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.

Those two positions aren't contradictory, though. Although it might suit Crumbled to envisage the wide range of varying perspectives as one homogenous bloc 'bringing the church to its knees'.

I don't think they are contradictory either, but I may be missing something.

Is crumbly the OP under a name change?

Yes, you do LRD

In addition it's ludicrous to label anyone not in favour of this idea as a homophobe, and ludicrous to label anyone who's read an Economist article about the death penalties for homosexuality in Islamic countries as a racist. It's a joke. Worse, it's an attempt to silence alternative views.

No outraged - still scraping the barrel there.

No, one poster said they weren't going for this case because they're practising Christians, but because the CoE and CiW are specificially excluded. Another person said they were doing it because they're practising Christians. Another poster said they were doing it because it was an established church. Another poster contradicted themselves by saying at the same time that adultery didn't matter and there's no hypocrisy involved in this supposed practised Christianity - but it the adultery was simulataneously so bad that to suggest it was involved here was defamatory.

It's just unusual to get two posters who say things that everyone else perceives as homophobic that aren't actually homophobic! It's just a real coincidence.

Out of interest Crumbles, what would your view be if the case were being brought by a different couple? One who absolutely never had threesomes.

Really outraged. Are you going to accuse everyone who doesn't like these ideas as homophobic, and accuse them of being the same person? I think one person escaped without being accused of being the OP but being a nasty little homophobic self. This is what happens when you run out of arguments. I suppose you're having to scrape that barrel again.

Outraged: the threesomes have no bearing at all on the principle. They have a bearing on this case. That is all I've argued about. I don't like the idea of the CoE being forced to conduct gay weddings in this way; I think there's hypocrisy and attention seeking involved here. But I haven't argued against the principle, except pointing out that it will upset so many people and could be devastating for the Church. These people could support gay rights in so many different and more effective ways. Ways that would really help. This would change something that would make little difference to few people. There are countries where gay people are really, seriously, life-threateningly oppressed.

Why do this couple's past activities have anything to do with their wish to get married in church? I thought Christians were into forgiveness and the like...

'Are you going to accuse everyone who doesn't like these ideas as homophobic'

Everybody who doesn't want equality for gay people is homophobic. In just the same way that anybody who doesn't want racial equality is a racist and anybody who doesn't want equality for women is sexist. If you believe any group of people should have fewer rights (for example the right to get married in their place of worship) than other groups you hold prejudiced views. It's really that simple.

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

Depends if they're still doing it, repent, ask for forgiveness etc Skyler, or if they just think (like so many on this thread) that they don't have to because it's irrelevant to Christianity (which they claim).

Thanks for that clarity, outraged. It seems some people need to be more equal than others, and the rights of boring, tolerant, middle stump people of faith come last in the queue.

'I think one person escaped without being accused of being the OP'

Everyone on the thread has 'escaped without being accused of being the OP' except you. It's helpful if you're accurate.

Crumble, I thought that the whole point of marriage was to carry on doing it, and maybe have some kids as a result.

'It seems some people need to be more equal than others, and the rights of boring, tolerant, middle stump people of faith come last in the queue.'

How does gay marriage infringe on their rights though? They may not like it, but it doesn't remove or reduce their rights in anyway does it?

Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

And who are you to judge whether they have repented or not? I didn't realise you or anyone else were the arbiter of such things, an ld in fact i would have thought that this was a private matter between themselves and their god. As this is a pretty core component of reformed Christiantity. Or do you think they need to make public declarations and wear sackcloth and ashes? How nasty and judgemental you sound.

One other person who expressed the view that this couple might not be all they claim to be, escaped being accused of being the OP. It helps if you don't deliberately misunderstand.

Skyler, "I didn't realise you or anyone else were the arbiter of such things" Well if I were you I would unrealise it pretty quickly. It's between them and God, but it matters, because if they don't care, then they aren't practising Christians, and this is not about an intimate, sanctified and sensitive relationship between themselves and God, it's attention seeking.

That's my main problem with this. This couple are not prevented from doing anything which has any real impact on their lives. There's good reason and previous to suggest that it's attention seeking and point-scoring. They will still be able to marry. They will still be able to live together, to have a civil partnership, to have children, to adopt, to have a family life, to bring up their children the way they want, to do any job they want, to have any interpersonal relationships they want, any friendships they want, go to church, go to a mosque, go to a synagogue, worship in any place of worship. They will even be able to have a religious marriage, just not in the CoE. At the same time they could be spending this money - which will be a lot - on campaigning for rights for gay people who can do few, or none of the above.

But they have chosen, out of a sort of wealthy pique, to stamp their feet and demand something that will cause such ructions of faith for so many people, which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code of this country for the better over hundreds of years. And the response to anyone who expresses concern about this tantrum? You're a homophobe. That's such rubbish. You think the Archbishops of this profoundly tolerant religious institution are homophobes? Really? That's the name calling you're reduced to, rather than try

to understand the depth of true unhappiness this will cause?

This is how certain children behave, when they see a toy or book another child has, and they don't want to play with that toy, or read that book, they just want to take it away from the other child and have it for themselves, simply because the other child has it. I wouldn't put up with this from two-year-olds. It's a manipulative little tantrum and a poor basis on which to resolve an issue of such devastating complexity and upset for so many thousands of people of faith.

I doubt you could ever understand.

No one is taking anything away from anyone Crumbled. Your hyperbole is really quite laughable.

I really fail to understand why people think that another couple getting married will have any impact on them at all. People get married all the time. In CoE churches the people getting married frequently have no discernible faith they just like the idea of a church wedding, and as it is the established church they have that opportunity.

Just like my cousins who had their children christened despite having zero engagement with that community or any expectation to bring their children up as Christians let alone as practicing Anglicans. This happens every day, there is no obligation to be a practicing Christian to be christened, married or have your funeral in a CoE church. So why should it be so different just because this couple happen to be gay unless you object to them being gay?

How can you possibly know with such certainty that being married in the church which they attend is not a big deal for this couple. Do you know them personally?

As for the absolute catastrophe that you describe the church falling into should this couple potentially win their case, why on earth is it such an enormous deal? There is no commandment that says gay people cannot ever be married in a church - churches didn't even exist in Christ's day, and his message was about love and tolerance, not exclusion and bigotry.

which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code

The people who will be negatively effected (whom it will be destroyed for) will be the people who's discriminatory attitudes are being propped up by the interpretation of a belief system. PEOPLE WHO DONT BELIEVE GAY PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUALITY

What you are doing is something called 'Othering'. This is a practice that is common in places where institutional discrimination takes place. People will often say, 'no, i'm not racist, but it would be uncomfortable to have an asian member of staff here because of xyz, or well it's always been like this'

You talk about Civic Code? What on earth do you mean by this? Those two men are civilians and these men are protected by Equalities Legislation in EVERY other AREA of civic life.

It stinks of the last bastion of legitimate homophobia that a small minority are clinging on to.

As I have said before, there are many in the Anglican Church that fully support Gay Marriage and have been lobbying for it for a long time.

I just do not understand how your argument can possibly be interpreted in any other way than being discriminatory.

Your comments about their sex life is completely irrelevant to this argument. You cannot be arguing the rights and wrongs of gay marriage and use that to prop up your argument. It's ridiculous and makes you appear to be reinforcing the deviant discourse that often accompanies discrimination against gay men.

You are 'othering' and promoting a deviant discourse to prop up your argument

Go and read some books and come back and try and argue that you are not being homophobic. Seriously.

Oh yes - I forgot to add after my last post - it's now time to laugh, point, call me names, deliberately misunderstand me, amuse yourselves at the distress of others and call names again. You will, quite simply, never accept that this is a wrong and hurtful way to go about this.

it's now time to laugh, point, call me names, deliberately misunderstand me, amuse yourselves at the distress of others and call names again. You will, quite simply, never accept that this is a wrong and hurtful way to go about this

Crumblewalnuts. I have never called you names. I have said that your attitude appears to be homophobic.

I am not 'amusing myself' at your distress. I, as you are and others, am defending my position and the position of many others.

Stop playing the victim to try and make yourself feel better because people do not and will not agree with your homophobic perspective.

Do you think a disestablished Chruch should be forced into this?

Who do you think is "playing the victim" at th emoment? People whose lives will be totally unaffected by this. I don't believe this couple are traumatised by being unable to marry in a church. But there are people who are sincerely troubled and torn by this issue, and who are thinking about it, praying about it, writing about it, agonising about it. You wouldn't understand that - you just WANT TO SHOUT THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

"Your comments about their sex life is completely irrelevant to this argument"

Once more: it is not irrelevant to this argument, to this case. Threesomes have nothing to do with the principle. But they have a lot to do with this case. If they aren't practising Christians then it's plainly a hypocritical attempt to garner attention.

Yes, I actually do.

I think churches that have a role in civic life i.e conduct marriages etc have a responsibility to act under Equalities Laws.

Churches that don't wish to do operate under a legislative framework that protects people from discrimination do not have the right to conduct a legally binding wedding ceremony - for anyone.