Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Even as an atheist, non-homophobic, I think it is ridiculous to expect religions to conduct gay marriage. AIBU?

315 replies

Wamster · 12/03/2012 07:33

I mean why would they if they only believe marriage to be between a man and a woman? I DON'T see it that way-as far as I'm concerned, marriage is a legal issue and as gay people already have civil partnership which offer same legal rights as marriage, I find the moaning about gay marriage irritating.

But that is besides the point: the fact is that some religions only believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is ridiculous to force them to change their minds without seriously messing that religion up.

People cannot expect religions to mould themselves to a nice politically-correct world. I accept this as an atheist. It's time the religious did, too.

OP posts:
lesley33 · 12/03/2012 07:37

But at the moment some religions are dictating to otherreligions what they can do. For example, the quakers have said they want to conduct religious civil partnerships. This is currently illegal for them to do so. The proposal in the chnage in the law is just that religions should have the choice over this.

Do you really think it is fine for 1 religion to dictate what another religion can or can not do? Because that is the current position.

alorsmum · 12/03/2012 07:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cory · 12/03/2012 07:47

As Alorsmum said, the proposed change is not about forcing the Baptist pastor or the Catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony: it's about whether a gay person can be married anywhere- in a registary office being the most likely- and have it counted as a marriage.

lesley33 · 12/03/2012 07:54

It will also mean that gay couples can have religious aspects at the ceremoney. At the moment for example if gay peopel want to get married in a hotel say that is properly licensed for this, it is illegal for them to have any religious readings, hymns, etc as part of the ceremony.

Happenstance · 12/03/2012 07:54

religions will not have to conduct gay marriages they have been saying that all along, unless of course they want to.

And civil partnerships may have the same legal rights as marriage but it's not really the same is it, it doesn't really have the same meaning.

My issue is this, could you imagine the outcry if we as a nation suddenly told Jewish people i'm sorry you can't marry in our country but it's okay you can have a civil partnership, which has the same legal standing, there would be protests and it would be anti semetic,

So why just because 2 people are born with the same genitalia is it okay to discriminate against them, A marriage is not between a man and a woman, its between 2 people in love and should be available to everyone.

DilysPrice · 12/03/2012 07:55

Why are you saying this, since nobody is proposing it?

I tend to agree with you - but OTOH once upon a time (and even today) some US churches refused to marry mixed race couples. Was that nobody else's business and just a matter of their faith's beliefs?

DilysPrice · 12/03/2012 07:58

Lesley, the ban on religious texts and hymns in civil weddings also applies to heterosexual couples btw, always has.

Original poster
Wamster · 12/03/2012 07:59

Happenstance, Oh for heaven's sake,(rolls eyes), I am an atheist. But it is about seeing the point of view of others -in this case religions. Of course it is correct and proper that religions who only regard marriage as being between a man and a woman to refuse gay marriage!

OP posts:
KRITIQ · 12/03/2012 08:00

Yep. What others have said is correct. No faith group will HAVE to conduct same sex marriages. Those that WANT to but currently can't, will.

In a similar vein, not all churches will remarry a divorced person, but surely it would be wrong if their beliefs dictated that no other church could do it either.

DilysPrice · 12/03/2012 08:01

(just to be clear, I tend to agree with the OP that Catholic priests shouldn't be forced to carry out gay marriages, I don't think many people disagree with that, but I do believe in the extension of marriage to gay couples)

Auntiestablishment · 12/03/2012 08:02

I don't agree, but then again, I don't understand the religious objections to gay marriage.

Most of the stuff I've seen goes on about the possibility of children but of course religions marry post-menopausal women, infertile men and so on, so the possibility of children isn't a requirement of religious marriage. Just seems to me to be an excuse because they can't think of anything else other than an attachment to tradition (disguised as adherence to some apparently god-given rule) that homosexual relationships aren't as good as heterosexual ones.

lesley33 · 12/03/2012 08:02

dilys - I know the ban on religious texts, etc applies to all civil weddings. But straight people do have the choice to get married in a place of worship and have religious aspects. Gay people don't have that choice.

Proudnscary · 12/03/2012 08:05

I'd agree if churches were being forced to carry out gay marriage, but they aren't. (I am atheist, well a non practicing Jew, and am all for gay marriage).

Dilys made a very good point about mixed race marriages above too.

DilysPrice · 12/03/2012 08:05

Mind you, there's nothing like the Catholic bishops pontificating about what gay atheists should be allowed to do under the laws of an Anglican country to make me change my mind about giving any consideration for their beliefs whatsoever.

Happenstance · 12/03/2012 08:08

Wamster i never said religions didn't have a right to refuse gay marriage. thats fine, i wouldn't expect to get married in a mosque, i'm not Muslim, religions have a right to their opinions and beliefs, how ever no one has a right to say whom we can and can't discriminate against.

If the Catholic church do not believe in gay marriage that is fine don't perform them (which as stated they won't have to), but equally don't tell me i should be up in arms about them as well, i will get married in a registry office, because i'm an athiest, why can't gay people if they want to.

carabos · 12/03/2012 08:10

I believe that marriage should be a civil contract, available to all of age, regardless of gender. Those who want some sort of religious validation for their relationship should be able to get that if their chosen religion will deliver it. If that chosen religion speaks against a particular type of relationship, then tough, that blessing will not be forthcoming, but the marriage would still stand.

Original poster
Wamster · 12/03/2012 08:13

But they already CAN!! Civil partnerships ARE marriage!! No difference. Anyway, are people so shallow that what others call their relationship matters? It would appear -what with all this ridiculous fuss- that they are Hmm.

OP posts:
lesley33 · 12/03/2012 08:16

So it is fine that although quakers want to conduct civil partnerships for gay people, it is currently illegal for them to do so? Is it only certain religiosn views that matter then?

WyrdMother · 12/03/2012 08:16

What totally annoys me is the inconsistency. The Church marries (and baptises, christens, whatever...) people who constantly and conciencelessly break the rules of their religion, or rather the religion they're pretending to belong to.

I could have got married in Church, I chose not to, why I ask myself is my completely Godless registary office ceremony marriage a marriage when a same sex civil partnership is not?

GrimmaTheNome · 12/03/2012 08:25

Civil partnerships ARE marriage. Anyway, are people so shallow that what others call their relationship matters? It would appear -what with all this ridiculous fuss- that they are

So if they ARE marriage .... lets call a spade a spade and call the union of two adults a marriage if that's what they want.

Its the religious leaders who are making a ridiculous fuss. No-one is trying to make them do anything they don't want - they are trying to impose their anachronistic, bigoted views on the rest of society. As per usual they assume their views trump everyone elses.

AIBUqatada · 12/03/2012 08:31

"But they already CAN!! Civil partnerships ARE marriage!! No difference."

... But actually they can't and it isn't. Civil partnerships were specifically set up as something that is NOT marriage.

It reminds me a bit of when women were first given the vote -- with a minimum voting age of 30, as compared with men's minimum age of 21. In one sense of course it was huge progress, but it also enshrined a difference in law that was invidious, and which could only be perceived as an arbitrary transitional state of affairs that comes to an end when society "catches up" with its own moral evolution.

carabos · 12/03/2012 08:42

Civil partnerships are not marriages legally speaking. That is the problem. Civil partnerships are a weird sort of hybrid, in that they are available to certain groups for certain purposes, but they don't facilitate necessary protections for others. For example, spinster sisters who wish to avail themselves of the extra protections that a civil partnership provide, cannot access them.

There should be one form of civil arrangement, available to all of age, which offers a set of protections, rights and obligations and the orotundity for dissolution where required. There should be no religious or siritual dimension to that. It would then be a matter for organised religions to decide what form of validation they want to give to what form of relationship.

CrunchyFrog · 12/03/2012 08:42

All the people I know in civil partnerships describe themselves as married.

IMO, the most sensible option is to take legality away from religious marriage. If you want to be legally married, then it has to take place in a registry office. You can then go to whichever sort of religious place you like, and have a totally-meaningless-legally-but-married-in-the-eyes-of-god/ess/s.

Then, if the churches/ mosques/ whatever choose to remain homophobic, they can do so assured in the knowledge that they are not impinging on any other person's freedom.

GrimmaTheNome · 12/03/2012 08:56

IMO, the most sensible option is to take legality away from religious marriage. If you want to be legally married, then it has to take place in a registry office. You can then go to whichever sort of religious place you like, and have a totally-meaningless-legally-but-married-in-the-eyes-of-god/ess/s.

This is exactly what the case was when my sikh friend married - AFAIK still the case. They got married in a registry office (quick thing with few people) and then a huge Sikh wedding afterwards. She didn't see this as problematic.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2012 08:58

Marriage is a legal institution not a religious one. Churches should not be allowed to marry people, then there wouldn't be any concern about them breaking anti-discrimination laws by refusing to marry people who don't meet their entry criteria.

They can say their religious words over whoever they like, but the ones with legal meaning should be done by legally qualified people, not religiously qualified ones.