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.

Crumbledwalnuts I don't really know what you mean by 'Christian Act' I think christianity, for my own definition is acknowledgement of christ's teachings which are love, respect, justice, compassion, forgiveness, humanity to name but a few. We don't have to be perfect. The whole point is is that we are human.

I absolutely and honestly believe that christ did not teach us to repress our sexuality either.

For me, a threesome wouldn't be right. I am married and it is not a choice i would make as it would disrespect my vows. But i certainly wouldn't feel it to judge someone elses right to faith on the basis of their sexual choices with other consenting adults.

Yes, the word Cunt is really not nice, But i like it. Probably jesus wouldn't entirely approve :)

lovecupboards - fair point, I don't believe it does. But then we know that Christian teaching varies and some take the Bible VERY black and white and others don't. After all, if all Christians followed the Bible word for word we'd be stoning a lot of people and putting homosexuals to death. However, the general accepted teaching, I think, is that Christian marriage is about "keeping only to each other" and not committing adultery and all that malarkey, which would tend to suggest threesomes is off limits.

Crumbled - no.

So you think it's OK for Christians to have threesomes then, because Christianity is about tolerance so we have to tolerate everything.

It's not, it's relevant, because this things is all about what Christianity is and what Christians can do. How come Uganda is relevant and adultery isn't? Just because it suits your point of view I suppose.

Why would they sue Mrs DV if there's nothing wrong with it?

Is there something wrong and unChristian about adultery and threesomes or not?

MrsDeVere - I have no reason to believe my friend was lying. I have never known him to lie. I am not attempting to discredit a high profile case. I have not even commented on whether I agree with their case. I am merely pointing out MY OPINION (which I am entitled to express) that their prior and regular self-promoting behaviour as far as I have read about it in the papers (all of which have been with their involvement) and from what a friend tells me tends to be at odds with some of their own statements.

Personally, I have no issue with gay people of either gender getting married in church. I knew a challenge like this would come and it does not surprise me that it comes from this couple rather than a less self-promotional couple.

I haven't made any allegations.

If you say it's defamatory you think there's something wrong with the threesome act. If you think there's something wrong with the threesome act then if it's true, t certainly has bearing on the case as they claim to be practising Christians.

However if you say it's irrelevant and has no bearing on the case you must think there's nothing unChristian about the threesome and adultery. Because if there was, it would have relevance.

So you can take a stand on one or the other, but not both at the same time.

MrsDeVere - I made my last post before I saw your and I take HUGE offence at the suggestion I am homophobic. Without outing myself, because of the industry I work in, I suspect I know and am friends with far more gay people than you have ever even met. How dare you.

No, somebody else brought up Uganda. You think Uganda is irrelevant then, I hope.

Oh FFS sake.

As part of the debate, obviously. Which is why Period and others have discussed it. Because some people would consider threesomes, whether gay, straight or bisexual, at odds with what the majority of practicing Christians would consider an acceptable part of teaching.

I don't mind what people do in their own bedrooms. Or cars. Or woods. As long as it doesn't involve children, animals or coercion. My point was clearly about what some people would regard as unusual behaviour for most self-proclaimed practicing Christians.

"If you have no problem with gay people being married in church why bring up sexual practices?"

You do know that the rightness or wrongness of threesomes with strangers is nothing to do with being gay or straight? It's to do with the sanctity of marriage, which is the WHOLE POINT.

Actually the fact that you have to accuse Jessica of being a homophobe despite indicates that it's always the fallback position, when an argument seems to be weakening. Just accuse people of homophobia , that should do it. So they're pretty clear that they aren't? So what.

'To try to compare Anglicans who prefer the status quo with people who back the death penalty in Iran and Uganda is exaggeration of the worst kind.'

No-one has made that comparison. The comments about Uganda and Iran came in response to a comment about Mosques (not many Anglicans there!) and 'Sharia areas' (a comment that I believe you made?!).

There are several different points being made/discussions being had in this thread (threesomes now for example). Try and keep up!

Don't you have a comment on the Economist article I posted? Yes, I posted about Sharia areas. I believe one of them may be mentioned in the Economist article I posted and linked to, in the face of reference to Uganda as an example of how intolerant Christians are.

What comment do you want? My view is there are cunty Muslims and cunty Christians. There are lovely Muslims and lovely Christians. The cunty and the kind exist in all groups.

A comment that suggested Muslims as a group are more homophobic than any other group needed to be addressed imo and so I gave an example of a Christian country that has massively homophobic laws as an example. Couple of other posters mentioned Russia and Greece as other examples.

I don't know what your point is?

Now I have to admit I don't think I even own a Bible these days (used to have several, I rather think XH "disappeared" them when I moved out) and I do have a horribly bad memory, so I would be grateful for correction. But I seem to recall the usual suspects once asked Jesus about the case of a widow who married her deceased husband's brother - there may even have been a third brother involved, I forget - and said when she finally dies herself and joins them in Heaven, which one is she married to? To which Jesus replied none of them, as there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage in Heaven.

He also told a mob who were about to stone an adulteress that whoever was without sin themselves should cast the first stone. And nobody did.

Apart from turning water into wine at a wedding, showing Jesus had no problem with a jolly good party, I think that's about it for his pronouncements on marriage and sex, wasn't it?

You opined that it was wrong for the op to suggest less tolerance from a mosque community. So I posted a piece showing that all the countries which currently have the death penalty for homosexuality are Muslim countries, and that some sharia communities in the are following a visibly oppressive path. Perhaps the comment I'm hoping for is a "thanks for the education", or a "gosh I had no idea I was so naïve". Of course that's not the comment I would actually expect from someone who says "cunty Muslims and cunty Christians".

I'm sorry but the sexual lives of two adult men has absolutely no baring on whether they consider themselves to be practising Christians or not, or have a right to request they are married in a Christian Church.

I think that what you are implying is that this case only has a right to be heard if these two men can only be considered to be living their lives in a way which is considered to be 'Christian'.

No other couple would be expected to have their lives under the same level of scrutiny.

What this couple are asking for is equal rights.