To thjink that MPs should not legistate on whether the church of england should hold same sex marriages

[ReallyTired]

I feel its right that religious organisations are not forced to hold gay marriage cermonies. Freedom of religion is as important as equality for homosexuals. I feel that the matter of same sex marriages should be a matter of conscience for a religious leader. No synagogue, mosque or church should be forced to support gay marriage.

However I am unhappy that the church of england has been banned by MPs who may not even be christian from holding gay marriage cermonies. I feel that the matter of gay marriage should be decided by the general synod of the church of england. Our local priest offers to bless civil partnerships and I am sure she would be very happy to conduct a same sex wedding.

I would like homosexuals to be offered a list of churches where the priest would be happy to bless a gay marriage. I do not like homosexuals being shut out of our churches. (Assuming that the homosexual couple has a connection with a church or that its their nearest church which is prepared to carry out a blessing. As far as possible homosexual couples should meet the same criteria rules as hetrosexual couples.)

Here's a diagram showing "biblical marriage" in all its glory...

Not seen that before Moosey - it's very good!

Not sure I agree regarding the constitutional difficulties. I am sure the constitution had to be rewritten to abolish slavery so it can be done. It will eventually happen over time - as people become more educated and young people work their way up through the church - more churches will conform. They may as well get with it.

All of mosey link comes from the Old Testament. The New Testament tells followers to love their neighbour as themselves. Certainly no Christian group I know of sees rape as acceptable. However you are right that attitudes do change. I am sure that do not commit rape would be added to the Ten Commandments if they were written now.

Gosh, you know, its no ones fucking business who gets married to who unless it is clearly abhorrent-examples include relations and underage people. Otherwise, churches should allow same sex marriage and should most definitely be penalised if they refuse.

Churches allow non religious folk to be married in the eyes of god, in the house of god, their place of worship, for either a nominal fee, or plus a few family trips to Sunday preaching for good measure a few weeks before the ceremony. If they do that, they can allow same sex marriage.

I despair of these hoity toity types of religious teachers who think they can discriminate because of how the bible has been interpreted.

MrsH - yes, it couldn't possibly be I disagree.

How's this for a 'thought experiment': imagine a Church that accepts people.

So you think that churches should be forced to allow two people who have committed adultery together. Why should churches accept something they see as deeply wrong. Would you really want to be married by someone who objects to your Union? It would hardly make your wedding day pleasant.

The bible or Koran or Torah are unashamably clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is wrong. People in the uk have the right to religious belief even if those beliefs are not politically correct. Some people see their holy books as the word of God and Hell would freeze over before some rabbis, minsters or imans carried out a same sex ceremony.

Allowing religous groups the freedom not to carry out a same sex marriage is similar to allowing a doctor to refuse to take part in an abortion. Just because something had been made legal does not mean people lose the right to object. Reason adaptations should be made for people's beliefs. There will be plenty of places where homosexuals can marry. Religion is a protected characteristic as much as sexuality.

My object is parliament making the decision not to have same sex marriages for the church of England.

All of the anti-gay stuff is in the old testament too. The homophobes disregards huge parts of the bible as no longer relevant but cling to the homophobic parts.

Religious people have the right to hold homophobic views or any other unpleasant views. In everyday life it is illegal to discrimate against homosexuals. You may not like it, but their scriptures are sacred to them. It is why there are safeguards to protect religious belief.

Just like women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church or some jobs have an occupational requirement to be a Muslim there are circumstances where organisations can lawfully discriminate.

Why would a same sex couple want to get married or even attend church or a mosque that has homophobic views? Unless they want to cause mischief.

And isn't it thought that Mary was about 13 when she had Jesus? That's child-marriage right there in the new testament.

And as for "Certainly no Christian group I know of thinks rape is acceptable" -are we forgetting the Catholic church's rape of children on a massive scale and subsequent cover up?

Christians have to twist and bend and squirm their way through the bible in a massively selective way. It's violent, contradictory, misogynist, homophobic, racist. The direct contradictions are spectacular (just what were Jesus's last words on the cross? Three entirely different versions are given).

It's astounding from the outside to see people desperate to make the bible fit their current version of Christianity.
"Ah, that bit isn't relevant to our time"'
"Oh, that bit is a story intended to make a point",
"That bit isn't literal",
"The new testament means that part is no longer important",
"It's the word of God, except for all the bits that are abhorrent to our times",
"It's relevant to our lives, except for the bits that aren't".
"Marriage is between a man an a woman for procreation. Oh and it's for infertile people as long as they're straight. And for people too old for children. Just as long as they're not gay "

And finally lets look at two of ReallyTired's comments to see if we can spot the classic Christian hypocrisy... "The new testament tells followers to love thy neighbour as thyself" and "There will be plenty of places where homosexuals can marry"

Other places. Not churches. Not for the queers.

Why would a same sex couple want to get married or even attend a church or a mosque that had homophobic views? Unless they want to cause mischief.

Why would black people want to drink from the same water fountain? Unless they want to cause mischief.

Comparing a church to a water fountain is a but stupid. There are literally thousands of places where someone can get married. There aren't thousands of water fountains and not every water fountain in the world is accessible to the public. Hetrosexual couples do not have a automatic right to get married in church so why should same sex couples. It is nothing like having white only water fountains in Alabama. A homosexual can get married in a church, just not to a person if the same sex. (Sadly a lot of unhappiness is caused when a homosexual enters into a marriage with someone of the opposite sex)

You analogy to water fountains in Alabama falls flat because churches are not directly owned by the state. Unlike water fountains in Alabama churches are not completely public. The public are only allowed into a church or a mosque or a synagogue at set times. The religious leaders own the space and can choose who they admit.

Anyway, on a personal level I am in favour of gay marriage. I am not in favour of religious people being cohersed to carry out same sex cermonies. Surely it's possible to be in favour of gay marriage and religious freedom for those who disagree with me.

OP, I'm not sure you have addressed the point of allowing the religious freedom of the gay person? Also not clear whether you want the ban for the CofE retained, or whether you want it lifted with a conscience clause?

You say you object to the state legislating on behalf of the Church of England. Do you also object to the Church of England legislating on behalf of the state, via its presence in the House of Lords?

"OP, I'm not sure you have addressed the point of allowing the religious freedom of the gay person? Also not clear whether you want the ban for the CofE retained, or whether you want it lifted with a conscience clause?"

I want the C of E to decide for itself whether it marries gay people. It does not need the obsticle of parlimentary law to stop it from carrying out gay marriage cermonies if the general synod votes to support gay marriage.

I am in favour of gay marriage, but no minister, iman or rabbi should be forced to carry out a gay marriage cermony against their will. I feel that a iman having religious objections to gay marriage should be respected. A doctor is not forced to carry out abortions and a religious leader should not be forced to carry out a gay marriage service.

"You say you object to the state legislating on behalf of the Church of England. Do you also object to the Church of England legislating on behalf of the state, via its presence in the House of Lords?"

We are going a bit off thread.

I have mixed feelings. I feel that there should be a greater seperation of church and state. There also needs to be an acknowledgement that there is a range of faiths in the UK and all voices should to be heard. Maybe I would be happier if there was a rabbi, a couple of imans, a few prominent humanists if we are going to have religious leaders in the house of lords.

I am glad that the church of england bishops put an end to the tory plans to cut child tax credits. Careful thought needs to be considered what to replace the house of lords with. I dread to think how extreme the present govenment would have been if there had been no upper house to stop them. I am glad that we do not have two houses full of rabid tories, however the fact that the house of lords are not elected does bother me.

It is currently against the law for the CofE to marry same sex partners. How can that be right?

I think that was addressed on page 1, cleaty!

It is easy enough to Google, but, put simply:

The Church of England does not want to marry same sex couples
A law will be passed so as to prevent prosecution under discrimination laws
In England Church and State are the same body
We have no written constitution, so laws are needed to do this.

The synod is currently meeting to decide on this, the government will support their decision, in law.

"OP, I'm not sure you have addressed the point of allowing the religious freedom of the gay person? "

No one has total freedom. In all areas of life there is a balance of different people's rights. There is no hiearchy of different types of discrimination. Sex discrimination, race discrimination, religious discrimination and discrimination on sexual orientation are all against the law. We have parliment and the courts to find the balance between the conflicting rights of two groups.

A fundermental christian, muslim or jew would argue that a gay person is not being denied the right to marry in church if they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. These religions do not recognise same sex marriages as valid because they see the purpose of marriage to create lots of babies. These religions see sex purely as a baby making activity rather than recreation.

I can never become an orthodox jewish rabbi because I have not being born into a jewish family, I am not jewish and I am a woman. Is this wrong?

Why don't MPs make it illegal to hold same sex marriages in any religious premises? I doubt that the fundermental muslims would be gutted if they are banned from carrying out gay marriages.

Well, maybe that is because Islam is not the religion of the State!

These religions see sex purely as a baby making activity rather than recreation.

Actually that's not the case in the Bible. In Genesis, it says when a couple marry ‘the two shall become one flesh’ and this is the case whether or not they have children. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, sex is encouraged between married couples without any mention of procreation. Likewise in the Song of Songs, which is about courting and marriage, procreation isn't mentioned.

We need a law that allow relgious freedom of conscience. I feel the church of england should be allow to decide for itself whether it supports gay marriage or not.

I am a atheist and think this too but not until it's disestablished. You want to act like a private organization? Get out of bed with the government! Until then, if you want control over my government, I want control over church.

Why don't MPs make it illegal to hold same sex marriages in any religious premises?

because some religions want to allow it.

I say every church should get to do what it wants, except the CofE which represents us all.

Oooh! Don't do that username. Or an angry pp will come and say that just because that is in one part of the bible doesn't mean you are quoting what The Bible says

Unless of course, it was you that moaned at me a few pages ago, in which case [blows raspberry] [ smile]

Late to this and probably not contributing...but really, why does it matter what gender we love? I genuinely don't understand it. Dtb is married to a man....and, nope nothing has changed. He's still great and my dbil is awesome and the world is still here etc. Can anyone explain what the issue is? I just can't ( am bisexual or human in my opinion ) grasp what people who don't know the couples or sit in their bedrooms observing the sexual activity get worked up about! What exactly is the problem? maybe I'm naive