on the grounds that their union is unlikely to result in babies?

Also in theory should turn down anyone who has sexual disfunction, infertility, or simply doesn't want to have children or sex. Women past menopause could be banned but men could get married any time after age of consent as long as they were still sexually functional. Oh, and anyone who had been sterilised might be out, too. I suppose you could marry someone who already had children, with the assumption that you were taking the missing partner's place in the child's life even if you knew you'd be producing no new children. Presumably that would be approved. Might depend on the ages of the existing offspring.

The emphasis on marriage as a union to produce children also makes it transparent the speaker's true views on children born out of wedlock :(.

Religions really are obsessed with sex and death first and foremost, aren't they?

i agree that civil partnerships should be extended to non sexually involved people btw. two sisters living together in the family home should be able to share their financial interests and protect themselves from being made homeless in the event of one of them dying and the other having to cough inheritance tax for the family home. this is an example that i remember reading an article about and the elderly woman was indeed forced to move out even though iirc she was in her 80's.

trixie: Thing is, a church is supposed to represent universal, eternal values, not one that changes in order to remain popular. In the New Testament Jesus frequently asks people to do difficult things in order to follow him - not burying one's father who had just died for instance

but doesn't he also tell people to follow the law of the land, that they must do that and aren't sinning by doing so?

but we have civil marriage, it's not Israel where it's religious marriage or none - nobody can make any church marry any couple if they don't want to

I don't know, by all means issue some statement but reading out that stupid letter is ANNOYING. Why can't they get their knickers in a twist about child poverty or violence against women and girls or something that matters?

that's the key thing imo, that even the founders of islam and christianity clearly stated that their followers should obey the laws of the land and they therefore were given license to do so without fear of being offensive to their god or breaking the rules of their religion.

it fits in with the give unto caeser what is caesars stuff (not sure which spelling is right, if either).

Oh sod on the spelling. You all seemed to get what I meant anyway.

It was read in every church in England and Wales I believe (we were told that the bishop had given instruction for it to be read). What I found interesting was that the priest chose to follow the letter with a hymn about the new commandment that the most important thing is to love one another.

I was under the impression that the most important messages Christ brought were ones of love and inclusivity, offering God's love to everyone not just those who have power.

yes they can make any church marry gay people OR face the consequences of the law. the same as all of us are compelled to follow laws or face consequences.

i'm not sure where the idea that religious organisations should be exempt comes from especially given the founder of the religion said to follow the law. do christians today know better than jesus? didn't he submit to the law even when it was totally unjust and led to him being crucified? the church is acting with an arrogance and sense of superiority from the nation it is in that was not advocated by jesus.

love your church leaders little act of subversion in the face of a forced mandate mrsH

ours followed up with 'anyone who would like assistance with forming their own response to the letter can discuss it with me after mass or whenever' or something like that but we were urged to sign the petition, grrrr

"Freedom of association doesn't really exist in this country. If you refuse to employ someone or have them stay in your hotel, on the grounds that they are gay and you personally think homosexuality is wrong, you would rightly be prevented from doing so."

It does exist. What you are talking about there is commercial enterprises not clubs or soceities which would be protected by the Freedom of association argument. You rightly say that if you had a hotel you couldn't refuse to employ someone who was jewish or only hire catholics. However there's nothing to stop you starting a Catholics only book club, or a female tennis club etc. If they were big enough to require staff these clubs would still need to adhere to relevant employment law but their membership criteria could remain in place.

I can't believe you sing hymns during Lent mrsh

The catholic church rarranging the deck chairs again!

Shouldn't that mean that churches should have female priests, given that priests are technically staff. In preventing a woman from being a priest are they not breaking employment laws?

"yes they can make any church marry gay people OR face the consequences of the law. the same as all of us are compelled to follow laws or face consequences."
But what laws. what they areperforming is not a legal ceremony, nor does it confer any rights. They are simply engaging in a social and religious ritual. Now they are a huge group so it is quite prevelant and does carry a social weight, but they are not being exempted from any laws as far as I can see.
If they are carrying out a commecial practice or a business then yes they are bound by the laws.
But all of us are not compelled to perform rituals we don't agree with, if we have a gathering in our homes or a premises we own there is no legal compulsion to allow all entry. We are in fact allowed to decide who we associate with in our lives along any grounds we desire no matter how reprehensible. Religions simply do this on a larger scale.

"Shouldn't that mean that churches should have female priests, given that priests are technically staff. In preventing a woman from being a priest are they not breaking employment laws?"

Not up to speed on english employment law, Irish law has many many exceptions for religious grounds. I'd imagine english employment law would have a clauses which allow for discrimination for certain positions or roles where it can be justified etc.
Now of course we'd get into the argument of whether the belief that only men can be priests is justified and so on, that's not something I can really speak to as I'm not religious so don't know what the arguments in its favour are, but I'd imagine that is the reason they are not in breach of employment law. But I'm only versed in Irish law, not English so someone else would probably be better placed to answer.

• there may also be some exceptions in legislation for religions specifically or if the church in England is considered a charity as it is over here, there may be certain exceptions

Church weddings though do confer rights and is a legal ceremony, in that people who marry in church don't have to have a separate state wedding in order to be legally married. Or is it only the signing of the register that counts? Even so, it is the vicar who officiates, not a state employee.

I think you could even argue that a church is a commercial practice - it certainly makes money and isn't really comparable to a book club or equivalent.

It was the family service so they might not do hymns at the others (I know our last church didn't do hymns in lent). Fortunately the children were at little church for the letter (they come back in during the offertory hymn), which saves on awkward questions.

this has been around on the net for several years now but I feel would make a good response to that letter.

actually they did/do hymns at the later mass, which don't usually go to, and I remember ripples of indignation at the impropriety of Shine Jesus Shine

have got into habit of going to low mass at insane o'clock, still packed with families though

I presumed they'd have to sign the register in the church, and it would be this that would vest the legal rights. If I have that wrong and it is a fact that if you have a curch wedding and it is the religious ritual of the wedding itself which vests legal rights then I apologise. That is something which should definitely be seperated in that case.

surely the only difference between a book club which associates along gender or religious lines, a womens only gym or a men only golf course or any group which decides it's membership along certain beliefs and religion is their success. And if you are going to legislate against exclusionary practices within religion then this would have to apply across the board. As most people who are in favour of such legislation are arguing on the grounds that religions should not be exempt from equality law, then if you did legislate against them it would have to apply for all. Which would mean regardless of whether you are a religion with millions of members or a womens only book club with 5, both would have to be subject to the new legislation and both would be in contravention of it.

Religion is not the same the as legislation. I do think a civil marriage should be available to all, but religion remains separated from law and rightly so. Maybe where the law leads, religion might follow and all the while legislation doesn't allow civil marriage for gay couples, religion can use it as a stick to beat their point with.

For many reasons I stay far away from religion and absolutely cannot understand how gay Cathlics or Muslims etc reconcile their belief in a religion that on the whole, has a long history of denouncing people just like them. But that's between them and their god.

As much as I would love to live in a world without prejudice, ultimately you are being unreasonable. With the comparative luxury of freedom of speech and thought comes the acceptance that all people in this country have the right to think whatever they like, no matter how unsavory you might think it.