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.

Skyler: "I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with." So you don't mind if a church refuses to bless a gay marriage or baptise a gay man or woman? Because these aren't legally binding? You think that's OK? Why? No private individual is allowed to be biased in that way. You aren't allowed not to serve a gay man in a restaurant, or refuse to sell him a shirt. Why should these religious ceremonies be different?

It's relevant because if they aren't practicising Christians then this is meaningless to them as a religious token. It's a nothing. How can you say it's not relevant if they're not Christians?

Tabulah: They're aren't being treated as lesser. They're being treated as different, which isn't lesser at all. At least I don't think so. If you do that's up to you.

Outraged: they do have equal rights, just not the same rights. Like, heterosexual couples can't have civil partnerships, but homosexual couples can't get married. The outcomes are the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities, and child responsibilities. But the routes are different. Who loses?

There seem to be quite a lot of people here who think different = lesser, which is not something I'd promote or agree with at all.

Crumbled: past activities do not determine whether someone is a practising Christian or not in the present, today. Can you understand that? Your prurience on this is quite telling, really.

As for blessings and the like, I personally disagree with religious institutions refusing to bless gay couples or baptise a gay man or woman, but I respect the right to religious freedom in these matters. Where religious institutions perform legally binding and state-recognised ceremonies, that is when I believe that they should abide by equalities legislation. It's quite simple really.

And nooka's point about female ordination is spot on; a much more fundamental change to the CofE than gay marriage.

There seem to be quite a lot of people here who think different = lesser, which is not something I'd promote or agree with at all.

By that logic, separate water fountains for black people would be ok, because they are different not lesser. Do you see?

Skyler: I'm not prurient. If people want to have threesomes that's up to them. (but I notice the name-calling again). If people want to say adultery is a Christian practice, it's not up to them. Yes, past activities are between them and God, as I said. But with that in the past, and this aggressive, insensitive, arrogant, impatient, glory-seeking act in the present, they're not giving a great impression of the humble submissive tolerance that you seem to expect from all other members of the Church of England. Your point about the water fountains is a good one, but not relevant here. This is about a specific religious act with specific religious parameters, the benefits of which are available through an entirely legitimate and certainly unshameful (I have no idea why you would disagree with that) alternative route.

Would you force an imam to marry two men by the way?

Sorry I did also ask about marriage blessings and baptisms, where you implied that it would be OK to discriminate against homosexuals. Could you answer those couple of questions.

Specifically you said this: "I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with."

I'm sorry, I notice you answered the question about blessings. So would you support a legal challenge to a refusal to bless a gay marriage?

How do we know they committed adultery? We have no idea when (or even if) this alleged threesome took place. Even if it did take place, they were not married in the eyes of the law (or god), so it couldn't have been adultery.

In any case, I hardly think they are the first couple to have had a sexually adventurous past - no other couple is asked to account for their past actions before they get married in church, so why should this or any other gay couple?

I rather think that everyone who's bothered to reply to you over the last half a day has already said they would not force an imam, or a priest, or anyone, to marry a gay couple. Or, I think clearly enough implied where not explicitly stated, to bless them. The objection is to the established church not being even allowed by law to marry them (though some can, and do, bless them, and quite right too).

The argument has got quite nasty here (and frankly if you're not the OP with a NC I'll change my name to Annieeatyourhat). Why does it matter whether the couple who are taking this action are themselves a brilliant example of Christian virtue? Not that I believe a word that's typed in the bloody Mail, but assuming everything the nasty rag has ever said about them is true, they are far from virtuous. But that really doesn't matter, do you see? The reason they are prevented from marrying in church is not that they are not very nice people, that they're rich, that they have acquired children through surrogacy, or that they are alleged to have attempted to carry out a threesome with someone a random poster claims to know. Or, for that matter, if they appeared on the front page of every newspaper in the land entwined in a passionate embrace with Jimmy Bloody Savill and a goat. None of these things are the reason why they may not marry in church. It is simply because they are gay.

This is what they are taking up arms against, because it is a cause that matters to them. Who are you to say they "ought to" care about some other cause? This is the one they've chosen to fight, and it's their money and time they're spending fighting it. So let them. Yes, they'll lose this time. But they will draw more attention to the issue and hopefully make a few people think a bit more deeply rather than knee-jerking the constant "Marriage is between one man and one woman" mantra (which as some have already pointed out, is not a fundamental truth even in the Bible).

No, my primary issue is with legally binding ceremonies. I believe in religious freedom, although i think that insofar as religious groups perform state-recognised ceremonies, these should be in line with equalites legislation. I suspect more forward thinking religious groups (and probably a great many progressive CofE ministers) would have no problem performing a blessing for a gay couple.

Ideally I would like all religious groups to recognise the humanity, equality and dignity of gay men and women, and their equal rights to full participation in religious life. I don't see how this will bring the CofE or any other religious group to its knees.

You're v insistent that others answer your questions, et you have been asked a few times how exactly gay marriage will damage the CofE. Can you please respond?

Actually I was talking about whether the church was disestablished, would you still force priests to do it - and if so, would you force an imam to do it, because then the two religious institutions would have the same status. Do you see?

So Annie if the church was disestablished, would you force a priest to do it, and if so would you force an imam to do it?

There's inconsistency in Skyler's point of view: she recognises religious freedom and the "right" not to bless a gay marriage. That's very inconsistent: I'm wondering if there are any more inconsistencies in the positions held.

What do you think Annie?

Actually Skyler that IS a good point - they can't commit adultery because they aren't married.

And now let's have a go at this bit.

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.

How come the hurt and consternation of homophobes people who do not believe in gay marriage is important, whilst the hurt and consternation of people who are prevented from marrying their deeply loved life partner in the church of their faith matters not a jot? There are a lot of them and they are the ones who are suffering, not the bigots. Bigots love to have something to froth about anyway.

You talk about their right to go and get married by another church as if changing a church is as easy as changing a pair of socks. It causes a lot of people a serious crisis of faith to change denomination, even, let alone religion. Don't you think all that killing and stuff in, say, Northern Ireland would just go away if half the population decided, sod it, I'll join that church the other half appear to be enjoying themselves in? Many people fight and die for their religion. They don't just say, oh I don't like this bit, let's switch. That the church of their childhood looks down on them and says sorry, that thing you do with that person you love, that is just beyond the pale, we can't be having it here, some of our congregation don't like the idea of it. That hurts.

Maybe the couple who are taking the legal action referred to don't really care where/whether they get married; I don't know, I haven't asked them. But many others being discriminated against in the same way jolly well do, and most of them don't have money or fame and, therefore, much of a voice, poor souls. Who is standing up for their rights? You aren't; you're standing up for the rights of the offended to not have to think about gayness in case, you know, it rubs off or something. The offended can learn to be more open-minded, but the gay couldn't learn not to be gay even if they wanted to, and why should they? There are enough of us happy to reproduce - some would say too many.

Like the T-shirt says: Some people are gay! Get over it!

By the way you can change your name Annie, and you can ask MNHQ.

Why is it inconsistent? Exactly where is the inconsistency?

If the church was disestablished, and if church weddings were not legally recognised, then I would not be in favour of forcing any priest to perform gay marriage. I've said that numerous times, I'm not sure why you can't grasp that.

You're still ducking the question about how gay marriage will bring the church to its knees.

Yes on the adultery point. So all of your prurient posts about how they haven't repented publicly enough for you are rendered null and void.

"Tabulah: They're aren't being treated as lesser. They're being treated as different, which isn't lesser at all. At least I don't think so. If you do that's up to you."

In what way is segregation not treating someone as lesser?

I tried making that point, tabulah, using the example of water fountains. She didn't get it.

I'd like to see disestablishment, but I think it would be a far more fundamental change than allowing gay marriage and a lot less likely to happen in my lifetime, so a bit of a straw man in this context I feel. Force an individual officiator to conduct the ceremony: gut feeling is no, I probably wouldn't, but I think if it were enabled then gradually as people got used to the idea there would be fewer and fewer conscientious objectors.

"the hurt and consternation of homophobes people who do not believe in gay marriage"

do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury is a homophobe? do you really?

Nobody needs to get over the fact that some people are gay - I think you would hunt high and low on this thread to find someone who needs to get over that.

If it's nasty, it's not because of me - I haven't hurled insults or called names. That's the kind of comment that makes it nasty actually - implying that I need to get over the fact that people are gay. How do you know I don't have relatives who are gay? And yes, I've had this conversation with them.

So if the church is disestablished, and in addition the right to carry out legally binding ceremonies is removed, you have no problem with them refusing to bless gay marriages, because that would infringe on their religious freedom. To what? To be "homophobic" and to bring that into public life? to offer a service to some couples and not to others?

And if the church was disestablished, but still allowed to carry out legally binding ceremonies, what then? You would force a priest (and imam obv, because they'd now have the same status) to carry out a marriage or basically they'd have to give up their job?

I didn't get the point because the point is irrelevant. I did explain why but you didn't get it.

It's inconsistent, because the blessing then has the same status as say the landlord of the bandb. It's just a service offered to the public.