Aibu to think that sueing the church over gay marriage is not acceptable?

[Orlux]

Here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html


I supported the right of gay couples to have same rights as heterosexual ones, but I feel this is going to far. Plus my religious friends (I'm agnostic) are now having a go at my naivety.

[Saffyz]

Gay people can and do have children, through sperm donation, surrogacy or adoption. If an aspect of marriage is to support "procreation" and family life, then surely it would be just as much benefit to those children in families where the parents are gay? Why deny them this?

[Catsize]

Also true skyler.

[skylerwhite]

You don't have to have a registrar if the minister (of any religion apart from CofE) obtains authorisation. See the How to Marry section of this link.

[QueenofallIsee]

I believe that the Bible was written by men not by God and that Jesus would be OK with homosexuality myself.

I think that suing the Church was inevitable but I am still very sorry to see it. Marriage is defined in the Christian faith in terms of procreation, hence why the Church has resisted same sex marriage, I may not see it that way but some Christian leaders (good men and women who help their community and behave righteously) believe strongly that they must follow doctrine as it is laid out and thus are very distressed that the law might be used to force them to pick and choose which bits apply.

There is an argument in there that wonders if the Church had never evolved before, we might all still be worshipping gold idols and thus religion SHOULD keep pace with society but I am not a religious leader am I!

You are not BU, I don't think that a law suit is the right answer eitehr

[Catsize]

That is my understanding too x2boys.

[x2boys]

actualy not all religious ceremonies are recognised if you wish to b e married in a catholic church you have to have a registrar there to make it legal same in islam l beleive

[skylerwhite]

This book might interest you: Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery in America.

I believe that by the mid19th c, pro-slavery arguments
centred round the fact that the slave trade had effectively ceased, and people were born into slavery in America, therefore the Exodus prohibition did not apply.

[Dervel]

Forgive those random numerical character codes, apparently mumsnet doesn't like Ancient Greek characters. I was talking about phusikan krasis, with phusikan being the word relation to the nature one is "born into".

[Dervel]

@skylarwhite. Comparing the issue of slavery to the issue of homosexuality is an informal fallacy. Yes I concede that the mistreatment of black people was tenuously justified through scripture. The curse of Ham (Genisis 9:20-7), it was later interpreted that Ham was black (not really solidly from a scriptural standpoint), thus justifying the curse of being made "servant of servants" being applied to a whole race.

Furthermore the manner of slavery as practiced in the American colonies is expressly forbidden in the bible (Exodus 21:16) kidnapping and selling people into slavery is a crime punishable by death. In addition to other passages relating to how slaves should be treaded which was most certainly not adhered to in the Americas.

Homosexuality however does not enjoy much in the way of pro-homosexual passages. The best I have been able to come up with is by going back to the original Greek (Romans 1:18-27). This is ironically one of the go-to passages for anti-homosexual arguments. In verse 26 the words φυσικὴν χρῆσιν are translated to mean natural function, however a more accurate in my view definition of φυσικὴν means born nature or born into. In other words the nature one is created with. Therefore if one is born homosexual it would be against God to try to be anything else.

In that passage Paul was censuring Christian converts who had lapsed back into Pagan practises that involved sexual rites with people engaging in sexual activity which was according to Paul against their nature (which if they were heterosexual it would have been). However even if that IS the correct interpretation it still does not provide us with biblical references in support of Gay marriage, which is where drawing parallels to the slavery/racism in America falls down.

There are a great many non-homophobic Christians that are wrestling with precisely this issue, when what ultimately needs to happen is a reexamination of what a marriage precisely is in the eyes of God, and eventually a redefinition of what it means to us as necessary. These are weighty issues for all concerned that require sound scholarship, compassion and humility. NOT just knee-jerk responses by either side, or meddling from the courts.

I know it might make it easy to draw a black and white line in your head. Clump all the people who don't agree with you as in the wrong, intolerant homophobes (if your are pro-church gay weddings), or as in the wrong, and wanting to destroy the Christian definition of marriage and family (if you are anti), but really those are just gross oversimplifications of the issues at stake, and both extremes go against the beating heart of love, faith & hope that should be at the centre of any Christian Church.

[Catsize]

I agree with the obtaining authorisation point. I think that the licence is a civil marriage one though, rather than a generic licence that we recognise by virtue of the religion concerned. Important to recognise the special place of the Cof E etc. for this debate I think. As said above, Established Church, law-making function etc. But just think it is a shame that things aren't being allowed to bed in a bit, or even get started, before they are challenged. Equally,the slightly rebellious bit of me likes it, but I think it will backfire big time. It will potentially create a legal precedent that might not have been created a little while down the line. And if the Church had been allowed to get used to the idea, it might go down the route of seeking to amend the legislation to allow same-sex marriage in about the year 2345.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

The reason I'm trying to clarify is not to prove you are wrong about gay marriage, or to score a random point. I'm trying to demonstrate how extremely complex this is. It's not just a case of Equal Rights Or You're A Homophobe, as some people are making out.

Somewhere along the line there has to be a compromise between rights and religious freedom, and everyone involved will have to end up accepting positions like yours with the inconsistency they contain.

That's why this sledgehammer court case is wrong, insensitive, crass, selfish, arrogant and will ultimately engender more hostility than would ever be necessary to bring about this change.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

Skyler: was my last but one post a correct representation of your view?

[Crumbledwalnuts]

Catsize: some mosques you can get married and there's no need for a civil ceremony, certainly.

[skylerwhite]

They are legally recognised if the person conducting them has obtained authorisation, as I pointed out in my post.

[Catsize]

Should clarify - legally recognised being in UK civil law, rather than Sharia.

[Catsize]

skyler, the link was referring back to your assertion that Islamic weddings in the UK are legally recognised. This link seems to support my original contention that this is not necessarily so.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

Is it this?

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?) Yes. Although I support the right of anyone to take a challenge if they wish.

So that means you support the right to a challenge say to a ban on same sex weddings without legal standing. But you'd want it to fail and you'd want the church to be able to carry on exercising discrimination.

[skylerwhite]

Read my post again. I have answered it directly.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

Skyler I think you need to acknowledge that religious ceremonies with no legal standing will eventually face a legal challenge over equalities - and that, in turn, if successful, will lead to the forcing of imams and priests from their jobs.

So - would you want it to succeed or not?

[Crumbledwalnuts]

by the way Catinabox that does not answer the question I asked

one poster said "homophobes people who are against gay marriage" ie implying that everyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic

that poster is not the only one to imply that

a pretty sweeping statement really

[Crumbledwalnuts]

I asked whether you would like the challenge to succeed. You haven't answered that.

[catinabox]

I am in favour of gay marriage in churches or anywhere else that a heterosexual couple might get married.

It doesn't really bother me that these two guys are looking to sue the church. I guess i just think that it is good that someone is willing to take a stand for equal rights and that's what is important. Not the individuals. Because, like a lot of people have said, non Christian people, people who are older than child baring age, people who have had affairs and people who have been in prison can get married in a church so really, it's not about observance of the Christian faith.


I notice Annie that you didn't answer my question about whether you think the Archbishop is a homophobe. I guess it was easier to avoid. Also you haven't apologised for accusing me of pretending to be someone else, or for calling me names, or traducing my motives

Hi Crumbled, I think this question was answered further back in the thread.

...just to note. a previous arch bishop of canterbury supported the ordination of women and I am not going to discuss his other beliefs because i'm not entirely clear but i know at least one or two of his social circle (who are clergy) have supported gay marriage

There you go!!

[skylerwhite]

I've already answered that.

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?)

Yes. Although I support the right of anyone to take a challenge if they wish.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

No but do you support the claim behind the challenges? Would you like them to succeed?

[Crumbledwalnuts]

Of course they're allowed to bring legal challenges, and they certainly would, over blessings, and they certainly would, over religious weddings with no legal standing. Would you support such challenges? Are you prepared to accept that they will come, and that if they succeed, many priests and imams will have to stop being priests and imams because of those challenges?