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?

does it actually matter if its called civil partnership, marriage or anything. If the law gives the same rights then the words dont matter?
Does the law give the same rights?

No it doesn't

what are the differences?

I agree with Debbie, as abhorrent as you may find the churches stance on gay marriage, you cannot force them to perform it, what will it really achieve apart from as has been said, resentment of gay people.

It defeats the entire object of a marriage ceremony in that in a religious ceremony the couple is being blessed by the church - but the church would not really be giving its blessing, it has been forced to do so.

As I said before I think marriage should be a secular thing with a blessing from the church if so wished and if agreed by the church. I do not think that the church should be forced into it.

I know that it is an issue on a representative level, but on a real life level are there really loads of gay couples queueing up to get married in a church that they know despises them?

Does it matter if the term marriage is replaced with 'religious partnership' and 'civil partnership' as applicable? Probably not. But language is important and the choice of language here implies it is not the same. If it is the same, call it the same thing. If it's not the same as a marriage in many religions, but is the same as marriage in the civil sense in this country, call the religious marriage something different.

Personally I'm always dumbfounded by the assert action of religious people tha marriage is between One man and one woman

"If it is the same, call it the same thing."

Agreed. Otherwise it's just "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

I think the government should make same sex marriage legal. I don't think religious groups should be compelled to perform them though.

Friends in same sex relationships participate in civic life, in the same way as heterosexuals. They are teachers, doctors, architects, politicians. They can adopt, they can have children. They should have the right to get married.

Yanbu. I am very upset that my trainee minister brother posted a petition to refuse gay marriage in the church, saying that civil marriage was perfectly adequate and gave all the same rights. I am disgusted that this is his view and that he will be a minister so his views will influence others. It has caused me to become an atheist as i want nothing to do with a god like that. I doubt i will have much to do with my little brother in future and it makes me sad.

Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

This opens up an interesting question, though as presumably the husband of a Dame has no honorary title either? (Or husband of any peer-in-her-own-right, if there is such a term).

Ironically I would imagine 'queen' could be a particularly problematic title because it covers both the regnant and consort roles.

are there really loads of gay couples queueing up to get married in a church that they know despises them?

Would you ask "are there really loads of black people queueing for the white-only seats"?

There are plenty of gay Christians, single and couples, who attend church. They may not all be queueing up for something they're not allowed to do, but some are, and when the situation changes then more will be :) There are certainly Christians campaigning for this change, such as Inclusive Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

I wouldn't say "the church" despises gay couples. They've made a rule which gives that impression, but I consider the church to be a collection of people, ahead of it being an institution. And many of us definitely do not "despise" gay couples! Many of us within the church disagree with its current position, and hopefully this rule will change.

Should those of us wanting change just sit back and accept the status quo? I think not. I think Jesus would have had no problem with gay people getting married - he never even mentioned homosexuality, and gay marriage in no way breaks the commandments to love God and love one another. The church is about doing what Jesus would have wanted and if we reach different conclusions about a specific issue then campaign for change, education and forward-thinking is my favoured response.

The Church of England is supposed to be a broad church encompassing a variety of styles of worship at all stages along the spectrum. A CofE church could be Anglo-Catholic, fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, or many other things. From one church to another they already can and do disagree on many things, which I think is entirely healthy, shows that Christians can have some humility, tolerance, and not claim to know it all.

For this reason I think it should - at the very least - be possible for each individual church/vicar to make their own decision about this, with their own conscience.

Yy filtercoffee I agree.

Currently there are religions such as quakers and some jewish sects who are happy to marry gay couples, but are prohibited from by the law. So some religions are actually stopping other religions from marrying gay couples in places of worship.

The Christian god is supposed to be a god of love. When, quite frankly, there isn't enough love in the world, why does the Catholic church spend its time and energy saying that some people can't express their love like everyone else? Is there an actual reason for their prejudice because I haven't yet heard anything other than flat statements that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry and I would like to hear a genuine rationale beind this.
This church would be better to focus on eg accepting that women are equal or using some of their vast wealth to alleviate child poverty.

the thing is they don't have the same rights if they can't be married in their own church. two siblings growing up in the same church, with the same friends, the same commitment to their faith etc and one can be married in the church and the other can't purely on the grounds that they are gay. that is absolutely discrimination purely on the grounds of sexuality. it's the only variable and in any other situation and institution/organisation it would be illegal.

i don't get why people are seeming to find it so hard to grasp that gay people can be religious and being married in the church will therefore be just as important to them as their straight counterparts. for a christian marriage is not just about civil rights etc but also about being joined together before god and in front of their congregation - why should that be any different for a person who is gay???

saying oh they can just have a civil ceremony is bogus - so could a straight christian couple - they don't want to though and don't have to.

Hear hear swallowedafly

Our two local priests are obviously against the stance the church has taken but their hands are tied. The newsletter made their views fairly plain though.

It IS utterly discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality.

Cod, I'm an atheist. SAF completely agree with every post.

I appreciate the argument that gay couples should have the right to marry in their local church.

But - and I'm kinda thinking this through right now- my feeling is that freedom of speech and expression is of paramount importance. I think gay couples should have a legal right to get married but I don't think a church minister should be compelled to do it -as it is their right to follow their conscience.

At the same time as a healthcare worker, I have to treat everyone the same no matter how rude and offensive they are to me, so I wonder if the church should be viewed in the same way.

But making it compulsory for the catholic church to perform same sex marriages will not suddenly change the view of the church (as an institution) that homosexuality is wrong. They would only be performing the ceremony because they have to, so gay people would still not really be equal.

As was said before, making this compulsory will only breed resentment and will just add fuel to the fire of an argument saying that homosexuals are evil and taking over the world or some such bollocks.

never mind the rudeness littleA - the real equivalent is should you be allowed to refuse treatment to a homosexual? that's the parallel equivalent.

Will someone volunteer to proof read/edit/ rewrite my response to Vincent Nicholls and Peter Smith?

Its a little rambling at the moment

It does make me though. The priest in our church is absolutely lovely and for the homily today he just read the letter with no real opinion (although in the newsletter there was a request to sign the petition. It upsets me to think of such a nice bloke being so bigoted.

Being a catholic is tricky sometimes!

"the thing is they don't have the same rights if they can't be married in their own church."

But nobody has a right to be married in a particular church, they do so with the consent of the church. They're not being denied any right because it's not a right that anybody else has.

Well -medical staff have the right to refuse to advise on abortion due to conscience. I've never considered homosexuality - as it doesn't bother me - I've no idea if medical staff can refuse to treat someone on grounds of homosexuality.