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.

'You can't go round crossing bits of the Bible out just because you don't agree with it'

Christians have been doing that for centuries, didn't you know?
They've even had special conferences about it. Much gets altered in the translations too, which is one of the reasons that the Qu'ran is still in Arabic.
I've got copies of the Gospel of Thomas, and a copy of the Bible that includes the story of Tobit and Raphael.

"Gay couples (note not individuals) who have children are, by definition, selfish."

No. No, they're not.

ps Divorce is not a tragedy. I worked bloody hard for mine and I'm proud of it.

they are deliberately denying a child the opportunity to have a mother and father in its life.
What a load of rubbish it sounds like some out-dated tat. We live in a society of equality (Well so we try) and acceptance that not everyone is the same. If a Women LOVES another Women and they want to start a family, it is NO different to a Man and women who want to do the same thing. It is not denying a child their "right" to have a mother and father. A child has the right to be raised in a loving FAMILY UNIT, that is what they deserve. It is not denying them anything.

Are they both religious? They attend church and have been confirmed? Probably not. They can get a blessing - as I did when I married my non c of e husband. I didn't seek to sue anyone, why should I? Church rules and all that.

I can't see any religion marrying a gay couple. I feel sorry for the vicar.

Of course it's different. Of course they are being denied something.

I'm not a raving homophobe; if a gay man wants to co-parent with the mother of his child, that's absolutely fine.

If a gay woman wants to co-parent with the father of her child. Ditto.

I cannot believe that anybody would think otherwise.

Anyway, this has all gone seriously off topic.

Bottom line: if religions don't want to marry gay couples, up to them and they shouldn't be forced into it.

The only people who should be forced to uphold the law are civil servants.

But this woman didn't want to co-parent. She sold her baby for money. Yet you want her fully involved in its life. Actually, five babies was it? Great mother material. Mate, your values are weird.

Still waiting for a rational explanation of why it is selfish to adopt a baby but unselfish to impregnate a woman you don't want to live with.

I'm not a raving homophobe; Clearly
if a gay man wants to co-parent with the mother of his child, that's absolutely fine. That is very nice of you to give your permission. I am sure those "selfish parents" will be soo pleased.

Fortunately you are one of a few still popping about with your closed-minds, so we don't need to worry to much. Just try not to pass down your opinions on to the next generation.

Twostep if you read the article, you will find that the men are practising Christians, and are bringing up their children in the Church of England. Why do you say 'probably not'?

Renting women's wombs to have kids and deliberately and with forethought deny those children a mother sounds abhorrent to me. I'm not religious at all, but they make my stomach churn

I feel deeply deeply saddened by some of the attitudes on this thread.

I am and have been a member of the church of england all my life. I was born to it, I have an understanding of the Christian Tradition that is tolerant, respectful and open.

My family have known members of the higher echelons of the church socially and this attitude IS NOT the church of england I know.

Christ's teachings were teachings of love tolerance and respect. Community, charity, self knowledge and social justice.

They were not divisive and exclusive.

Everyone is entitled to practice their faith and have their love and vows honoured equally before God. (Although this could just as easily happen in the middle of a field or in a hotel lobby - it doesn't actually matter!) If being in church helps someone connect and identify their spirituality this symbolic act of marriage in church should be open to all.

I am very sad by what i read on this thread.

"I cannot believe that anybody would think otherwise."

Well I think otherwise, so you don't need to believe it, people think otherwise whether you believe they do or not.

I also think that churches aren't in fact a building, or an abstract idea -they are a community sharing a faith, gay people are still a part of that community and as such it's unfair to ban them from celebrating their marriage within their community.

It's got nothing to do with whether an individual celebrant objects, it's about whether an organization recognizes that being gay does not preclude being Christian.

Not recognizing gay marriage is not one of the founding tenets of Christianity, it's something that hasn't adapted with society in a way that many of their other incidental beliefs have, like not eating shellfish or thinking that slavery is fine.

When I saw this thread I guessed immediately who it would be trying to sue the Church of England.

Sometime ago I was listening to a phone in on gay marriage and Barrie phoned in saying that he would not rest until the church had to marry homosexuals.

Maybe marriage will be banned for all in the future?

I think the first gay marriage took place in a reformed Jewish synagogue but I just cannot imagine it ever ever happening in a mosque, so there can not be equality in that respect surely?

Can a person or persons be formally excommunicated from the Church of England?

' but I just cannot imagine it ever ever happening in a mosque, so there can not be equality in that respect surely?'

Why? Because the muslims aren't as tolerant as the rest of us?

Well, to be truthful, OutragedFromLeeds, I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the Islamic faith ain't too keen on homosexuality.

What about this OP and others?

Let's have your views....

My DH is female to male Transgender. We have had fertility treatment on the NHS and been treated as any other heterosexual couple in need of fertility treatment.

We have had a religious marriage. (about 4 years ago) as male and female. Legally.

Is this alright with you?

Should we just hung our heads and accepted that we can't enjoy the same privileges and membership of our religion as other people?

Is it o.k that we've got a child whose father wasn't biologically male at birth?

Is that o.k?

Have we deprived our DC of a traditional family unit?

Does it make us terrible parents?

As far as I am concerned I have a right to bear children, my DH has a right to be a father and we have a right to fully participate in religious life.

I dearly hope that these rights can be properly extended to all in the future and that institutions in this country come under the same jurisdiction as other public human rights laws.

Well I guess that your child is now effectively growing up with a mother and a father so that's OK.

Anyway, I guess it's up to you to have it out with your religion.

If they accept you fine, if they don't also fine, up to them.

All I'm saying is that religious organisations should not be compelled to conduct a wedding ceremony for anybody.

"Because the muslims aren't as tolerant as the rest of us"?

To be honest I wouldn't like to be a bloke walking hand in hand with another down a street of a Sharia area at night.

You sound like excellent parents to me, change, and a great example to others of how diversity makes us stronger as a society.

It's going to happen, no matter what. It will happen.

'To be honest I wouldn't like to be a bloke walking hand in hand with another down a street of a Sharia area at night.'

Whereas you'd be safe as houses doing that in, for example, Uganda, a predominantly Christian country....oh no....wait a minute...

All I'm saying is that religious organisations should not be compelled to conduct a wedding ceremony for anybody.

If that was all you were saying, you'd probably find quite a lot of people agreed with you. Its all your other stuff that nearly everyone else disagrees with.

However, the current situation is that no religious organisation is compelled to marry same-sex couples. The only lack of freedom is that the CofE and CofW are explicitly barred from doing so - even if they wanted to allow vicars who were happy to do so, they can't. This is because of their peculiar situation as a state church. If they were allowed the choice, then it was anticipated that there would be court cases - which would be difficult because on the one hand they are ministers of religion, but on the other they serve as state functionaries.

I think this case will probably be thrown out TBH. The CofE's hands have been tied by the government.

I couldn't read the article as my blackberry was acting up.

I assumed 'not' as I would have thought that someone with a relationship with the church (ie regular attenders) wouldn't go down the route of sueing the church. They would be aware of the church's stance and would, I assume, have spoken about it to their vicar. It sounded more like a 'stance' case.