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.

That isn't all you've been saying by a long chalk, but I understand you wanting to get back to the position that fewer posters had serious issues with.

Personally, mind you, I am currently fairly persuaded that the CofE probably should be compelled to marry people, simply because of its privileged position as the official State religion. They might be saying a lot of extra stuff when they do it, but effectively CofE vicars are conducting a civil as well as a religious marriage. They should therefore abide by the State definition of who is allowed to marry, rather than the official's personal icky feelings about what he thinks one partner might be doing with the other when he's not there to watch them. Which is basically what it boils down to, however you dress it up.

'The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father'

You're delusional!

Dammit, x-posted, sorry Grimma. You're quite right, of course.

Anybody you meet in rl who tells you they're OK with two gay dads and two gay mums is probably either being diplomatic/sh** scared of saying otherwise/lying.

I'm ok with 2 gay dads or 2 gay mums. I'm neither being diplomatic, shit-scared of saying otherwise, nor lying. HTH.

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

Orlux, thanks for your response. To me, my religion/faith isn't really separate to me. It's hard to see it as a separate entity.

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

I actually don't find this acceptable. The reason being is that you are talking about what is effectively a body of people. A religious faith is something different. It is about ones relationship between themselves and God/Higher Power and how people choose to express that.

There will always be bigots and people who view people with differences to mainstream as less than human and less entitled than others. Those people will always pass judgement on others and consider themselves justified in doing so for whatever reason. That is a sad reality. BUT that agenda should not dictate a person's right to participate
in a relationship with God in a way that they choose.

The foundation of marriage, religion and family life is love.

Love doesn't judge, discriminate, or cut people out.

This foundation of love comes before some notion of how society 'should' look and function.

That to me is one of the gifts of faith. If love comes first then we can do little harm to others or ourselves.

I admire those men and it's great they are in a position to challenge. I really hope that they with their case.

Good luck to them.

No, you're the delusional one, OutragedFromLeeds. You really are.

Ok, well why don't you tell me which posters have agreed with you that a child must have a mother and father instead of 2 mothers/2 father? I seem to have missed those posts....

The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father

on what do you base that assertion? Daily Mail polls?

MN really is a strange place sometimes.

Since the debate has moved on, here's my offering: I couldn't care one bit about a person's sexuality when it comes to raising children. I'm sure there are as many good/crap gay parents as straight ones.

But...I do care very much that children have a basic human right to be born of a woman, from her own egg, and to have the ability to know who she is. I am completely against egg donation for this reason and anonymous sperm donation leaves me pretty cold too. So for me that makes male gay surrogacy arrangements completely immoral.

I do realise that for some Mumsnetters, using anonymous sperm or another woman's egg is the only way they can become a parent. But to me it is still wrong.

Just my opinion folks - we are still allowed them, yes?

Orlux do you think it's right that a club - golf club/country club/social club - should be able to have rules prohibiting black people from fully participating in club life? Or women?

Orlux - this particular 'club' hasn't been allowed to make its rules, one way or the other.

They're gonna like damned silly being given away and kissing the bride anyway.

are you sure you're not a raving homophobe?

The family court system believes that a child should have the opportunity to know both a mother and a father.

I feel very sad that these two spoilt brats should be acting in this way. People like this will not stop until we've all had it shoved well and truly down our throats.

I honestly think that all churches should stop conducting marriages altogether and instead people can be married in a civil ceremony then have a religious blessing afterwards.

It must be a wind up. No-one is that stupid.

The majority of people think a child should at least have the opportunity of a mother and father

I think that children should ideally have loving parent/s, a loving extended family (whether that is biological or made up of significant life long friendships - doesn't really matter) Have positive role models of both genders. and have fun and enjoy life.

What I personally find abhorrent is the thought of a child being brought up in a household where bigoted attitudes lead them to develop a lack of trust and respect for others.

I am conscious of the messages we give when we say 'SHOULD' what is underlying this 'should'? What are we actually communicating? It's such an arbitrary word really and means fuck all apart from we are judging something as wrong on the grounds of our own flawed belief system.

Nobody can stop you having your own opinions, PeriodMath. Yours just sounds a little... indefensible.

And no-one wants equality shoved down their throats!

And no-one wants equality shoved down their throats!

I honestly think that all churches should stop conducting marriages altogether and instead people can be married in a civil ceremony then have a religious blessing afterwards

I wouldn't be against that idea. It's common in other countries, I think, and its what people of other religions have to do (not sure if any non-Christian religions can perform the actual marriage?) . Of course for many the religious part would then be the 'real' part, the sacrament, but that'd be up to them.

ChangeRearrange, I've got to admit that religion to me is a club. I view it as being a club, therefore, I think that if a club member doesn't like the rules that the majority of members are making then the onus of the member is to suck it up or leave

It's not a club for everyone Orlux. It really isn't. Those rituals and symbols have real meaning to lots of people and anchor them to God and observing those practices important part of their faith Jesus would be pretty pissed off with some of the stuff that goes on in churches for sure! But still it's not a perfect world and there are some amazing people, intellectual, thinking people who see beyond the church in it's isolation are try to use it as a vehicle to promote social justice in this country. As really, all the bullshittery aside that is what it's all really about.

The Quakers are different to the C of E. Thy are anti ritual and symbolism and don't have the same relationship with the trinity. It's a shame that someone should lose their right to practice their faith in the way they choose because some set of blokes (and a few women probably!) have decided that they don't fit God's box?

Who are they to say what God dictates really and honestly. A Church is just a building and a set of rituals and practices. The people in charge have a right to dictate how this is all managed but they do not have a right to dictate who comes in and out and takes part.

People have turned it into a club.

OP - You should also be aware that individual clergy can't be forced to marry anyone as the law stands now. The test case is to challenge the law the forbids clergy within the Church of England from choosing whether or not they wish to do so. That's how things work, this is how unfair laws are challenged and progress is made. There isn't anything totalitarian about it - individuals being able to challenge laws is pretty much the opposite and challenging a law that forbids freedom of choice even more so.

Orlux, I'm confused, since you aren't Christian, why are you trying to tell them what they believe? There are so many branches of Christianity, why are you treating them as a monolith? Many branches of Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam recognise more than two genders (Orthodox Judaism has 6) and love between people of any gender.

You're take on them seems more based on popular culture mythos than any academic or personal studies of the religions in question. As is your perception of gay couples with children, you act as if only parents raise a child and they will have no exposure to other people of other genders ever. And pretty much every modern study on this issue shows typically children with same-sex and/or queer parents do as well, and in most cases better, than those in the standard straight relationships, possibly because the greater effort in choosing to have them. The same standards of no harm should be placed on parents regardless of sex or gender. Your concern is hurtful and far more totalitatian to dictate how a child should be raised and spew your baseless hateful standards onto others.

PeriodMath
Have you been faced with infertility at all?

So basically, the line is that a child should have the opportunity at least to know it's mother and father

Yes, they should and that is an entirely different matter - its exactly the same issue as faces anyone who uses a donor, or adopted children. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, there is a 'right to know' now in the UK, isn't there?

It has no bearing whatever on the gender of the parents.