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.

I believe all religions to be rubbish, TheRhubarb. All of them.

Not everyone thinks that way Narked and may I suggest that your parents' attitude stems more from the times they lived in than their religion?

It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Older people still have problems getting their heads around that.

I have spent so many hours on Mumsnet confirming to people what I believe in, explaining about the church and about faith. I have been called pathetic and stupid and much worse names that insult my intelligence, my being and my nature. Everytime there is a thread about religion, you get a lot of very reasonable people on and you get very patient religious people who are not intolerant, not impatient, not abusive yet a small minority will then hijack the thread to hurl abuse at us, to question our sanity (I've also been told that I lack any sanity) and to make huge presumptions about us.

I've not seen many religious posters show any kind of intolerance whatsoever yet I can tell you about all those non-believers who have shown intolerance towards us. What does that tell you about religion?

Atheists claim to be tolerant and not to have any prejudice and most don't, but threads like this don't show atheism in a good light at all and I'm glad, even proud to be a catholic.

I was lucky I was born straight.

A different roll of the dice and I'd have been gay and instantly become something my loving parents felt the need to hide from their friends and a constant source of disappointment. For something that would be no more in my control than having blue eyes or a birthmark.

And they really are good people.

But lots of people truly and intrinsically believe lots of things

Truly, but not 'intrinsically'. I used to truly believe in God.... now I truly believe he was an imaginary friend (can I say that? ) Beliefs may feel intrinsic but they aren't, any more than political allegiance.

hackmum, you don't think schools covered up paedos? You think they weren't just sent to different schools? Really?
Yes there was a lot of covering up for which the church apologised. Once again, there was a huge thread about this subject many months ago on Mumsnet, search for it as everything I could ever want to say on the subject I said there.

It is because I have a deep mistrust of religion that I am able to see that trying to get them to accept gay marriage is pointless. Like trying to persuade Lady Thatcher that socialism is good. Why waste one's breath?

Hope that gay people can have the legal rights of marriage and leave it at that. But they do already in the form of civil partnerships so really in my view, gay marriage is fuss overnothing.

They would never show intolerance and would have no problem being friends with people who were gay, but inside, that's what they believe. Because that's what the church teaches. They would pray for my soul.

And they aren't ancient. They haven't hit 65 yet and my mother is much more liberal when it comes to sex, contraception, abortion etc.

There is a world of difference between saying "I now believe the God I thought was real is an imaginary friend" and "Christians talk away to their imaginary friend".

One is saying "This is what I believe, it may not be the same as what you believe, but we are both entitled to our beliefs", the other says "you are stupid because the thing you believe is a load of rubbish".

In fact my parents were probably who they had in mind when they decided to offer civil partnerships rather than civil weddings. They're perfectly happy with them, as they offer legal protections etc without suggesting that gay relationships are the equal of marriages

Narked, gay rights were still not around in the 1960s and many people would hold those views regardless of their religion. Many athiests are homophobes - you don't need religion to be intolerant. Even now many gay kids are terrified of coming out to their parents because of how they would react and this is in the 21st century. If your parents were not catholic they would probably still have an issue with homosexuality.

I believe that Jesus did mention homosexuals in the Bible, although that is disputed and that he accepted them. I don't believe Jesus would turn anyone away from his house and that's my general principle all along.

Funny what Jesus didn't say though, isn't it?

'Why waste one's breath?'

Why indeed? You can shut up any time, you know.

Wamster:

If there are gay people for whom it does matter (and there are) then IMO that takes precedence over whether you think its just a fuss over nothing.

If there are religions who would like to be able to offer gay marriage services (and there are), then that should not be stymied by the intolerance of other religious groups.

If there are religions who want no truck with gay marriage (and there are) - let them be. If that presents a legal problem of 'providing a service' equally, followers of that religion can marry legally first and then do whatever religious rites they want afterwards.

If we could just disentangle functions of the state (legal marriage) from functions of religion ('god putting together etc) then there wouldn't be a problem. As I've said before, non-christian religions already manage to do this.

TheRhubarb: 'hackmum, you don't think schools covered up paedos? You think they weren't just sent to different schools? Really?"

I expect some schools did. The key thing about the Catholic church is that it's an enormous worldwide institution, and therefore the cover-up wasn't just about a single head deciding to move a teacher along, it's about church authorities engaging in a systematic coverup.

To be honest, though, if the best you can say about the church and paedophilia is "It's OK, because everyone else is just as bad", it's not really a ringing endorsement, is it? I can't see loads of people saying, "Right, I'm going to go to the church for moral and spiritual guidance because its attitude towards paedophiles isn't any worse than anyone else's."

My FIL is agnostic and homophobic. My parents are Catholic and I have never heard eg bigoted jokes/comments from them in general conversation. They are generally very much of the personal conscience approach. It wouldn't bother them at all if a gay couple lived next door. It would matter to them if I were gay - the church would probably be ablaze with the sheer volume of candle lighting. Because they believe it's a sin and I'm their child.

That is NOT what I have said at ALL hackmum. When have I said that is is OK to be a paedophile? How fucking insulting!

What happen is indefensible as it would if it happened anywhere else. What I did was to point out that the catholic church was NOT alone in covering this up as many people would like to believe. Paedophilia was largely ignored because people were scared and they didn't understand what was going on. Priests were sent away because the church thought that would be best for everyone, to remove the man and try to heal him. Teachers were sent to other schools because they were afraid to sack them. There was a huge fear at the time about what paedophilia was and an attitude that pervaded not just the church, but all society that said if they swept it under the carpet, it no longer existed.

That is NOT me excusing or condoning those actions. The church have apologised, they have accepted what they did was abhorrently wrong, letters were read out from the Pope in every single church in the country addressing the issue, measures were put into place and it was taken seriously.

Posie - what did Jesus not say? That homosexuality was to be accepted? Are you sure he didn't say that? Do you know who chooses which texts to put in the Bible?

Yes, force everybody to actually get married/civilly-partnered in a register office. Good idea. They can then have the option of getting that union blessed in whichever religion will have them. Best idea yet

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

I agree, it certainly seems to be the most sensible and equitable approach.

Agree.
Right, who's going to put that to Cameron and his buddies?

That is what happens in quite a few countries in the world, the marriage is only legal when registered at a civil location (statements to be made there). South America, Egypt I think, to name but a few. Any religious ceremony is just that, a purely religious event.

We really should run for government.

Cameron wouldn't entertain it for a minute.

Because advocating gay marriage, in the way he has, is an easy, simple way to say "I'm SO not old-Tory, look, I support gay marriage, I must be ok". But there is SO much more to think about, as outlined on this thread.

Separating marriage from the church, so that all weddings had a civil element first, would be problematic because of the role of the Queen as the Head of the Church, and also the Head of Government. So I think separating the two would be antidisestablishmentariansim. Which would be far tougher for Cameron, and opens up a whole new can of worms - which you might argue should be opened, and you might not. But it's not one Cameron will want to venture into.

Separating marriage from the church, so that all weddings had a civil element first, would be problematic because of the role of the Queen as the Head of the Church, and also the Head of Government

This is the sort of thing people say but I can't see why it actually is a problem. Lots of people have two jobs.

I agree with your first point Lily, but not the second.

It just is a problem constitutionally. The Queen can't be asked to dismantle her own Church or Government really.

It probably isn't insurmountable. What I'm saying is that there is no way Cameron wants to get into that - it's a can of worms he doesn't want to open. He also has enough problems on the agenda atm with the Scotland issue - he can't be covering all fronts at the same time.

Like I say, with a different Government that might be the way forward, but no way with this Government and in this climate.