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.

Why do religions have any say about the legal definition of marriage?

They can conduct marriages for whoever they want. If they want to exclude gay people, that's up to them.

But what gives them the right to dictate what the state defines as marriage?

I think it's more ridiculous to post about 'religions' and what 'they' think.

There are lots of religions out there. Within individual religions, there are often many points of view, both theological and ideological.

I am C of E. Many Anglicans (including theologians) believe gay people's marriages are valid and should be treated as such, just like straight people's marriages (many others, I am sad to know, do not believe this.)

DH is Orthodox. This is a very, very misogynistic and conservative Church in many ways - yet still, I know devout Orthodox Christians who study and read theology and believe gay marriage is valid and should be treated as such.

I know less about other branches of Christianity and still less about non-Christian religions, I'm afraid. But I would bet they are not all the same.

You need I think to understand someone's theology. In the Catholic Church, marriage is explicitly for the procreation of children. This stance is quite high-profile at the moment (obviously), but even so, there are Catholics who would question the absolute application of that idea, and there are many, many other religions that simply do not agree. In the Orthodox Church, for example, the theological purposes of marriage are to create a family and to provide loving companionship (or a 'little church' within your relationship).

I mention this because it seems many people assume all religions, or at least all Christians, share the same theology of marriage and therefore cannot budge from the same homophobic ideology. This is not true.

Sorry, double-posting but I can't leave this.

You are really being offensive towards religious homosexuals (and I think towards faith in general although I honestly think that is just because you don't know very much about it).

If someone devoutly believes that marriage is a devout act and part of their faith, who are you to mock it? If they do not believe civil partnership is the same as a marriage in the eyes of their god, who are you to mock it and insist that they are the same thing?

I know it is not an easy situation at all. I don't think we can expect to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages, although I do feel that institutions that won't do this, are wrong and I hope they will change.

But you seem to think it's ok to insist all religious people should really take their lead from you, an atheist, and get rid of all their religious feelings about marriage. Why?! That is so arrogant.

I mention this because it seems many people assume all religions, or at least all Christians, share the same theology of marriage and therefore cannot budge from the same homophobic ideology. This is not true.

Quite so - the Quakers have been mentioned throughout this thread as exemplars of non-homophobic religion. I reckon its mostly the fault of the pontificating bishops if there is a perception that 'religion' is anti-gay.

'In the Catholic Church, marriage is explicitly for the procreation of children.'
I was pondering that point when I heard that cardinal say something about that. Would they refuse to marry an infertile couple? Do they marry post-menopausal women?

I don't think they should get rid of all their religious feelings about it. They should get legally married, in a secular registration ceremony. Then they can get religiously married in whatever way pleases them/ their god the best.

That way, everyone is equal.

If churches or whatever still want to be homophobic and claim that "marriage" is only for people who can make lovely future bums on seats babies, they need to look at which heterosexual people they allow to marry. No women over a Certain Age, for a start. Infertility tests as part of the marriage course, that sort of thing.

It makes about as much sense.

Never understood why the various gods we experience have such an issue about what people do with their genitals. I expect it's ineffable.

Sorry, grimma, I meant to acknowledge about Quakers ... I have a bad habit of reading the thread at breakneck pace thinking 'yes, yes!' then forgetting to say it all.

But yes, I'm sure you're right about bishops.

I have heard people discuss whether an infertile couple should be married. But I think a lot depends on the strictness of the individual priest/parish. Something I am always struck by is, no matter how strict or homophobic or misogynistic the public face of a religion is, there will always be people within that religion who speak out against these elements.

Because marriage doesn't belong to religion. Until Hardwickes (?) marriage act of 1753 (?) you were married if you said you were, or if you lived as married. The act forced marriages to be conducted inside churchesfor proper record keeping and orderly inheritance.

www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html

typed in haste from memory so don't shoot me but here's the link and now I have to go smiley

@lesley33 why would they be able to have religious stuff at their civil partnership? Heterosexual couples can't have that in a register office wedding can they?

'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.'

eh? How can one organisation dictate to another?
Actually, who can 'do' marriages. When I lived in the US I could conduct a marriage once the couple had obained a marriage licence (this was back before civil partnerships). How does someone get a licence to do a mariage.civil partnership?

Surely this is a Govt related law over what its called?

I am a heterosexual atheist. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any homosexual could follow a religion that thought they were sub-human and please do not tell me that they don't because I know that a lot of religions do regard homosexuality as abhorrent.

kal, I think in this country some religions do have more say. Look at the House of Lords and which religion gets most members in there! We don't have separation of Church and State - the C of E has huge pull (and so IMO does the RC, through influence).

I actually respect -in a funny kind of way- the Catholic church's stance on this: at least they are being true to their religion. Rubbish as I regard all religion to be, at least they are being true to themselves.

I don't understand why this is complicated.

Some people are gay and religious.
They want to get married in church.
Some denominations want to carry out those marriages.
The Government says they can't.

Why? What on earth has it got to do with the government? What has it got to do with you, Wamster? Why do you want to stop people from getting married with the supposed involvement of their God? What possible difference can it make to you?

wamster - I would hazard a guess it's because they believe in God?

It may be incomprehensible to you (or me), but it's IMO patronizing to insist you know better than a religious gay person what's right for him or her.

What you seem to be saying is, you respect certain religious people enough to agree they should not have to compromise their beliefs. But you don't respect religious gay people enough to agree they should not have to compromise their beliefs, because they are a minority going against the grain.

I find that incredibly dubious.

As to being 'true to their religion' ... what does that even mean?

Do you know how theology has evolved?

The RC can and does change its stance. It doesn't do that on a whim, but it's not set in stone either (cf. Vatican II). It suits some people to pretend that RC cannot and will not change on this issue, and that may prove true. Or, the idea of marriage being one man and one woman might go the way of limbo.

@lesley33 why would they be able to have religious stuff at their civil partnership? Heterosexual couples can't have that in a register office wedding can they?

As the law stands, I think you would have to do the religous stuff separately before or after (exactly as my Sikh friend did). This is the law as it currently applies to people belonging to those religions which don't have their places of worship licensed for marriage. I don't think anyone makes a fuss about the fact that this is a form of religious discrimination, because they can see it makes perfect sense to do it this way.

If it works for Sikhs etc why not for everyone?

I SEPARATE belief in god from religion. Your argument makes no sense to me DoomCats. Even if I believed in god there is no way I could follow a religion that wanted to put me into hell for my sexuality.

In this thread stupid people argue against a state of affairs that never has, never can, and never will exist - because what actually is proposed is so reasonable that no-one who isn't a bigot could seriously object to it.

A bit like the threads on self-defence against burglars.

No-one is saying the RCs can't be 'true to themselves'. The problem is that they (at least some of their leaders) seem to think they have some God-given right to dictate terms, to everyone else in the state, which don't let other people be true to themselves.

Wamster, the Quakers don't believe gay people will go to hell for their sexuality, so why shouldn't gay people want to follow Quaker beliefs?

"If it works for Sikhs etc why not for everyone?"

Unfortunately it doesn't always work. They had a programme on Radio 4 about it a couple of weeks ago. Many women THINK they are legally married after going through a religious ceremony in a Gurdwara or mosque, and it turns out that they're not. And they often don't find out that they needed to have a civil ceremony until divorce is on the cards, when they realise they have no legal rights to support following separation.

But wamster, that is you. Why do you think you know better than anyone else what they should do?

You're saying 'gay people should not follow this religion because I think it's rubbish'.

I would hazard a guess you, as an atheist, also think loads of straight people's religion is rubbish. But you're not proposing to support discrimination against them on that basis. So why single out gay people?

Even if I believed in god there is no way I could follow a religion that wanted to put me into hell for my sexuality.

well of course you couldn't. But the God believed in by religious gay people is (I presume) the loving, forgiving, non-hellish one. People make god in their own image.

I agree. I have too gay friends and my cousin is also gay. None of them want a church service. My cousin is catholic and he wouldn't want too as he knows he's 'sinned' if he actually practices his religion.
It's up to the church at the end of the day. I've been to my friends civil partnership and it was lovely :) better than most church weddings I've been to anyway.