In not understanding why churches are anti gay marriage?

[BlingLoving]

I don't agree with, but do understand, why churches will refuse to sanctify gay marriage. The Church ultimately decides what's right for its individual practitioners.

But I don't understand why they feel gay marriage must not happen full stop and why it supposedly undermines heterosexual marriage? The catholic church does not agree with pre-marital sex but it isn't out there trying to stop the rest of us.

I genuinely would like to understand why some religious groups think same sex marriage harms their heterosexual relationships. If simply makes no sense to me.

Inclusive Church (Home Page)

Inclusive Church: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

"Through public statements, discussions with church leaders, gatherings and other means, Inclusive Church has been seeking to resist attempts to make the Anglican Communion more narrow and exclusive, and to promote serious study, dialogue and reflection."

Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement

"The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is a UK-based international Charity which challenges homophobia and transphobia, especially within the Church and faith based organisations, as well as working to create and praying for an inclusive church."

They can have their bigoted opinion but the problem is that the church have a lot of sway politically which they shouldn't.
The church just like setting a way of life that keeps men in power and gay relationships threaten that.

What about the Muslim and jewish religion would you expect them to change?

YANBU. The Church believes it has the right to dictate how non-followers live, sadly. Thinking off the top of my head, they've lost every battle ever fought on this (socially "compulsory" church attendance, Sunday trading, pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce) but unfortunately haven't yet realised that their beliefs are irrelevant to the rest of us.

Pigletmania I would yes.

Why is it that every time thus argument comes up someone says "oh well then people can marry animals or their siblings or a rock"??
No one is campaigning to marry a fricken animal for goodness sake. They are not human beings who can make choices and have free will to consent. It is a stupid argument by morons.
As for siblings it is because of the possibility of genetic problems if they have children (amoung other things).

What about the Muslim and jewish religion would you expect them to change?

As I understand it, this thread isn't about 'changing' the beliefs of a religion, it is about the unreasonable influence it has on statute affecting citizens who do not follow said religion.

What I don't get is that Jesus literally never said a thing about it, so why should Christians care? Yes, it's all over the Old Testament, but so is slavery and admonitions not to eat shellfish.

As I realised when I taught a New Testament-as-literature course, the thing Jesus REALLY had a problem with was divorce. He said that divorced women should be stoned. But not a peep about homosexuality and many other things.

So why do (some) Christians get so upset about it? Bigotry, IMO. Are they living by all the other Old Testament tenets? Unlikely.

There is a lot of stuff about this in my church at the moment.

The reason why they are so anti is because Jesus said that marriage should only occur between a man and a woman - therefore, it is a core belief to some Christians that this is the case. They think it undermines and will eventually lead to a more relaxed attitude in the future towards marriage (such as people marrying multiple partners). These people are entitled to their view - superficially their view seems homophobic but knowing them I have realised that they are a bit ignorant. When I look at people who believe this I see people who have lived sheltered lives and actually don't know much about the world outside of their faith. I would say most of them have a very old fashioned view of sexuality and don't actually know that lots of gay people have deep relationships. I used to try and argue with them about it but I have realised there is no point because they just don't get it.

My personal belief is that the law should be changed to allow gay marriage but churches should not be forced to perform them. It should be optional.

On a more defensive note religion is a comfort tool for the frightened - at the moment it takes a much braver person to say "I am a Christian" rather than being a sheep to everyone else.

I think churches should be forced to perform them and if they don't want to then they don't perform any marriages. It's giving allowances to bigots. Not right.

Well, if you believe what is written in the Bible, then it is as plain as day written there that God hates homosexuality. If you don't subscribe to the Bible, then you should not let the Church's views bother you. They have a right to their belief. They cannot impose their belief on you and neither can you impose your belief on them.

No but performing marriages is a privilege and if you refuse to give fair and equal treatment to all those who want to use the service then you shouldn't be given that privilege.

The reason why they are so anti is because Jesus said that marriage should only occur between a man and a woman

Apparently he didn't - it can appear that way when quoted out of context, but it is supposedly a condemnation of divorce, not homosexuality. There is a quote of Jesus which could be interpreted as condemning homophobia.

They cannot impose their belief on you and neither can you impose your belief on them.

But they do impose their beliefs on us because they are blocking changes to the law, which affects all who live in the country, not just Christians who live in the country.

Mummyonvalium, are you seriously suggesting people that don't choose Christianity are doing so because they are just following the herd?

Mummyonvalium: "Jesus said that marriage should only occur between a man and a woman - therefore, it is a core belief to some Christians that this is the case."

Chapter and verse?

What's interesting to me about all this is that the Catholic church in particular is taking such a hard line on it. Catholics routinely ignore the church's teachings on premarital sex and contraception, and the church pragmatically turns a blind eye. If it started to come down hard on those issues, people would leave the church. But now it's coming down hard on gay marriage (another letter read out today in Scottish churches) and people will almost certainly leave the church over that too. Why are they so bothered? Is it because they think that if gay civil marriages are allowed, they'll eventually be forced to perform gay marriages in church?

peshwari I would be very interested in where Jesus says that. 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' is how I remember it.

YABU OP as in your initial post you say you do understand why they refuse to sanctify Gay marriage. It would be a bit hypocritical to believe one thing when it is in your church, but not when elsewhere.

I have no issues with faiths not wanting to 'marry' people in their 'holy' place but I have issues with the faiths getting in the way of gay marriages conducted in civil law as opposed to civil partnerships. Why do they hold a monopoly on what the word 'marriage' means in the modern world? Is this why we have civil partnerships - because faith groups argue against the word 'marriage' to be applied to gay couples?

But, Krumbum, if you were to force churches to perform same sex marriage, then you are imposing your views on them. That's not right either.

I'm all for same sex marriage, but churches should not be forced to perform them if it is against their religion and beliefs. If they want to however, then thats a different matter, and they are completely within their rights to do so.

That said churches should not interfere with the lives of the unfaithful, and have no right to dictate whether a marriage can happen outside of a religious setting.

Giveitago my thoughts exactly, that's what I was trying to say in my previous post! You said it perfectly!

quite right, giveitago, civil marriage is none of the Catholic church's business (or any other church). Sad to see the CofE becoming intolerant in the cause of unity with the African churches. Surely the whole point of Christianity is to stand up for your belief...

And my other point stands - the Catholic church has no business at all preaching morality. Appalling, disgusting bunch of child-abusing hypocrites. (The priesthood, not the laity.)

"the thing Jesus REALLY had a problem with was divorce. He said that divorced women should be stoned"

Where?

Good question, stoned. Of course he said precisely the opposite - 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. Which means no-one has the right to stone someone taken in adultery.

We shouldn't make allowances for bigots. That's like saying a hotel owner should be able to not allow black people to stay at their hotel and we can't interfere because they just have different beliefs than non racists.

The church should at least let individual churches/vicars/ministers make their own decision, like they currently do with women priests. A blanket ban isn't an accurate reflection of the mix of opinions within the church.

Jobs change. You can't just pick and choose not to do a bit of your job.