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

[Wamster]

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.

"different religions require different things to be true in order for a marriage to be valid in their religion"

That's true, but there's a lot of debate within the Christian church as to whether gay marriages are "valid". So it's not as simple as "the religion says no".

There is no such thing as 'The Christian Church'. There is the Catholic Church, Churches of the Eastern Rite, and protestant denominations. There are also Mormons, and I don't know in what camp they fall, Christian or Other.

WRT Catholic marriage -- validity requires that it takes place in a church (among other conditions) and that a priest be present plus two witnesses. There can be exceptions under extraordinary circumstances (I know of a couple who had a Catholic ceremony in a hospital room where the bride's mother was dying of cancer).

'1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church's minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.

1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:[132]

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children; - Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.'

from RC Catechism ecclesiastical form refers to the place, the form of vows, who needs to be there.

Catholic marriage is considered to be 'a state of life in the Church' and not primarily a legal or civil arrangement.

So why on earth do the Catholic bishops care that a legal institution that they have never considered to constitute marriage is going to be extended a bit.

As far as the Pope is concerned DH and I aren't married. We go around shamelessly claiming that the godless ceremony that we went through in Southwark Registry Office somehow makes us "married", but somehow Benedict and his minions can manage to cope with this.
Why would our mates Fred and Peter doing the same thing suddenly be a big problem?

Well, quite so Dilys.

I think I've got it sussed. It is to do with what Lily says about the possibility of legal challenge that if churches ban gay marriages (though I am sure there could be ways of avoiding that - after all, faith schools can flout anti-discrimination legislation when it comes to hiring staff, and the legal and religious parts can be separated). But maybe it is indeed the fear of legal challenge which is driving this.

The RC church doesn't have to marry divorced people. No problem. So why on earth can't they just refuse to marry gay couples in the same way if gay marriages were possible? Its because unlike the status of divorcees, it could be seen as discrimination in exactly the same way as if they refused to marry black couples, because sexuality like race is inherent. So...their solution is to try to perpetuate the situation whereby gay couples can't marry at all, and they're off the hook. Well sorry folks, but two wrongs don't make a right. Suppose there was a religion which was opposed to 'mixed marriages' - would that be OK? No. Would we think that it was in the least reasonable for their solution to be that no-one could marry a mixed-race couple? Ludicrous. But that is pretty much analagous to what the Bishops are aiming at.

mathanxiety, when I said 'The Christian church' I wasn't referring to any particular denomination, or Church with a big "C". I meant that there is debate among many Christians, within the church of all believers worldwide.

That would be an ecumenical matter, Filter. 'The Christian Church' is a widely enough used concept, even though various parts of it don't think other parts belong.

So what's your definition of "The Christian Church" then Grimma?

grimma, have you been waiting all thread to get to say that!

'the church of all believers' is, FWIW, a concept some denominations find just as unacceptable as that of gay marriage.

good point Grimma - but interestingly there have been lots of religions (inc bits of the christian church) opposed to 'mixed marriages' (think S Africa in the apartheid era and the role of the Dutch reformed church not to mention the Southern Baptists in the USA). It's in my adult lifetime that all that has changed and those views now seem abhorrent, hopefully it will be in my lifetime that anti-same-sex marriage views are thought to be equally abhorrent.

My children are at the fact that male homosexual acts used to be illegal, I remember when that law was repealed! - times are changing thank goodness.

Exactly cats. Those attitudes are unthinkable now in any civilized society.

My definition of The Christian Church? Well, as an interested observer, something like this: a conglomeration of all organisations that self-identify as being parts of it but (quite importantly) don't believe that they are all of it. By 'organisation', anything from the whole RC down to 'two or three gathered in my name'.

Well maybe I should have said "there's a lot of debate/disagreement/discussion between many (but not all) Christians, who may or may not attend different churches around the world" :o

The point I wanted to make though, was that it's a bit lazy to just say that the church, or Christians, are against gay marriage, as it doesn't give the whole picture.

I doubt the existence of any church of all believers worldwide... There are believers in Christ though.

I think what bothers the RC Church about legalisation of gay 'marriage' (as opposed to gay 'civil partnerships') is that they see law having an educational effect. Hence they are able to support even the little that resembles the Catholic idea of marriage in legal marriage outside of any church. That idea came from an ecclesiastical view of marriage hundreds of years ago, albeit a CoE one (and one that stated that only CoE marriages were valid legally in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland too, if I remember my history correctly).

There is debate among the various branches of Judaism too...

"I doubt the existence of any church of all believers worldwide... There are believers in Christ though."

I think we're talking about the same thing though... the worldwide church is all the people who believe in Christ.

I think what bothers the RC Church about legalisation of gay 'marriage' (as opposed to gay 'civil partnerships') is that they see law having an educational effect.

That educational effect is yet another reason in favour of the change. For anyone who doesn't believe in discrimination.