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.

Krumbum

I'm advocating freedom they are advocating restriction. If you want to do the job of performing marriages it shouldn't be up to you who gets married.

You're advocating freedom by banning churches from performing marriages which don't conform to your worldview?

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, eh?

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a "problem" with it as such. It deplores it and tells its congregants why (has been explained by posters above, so OP would BU if she said she no longer understood the issue), but does not have difficulty in existing in countries with civil marriage with non-Prayer book conditions for who may marry.

I think most other denominations take this stance.

The CofE is in a different position though, in that at present everyone has a legal right to marry in their Parish Church. thus us because religious and civil marriage are the same thing in UK, registered Church marriage was the original legal "marriage" and the two types remain interchangeable, and CofE as Established Church must marry all those the State will marry.

Presumably the universal right to marry in you Parish Church will have to be rescinded. I am not clear if such a removal has any wider implications.

Nope not banning them from doing anything. They can easily just marry hetero and homosexual couples. There's always that option. But if you want to be discriminatory you lose the privilege. Why is ok to ban gay people but not say a mixed race couple getting married? It's the same. It's just as bigoted and wrong.

Edith - but the CofE doesn't have to marry divorced people (with former spouse still living), so they don't at the moment have to marry all those that the state would marry. The clauses that allow them not to marry divorcees could be adapted to also permit them not to marry same sex couples. The separation of the legal right to marry in church from the legal right to marry in a civil ceremony has already taken place, modifying it a bit further is minor.

Krumbum
Nope not banning them from doing anything. They can easily just marry hetero and homosexual couples. There's always that option. But if you want to be discriminatory you lose the privilege. Why is ok to ban gay people but not say a mixed race couple getting married? It's the same. It's just as bigoted and wrong.

You wrote that churches "should be forced to perform" gay marriages and if they didn't they would be banned from performing marriages. However you try to word it, what you're doing is forcing them to adhere to your worldview.

The only freedom you're offering is the freedom to do exactly what they're bloody well told because you said so.

Do you not recognise how that makes you the same as them? You're just as bigoted because you're trying to force your views on them.

Flatpack. Was the civil rights movement wrong then? That was people trying to change the way people work and live because of a different world view. The law says we cannot discriminate over race, gender sexuality etc do you think that infringes on the rights of racists, sexists and homophobes?
The church should not be exempt in being allowed to discriminate.

Would it make more sense to let churches discriminate who to marry on whatever grounds they like? Don't make specific exemptions (divorced, gay), just... whatever.

You can't force them to perform gay marriages or restrict them from performing heterosexual marriages etc. because they have a right to the freedom if association.
The most you could do would be for the state to no longer recognise their marriage ceremony so the couple would have to go through a second civil registration to be deemed legally married

Krumbum

Flatpack. Was the civil rights movement wrong then? That was people trying to change the way people work and live because of a different world view.

Don't try to link this to the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was a genuine injustice and the views of the movement were shared by a majority. The gay marriage movement is the actions of a tiny minority of aggressive activists imposing their extremist views on the majority.

The law says we cannot discriminate over race, gender sexuality etc do you think that infringes on the rights of racists, sexists and homophobes?

The law doesn't say that. The law (Equalities Act) says that it is legal to discriminate against someone who is not a minority. Minorities include everyone except white men.

The church should not be exempt in being allowed to discriminate.

Yes they should, because that's what Liberty means. It means being allowed to choose, even if a bunch of latte-supping metro-wankers think you're wrong.

flatpack - wow, just wow. Talk about hate speech.

"The gay marriage movement is the actions of a tiny minority of aggressive activists imposing their extremist views on the majority."

That is utter rubbish. For a start, a large part of the (straight) population is for Gay marriage, another large part does not care because it doesn't affect them; the only people against it are those who want to restrict the liberty of LGBT people.

"The law (Equalities Act) says that it is legal to discriminate against someone who is not a minority. Minorities include everyone except white men."

I suggest you go and read it. I have, and it says nothing of the sort.

"Yes they should, because that's what Liberty means. It means being allowed to choose..."

Quite frankly, this is an idiotic thing to say. See my comments above on removing liberty.

"...even if a bunch of latte-supping metro-wankers think you're wrong."

Thank you for making your bigotry and homophobia plain for all to see.

WMittens

wow, just wow. Talk about hate speech.

Wow. Just Wow. Talk about cliche.

That is utter rubbish. For a start, a large part of the (straight) population is for Gay marriage, another large part does not care because it doesn't affect them; the only people against it are those who want to restrict the liberty of LGBT people.

Well done. We weren't talking about gay marraige, of course, but the right of churches to refuse to sanctify a gay partnership. Not that it stopped you from misreading everything. Careful on that high horse there, pardner!

I suggest you go and read it. I have, and it says nothing of the sort.

Perhaps you missed the part where it makes it legal for public authorities to hire somebody on the basis of disability, skin colour or gender. Never mind, go and read it again.

Quite frankly, this is an idiotic thing to say. See my comments above on removing liberty.

I read your comments, and what they say is "It's OK for me to over-ride the church's freedom to choose with my trendy wendy urban chic attitudes, because I'm right and they're wrong."

Perhaps, while you're reading the equalities act, you could spend a bit of time reading some JS Mill's "On Liberty". Or just the Wiki page on it which should outline why your definition of 'Liberty' isn't.

Thank you for making your bigotry and homophobia plain for all to see.

Loathing the pompous pricks who set themselves up from their Islington ethnic coffee shops as moral arbiters for the nation isn't bigotry, it's a healthy reaction to some truly ghastly people.

Obviously it isn't homophobic because they aren't all gay (but some of their best friends are). But that doesn't matter because what you were trying to do was show everyone how morally superior you are to me by claiming I'm a homophobe.

Chin chin.

"White men" would be protected under the equality act against discrimination against them on the grounds of gender and race (and sexual orientation and religion, same as everyone else).

The only group for whom positive discrimination is legal is disabled people. (Written without a latte in sight and 500 miles from London).

The church aren't keen on anything that could potentially bring pleasure - far better that we all wallow in misery

iggi777

"White men" would be protected under the equality act against discrimination against them on the grounds of gender and race (and sexual orientation and religion, same as everyone else).

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Sadly, not. In the "Positive Action" part of the Equalities Act employers are allowed to discriminate based upon skin colour, gender or disability if they so choose when hiring employees. Whilst it might be imagined in fantasy-land that this would benefit white males in areas where they are traditionally under-represented, it's clear that the purpose of that element of the act is to make it legal to deny a position to a white man on the basis that he's a white man.

It's simply not true that the civil rights movement was supported by the majority. Certainly not at the start. In the southern states of the US, it was 'common sense' that black people couldn't marry white people, or drink from their water fountains, or vote... Only mung bean-eating New York liberals hanging out in jazz cafes thought otherwise.

Over time, and as a direct result of the activism of the radical minority, racial equality came to be seen as common sense.

Equal pay for women was once seen as radical and ridiculous, too. And the idea of letting Catholics into Parliament. Just this morning I was reading that the BBC refused to feature the first Paralympics (back in the 40s) on the grounds that it was 'bad taste'.

When I first came out, the vast majority of the population thought that lesbianism was deviant and abnormal. They thought gay people shouldn't be able to teach in schools, let alone have children themselves. Friends of mine left marriages for lesbian relationships, and always always lost their children in resulting custody battles. Because of the ongoing struggles of ethnic cafe-dwelling Islingtonian gay activists () I can now live with my dp and our children, part of a warm and friendly community of 'normal' people who no doubt a generation ago would have been horrified to have lesbian mothers move into their street but who have changed their minds in line with the times - as, thank god, people do.

When civil partnership was first mooted, a lot of people opposed it. Including the mainstream church. Funny how now so many people are saying well of course civil partnership makes sense, but gay marriage that's just a step too far. In ten years this whole debate will seem ridiculous. Of course we are going to get full equality in civil marriage - sooner or later and probably sooner. And the world will keep turning and everyone will get used to it. The churches will do whatever they want to do, but I bet increasingly it will seem like common sense to them, too, to stop denying full humanity to people on the basis of who they sleep with.

Excellent post Devora.

"The gay marriage movement is the actions of a tiny minority of aggressive activists imposing their extremist views on the majority."

"Well done. We weren't talking about gay marraige, of course,"

Both quotes from you. Is it any wonder I 'misread' your posts when you fail to articulate your views properly?

"...but the right of churches to refuse to sanctify a gay partnership."

I wasn't talking about that. I do not believe church's should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to. I do believe they should not block the rights of gay couples to marry, nor prevent churchs that are happy to marry gay couples from doing so.

"I read your comments, and what they say is "It's OK for me to over-ride the church's freedom to choose with my trendy wendy urban chic attitudes, because I'm right and they're wrong.""

Now who is misreading? Read them again, and my comments above.

"Perhaps you missed the part where it makes it legal for public authorities to hire somebody on the basis of disability, skin colour or gender. Never mind, go and read it again."

I certainly did. If you give me the section and subsection I will go and read it again.

"Loathing the pompous pricks who set themselves up from their Islington ethnic coffee shops as moral arbiters for the nation isn't bigotry,"

You're basing your views on people because they go to 'ethnic' coffee shops in Islington?!

If there's one thing I hate, it's intolerance.

flatpackhamster: "Whilst it might be imagined in fantasy-land that this would benefit white males in areas where they are traditionally under-represented, it's clear that the purpose of that element of the act is to make it legal to deny a position to a white man on the basis that he's a white man."

Au contraire. There's been a move recently to get more men working in care homes, where they are under-represented, but badly needed because many elderly men prefer male carers. This move has been quite successful because employers have been able to advertise specifically for male trainees and employees.

Flatpack you don't understand the difference between positive action and positive discrimination. If two candidates are otherwise equal then positive action allows an employer to pick the one who is female (or black) if that group is under-represented in their workforce. Positive discrimination is closer to what you describe, and is only legal in the case of disability.

Dear, oh, dear, oh dear! This thread is pregnant with lots of misinformation and misunderstanding.