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?

but the only grounds in my example is their sexuality mayor. a straight active member of the church who had been attending all their life and contributed to church activities etc would not be refused. the person who had the identical relationship and commitment to the church but happened to be gay would be refused.

in fact the straight couple who had barely attended and did nothing for the church would be married and the committed long standing couple who were gay would be denied.

they can't refuse the person to be able to get advice on abortion though littleA - only say that someone else within the same service will have to do it. comparable would be one priest saying he doesn't do gay marriages but his colleague will/does.

I am an atheist and I could marry in a church if I married a man.

If we would stop seeing marriage as the be all and end all...one of many possibilities...perhaps we could stop seeing Christians as homophobes.

yeah but the straight couple still wouldn't have a right to get married in that particular church it's just very unlikely that they'd be denied. And the sibling who grew up in that church would know all along the position of the organisation he was a member of. I think Catholics/Christians/members of any religion which denies same-sex couples the opportunity to get married should do all they can to change that stance, but it is for the organisations themself and it's members to decide not the government.
They're not being denied any legal rights by the churches who refuse to perform their ceremonies and further I think that the church are justified in their actions by the ECHR Article 11 clause which protects freedom of association. I can see no good reason why a soceity should not be free to set their own membership criteria and internal rules.
I'd back the churches right to refuse to allow same-sex marriages, even though I think it is a homophobic and bigotted stance and think that same-sex marriages should be 100% on a par with heterosexual marriages. Because I don't think it's the government or the laws place to infringe upon an association if they are not breaking any laws or infringing on the rights of others.
If you did then it would have to spell the end for almost all religions and any charity/social club or association which set out it's criteria for membership along gender/sexual/race/age lines and that is why I feel it is vital to protect.
I think that there are often good reasons for associations to set their membership on such criteria, and the purpose of the freedom of association is to protect groups we may disagree with as well as ones we agree with.

there are gay christians quirrel. christian and homosexual are not exclusive categories.

they are breaking laws - those of discrimination.

you don't have 'the right' to a job you apply for but it is still against the law to discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexuality or gender or race when deciding whether to give them the job.

exactly and for that very reason there is specific legislation which would mean they'd be breaking employment law.
There is no law which says that if you have a private association you have to allow everyone in, you can set criteria as you like.
I asked above and I'll ask again because I may genuinely be missing something as I am not up to speed on English law in this matter. What equality laws are being broken as you claim?

so off the top of my head for example we have the ICA over here (Irish CountryWomens Association) overhere. To be a member you have to be a woman (or at least you did last time I checked, not really important as other organisations exist which structure membership along gender lines e.g. Portmarnock golf club).
If they are hiring or tendering contracts for business they are still bound by employment law, however they can still be ina position where they have an all female membership. Would the legislation you seek also outlaw groups of this nature if they didn't open up their membership? and if not, how would you structure the legislation in a manner which meant it didn't apply to all groups, just religions?

over here x 2
somehow I'm managing to sound Irish even when I'm typing

The most simple thing would be to separate civil/legal/non-discriminating marriage from religious marriage and remove the ability of the church to perform legal marriage. It doesn't solve the problem of the churches homophobia though.

Does nobody want to read my letter to Vincent? You needn't rewrite it completely, just tell me how twatty it sounds on a scale of 1-10.

I am not homophobic at all. But, as far as I am concerned, gay people already have marriage; they are called civil partnerships which offers all the legal rights of marriage.
I am an atheist, but even I think it is reasonable for religous organisations to refuse to conduct civil partnerships.
I was -and AM- 100% behind civil partnerships because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that gay people should have the option of having same legal rights as heterosexuals, but I am fast losing patience with this gay 'marriage' crap. Gays have GOT legal marriage already and I am sorry but the campaigners for gay marriage are sounding like petulant children now and are almost as irritating as the religous institutions themselves!

Its not about forcing priests to perform the actual ceremony, its about the church objecting to a change in the legal definition of civil marriage. The church recognises civil marriage and wants to prevent a change in the law that would allow civil partnership conducted in a registry office to be recognised as civil marriage.

Who cares? Civil partnerships offer same legal rights as marriage. THAT'S what is important. I couldn't give a monkey's if it's called 'marriage' or not. I REALLY couldn't.
Marriage is objectively a legal arrangement and as long as gay people have access to the same legal arrangements (as they do with civil partnerships) then equality has been achieved.

Are people so shallow that what others call their relationship matters? For goodness sake, a relationship is what a couple make it. Their legal status is only relevant from a legal point of view.

I should imagine that if you wanted to marry at a specific church then a vicar or whatever could get a colleague to do it.

Friend had a Catholic and Protestant ceremony at her wedding overseen by a priest and- a minister - I guess in practice you will have people willing to perform the ceremony.

Hopefully gradually it will become the norm

Why the hell would gay people want to get married in churches anyway? If I were a gay person, I wouldn't want to get married in an institution that wanted to send me to hell. FFS. What a load of bollocks.
I say this as a non-homophobic atheist.

littlealberty - You are wrong - it is illegal to conduct a civil partnership in a place of worship. Quakers want to do this and are legally not allowed to do so.

The word of god is the word of god. It does not change with fashion,public opinion or changing social values.

The other difference is that civil partnerships/marriages performed abroad are not legally recognised here.

the church are not brea, king discrimination laws.they will allow gay people tomarry as long as it's to somebody of the opposite sex ie exactly the same rights as heterosexuals

Hihosilver

In that case I hope you are wearing clothing made only of one thread

not all christians are homophobes in fact the last 'wedding' I went to was between two retired anglican vicars and half the people there were ex-parishoners.

But I took my two boys who are 6 & 4 had hated having to explain why they weren't marrying in church, though both were obviously religious, and why that it wasn't an actual wedding but as my (homophobic) BIL kept reminding them afterwards it was a civil partnership as two men can't get married.

"The word of god is the word of god. It does not change with fashion,public opinion or changing social values."

Thats not really true though is it, its perhaps true of the gospels, which don't mention homosexuality but its not true even slightly of the OT.

Christianity is in itself homophobic. Fine up to them. It's all nonsense to me, anyway, I only get angry when religions deny gay people the same legal rights that marriage provides for straight people but as we now have civil partnerships, that battle is over.