Legislation for gay marriage

What I don't understand is why would a gay person want to be married 'religiously' when so many religions don't agree with it. Is it a oneupmanship type of thing?

It is confusing.
 
mikebeecham said:
I've just been reading through all the posts on the thread, and there's some interesting reading here, with some very interesting viewpoints on both sides.

I'm particularly interested in the viewpoints raised about people having their own moral compass. Simply put, religion is merely there to enforce control and we have the right to choose for ourselves what is right, based on our own moral compass.

But this logic kind of breaks down at some point, doesn't it?

If everyone gets to decide what is right for them, then we ALL have to adhere to the same logic. You then can't tell someone else that they're wrong in their viewpoint...even more, you have to accept their viewpoint on the same basis you would expect them to accept yours.

But then people do some rather disturbing things in life...is this because they have their own moral compass? Would we need to accept that they are doing what is right in their own eyes, and maybe they feel they have a right to do so?

Perhaps the most thought-provoking part of asking religion to simply accept whatever the cultural norm is at any given time, is what it might look like if they did?

One other thing that I find rather curious, is that the general consensus seems to be that of tolerance. We need to start showing more tolerance and stop judging people based on their lifestyle choice. The problem I have here, however, is tolerance seems to be one-way traffic these days. I don't see much tolerance toward religion and their views (I'm not talking about the forums, I'm talking generally). Tolerance only seems to be afforded to religion if they 'get with the programme'.

Just my two cents!
Click to expand...

Interesting post. I stayed completely clear of any religion in my earlier post but the mods are showing us some leniency here (thanks!) so I'll touch on it a little.

I completely respect that the religions can decide for themselves whether they want to allow same sex marriage within their faith.

The way I see it is that it's a win-win situation whichever way they decide. If they decide that same sex couples are OK then that's fantastic; they're showing that they can move with the times, adjust their moral compass to match the general feeling of the population and be completely accepting of people. If they choose to deny same sex couples marriage under the name of their religion then they prove the critics right, which can only damage their following as new generations of people (who are probably more tolerant of homosexuality) come through and in time perhaps the intolerant values upheld by said religion will kill itself off.
 
tiler65 said:
What I don't understand is why would a gay person want to be married 'religiously' when so many religions don't agree with it. Is it a oneupmanship type of thing?

It is confusing.
Click to expand...

Again, my understanding is just because a religion doesn't allow it, it didn't mean that a gay can not be Christian, Muslim or what ever religion they want to be. I do not think that they should have to hide their sexuality to be religious. With out wanting to get to deep into the religious bit (don't want to be suspended) but isn't god meant to love every man, woman and child on the planet? So this is what I find confusing.
 
tiler65 said:
What I don't understand is why would a gay person want to be married 'religiously' when so many religions don't agree with it. Is it a oneupmanship type of thing?

It is confusing.
Click to expand...

At a guess, I'd say it's for the same reasons as straight couples: sometimes it's because they are a religious couple who feel that "marriage" is the fullest way to show their commitment and all that jazz, whereas other couples just like the idea of a Church wedding for other reasons (tradition, looks better in the pictures etc).
 
Davec223 said:
I agree that he can still have his opinion, I just think in the case of the old boy at the gay wedding that it
was, maybe, a little insensitive to state his opinion at the reception.
Click to expand...

Suppose it was, but I don`t think it warranted a "punch in the face" type of comment posted in reply.

Differing generations have different opinions on these things, we must all accept that.My daughter and her mates have differing views on things than my wife and I do,I consider both of us to be fairly easy going,but compared to them I suppose we are prehistoric.

People have differing religeons, skin colours, beliefs and behaviour, some I like, some I sure as hell don`t. But accept that it is what they believe in.
 
Davec223 said:
Again, my understanding is just because a religion doesn't allow it, it didn't mean that a gay can not be Christian, Muslim or what ever religion they want to be. I do not think that they should have to hide their sexuality to be religious. With out wanting to get to deep into the religious bit (don't want to be suspended) but isn't god meant to love every man, woman and child on the planet? So this is what I find confusing.
Click to expand...

But if it is against a religions belief for gay marriage...why be part of it? It would be far easier for gay folk to just accept a legal binding civil ceremony like countless thousands of heterosexual couples do.

When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative.

I can't understand why a religious body is/maybe being forced to allow a ceremony that is against their beliefs. Surely this is where the two way part of understanding should come into play.
 
fracster said:
Suppose it was, but I don`t think it warranted a "punch in the face" type of comment posted in reply.

Differing generations have different opinions on these things, we must all accept that.My daughter and her mates have differing views on things than my wife and I do,I consider both of us to be fairly easy going,but compared to them I suppose we are prehistoric.

People have differing religeons, skin colours, beliefs and behaviour, some I like, some I sure as hell don`t. But accept that it is what they believe in.
Click to expand...
Very true, I was trying to ignore the punch in the face reply. I also think a generation's feelings can alter between children as well, take my parents, eldest brother wasn't aloud girlfriends to stay at all, middle brother was aloud girlfriends to stay but in different rooms while I, as the youngest was aloud girlfriends to stay in my bed.

As you say though I do respect other people's opinions, views and beliefs, but please don't expect everyone else to live by them. Live and let live.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
But if it is against a religions belief for gay marriage...why be part of it? It would be far easier for gay folk to just accept a legal binding civil ceremony like countless thousands of heterosexual couples do.

When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative.

I can't understand why a religious body is/maybe being forced to allow a ceremony that is against their beliefs. Surely this is where the two way part of understanding should come into play.
Click to expand...

But it has already been stated that no one or any religion will be "forced" into performing the marriage ceremony.
 
tiler65 said:
But if it is against a religions belief for gay marriage...why be part of it? It would be far easier for gay folk to just accept a legal binding civil ceremony like countless thousands of heterosexual couples do.

When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative.

I can't understand why a religious body is/maybe being forced to allow a ceremony that is against their beliefs. Surely this is where the two way part of understanding should come into play.
Click to expand...

It may not seem like it but religions are evolving concepts and whilst The Church as a whole currently stands generally in opposition to same-sex marriages, there will be elements within who do not oppose it.

It will be interesting to hear the reaction of The Church after the first UK same-sex Church wedding is conducted by a willing, bona fide member of the cloth.
 
Last edited:
Davec223 said:
But it has already been stated that no one or any religion will be "forced" into performing the marriage ceremony.
Click to expand...

Not yet...but wait until the human rights brigade dig their heels in. It will happen.
 
tiler65 said:
Not yet...but wait until the human rights brigade dig their heels in. It will happen.
Click to expand...

Even more interesting is the analogy of boiling a frog...you don't drop a frog into boiling water, you place him in cold water and heat it up gently...he simply accepts the increase in heat!

In the same way I think a lot of these things come with promises not to change the fundamental right of organisations to keep their own traditions. However, over time more and more of those traditions are chipped away at until full adoption of the new law/bill etc has been reached.

At the moment there is a promise that churches will not be legally obligated to perform same-sex marriages...however, I can easily foresee a time when that promise is retracted.
 
mikebeecham said:
At the moment there is a promise that churches will not be legally obligated to perform same-sex marriages...however, I can easily foresee a time when that promise is retracted.
Click to expand...

Possibly but from what I can tell there will be no shortage of clergy willing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. In fact, many of them have been involved in the campaigning. Link.

In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, dozens of clergy, including Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, today urge homosexual Anglicans to follow this course of action.
“Until the Church of England allows us to solemnise same-sex marriages in our churches, as a matter of pastoral expediency we will counsel lesbian and gay members of our congregations to marry in those churches willing to celebrate faithful same-sex relationships,”
Click to expand...
 
tiler65 said:
http://www.globalbrigades.org/human-rights-brigades-overview
but seriously it is a colloquialism.
Click to expand...

I can see where you have become confused here. That particular Human Rights Brigade seems to be helping out with local disputes in an underdeveloped country. Nowhere in their mission statement do I see a call to arms to petition churches in this country to allow same sex marriages. The same churches who have been given, if I remember the term correctly, a 'quadruple legal lock' to protect them from ever having to perform such ceremonies. In fact, IIRC again, it is actually illegal for such churches to perform the ceremonies even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Phew.

Thanks a million for finding this for me though :thumbs:
 
norters said:
I can see where you have become confused here. That particular Human Rights Brigade seems to be helping out with local disputes in an underdeveloped country. Nowhere in their mission statement do I see a call to arms to petition churches in this country to allow same sex marriages. The same churches who have been given, if I remember the term correctly, a 'quadruple legal lock' to protect them from ever having to perform such ceremonies. In fact, IIRC again, it is actually illegal for such churches to perform the ceremonies even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Phew.

Thanks a million for finding this for me though :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Epic fail on your behalf......... read what I wrote....but seriously...... and so on.
 
tiler65 said:
Epic fail on your behalf......... read what I wrote....but seriously...... and so on.
Click to expand...

You mean the edit you made as I was typing my reply? *winky wink smiley face*

'Epic fail?' Really? TOTES LOLZORZ :)

*going to bed now smiley face*
 
norters said:
You mean the edit you made as I was typing my reply? *winky wink smiley face*

'Epic fail?' Really? TOTES LOLZORZ :)

*going to bed now smiley face*
Click to expand...

ermm may be not...look at the time on my edit...it is fair enough proof for me that I edited a spelling once I had posted it...the mods will have a record of what I put down if you do not believe me.
 
tiler65 said:
I can't understand why a religious body is/maybe being forced to allow a ceremony that is against their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You don't need to understand it because it's not happening.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
ermm may be not...look at the time on my edit...it is fair enough proof for me that I edited a spelling once I had posted it...the mods will have a record of what I put down if you do not believe me.
Click to expand...

So that would be the first edit where you added that last sentence? Giving the timings, it's entirely possible that Norters had already started typing his reply before you made that edit. ;)
 
tiler65 said:
But if it is against a religions belief for gay marriage...why be part of it? It would be far easier for gay folk to just accept a legal binding civil ceremony like countless thousands of heterosexual couples do.

When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative.

I can't understand why a religious body is/maybe being forced to allow a ceremony that is against their beliefs. Surely this is where the two way part of understanding should come into play.
Click to expand...

Right, and how many of those hetro couple blag their way through that meeting never to attend church again just to get the brides "dream venue"?
 
tiler65 said:
They can be whatever they want, who am I to judge?
Click to expand...

fracster said:
Exactly Tom.
Click to expand...

So we have established that bigots, racists, anti Semites etc are all entitled to their opinions.

But what does being "entitled" mean in your opinions?

Is it just that they are allowed to think it or are they allowed to express those opinions wherever they please? If not asked for their opinion on the matter is it ok for them to express them? What about preaching them?

Trying to establish what being entitled to an opinion like this entails.
 
neil_g said:
Right, and how many of those hetro couple blag their way through that meeting never to attend church again just to get the brides "dream venue"?
Click to expand...

More than is acceptable.
 
joescrivens said:
So we have established that bigots, racists, anti Semites etc are all entitled to their opinions.

But what does being "entitled" mean in your opinions?

Is it just that they are allowed to think it or are they allowed to express those opinions wherever they please? If not asked for their opinion on the matter is it ok for them to express them? What about preaching them?

Trying to establish what being entitled to an opinion like this entails.
Click to expand...

So are you trying to ban free speech and thoughts...because if you are ...you are no better than being a bigot. Somebody posted earlier......does a differing opinion make you a bigot?
 
neil_g said:
And it's different to gay couples wanting a dream church wedding how?
Click to expand...

Because the church is not against heterosexual marriage in church?

It is their church, their rules. No different than this place, we have to abide by the rules.
 
neil_g said:
but they are against people marrying in the church that do not believe in god.
Click to expand...

Which is why they have a meeting to try and establish this fact....at least my church did.

edit....for timing purposes!......I am not sure they are against people marrying in church who do not believe. Where is the proof of that?
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
So we have established that bigots, racists, anti Semites etc are all entitled to their opinions.

But what does being "entitled" mean in your opinions?

Is it just that they are allowed to think it or are they allowed to express those opinions wherever they please? If not asked for their opinion on the matter is it ok for them to express them? What about preaching them?

Trying to establish what being entitled to an opinion like this entails.
Click to expand...

strictly speaking being entitled means to hold the thought and the right to free speech to express it

however the right to free speech comes with the tandem responsibility not to use it to incite hatred, violence, discrimination or to generally harrass and upset other people.

ergo it is fine for a homophobe to hold his opinion and express politely his view that homosexuality is against the laws of god. So long has having that opinion doesnt lead him to discriminate by for example refusing to photograph gay weddings, nor to incite others to discriminate , nor to incite others to violence against gays etc

Also homophobes (or racists/sexists/those prejeducided against disabled etc) who insist on their freedom of thought and speech, also have to realise that those who disagree with them have an equal right to express their views - so just as someone has the freedom to express the view that homosexuality is wrong, so I have the freedom to express the view that holding that opinion makes them a biggoted, backward halfwit who is still living in the past.
 
fabs said:
So that would be the first edit where you added that last sentence? Giving the timings, it's entirely possible that Norters had already started typing his reply before you made that edit. ;)
Click to expand...

EXACTLY :)

*vindicated dancing smiley*
 
tiler65 said:
Which is why they have a meeting to try and establish this fact....at least my church did.

edit....for timing purposes!......I am not sure they are against people marrying in church who do not believe. Where is the proof of that?
Click to expand...

was going on what you said:

"When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative."
 
neil_g said:
was going on what you said:

"When I got married in church, I was asked lots of questions about my faith etc, if I had given the vicar any reason for him to think I didn't believe in the faith, he could have refused to marry us. Which, to me, is the church's prerogative."
Click to expand...

yeah, I did say that.....but where does it state that they won't marry someone who is a non believer? Could and can/will are two different things.
 
tiler65 said:
So are you trying to ban free speech and thoughts...because if you are ...you are no better than being a bigot. Somebody posted earlier......does a differing opinion make you a bigot?
Click to expand...

My post was full of questions for you and ade. I didn't state anything, merely asked. But you didn't answer them.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
My post was full if questions for you and ade. I didn't state anything, merely asked. But you didn't answer them.
Click to expand...

Joe, I am in favour of free speech for all folk. How you want to interpret that is up to you.

You should know more than any one that your opinion is sacred. This does not mean your opinion cannot be changed.
 
tiler65 said:
Joe, I am in favour of free speech for all folk. How you want to interpret that is up to you.

You should know more than any one that your opinion is sacred. This does not mean your opinion cannot be changed.
Click to expand...

Tom, you are being evasive of my questions but I'm not sure why? I have no agenda merely pondering on what is and isn't acceptable.

It is acceptable to dislike homosexuals but is it acceptable to announce it in a derogatory way in public?
 
tiler65 said:
Wouldn't that come under the mantra of free speech?
Click to expand...

No such thing as free speech. It's only free if you don't say anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top