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.

They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex too - female bishops? Female catholic priests?

Don't even get me started! That's also bullshit, but not relevant to this thread.

Forcing them to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs is surely religious discrimination.

And yes, the sexism is relevant as a legal challenge against that is as likely to succeed as a challenge to allowing them to opt out of gay marriage. The two are basically the same.

Orlux are you really going with the church (at least some parts) isn't homophobic? Really?

These two are repulsive as people.
They do anything for attention and fame.
I wonder if, when they are older, their children will sue them for not allowing them to have a mother in their lives?

OutragedFromLeeds,

I do not understand your stance at all. Much as I think religion is hokum, I accept that it's all hokum and as long as the law of the land exists apart from it and nobody is harmed, I'm OK with it.

But why try to change it to be more politically correct?

So your left with politically correct hokum? What's the point?

Churchs should not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

'Forcing them to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs is surely religious discrimination.'

so the choice is religious discrimination or homophobic discrimination?

'The two are basically the same'

They may have the same chances in terms of a legal challenge. I don't think gay marriage and women priests are 'basically the same'!

I don't believe homosexuality goes against the fundamentals of Christian marriage, nor does my C of E vicar.

While I don't see why this couple (no idea who they are) would want to be married by someone who doesn't want them, I do think it is quite an impressive step to take, to get the publicity. Maybe it will make the government think twice about the blanket ban, and make some members of the Church realize the significance too.

Yes I am, OutragedFromLeeds, homophobia means a fear or irrational dislike of gay people; I see no evidence of that in the Church.

Only that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman for their own (admittedly barmy in my eyes, but then I am an agnostic verging on atheism) reasons.

Saying that they're 'homophobic' for this is like saying a hosptial is 'sexist' because it won't admit men to maternity units.

so the choice is religious discrimination or homophobic discrimination?

Your point is? Which do you choose - discriminating against someone on the basis of there religion or because of their sexuality?

They may have the same chances in terms of a legal challenge. I don't think gay marriage and women priests are 'basically the same'!

Of course they are.
Both are things which go against Christian beliefs.

Both are things which would not be allowed out in the secular world.
At their core, they are the same.

Idiocy. Horrible, horrible people. So church funds will be diverted from good works to fight this bollocks. Lovely.

Getting married is a commitment before God, not a publicity stunt or a political statement.

'So your left with politically correct hokum? What's the point?'

because harmless hokum is fine, hokum that discriminates, isolates, hates is not.

If Father Christmas stopped delivering presents to gay children I'd take issue with him too. Equal opportunities hokum for me.

(and that's ignoring the fact that the church has power to influence society, many people disagree it's hokum!)

Pigletmania - oh yes, I know it's an issue for other religions as well, I just mean that...

Whether churches (or any other place of worship) allow gay marriages shouldn't really be an abstract idea of whether it's too far or permissible by law because there are practicing believing religious people who are also gay.

I mean what is the other side if you're gay and a Christian?

Surely the historically correct way to go about it is to set up a branch of the Christian church which agrees with and allows gay marriage, seeing it as equal to heterosexual marriage. It is, after all, how the Church of England came into being.

I imagine that there are plenty of like-minded people to make it work.

I still want to know if this is their own church that is refusing to marry them? As in, a church that they attend each weekend, participate in fully, cook for bake sales, type of participation? Or is it that they've seen a pretty church and think it would look great in the pictures type of wanting to be married?

OutragedFromLeeds,

Hate? Since when has having the view that marriage is for two opposite sex people to have kids, hate?

That's the Church's view. Fine-up to them. Or are you saying that nobody should be allowed to hold a view? And that the church should be forced to perform gay marriages? That's totalitarianism.

Sorry, religion should be separate from law. If no religion wants to perform marriage ceremonies; that's up to them.

As long as the law and government servants perform same sex marriages, that is enough.

I highly doubt that the couple in question (and I have met these two in the past) want to get married in this church to have their union blessed by God.
They are doing it for publicity (fame hungry). I doubt they go to this church, believe me they don't exactly lead church going lifestyles, they don't even look after their kids, the nannies do, those children are little more than accessories. These two are like spoilt brats in a sweet shop, just wanting whatever else anyone else has.
No church should be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to.

*midnitescribbler" I am a Christian - a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.' Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42

YANBU.

We can't just go around suing people for having a differing people lest we wish to walk ourselves into a police state.

We are in danger of losing free speech. :(

I saw that SoupDragon but it seemed very cagey about whether or not they are trying to marry in their "local parish church" that they are active members of, or a different church.

'Or are you saying that nobody should be allowed to hold a view?'

Are you genuinely unaware of the difference between holding a view and having your discriminatory actions upheld by the law?

Say the church decided that actually the bible doesn't like mixed race marriages (just as an example) would you be so supportive of their rights to behave as they like then?

Renting women's wombs to have kids and deliberately and with forethought deny those children a mother sounds abhorrent to me.

No different to surrogacy for infertile couples.

They picked the wombs/incubators for their offspring (how they saw it) from an agency in the States very much based on looks and education. It was all very cleansed. Like creating their own master race.
It was incredibly superficial (getting a clear picture of the Drewitt-Barlows yet?). The mothers are not permitted in the children's lives as mother figures and have minimal contact.
They are vile, vile people.