Same Sex Marriage

Haven't really made my mind up about this one.

If a business offered a service to 'straight' people only then they would be villified and sanctioned so why can a religious organisation discriminate? If people are Lesbian or Gay and also religious, shouldn't they have the right to be married in front of their God? After all, most religions believe we are all 'Gods' children so if we happen to be Gay or Lesbian, isn't that Gods will?

However, people that have religious beliefs feel that same sex marriage is contrary to a basic principle of their religion so why should their Churches be made to perform this service. After all, we have Civil Ceremonies which is a legal contract; why need a religious one too? Aren't we infringing their right to prctice religion freely?

Tricky one.

If a same sex marriage is contrary to a basic principle of a specific religion, yet the leaders(s) of that religion decide they will allow same sex marriages to be conducted in their churches because we are all God's children, isn't that just hypocrisy?

The religion may well specify tolerance of all partnerships, but is tolerance to be construed the same as approval?

It is a tricky one.

Religion does not - as I understand it - endorse war or death, yet it seems to me that religion is the root cause of most wars and conflicts.

Strange really.

I think it is quite simple, same sex marriages mean no harm to anyone or anything. Marriage is an option and also a legal right. Therefore people should be free to marry regardless of moral or religious considerations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donney

Marriage is an option and also a legal right.

---

Yes, it is. But it depends upon how that law was originally written/intended. That is what I think ties everyone up in knots in this area.

They can already get "married" - as in civil-partnership, which is a massive leap forward from the old days when homosexuality was classed as illegal. However I think allowing same-sex marriage in church is a step too far, considering it directly contradicts elements of the bible and Christian values.

Maybe let each Church decide for themselves, however there should be no law forcing anybody to allow it.

On another note, same-sex hotels should be banned for being discriminative against heterosexuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

On another note, same-sex hotels should be banned for being discriminative against heterosexuals.

---

How on earth can you tell what gender a hotel is? ;)

Finally!!!! I worried that Christmas is coming and yet nobody has started a controversial debate about God/religion/church. :laugh:

Interesting it was started by the guy who claimed that last night would drink some pints.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

They can already get "married" - as in civil-partnership, which is a massive leap forward from the old days when homosexuality was classed as illegal. However I think allowing same-sex marriage in church is a step too far, considering it directly contradicts elements of the bible and Christian values.

---

So?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

On another note, same-sex hotels should be banned for being discriminative against heterosexuals.

---

Can you actually provide any details of such an establishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Unfortunately there have been instances where homosexual's have been turned away from hotels because of prejudice. As long as that is happening then I am happy with establishments offering a threat free stay for people.

---

Indeed. Casual homophobia is alive and well.

The issue is simple. Objections to same-sex marriage are all theoretical. Allowing it would do no practical damage whatsoever. I believe laws should be made or opposed on the basis of their potential practical effect. Therefore, there can be no reasonable argument against same-sex marriage. It isn't, as some suggest, a complicated issue at all, unless one chooses to view it through the prism of outdated beliefs. And, no matter what some might try to say, opposition to same-sex marriage has its basis firmly in homophobic attitudes; what other term can be applied to a belief that homosexuals are in some way not worthy of being married in church?

Furthermore, it is, as ever, interesting that those on the right who are normally in favour of 'freedom' only want it according to their own narrow definition. In this instance, they believe that some 'freedoms' override others. If they truly believed in the concept, they would have no objection to same-sex marriage.

I can't remember who said it first, but the advice to anybody who objects to a same sex marriage is not to marry somebody of the same sex. Problem solved!

What I don't understand is the notion bandied around that allowing gay marriage would somehow devalue it for the rest of us. I'm in a happy heterosexual marriage but I wouldn't suddenly feel threatened if homosexuals had the same rights, that's a very strange idea. Furthermore I don't get the idea that gays are somehow bringing down the sanctity of marriage. Yeeeess, whereas (say) Katie Price is really showing us the way.

Most of the objections to gay marriage come from people who take a work of fiction seriously and believe in magic sky fairies. Their views really shouldn't be taken seriously. I was at a wedding earlier this year and the priest began by telling us "in this church we believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman" before launching into a thunderous diatribe which ended with his face turning purple. At this point all I could think was "you're wearing a dress", but I let it go...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Finally!!!! I worried that Christmas is coming and yet nobody has started a controversial debate about God/religion/church. :laugh:

Interesting it was started by the guy who claimed that last night would drink some pints.....

---

There you go. The power of Kronenberg!! :beer:

It's a very controversial debate in the UK because it's being debated and the Law changed to facilitate same sex Marriage rather than a Civil Partnership which we currently have. Civil Partnership offers the same rights as Civil Marriage.

However, the problem is that it is illegal to have any sort of Religious readings, signs or music in Civil Partnership services. The debate is to allow Civil Marriage which can take place anywhere including in Church.

Now, in theory, Churches can 'opt out' of offering the service but I think it's hypocritical tht two people of opposite sex with no religious beliefs whatsoever can quite happily get Married in Church with the Clergy's blessing but two practicing Christians of the same sex cannot.

I also find it contentious that the Church is getting all high and mighty about one religious Law that some argue is ambigious to start with but freely ignores or revokes hundreds of others. If all these Laws were implemented, it whould make Shari Law look like the Peace and Love movement.

On the other hand, organisations like the Church of England should be allowed to practice their beliefs as they see fit as long as their docterine doesn't hurt anyone. It should be a matter of personal belief and not legislation if they allow their members of the same sex to join in Matrimony within their Church. If you turn up at a Hotel and are turned away because of your sexuality, then you have activly discriminated against someone but if you 'choose' to get Married in a Church that deems your request is against it's beliefs, then should they be made to change their beliefs?

Some Churches are happy to allow same sex Marriage within their religion. Quakers I believe will be holding the services. Is that enough or should the other faiths be forced to change their religious views. I know that at the moment organisations can opt out but that wont last long and eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

I don't have time and patience to read the debate above.
I'll never understand the sense of these marriages and I'm too bored and tired to say why.

Do us a favour and don't post here then :z

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

However, the problem is that it is illegal to have any sort of Religious readings, signs or music in Civil Partnership services.

---

Is it really illegal? I mean, if two people having a civil partnership ceremony particularly wanted a hymn to be played, I very much doubt a prosecution would ever be brought; nor would any sensible authority object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Now, in theory, Churches can 'opt out' of offering the service but I think it's hypocritical tht two people of opposite sex with no religious beliefs whatsoever can quite happily get Married in Church with the Clergy's blessing but two practicing Christians of the same sex cannot.

---

You are right. It is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I also find it contentious that the Church is getting all high and mighty about one religious Law that some argue is ambigious to start with but freely ignores or revokes hundreds of others. If all these Laws were implemented, it whould make Shari Law look like the Peace and Love movement.

---

Again, a very good point. Why is this? In my view, underlying homophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

On the other hand, organisations like the Church of England should be allowed to practice their beliefs as they see fit as long as their docterine doesn't hurt anyone. It should be a matter of personal belief and not legislation if they allow their members of the same sex to join in Matrimony within their Church.

---

They should, and it should, but it is very strange that one church could go from a place where same-sex marriages are, in effect, prohibited to one where they can happen merely on the basis of a change of vicar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Some Churches are happy to allow same sex Marriage within their religion. Quakers I believe will be holding the services. Is that enough or should the other faiths be forced to change their religious views. I know that at the moment organisations can opt out but that wont last long and eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

---

If religions are sensible, they will wake up and see how, in this instance, the world has changed. But I fear they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I don't have time and patience to read the debate above.
I'll never understand the sense of these marriages and I'm too bored and tired to say why.

---

Why bother posting that?

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So?

---

Are you 'all' for hypocrisy then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Are you 'all' for hypocrisy then?

---

What's that supposed to mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

---

Ah, yes, let's forget about the fact that it may be nice to let same-sex couples who love each other just as much as any opposite-sex couple have the same right to marry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why bother posting that?

---

To get a response probably - and it appears to have worked.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Ah, yes, let's forget about the fact that it may be nice to let same-sex couples who love each other just as much as any opposite-sex couple have the same right to marry.

---

Oh, I'm sure it is nice, Stan.

We'll all be off to join the Judean Peoples Front next, eh, Loretta.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What's that supposed to mean?

---

Whatever you would like it to mean.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why bother posting that?

---

Honestly?
1. As a protest. Because I bet all of you support them and the thread has become boring.
2. sometimes I like to step on somebody else'e callus toes ( don't take this literally, it's a local saying meaning an attempt to iritate the others )

Mea culpa!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Actually, same sex marriages could potentially be encouraged on the basis of population control.

---

And the countries where gay is beautiful are the ones that need population control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

And the countries where gay is beautiful are the ones that need population control

---

Must be those torrid heterosexuals up to no good again........

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Just_Cuz_19.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Just_Cuz_19.gif

---

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/...uff/GetYou.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Honestly?
1. As a protest. Because I bet all of you support them and the thread has become boring.

---

Who's 'them? The threads only been going a couple of hours. You have a low boredom threashold :)

Quote:

---

2. sometimes I like to step on somebody else'e callus toes ( don't take this literally, it's a local saying meaning an attempt to iritate the others )

Mea culpa!!!!!

---

So, you have no opinion on the thread content and are just trying to derail it. Hmmmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

So, you have no opinion on the thread content and are just trying to derail it. Hmmmmm.

---

Doesn't seem like the only one, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

...eventually Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc will be basically made to change their religion by legislation. I don't think that is right either.

---

Agreed.

Around here at least legislation cannot dictate religious beliefs or customs, unless their practices are in direct conflict with statutes affecting personal and public safety.
A church is not a legal body in Canada. A marriage in a church is simply a ceremony recognising a union under the parameters of that particular religion. A marriage must be notarized by the government for it to be considered a legal union, affording all the applicable benefits, regardless of faith or gender.

If two people want to get married I see no reason why it has to be limited to people of opposite sex only.
As for the part about getting married in a church I can somehow understand why the church and some of it's supporters are against religious marriage of homosexuals, what I absolutely can't understand is why anyone would want to get married in a church or other religious establishment.
By now everyone must have understood that I am very much against religion. ;)

Regarding homosexual marriages I never understood the uproar about it, then again I have already been invited to a gay marriage last year and it was just like any other marriage, up to the point when the official told them: 'You may kiss the bride!'

I in principle want to know what the point of, ie what the utility of marriage actually is. What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Once you answer those questions, the two general ideas that law itself should be either descriptive or prescriptive should come into view.

Personally I think that in the vast majority of cases, people don't care and that the state itself doesn't care about how people live their lives, so whether the law needs to be changed in any direction on this subject, entirely depends on social attitudes and more importantly, consequences arising from disputes to do with estates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

As for the part about getting married in a church I can somehow understand why the church and some of it's supporters are against religious marriage of homosexuals, what I absolutely can't understand is why anyone would want to get married in a church or other religious establishment.

---

Because they're much nicer buildings than many town halls or registry offices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Agreed.

Around here at least legislation cannot dictate religious beliefs or customs, unless their practices are in direct conflict with statutes affecting personal and public safety.
A church is not a legal body in Canada. A marriage in a church is simply a ceremony recognising a union under the parameters of that particular religion. A marriage must be notarized by the government for it to be considered a legal union, affording all the applicable benefits, regardless of faith or gender.

---

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can.

With the question of same sex marriage, I agree. I dont hold religious beliefs but recognise it's up to individuals whether they choose to follow a religion as long as said religion doesn't hurt anyone. However, I don't think it's up to Government to interfere with peoples beliefs.

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

As I said at the beginning, I'm undecided and probably will remain so. On one hand we have a group of people that are being treated different to the rest of the population but to force a change, then another group of people will have to suffer the intrusion of Government in their hitherto legal religious practices thus curtailing their rights.

It would be nice if the Church would look at this differently and modify itself to encompass a world that has changed in the last few thousand years. They're quick enough to do it when it suits them. Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have worked on a Sunday or taken a day off other than Sunday? How many Churches have Angels or pictures of God? Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can.

With the question of same sex marriage, I agree. I dont hold religious beliefs but recognise it's up to individuals whether they choose to follow a religion as long as said religion doesn't hurt anyone. However, I don't think it's up to Government to interfere with peoples beliefs.

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

As I said at the beginning, I'm undecided and probably will remain so. On one hand we have a group of people that are being treated different to the rest of the population but to force a change, then another group of people will have to suffer the intrusion of Government in their hitherto legal religious practices thus curtailing their rights.

It would be nice if the Church would look at this differently and modify itself to encompass a world that has changed in the last few thousand years. They're quick enough to do it when it suits them. Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have worked on a Sunday or taken a day off other than Sunday? How many Churches have Angels or pictures of God? Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

---

I think you're addressing this topic very sensibly and thoughtfully, if I may say so. Reconciling the desire to maintain freedom of religion while at the same time not discriminating on the basis of sexuality is extremely difficult, but I would always argue that the most desirable outcome is to allow all their freedoms within the law, and the only way of achieving that is to permit same-sex marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Over here, you can get legally married in Church or have a Civil ceremony in a Registery office or other authorised venue. I think I like your system more where the Marriage is stndard for everyone and if people want a religious blessing, then they can....

---

A couple can be “legally” wed in a church as an ordained cleric typically has authorization to notarize the union. However, the marriage is not legal until the paperwork (identical for all marriages) is filed and submitted to the government. This is usually done, for a small fee of course, by the cleric soon after the wedding.

Mrs. schmenke and I were married in a friend’s garden by a non-denominational minister, who happened to be a woman :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I also feel that it is wrong to exclude a group of people because of their sex,race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Doesn't seem very 'Christian' in my view.

---

Obviously... like it says in the Bible... love thy gay. I like the way sexual deviations are put at the same level as race, gender or religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Afterall, how many Christians or Jews have..... taken a day off other than Sunday?

---

Didn't even know it was forbidden to take a day off other than Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Mrs. schmenke and I were married in a friend’s garden by a non-denominational minister, who happened to be a woman :)

---

ahh... so you remain unmarried in the eyes of some non-demoninational god ! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Breaking the 10 Commandments seems a bit more fundemental to me?

---

The thing is though, that the act of marriage itself, rests within 2 of those:
You shall not commit adultery. and
You shall not steal.

Again I ask the same two questions as before: What do people see the point of marriage as? What is marriage for?
Is marriage therefore merely the legal ringfencing to enforce the relationship of those two biblical commandments as far as the church is concerned? And since adultery itself is sex between someone who is married and someone outside that legal ringfencing, should that imply a very very more stringent degree of personal morality by the people who've voluntarily entered into that contract?

Really, this whole debate opens a lot of questions the further down the rabbit hole you go; and to places and issues that society really doesn't want to take responsibility for.