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?

You can not "force" the church to back down on their view of homosexual marriage any more then you can "force" homosexuals to be heterosexual

You can't force people to think as you do.
You may be right but that is not the point.

igggi

the church of england has to marry you in the parish you live provided you are not divorced it may in exceptional circumstances but does not have to marrry divorcees, that's why prince charles and camilla married at registry office and blessing after as could not be married in Cof E

no other minister of any other denomination has to marry anyone, some refuse on grounds of divorce or that you are not an active follower of the religion or you are marrying outside the religion so the rabbi iman etc will not bless union, some only marry members of their own congregation others insist you do thier pre-marriage course first

you can not force people to think anything in fact trying to force them often makes them dig their heels in more and be more stubborn as you are telling them what to do or think ( never popular) and we have freedom of thought speech and religion in this country that means freeedom to think against popular and majority opinion

as far as i know no iman has been arrested or charged with homophobic incitement even when filmed saying gays should be killed murdered etc in the sermon att mosque which is a far greater crime than just thinking well i'm not keen on gay marriage and I think only men and women should marry it does not on the same scale

people can sometimes guess our thought process by seeing our actions but they may not our thought life is private, I would hate to see people spying on other people and reporting that Mr X said xy and z in his own home 4 nights ago.

At and RC wedding you have to have a registrar (civil) present at the wedding in order for marriage to be legal - you sign the register in front of them during the ceremony (or after). As far as I know the only religious ministers who can act as legal registrars are CofE ministers.

No surprise the Catholic church won't marry gays though

Agree with KalKisrata - separate the legalities from the religious in this (and other_ matters.

IMO NO religious "law" should outrank the laws of the land.

IMO NO religious "law" should outrank the laws of the land.

• don't think anyone would disagree with that really. I'm just not seeing any situation where religious law does outrank the law of the land

It is the law that needs changing, then, not religion.

We cannot make a major change and remove the right to practice a religion, in the way that those who follow the religion, see fit, which will upset thousands of people, in the name of tolerance.

I think the law needs changing. When I got married in a registry office it was called a marriage cos dh is a man and I'm a woman. Why cant a registry office marry a gay couple and cal it a marriage?

"I'm just not seeing any situation where religious law does outrank the law of the land"

Because of the Human Rights Act, in the same way as being pregnant gives special dispensation, etc.

It was important to protect religious pratice/belief/custom across Europe after the Holocaust. There are still people alive who remembers how which religion you followed, shaped your life, myself included , in terms of employment.

What if it were a religion which said mixed-race marriages were not allowed? Would we just say "oh well, it's just this country's national church, they're entitled to their beliefs"?

The law of the land had been so manipulated to make it ok to kill a Jew in the street that we had to have religion in the Human Rights Act.

when the bible says obey the law of the land it does not mean that god's law is superceded only that the beliver should obey God first and if that brings them into conflict with the state that have to accept that, but they should try to protest that tthe law is not right etc

ie if state makes it illegal to own buy or sell bibles, ( this happenned not so long ago in some parts of eastern europe) God does not mean you burn your bible he means that if you are then persecuted for reading the bible you have to endure the persecution knowing that god cares for you and that ultimately those you run the state are answerable to God for the way they do that

Jesus did not thing Roman law was better than God's law but he did think you should not just dosobey roman laws becasue they were not God's law but as far as possible obey both

when he was asked was it right to pay taxes to caesar instead of God he asked for a coin and asked whose head was on it, when they replied it was caesar's he replied give to caesar what is due to caesar and give to God what is due to God, so the believer is under both the law of god and the law of the land but most believers of any religion will think and act on the basis that God's law is above national law

Filter-stick to factual arguements, religion doesn't say that, but the law did, my GM friend survived (Jewish) because he married a German and that marriage kept him alive.

The law is so easy to make in people's dextriment. I watched a documentory about Quenn Matilda, who used an old religious law to get out of her marriage, she had no protection from the actual law. Religious law had it's uses.

The point is Birds that the church would be vilified for allowing that kind of discrimination, even if they claimed it was part of their religion. I think the same should apply to gay marriage.

"What if it were a religion which said mixed-race marriages were not allowed? Would we just say "oh well, it's just this country's national church, they're entitled to their beliefs"?"

I'd have no problem with it. As long as they abided by the laws which other religions and organisations have to wrt empoyment etc. then I don't see why the law should stop people who have similar beliefs associating once they don't infringe on anyone elses rights.
I'd like to hope that soceity is at a point where such a religion would be an absolute insignifigance and their members would be acknowledged as hopeless hatefilled bigots.
I'd hope that soceity as a whole would reject them to the point that such a church would find it impossible to continue due to people boycotting them, but I wouldn't want the law to step in and tell people what to think

But this is a religion which claims to represent our country - the "Church of England". It's not meant to be just some weird cult. And if their representatives (bishops) can sit in the House of Lords then there should be a two-way process whereby they can't too far from the laws everyone else abides by. Personally I think it's disgraceful that women can't be bishops and gay people can get married anywhere except church. The church isn't just for male straight people.

but they're not in anyway exempt from the laws everyone else abides by. They are exercising their freedom of association.
The house of lords thing is a disgrace and should be ended, but it has nothing to do with the argument about religious institutions choosing not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

I really don't get your point with the fact that they claim to represent England. So do a million other groups. If someone can tell me what law they're breaking I think that might help me understand, because I'm still bemused as to that point.

But when you look at how the religion developed, there lies your answer, it suited an agenda.

But to force total change would alienate gay people and there would be a backlash, many feel that it is better to make small changes.

Leglislation dictates that a marriage is between a man and a woman, not just the church. Perhaps take another vote on it, we go with the majorty in this country.

Major-i think that many are in the mistaken belief that the church is not offering services to gay couples, but every law and act has exclusions to them and the church opperates within the allowed exclusions.

The church cannot marry same sex couples, the law doesn't allow it, we need a change in law.

They're obviously getting around the law somehow, yes. Doesn't make it right though.

We'll most likely have to agree to disagree. I think it's completely right, you think it's completely wrong.

Just as an aside - priests are not employees, at least not the in the UK - they are 'office holders'. There have been attempted tribunals wrt employment issues & the church and, IIRC, the outcome has been that God is not an entity therefore is not an employer - and the tribunal claims have failed.

Our priest had to read out a letter regarding this issue this morning and it was evident he does not agree with the church's position on the subject. He talked about love being pure and said it (love) was sacred whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. He said all were welcome in church no matter what their orientation as Jesus Christ would not have made these distinctions.

God is not homophoic, man is homophoic and so is the Catholic church imho. Troule is - as our priest said to me in a discussion " the church have made their position so clear over the past years that they have now backed themselves into a corner and the only way of moving from it is to go backwards and admit they were wrong",. I like our priest

So OP = YANBU but you are BU to think God is homophobic....unless of course you don't believe in God in which case it doesn't matter.

By "represent" I don't mean in a football-team kind of way. I mean that if it's called the "Church of England" then it should be representative and inclusive of the people of this country, some of whom happen to be gay. Otherwise it's the "Church of Straight People in England".

I'm with you in that I think any other church which isn't meant to be there for all of us can do what it likes. Some get really conservative in a fundamentalist evangelical way. Others such as the Methodists are liberal than the C of E - e.g. they've had women ministers since the early 20th century whereas it took the C of E decades to catch up.

(OK so all churches should be there for all of us but there's an extra strand of responsibility there in the C of E)

You can't force people to think what you want them to think. Making churches preach what you want them to preach isn't going to change anyone's mind, if anything it's just going to breed resentment towards the government and gay people.