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.

I'm not sure what you meant, but so long as you know.

I think perhaps if you pay attention to the pretty words, you will discover this couple do claim to be practising Christians, don't they? We sorted that upthread.

Actually Nooka perhaps you don't understand the law yourself and specifically the law of establishment. Ask outraged to explain it to you, and why gay marriage is important and relevant to establishment.

Yes, because "bringing something to its knees" is REALLY hard to understand and not at all a common figure of speech

ooh I've been out-smilied!

You win! How dare gay people want equality?! Right behind you crumble. God and hate all the way.

By the way, it was someone else - Outraged I think - who said they wanted this not because they're practising Christians, but because the Church is established and it will continue to be against the law.

If what's been said here is true, there's no practising Christianity here.

Huh outraged answer a few points and I'll see you later. If you can't, you can't, and prefer jokes and silly rhetoric, meh.

Crumbled would you like to respond to my point about the problem being the CofE as an established church?

Darling, it was a pun, ok? A minor little pun.

Not an 'elision' (which means to leave something out, usually a letter or syllable in the middle of other syllables).

But I also think it matters quite a bit. You imagine that the Church would be brought to its knees if gay people were allowed to marry - as if the Church has to be proud and powerful to survive. But I think the Church is quite capable of experiencing great challenges and becoming stronger - and if it isn't, it's no longer worthwhile. After all, the whole point is that the Church is the Body of Christ. Think about that. Christ's body was broken and crucified, but also resurrected.

I feel that if the Church can't cope with a little minor challenge to its sense of integrity, such as gay marriage, then it's not being true to its origins. Sure, some people will find it hard to accept equality, but that's their problem.

I genuinely do think the problem is the Church not being willing enough to suffer and come to its knees. I'm punning but not being entirely flippant.

The C of E has got too scared of what the conservative bits of its membership will think.

I'm with you! It's them Muslim countries that are the problem isn't it? All Christian countries treat gay people really well. I've seen the light!! Thanks for the education.

You've obviously run out of arguments Outraged. Fine by me.

So why pretend you didn't know what I meant? That was a little lie?

First to outraged - second comment there to LRD

Skyler - I know that's the problem, and that's why they're doing it. It's other people who question the establishment issue.

LRD - it's not a minor challenge because of the law of establishment. Ask Skyler. In fact why don't you talk amongst yourselves for a while and sort out your argument.

No, it wasn't a lie.

Because you did not know the meaning of the word you used, and I did, I thought you might have meant I elided something. So I asked you to clarify. At which point it became clear you did not understand the word.

I don't habitually pick people up on stuff like that, but I'm dyslexic and quite capable of eliding things (usually bits of words when my brain jumps ahead). And I couldn't see what on earth I could possibly have elided there.

Is that ok for you?

Erm ... you do know that we're not all the same person, right, crumbled?

We don't have to sort out 'our' argument. You are wrong in so many ways that many of us can disagree with you on different grounds. Isn't that nice?

Oh I see, fair enough. I meant that you hiccupped the two meanings to butt onto each other. Yes, now I realise you were doing it a. because deliberate misunderstanding was your only way to answer my point and b. now you're picking up on it because you ran out of arguments like outraged. Otherwise you'd be saying something about the issue.

I'm pro disestablishment personally, and do not think that gay marriage is a problem in any way shape or form.

I don't live in the UK any more as I moved to Canada a few years ago where gay marriage has been legal and totally mainstream for 10 years with no adverse effects. Church attendance and levels of belief are generally higher here than in the UK too. There is an opt out for 'officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.' generally the Catholic church (big in Canada because of Quebec) is outspoken against same sex marriages whilst the other denominations are either neutral or supportive.

I don't have a big problem with allowing individual churches to not perform marriages because the of the 'club' thing. I hope that they will become more progressive over time. I do have a problem with the CoE being prohibited from doing so. Apart from anything else I think this should be a matter for the church and not the government.

Crumbled it's not this couple's fault that there is an established church in the UK. They are entitled to challenge it as they are being treated as second class citizens by an arm of the state.

I don't know what you mean by 'it's other people who question the establishment issue'.

'You've obviously run out of arguments Outraged. Fine by me.'

I haven't run out, my mind has been forever changed! By you and your coherent, well thought-out, non-racist, non-homophobic arguments. You've won the thread! I think if you contact MNHQ they send you a badge.

They're not just different grounds, they contradict each other. You cancel out your own arguments.

Like I said, fine by me will come back to you when you have a point to make

No, we really don't.

You'd have to explain how we do that, wouldn't you? If it were true. Which it isn't.

We simply happen all to disagree with you on different grounds and with differing priorities.

There's no especial onus on us to agree with each other while we disagree with you, you know.

Crumbled just what terrible things do you imagine might happen if the CoE was permitted to marry gay people?

As for this couple it is perfectly possible that they are both practicing Christians and would like to get married in the church which they attend AND that they believe a test case should be brought in order to move gay rights forward. Perhaps they also believe that God supports them in bringing this case forward.

How do my and LRD's points contradict each other? Also would like to clarify that I am a different person. HTH.

I think she means because you're focussed on the C of E being the establishment Church, whereas I just think it's kinda crap that the C of E hasn't got behind gay marriage yet from a religious POV, skyler.

Though, I'll take the opportunity to say I agree with you that the establishment Church bit is pretty important. It's just that as an Anglican with a pro-gay-marriage vicar, I tend to get cross about the other issue more.