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.

Agreed, DoJo. Its ridiculous to think that the church shouldn't and doesn't change with the morals of the times, or that the bible isn't interpreted in different ways depending on what the person interpreting it wants it to mean.

In the past, when e majority of Christian churches refused to marry mixed race couples, they hid behind quotes such as Leviticus 19:19
?You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of cloth" and
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly."

Some Christians think my own husband shouldn't have married me because he's a believer and I'm an atheist and 2 Corinthians 6:14 says "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

This objection to gay marriage is no different. It's ignorant bigots hiding behind biblical quotes that they interpret in a way that backs up their small minded prejudices. This too shall pass, as our society grows, changes, and learns to accept all its members as equals. The church has traditionally lagged behind in these matters, but they'll get there. Because the bible also says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

For all we know, their local parish priest does want to do it.

OrluxOh look, a non-religious person trotting out the tired old 'sky-fairy' trope.

Pretty ridiculous to say 'with respect' right after you've insulted her beliefs.

Well, I can't take the views of someone that thinks being a single parent means "depriving" a child of a well rounded home life very seriously Orlux. Fortunately, I'm secure in my beliefs, both about religion, and about my son's conception.

OTheHugeManatee,

Absolutely. It's the road to totalitarianism; it's nothing about who believes in what per se.

The law should carry out the function of the law: no civil servant should be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple.

Forcing those that have no desire to conduct a marriage service is another thing altogether.

gettingverysleepy

Actually I'm not aware that the church historically had any objection to mixed-race marriages. The only exception I know, was during colonial times, particularly in areas settled by English-speaking people, when various churches basically caved into social pressure from government, their congregents and, sadly, their leadership.

Orlux

And yet again you MISS the point that there are those in the Church who WANT to marry LGBTs who are being prevented from doing so.

Gosh, maybe if we repeat ourselves enough you'll get the fuffing point?

'Gosh, maybe if we repeat ourselves enough you'll get the fuffing point?'

I really, really doubt it ANorm

Forcing those that have no desire to conduct a marriage service is another thing altogether.

no-one is being forced to do any such thing. Apart from the CofE which is currently excluded, other churches they can opt in or out at any level. If one minister doesn't want to perform the service, she or he doesn't have to.

I thought the law meant that individual churches/clergy could opt in but couldn't be made to? Could someone clarify whether that is the case off the top of their head?

Although, by it's nature the church (and most institutions) doesn't cater for lots of sections of society. Primarily they are there for practicing members of their denominations, secondly their own parish/congregations and then everyone else is subject to discretion based on interpretations of the individuals in charge. You can fit into one or all categories at any one time and still be subject to varying degrees of acceptance within a church. They may happily provide you with a food parcel but turn you down if you wanted to marry as a divorcee.

I said that those who deliberately set out to deny a child twp opposite sex parents are immoral.

In your not-very-humble opinion. There are many people within and without churches who entirely disagree with your narrow-minded 'morality'.

For someone who is being quite insulting to people with religious beliefs, OP, you are claiming an awful lot on their behalves.

I'm Catholic. What kind of people (divorced, homosexual, elderly, tories) want to get married in Church is NOT 'fundamental' to my beliefs at all, it barely impinges on my day to day Christianity and when it does it's in a 'I cannot believe people who profess belief in a loving and merciful God can be such bigoted cunts' kind of way.

Marriage is a sacrament. It's not about procreation so much as it's about uniting and becoming one with God (well, that's pretty much what I've been told all my life, perhaps all those religious teachers and priests were wrong?). I have several gay Catholic friends and I would be overjoyed if I were able to attend their weddings in the faith that they follow. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen in my lifetime :(

And your comments on 'rent a womb' parents 'denying' children their mothers are quite disgusting.

My son is donor conceived using IVF. I'm a single woman, I made the decision to have my son without another parent. So I guess I deliberately made that choice.

Fortunately, my donor conceived son, despite his lack of a father, will grow up to be a lot more open minded and accepting of other people than you are.

There's nothing-absolutely nothing- stopping the church performing a 'wedding' ceremony to a gay couple as it stands. NOBODY can stop them saying whatever words they want.

I really think it is best for EVERYBODY to have a civil marriage in a register office and let the Church say whatever it wants to any couple in a church but for it to have no legal stature whatsoever.

That'll sort it out.

And why would it be immoral to deliberately set out to deny a child two opposite sex parents unless you believe that have two opposite sex parents was preferential to having two same-sex parents, as in, a child needs a mother and a father.

So yes you are actually insulting single parents still, however much you tip toe around it. I'm out, better things to do then waste my time arguing with bigoted idiots like yourself.

I'm normal very liberal - but am a bit judgy pants about this couple it always seems to be getting what they want - when they want it, regardless.

I agree that anyone in a civil - taxpayer paid position should be obliged to fulfil anything that is legal. The church should be able to decide what services it provides.

Iamsparklyknickers

I'm pretty sure the law prohibits CofE clergy from conducting a same-sex marriage. I don't think either they as individuals, or the CofE as an institution is entitled to "opt-in".

IIRC this was to avoid problems of individual priests, dioceses or the organisation as a whole being sued for discrimination for refusing to officiate in any particular case, or for refusing to exercise any "opt-in" right.

Toad, there is a long history of the church being against mixed marriage. Read the original trial judge's religious- based justification for his decision in the landmark loving v Virginia case for an example www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

This continues right up to the present day with opposition to mixed race marriage by evangelicals blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/opposition_to_i.html and the recent case in Kentucky already mentioned.

When I was trying to debate this with my elderly parents they said that something like this situation would occur. I assured them it wouldn't, that priests' and ministers' consciences would be respected, but it seems this rather entitled pair have proved me wrong.

'The church should be able to decide what services it provides.'

The church is too closely linked with state in this country to allow that. If we got rid of state funded religious schools and all church influenced practices and removed the Queen as the head of the church etc. then maybe you'd have a point.

Yes dear, but my point was, the sky-fairy I believe in is the same sky-fairy that you (who don't believe in it) are categorically stating has a big problem with the whole idea of gay marriage. IMO and that of quite a few other sky-fairy believers - including many priests - He/She/It does not have any such problem. It's the old fogeys in the hierarchy (and no doubt a fair sprinkling of young fogeys) who have a problem with it. Sadly, at the moment the nasty bigots are getting their way. Ooh look, I used the B-word.

I neither know nor care whether this couple doing the suing are nice or horrible, as I never heard of them outside the pages of the Professionally Disgusted Mail (which I make a point of not reading, but people will keep quoting it). This suggests to me that an objective view of their characters and motives is just not available to most of us. I am therefore quite unable to comment on them fairly as people. However if they win their case (which, I agree with pp, they almost certainly won't), BLOODY GOOD ON THEM. It is not always necessary to be nice in order to be right.

' but it seems this rather entitled pair have proved me wrong'

It's not entitled to want equality.

GettingVerySleepy

I mentioned opposition during colonial times in areas settled by English-speakers. I suppose I ought to have extended that to the post-colonial era (which would cover Loving v Virginia), and Afrikaaners too.

Have you got any examples from any other time or place, because I don't know of any.