Gay Marriage

[billythewiz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099

So is the "Cardinal of Controversy" right when he says that the proposed changes will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" ?

Or should a 75 year old, single celibate man, whose church's penchant for child abuse has already "shamed the Vatican in the eyes of the world", keep his views to himself ?

I fear there's no chance of the latter.

[MaddAussie]

Hes a dinosaur simple as.

[Lucio]

The issue is actually a little more complex than the reporting of the views of the cardinal make out.

I'm all for anyone, regardless of gender (percieved or physical), to be able to make a commitment to another person, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as afforded people who undertake a traditional marriage, but right now, the arguement seems to be whether we can actually use the term that has been the province of a religious group for a very long period of time.

I can also see the worry that if we allow civil marriages to be undertaken by anyone, that the very next step will be to compel the Church of England to marry couples who don't meet their religious beliefs.

It all seems very much that one minority group is attempting to force it's views on another really.


And, in case you missed it, I'm all for allowing people of *any* gender or sexual orientation to recieve the full legal rights and responsibilties afforded a married couple, I just disagree that the word "marriage" needs to be attached to that bond for it to carry the same significance and that it's bordering on disrespectful for the CoE for us to insist that's the case.

[TheAnimus]

I'm all for Gay Marriage, its not as if a straight person would be a good match for them!

[badass]

The issue is actually a little more complex than the reporting of the views of the cardinal make out.

I'm all for anyone, regardless of gender (percieved or physical), to be able to make a commitment to another person, and recieve the same rights and responsibilities as afforded people who undertake a traditional marriage, but right now, the arguement seems to be whether we can actually use the term that has been the province of a religious group for a very long period of time.

I can also see the worry that if we allow civil marriages to be undertaken by anyone, that the very next step will be to compel the Church of England to marry couples who don't meet their religious beliefs.

It all seems very much that one minority group is attempting to force it's views on another really.


And, in case you missed it, I'm all for allowing people of *any* gender or sexual orientation to recieve the full legal rights and responsibilties afforded a married couple, I just disagree that the word "marriage" needs to be attached to that bond for it to carry the same significance and that it's bordering on disrespectful for the CoE for us to insist that's the case.

Whilst Eric Pickles makes it OK for Christians to force prayer on the agenda of council meetings, I have no problem at all with all churches, catholic or not being forced to perform gay marriages.
However if Christians stop having the legal backing to force their religion on others, I support them being able to choose whether or not to perform gay marriages in churches.
"Do as you would be done by"

[Mblaster]

Personally, I'm all for removing any legal references to marriage, making it a simple non-binding commitment between two people, to be done by who ever wants to, returning it to a purely religious ceremony. Treating people differently because they have decided to formally acknowledge their (usually) long term partner is a stupid concept IMO.

Since that's not going to happen, I'd have to echo what Lucio said above, allowing same sex couples to have a civil partnership or whatever it's called which is legally equivalent to a marriage, but with no references to the church.

[BobF64]

Personally, I'm all for removing any legal references to marriage, making it a simple non-binding commitment between two people, to be done by who ever wants to, returning it to a purely religious ceremony.

Yes, the elimination of marriage is the ideal goal.

It should just be "an option", one that has the same legal and financial standing as any other form of "joining".

Of course, any ceremony that contains "til death" should mean that too, but thats another matter.

[directhex]

I'll be firmly for calling gay marriage marriage when we have non-gay civil partnerships.

FWIW we've had non-religious straight marriage for a LONG time.

[Saracen]

....

FWIW we've had non-religious straight marriage for a LONG time.

Yup, since 1837, IIRC, with the Civil Registrations Act (and some 1836 law, IIRC). Prior to that, since 1754, marriages were only legal if they took place in a CofE parish church, with the only exceptions to that being some done under jewish or Quaker rites.

From what I was told, the government's current proposals are about those civil ceremonies only. Nothing is being said about changes to religious ceremonies, or about forcing churches to conduct gay weddings.

As far as I'm concerned, it's simple. No law should force a church to conduct a service that is against it's belief, but conversely, no church gets to dictate to the non-religious what civil ceremonies they can have. No church, including the CofE, has a mandate to veto anything in civil society for non-members. If civil society wants gay marriages, and a church doesn't like it, tough.

I'm not gay, but if two gay people want a wedding ceremony, I can't see how it disadvantages me in any way, and if it makes them happy, what's the problem? Anyone that doesn't like the idea, don't attend one! Simplez.

[kalniel]

directhex nails it. It'd be vastly more logical if we had civil partnerships open to all as the non-religious option, and marriage as a religious option. That way no-one would feel they had to shift into someone else's beliefs just to get what they think is right for them.

[petercook7]

I vote for no, some things that are traditional should be kept the same like marriage, a civil partnerships should be enough, we need to have a distinction between what is new age and what is traditional.
If same couple marriages are on the table then they must eliminate completely positive discrimination laws for same sex couples.

[Larkspeed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099

So is the "Cardinal of Controversy" right when he says that the proposed changes will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" ?

Kind of a stupid statement really

The only countries that would be offended by it are those that do not allow it and since a lot of countries already accept it, including here in The Netherlands and the US, and more are in the process of allowing it then it's hardly Eyes of the world is it.

[DeludedGuy]

I have a gay Christian friend who believes in God, believes God loves him and would love to get married in a church. The church doesn't treat him any differently when he attends mass every Sunday, they do not kick him out the door when tries to donate money, so I feel sad that he does not have the right to get married in his church because of his sexuality.

That doesn't mean I think the church should be pressured to make it acceptable. Change has to come from within the church itself and not be forced upon them.

[0iD]

Not an issue for me as the bible also states you shouldnt kill, steal, commit adultery and eat shellfish in various places. As with most great religions, it's all open to interpretation and change.

My personal view is that I have no issue with same sex marriage. It falls well within my comfort zone of socially acceptable norms, whereas I respect it does not so for others.

[TheAnimus]

I have a gay Christian friend who believes in God, believes God loves him and would love to get married in a church.

If you replaced God and Church with the name of a person, I would simply describe it as a one way / exploitative relationship, suggesting that they should end it.

The other party clearly has no respect and love for them, just takes their money and treats them second class.....

[DeludedGuy]

If you replaced God and Church with the name of a person, I would simply describe it as a one way / exploitative relationship, suggesting that they should end it.

The other party clearly has no respect and love for them, just takes their money and treats them second class.....

I've mentioned your exact comments to him before.

He believes God loves him, he believes God has made him the way he is to test his belief and that he serves a purpose, maybe to change the ancient view of the catholic church which discriminates against his kind. He doesn't want to quit or surrender his religion because of the views of man, he believes God will ultimately judge him, who am I as an Atheist to persuade him otherwise, good luck to him is what I say.