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.

Maybe if I explain with an example it will help.

I know people who were brought up to their religious beliefs from the cradle. They are devout, they truly believe their is a God and that their Church is the way to Him. I may disagree, but that's how they feel. At some stage in their teens, they realize they're gay. But they're still the same person, the same person who believes in God.

Some people do respond by either losing their faith or (very sadly) repressing their sexuality. But others don't, and continue to believe in God while also being gay.

You may not like it but it is really none of your business!

shagmund - that just demonstrates that the current situation is too inconsistent. If someone from a non-christian culture sees a couple trotting off to a church without needing a registry office first, then this sort of mistake is more likely to happen. If the laws pertaining to marriage were made simple and consistent - the same civil legal requirement for everyone - this would be less likely to happen.

Not that it is terribly important, but plenty of Christian churches don't have the right to perform legally binding marriages. DH and I had to do the registry office bit separately from the religious ceremony.

LST - that is the point. It is currently not up to the church. Some churches want to carry out marriages for gay people and the government will not let them.

I doubt most gay people care that you prefer to go and watch civil partnerships. It is about what they as a couple want and some of them want to get married in church.

I dont think wamster is saying that at all, she is asking why a person who is gay would want to follow a religion that doesn't accept their sexuality.

But there are differences between religious leaders, and some will be accepting, and it is wrong that leaders that WANT to marry gay couples aren't legally permitted to. And if they are being accepted by a particular leader, why shouldn't they follow that, and want to be married within that religion, and ignore the wider homophobia that might be present.

chop - well, maybe she should ask them?

I don't actually see her 'asking' at all, I see her insisting that she wouldn't do it this way and finds it incomprehensible. That is really her problem.

No Doomcats I am saying why would anybody wish to follow a religion that regards them to be deviating from the views of that religion.

What I think is not really relevant. Most religions regard homosexuality as abhorrent. That's nowt to do with my views!

Chops, yes, in that sense it is rather like divorced couples who can't get remarried in a Catholic church. That is the Catholic belief system and that is up to the church. But it shouldn't mean that the government should be able to say that divorced people can't get married elsewhere.

Some churches want to carry out marriages for gay people and the government will not let them.

That seems a slightly odd way round to put it... the current state of play is that the government wants to change the law so that gay people can get married (somewhere) and some church leaders are trying to stop this entirely , for non-religious people and people of other religions.

Grimma, yes, perhaps it would make more sense to say that previously the Government would not let them.

Wamster, so you are a heterosexual atheist. Perhaps you could acknowledge that you have something to learn about this issue? There have been some really interesting, informative posts on your thread (I especially liked DoomCats's contributions) and you don't seem to be considering them, just reasserting your opinion.

I think maybe wamseter, as you are an atheist, you aren't really considering how important religion might be to another person. A person with deep beliefs isn't going to just shrug it off and turn their back on religion because it may be permeated with homophobia. Why is it wrong for them to find a way to balance both aspects of their life.

Doomcats belief in god may not be related to a specific religion. If person follows a religion that condemns homosexuality-like the Catholic church- while being homosexual themselves, then, yes, I regard them as being not quite logical (to put it mildly).

Like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Now if they are homosexual and their religion has no problems with homosexuality, then fine.

Thanks devora.

wamster - many religions contain movements that are pro-homosexuality. Many entire sects (as has been mentioned) are pro-homosexuality.

Homosexuals are a minority within our society. It is not surprising they would be a minority within religious groups also. But this does not mean they should automatically be shouted down.

Wamster - as it happens, the clue to how people (try to) cope with inconsistent positions is in Doomcats name - 'Cognitive Dissonance'. There's all sorts of aspects of being religious which need large helpings of it.

But what if the turkey was really, really religious, and wanted to celebrate Christmas. And so he went to the Czech republic where everyone ate fish soup for Xmas dinner and so he could celebrate Xmas without fear!

I mean, even if I agreed with you that people were being illogical, I wouldn't feel the need to call their choice 'ridiculous' and express my support of homophobic clergy just to show how illogical they were being.

Why not just live and let live? If the issue doesn't directly affect you, let it go.

Crikey. I just cross posted with you there.

Please read your post and think how it sounds. Please try to have a little bit of compassion and empathy.

You are taking a far too simplistic view of religion. It is not possible to lump together all the followers, preachers, churches of one religion together and say they believe homosexuals are scourge of the devil and so homosexuals should not follow that religion.
There are so many different facets in religions, as others have tried to say, that I can bet in any of the major religions, you would find interpretations where homosexuality IS accepted.

Wamster: "If homosexual people are silly enough to believe in a religion that hates them, they are very much giving that religion the right to shout them down.

Sorry, but what the heck do they expect? To be welcomed with open arms?"

Well, why not? Religions are not just about the institutions that run them, they are about the people who belong to them. And the people who belong to them very often don't take any notice of what the official institutional version tells them. So most Catholics in the west ignore the official teaching on contraception, for example. There are even Catholics who support abortion rights. There are certainly Catholics who get divorced and remarried, despite the church's teaching.

And some churches, of course, change their teaching over time - the Church of England seems to be OK with divorce and remarriage these days, and even seems to be coming round to gays, while the Catholic Church is now OK with married priests (provided they were originally C of E priests who converted to Catholicism).

If you go back a hundred or 150 years ago, you would find Christian churches preaching to black people that they were - forgive me for repeating this, but it is what happened - naturally inferior to whites and closer to animals, and that any non-white culture was inferior.

There are many people alive today who are Christian and who trace their family and community religious roots back to those Christian churches, racism and all. The fact that Christianity has preached racism - does that mean people who were Christian and not white were 'silly'? Or do you think maybe they were a tiny bit oppressed by all sorts of things in society, and we should be looking to wider society and blaming its racism?

Fast forward to now, and it is the same. You blame homosexual religious people for being 'silly' to participate in religion that preaches homophobia. Why on earth are you not just condemning the homophobia?

Some Churches may change their outlook, but they don't appear to have changed the Bible which continues to contain definite anti-gay sentiments, to the point of saying that gay people should be killed. That's not easy to ignore.