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'm honestly not sure about whether it is the signing of the register which confers legal rights or the ceremony itself. I was only thinking of the fact that in a church wedding, you don't need to have someone from the register office present, the vicar supervises you signing the register and fills out the marriage certificate.

a church wedding is only legal because ministers have been designated as official registrars and the register has to be signed. Anyone marrying in other religious institutions (though possibly not as synagogue in the UK-would have to check that) has to ALSO have a civil ceremony in order for it to be legal. That's why some churches will perform a blessing on the partnership of homosexuals but not actually perform a marriage.

Nice to hear a theist admitting that their religion is inflexible in all aspects of life, not just with regards to gay marriage. WHY any gay couple would be bothered about seeking the approval of an organization wholeheartedly and unashamedly set against their beliefs and choices baffles me! The value of any religion in society is greatly outweighed by the division, intolerance and pain that it will inevitably cause...

a church is a business as far as i'm concerned. it owns property, it employs people, it hires out it's halls for profit, it is run by paid officials and takes in money from it's members. the church (as in as a national institution) has a massive income and outgoings and owns a huge amount of property. it works with young and vulnerable people. etc etc.

a social club that refuses entry to gay people/women/people of ethnic minorities can have legal action taken against it so why should a church be different?

and no one is answering why the church doesn't follow the instruction jesus gave to follow the law ?

people can think what they like but should powerful institutions and people be able to 'act' upon those beliefs when they infringe upon the rights of others?

I agree, it is illegal to show discrimination in any other area and against any groups of people. The catholic church should not be outside the law just because it is a matter of religion. It sickens me.

How many people that get married nowadays actually believe in a god and attend church regularly and live by the bible? Not a lot! And yet, in the UK, you need that piece of paper for many reasons.

I am not suggesting we can force anyone to believe in anything but in the eyes of the law, we are all equal and that's how it should be.

Take a look at

"a social club that refuses entry to gay people/women/people of ethnic minorities can have legal action taken against it so why should a church be different?"

Can they? What about women only gyms? A men only golf club was held lawful in Ireland a couple of years ago. I'd imagine that there are countless women only/men only/gay only/x religion only clubs in the country, all would have to be held unlawful if you're going to say that churches have a positive obligation to perform ceremonies for homosexuals.

"to 'act' upon those beliefs when they infringe upon the rights of others?"

How does it infringe upon their rights though?

I think all marriages should be considered equal (and not be described differently based on the sex of the couple)

I think religious centres should be able to exercise their own religious views as to whom they will perform a service for.

Df and I are a heterosexual couple but will not marry in a church as df particularly hates religion (I am not fussed)

I think churches should have to adhere to the law of the land, equality issues included. In particular, if the "Church of England" is to represent England then it needs to be in line with English law and not go its own way.

Religious views again should not top equality. Same as Islam/Catholicism shouldn't allow paid jobs to be open to men only.

woah bobbledunk, personal attack there

The OP is saying that everyone should be viewed as equal and that those that do not do this are being discriminatory, religions included.

Here, have a

Well, I think faith organisations can choose or not to perform same sex marriages. But their argument that it demeans marriage surely also applies to any civil marriage?

If the Catholic church doesn't perform same sex marriages then that's up to them and if you are a member of a religion that doesn't recognise homosexuality as a normal and acceptable form of love resulting in the commitment of two people then you will already be aware of the of the limitations of how far you can be accepted into that faith.

It makes me very cross that the very institutions that brand gay people as promiscious then want to deny people the opportunity to show and present as a couple. They can complain all they want but civil marriages will be conducted within the rule of the law of the land on not on conflicting religious beliefs.

Nonconformist Church Marriages:
A superintendent registrar will need to attend the ceremony if the minister is not authorised to register marriages. If the church in which you intend to marry is not registered for the solemnisation of marriages, you must arrange for a civil ceremony beforehand to comply with the requirements of the law.

The URC that I attend has a member of the congregation who is authorised to register marriages. Basically, a church wedding ceremony and a civil marriage are separate in law but a church wedding (which is not recognised by law) will usually include the legally required civil marriage.

Churches (even CoE churches) cannot (and should not) be forced to carry out marriages of specific people - a church wedding is not the only option. I can't understand why anyone would want to be married in church unless they were part of a church community.

bobbledunk put it in quite a rude way but is making essentially the same point as I made upthread. Legislating to control behaviour is one thing, but it does seem as though some would like to extend that into legislating to control thoughts, which is creepy in the extreme however well-intentioned.

"I can't understand why anyone would want to be married in church unless they were part of a church community."

But lots of gay couples are part of church communities :)

Oh for Goodness sake noone is wanting to control thoughts. Language and actions are not thoughts.

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

We have established that God isn't homophobic, the people who have developed the religion, which is discriminatory, to many groups.

People choose to change their chosen religion, from within and many leaders are accepting the small changes, which will remove the divisions, eventually.

To remove the "right to practice a religion or belief", from the Human Rights Act, would put many in danger around the world and cause more hardship than it will remove.

Change takes time and forcing people to change never works

Perhaps we should go for the (I think it is French?) way of doing things - everyone has to actually 'get married' in a civil ceremony in a town hall/registry office. Then those who want it can have their marriage blessed in whatever religious setting they want. Then all people, gay, straight, whatever can all be on an equal footing as married, but those who want the religious element/pretty church or whatever, can.

How can legislation change the how faiths operate. They might change over time - but their time.

I would the faiths to keep out of legal weddings. I don't want them telling people what they can do legally outside of any faith.

If God isn't homophobic how do Muslims explain the word of God in the Koran?

'Perhaps we should go for the (I think it is French?) way of doing things - everyone has to actually 'get married' in a civil ceremony in a town hall/registry office. Then those who want it can have their marriage blessed in whatever religious setting they want. Then all people, gay, straight, whatever can all be on an equal footing as married, but those who want the religious element/pretty church or whatever, can.'

Good idea

Doesnt every religion except Christianity have to have a civil wedding anyway? All the muslims and Hindu's I know had to have a registry office thingy as well as their religious thingy.

I know pingpong they got so angry and worked up over what i said, which wasn't anything controversial, quite neutral really. It really shocked me.

I think thats a good idea dont, however it'd still bring up issues if a gay couple wanted a blessing and churches wouldn't give it too them?

In all honesty i cannot see why anyone thinks same sex marriage is wrong? I actually don't understand it, but then again theirs lots of things religion has covered up over the years, but i guess i've been watching too much Davinci code...