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.

YABU. If religion was genuinely fixed and never changed then perhaps you would have a case. But for as long as religion has existed, it has evolved and changed to adapt to society. So in the past, religious leaders preached that women should "obey" their husbands, that they should be led by their husbands and that as women they were in affect second class citizens. Most christian groups no longer preach this, and even those fairly fundemental ones would not argue that women need to stay home, have babies and cook and clean as their main and only role.

Similarly, the bible suggests that we should all be married and procreating by our mid teens. Today, I think few church leaders would agree with that.

[I can't comment for non christian religions and how they've developed, but I'm sure they have]

So YADBU because gay marriage is something the church needs to accept. Gay people are religious. They should be allowed to marry in the church and the church needs to accept that it's a different world. Or accept that it will be seen as bigoted.

noble - yes, some have (literally changed it, I mean). Others - many more - just say it is a historical document, written a long time ago in a prejudiced society, and we can disagree with it if we choose.

After all many denominations including the largest Christian denominations don't believe the Bible is the only and literal authority.

noblegiraffe: "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."

In my experience, religious people are very good at choosing which bits to take notice of and which bits to ignore, depending on what suits them at the time. I remember reading an interview with Cristina Odone (prominent Catholic and, as it happens, opponent of gay marriage) where she says she didn't think God would mind her marrying a divorced man. I thought, "That's convenient."

But the Bible has all sorts of weird shit in it about what you can and can't eat and not lying with a menstruating woman and all that stuff, not to mention a wholly implausible creation story. Most Christians seem to have decided that the stuff they don't like is either "metaphorical" or that God didn't really mean it, and to carry on quite happily. I find it all a bit peculiar, but each to their own, eh.

Oh right, so basically it's; 'MAKE IT UP AS WE GO ALONG', then? Lol!! Sorry, just confirms why I regard religion as a joke.

Nevertheless, though, and-believe me better religious minds than me e.g. The Pope (!) agree on this: Roman Catholicism thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, in the sense that we both agree that is how cathoclism sees it.

The bible has stuff in it which is superceded later on in the bible. Some by Jesus, while the eating laws were overturned in Peter's dream. The parts on homosexuality (AFAIK) weren't revisted in the NT but many churches are happy with the notion of 'continuing revelation' - ie they manage to adapt to stay only a couple of steps behind societal norms.

If you're an atheist, wamster, do you not think it's all made up anyhow?

FWIW, the idea that the Bible is the one authority on religion is very recent (recently 'made up', if you like). Before c.1400, in the West, it was accepted that all sorts of religious writings, including but not limited to, the Bible and all sorts of interpretations by theologians, were authoritative.

People used to believe, by and large, that if social change happened, you could expect a dialogue within the faith about it. There is nothing new or strange about it.

Theology is really complicated and I am not a theologian, but the idea that theology is set in stone is simply wrong.

Stranded - but you could have sung hymns, read whatever you wanted at the reception. Personally I think the prohibition on religious elements in a civil ceremony is bizarre, and again (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I think its the religious powers-that-be that caused this situation. A sort of 'its our ball, you can't play with it' meanness of spirit.

CrunchyFrog, the ineffable bit made me smile and think of Terry Pratchett, his gods are often ineffable!
I do wonder if the whole thing has been carefully timed to distract from other things that church leaders could focus on, like poverty and inequality, the effects of the cuts on women's refuges.
But as you said far more important to worry about genitalia!!

YABU. Being gay doesn't make you an atheist, and although I don't agree churches should be forced to do this, I think they should be allowed to if they choose to.

I think what the church is worried about, for right or for wrong, is that once 'marriage' is legalised for gay people, then Equality Laws may compel them to provide a gay marriage service in churches etc. The government says not, the legal brains say maybe....

And the big problem wouldn't be the Catholic church imo, it would be the Muslim religion, where this wouldn't be something they could contemplate at all I don't think. So it is important to get the law right, otherwise there could be bad unintended consequences.

Lily - but surely if they changed to a civil legal ceremony for all then the religions would be entirely free to do as they wished in any optional extra religious ceremony. The problem arises because of course the christian churches don't want that.

This is an interesting one as I honestly don't know where I stand on this.

As far as I am aware (and correct me if I am wrong) this is not something that gay couples have asked for. There has been no lobbying of Parliament to change the definition of marriage, this is just something the government are planning to do to make themselves appear less of the traditional, stuffy conservatives of old and for that reason alone it leaves a nasty taste.

Gay couples, by and large, seem to be happy with civil partnerships that offer them the same legal status as marriage.

I can live with a world that has a marriage for hetreosexual couples and a civil partnership for gay couples, I don't see anything wrong with that really.

BUT if you are gay and religious then I can see why you might want to actually get 'married' and have the hymns and so on. There are quite a number of gay people who are religious and it does seem strange that they cannot celebrate their union in a church.

However I can also see that from the church's point of view, marriage is about the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God and for the purpose of procreation. They do not see a gay union as binding in the eyes of God because they believe that fundamentally, gay sex goes against nature and the natural law of how things should be. Esp in the catholic church where sex is there for the creation of life and of course this cannot happen with gay sex.

But then gay people cannot help being who they are and it's unfair of anyone to ask them not to demonstrate their love for one another with the act of sex. So I really don't know. I think on the whole it's best left as it now stands as it seems that the majority are happy with things they way they are.

rhubarb - there has been lobbying by quakers and some rabbis who want to be able to marry gay people in religious ceremonies. Also some lobbying by a smaller number of gay people.

The point is about choice. Religions should have the choice to marry gay people or not. At the moment there is no choice.

rhubarb - I've no idea how many gay couples have asked about this, but personally I know a fair few who do want it.

I can only go from Ten O'Clock Live when both Boy George and that other chappie admitted that this isn't want the majority of gay people want.

The fact that the government are thinking of going ahead with this change does make me very suspicious as to their motives tbh because I'm pretty damn sure they aren't doing it to please a small group of lobbyists. This is to distract everyone's attention away from the budget and more cuts that affect women and childcare.

Wamster: "Nevertheless, though, and-believe me better religious minds than me e.g. The Pope (!) agree on this: Roman Catholicism thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, in the sense that we both agree that is how cathoclism sees it."

But the Pope - or rather the next Pope, or one further down the line - will change his mind about this someday. The Catholic church makes loads of stuff up. The prohibition on contraception is a 20th century innovation, I believe. The idea that priests can be married is very new. Stuff like the idea that Mary's mother was a virgin when she conceived her has no basis in the Bible. All the Christian churches seem to accommodate a very wide range of belief both concurrently (ie people have diametrically opposed views on the same thing) and historically (ie the official line changes over time).

I am certain that this is David Cameron trying to appear less 'nasty', and to move on from that disastrous interview he gave on gay rights before the election.

Paul revisited homophobia in the new testament, it's definitely not just an old testament thing.

The idea that people think 'Paul thought god was telling him homosexuality was wrong but he was mistaken; I think god is fine with gay marriage' and don't see any problem with that is a bit weird. Religion is supposed to get its morals from god, yet mysteriously those divine morals evolve over time to keep pace with currently acceptable human moral standards.

Esp in the catholic church where sex is there for the creation of life and of course this cannot happen with gay sex.

This is true, as a direct result of gay sex you can't have babies, but there is nothing stopping a gay couple from having children and raising a family of their own, so the whole "marriage is all about children" can be applied to a gay marriage. Unless a marriage is only valid if the man and woman have children via natural intercourse and no insemination, IVF etc etc.

noble, I don't know any Christians who confuse St. Paul with God.

YonWhaleFish, the catholic church do not support IVF as they believe this is interfering with nature, but they do support adoption. They are big on natural law, so a woman's body is made for the purpose of rearing children and a man's body is made to fit inside the woman's.

That is how they see it.

But as Lily has said, this is not a change that has been properly thought through legally. Its a massive thing, to change the definition of marriage and it's been done for the sole purpose of gaining more voters and distracting from the cuts and the budget. That is what annoys me about this more than anything and if I were gay I would want nothing to do with it because I would see that it would not be about my rights, but about the government trying to cosy up to me to gain my support whilst slashing the rights of minimum wage workers, working mothers, single parents etc behind my back.

It is worth saying, btw, that to apply an argument that human morals change over time to Christian theology isn't logical. God is outside time. From His perspective there is no such thing as time.

I feel very uneasy that there are a few posts here from people who self-declare that the are straight, but seem to "know what's best" for gay people. For example, that they shouldn't bother with having anything to do with religions that don't fully accept their identity and the assumption that gay men and Lesbians are happy enough with civil partnerships and don't actually want to be married.

It's coming across as speaking from heterosexual privilege, and it's not pleasant.

Actually KRITIQ if you are talking about my post I made it clear that this was a quote from Boy George and the gay editor of the Catholic Herald so please do not presume what I am saying.

I most certainly do not know what is best for gay people and I think that came across in my first post. What I do know however is how the government will pretend to be fighting for the rights of gay people whilst stripping single mums, working mums, low earners and disabled people of their rights.