Gay Marriage to be Illegal in the Church of England

[Craterloads]

I have a 13 year old Son, if he came to me (hopefully when he is a little older) and said 'Mum, Dad...I'm gay" if we are honest I think both of us would be a little disappointed, however that doesn't mean we would not accept him as he is, it wouldn't change how either of us felt about him, loved him, or treated him and he would be able to count on all the support and help he needs whatever his life choices might be. His happiness and being true to himself is more important to us than our rather minor disappointment over Grandchildren etc....

I expect quite a few, if not most straight parents would be the same to one degree or another.

If he came in and told us he was a Man City supporter however.......

So why did the minister get a grilling like he said something wrong?

 

[Angilion]

Why would you want to get married by an organisation who does not like you anyway?

As a gesture of dominance - you have forced your enemies to bow to you and obey you. You have made them so inferior to you that they must defer to you and serve you and pretend to like it. Your victory over them is total - they are your slaves.

It's a nasty thing to want to do, but there are plenty of nasty people.

 

[Destination]

Agree Castiel, they had this very discussion on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2, following the misreporting of what that conservative chap had said. It wasn't a statement of acceptance, it was a statement regarding preference for 'normal'.

 

[Woden]

I have a 13 year old Son, if he came to me (hopefully when he is a little older) and said 'Mum, Dad...I'm gay" if we are honest I think both of us would be a little disappointed, however that doesn't mean we would not accept him as he is, it wouldn't change how either of us felt about him, loved him, or treated him and he would be able to count on all the support and help he needs whatever his life choices might be. His happiness and being true to himself is more important to us than our rather minor disappointment over Grandchildren etc....

I expect quite a few, if not most straight parents would be the same to one degree or another.

If he came in and told us he was a Man City supporter however.......

I honestly wouldn't give a flying whoohaa. But a generation ago people like me would be non existent, people like you a minority and most parents would disown their child. Or at the very least be ashamed. This is in no way me saying your less socially evolved! You love him an support him, that's all that matters.

These times they are a changin' I guess. Could write a song about it!

Now, here's a question. I am all for gay adoption, better two loving dads than growing up in the system but ...

Will we soon have kids going "Dad, pops, I think I'm straight", and said parents being a little disappointed?

 

[djshauny1]

Bit gay

 

[Nitefly]

I couldn't believe it when I read this. What a strange this to put in statute considering the general perception of gay marriage.

It should have been opt in like everything else :/

 

[Woden]

I couldn't believe it when I read this. What a strange this to put in statute considering the general perception of gay marriage.

It should have been opt in like everything else :/

To me, the solution is obvious.

Gay marriage is legal. If you don't want to preside over it, that's up to you.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
The whole Gay Marriage issue has turned into a bit of a debacle tbh, it should simply be a single civil marriage law for everyone, if you want to get married then you can, if you want a civil partnership then you can do that instead irrespective of your sexual persuasion.

Each religious institution should able to make up their own minds on what definition they ascribe to marriage without State interference and it is then up to their respective synods and laities to either push for a more progressive reform or a more conservative position depending on the mood of their congregations.
[..]

I have a similar opinion. As I see it, there are three seperate things currently slopped together under the umbrella term 'marriage'. I'd seperate them out for the sake of clarity and fairness:

1) Personal. Whatever the spouses want to do as an expression of commitment. Open to any people who are fit to make an agreement. No legal status.

2) Legal. State recognition of a formal relationship, with all the legal rights and responsibilities that the state decides to assign to such relationships. Open to any people who are fit to make a legally binding contract.

3) Religious. Religious approval of a formal relationship. Open only to whoever any given religious organisation approves of and only in whatever relationships it approves of - they can exclude anyone for any reason, however irrational, because nobody should have a right to force other people to be their friends (and nobody should want to try - it's a mental thing to do). No legal status.

People could do more than one of them, but I'd make it clear that they were seperate things.

I'd call them 'wedding', 'civil partnership' and 'blessing', but the names don't really matter.

By clearly seperating the three things (which are actually seperate) and giving them different names, you remove any problems caused by mixing them up under the same word - 'marriage'.


But your approach might be easier to implement quickly.

 

[Castiel]

Now, here's a question. I am all for gay adoption, better two loving dads than growing up in the system but ...

Will we soon have kids going "Dad, pops, I think I'm straight", and said parents being a little disappointed?

Interestingly I know a lesbian couple with 4 children (from previous heterosexual relationships) and when their eldest daughter bought back a boyfriend, they were not best pleased.....she now lives with her Dad as she says they simply won't leave it alone. It was very surprising as they are otherwise a really nice couple and excellent parents.

I suppose it goes back to what people consider 'normal' and how they impose those preconceptions of 'normal' on their children whether consciously or not.

 

[spoffle]

Interestingly I know a lesbian couple with 4 children (from previous heterosexual relationships) and when their eldest daughter bought back a boyfriend, they were not best pleased.....she now lives with her Dad as she says they simply won't leave it alone. It was very surprising as they are otherwise a really nice couple and excellent parents.

I have to say that I'm quite surprised by that, you'd expect them to be more tolerant. I also expect that they have had their fair share of rants about how people aren't tolerant of them too?

Not to say that they aren't fit parents though, many parents do this sort of thing about all sorts of subjects anyway, whether gay or straight.

 

[Woden]

Interestingly I know a lesbian couple with 4 children (from previous heterosexual relationships) and when their eldest daughter bought back a boyfriend, they were not best pleased.....she now lives with her Dad as she says they simply won't leave it alone. It was very surprising as they are otherwise a really nice couple and excellent parents.

I suppose it goes back to what people consider 'normal' and how they impose those preconceptions of 'normal' on their children whether consciously or not.

I suppose on some level you want your children to be like you. I know my dad is disappointed at my lack of snooker skills!

Maybe I am just weird. Maybe it's 'cos I am bisexual, but sexuality just doesn't seem all that important to me. I have a daughter, 3 years old. Happy, healthy, not hurting anyone, pretty much my hopes and dreams for her. Oh and rich, very, very rich.

 

[Angilion]

Buy why shouldn't gay people get married in the church? Surely it's discrimination? [..]

Yes, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal discrimination.

If I turned up at your house tomorrow and ordered you to be my friend, would you consider that reasonable? Would you obey my order? You discriminate regarding who your friends are - everyone does.

I drink tea in preference to coffee. That's discrimination. Should you have the right and power to force me to pretend to like coffee better?

I'd prefer religion to not exist. I think that Christianity doesn't actually require opposing homosexual marriage anyway - I think that it's a misinterpretation at best and outright lies at worst. But I don't think I or anyone else should have the right to force theists to grant official religious approval to things they think their religion disapproves of. I think that's either a strange and disturbing thing to want to do, or a foul psycho thing to do if it's being done for the sake of imposing dominance.

 

[Castiel]

I have to say that I'm quite surprised by that, you'd expect them to be more tolerant. I also expect that they have had their fair share of rants about how people aren't tolerant of them too?

Not to say that they aren't fit parents though, many parents do this sort of thing about all sorts of subjects anyway, whether gay or straight.

People are people.....it's all very friendly, their daughter still has a productive and good relationship with her mothers, but she just doesn't like what she calls the 'constant hinting' that girls are better than boys so she moved in with her Dad....I'm sure they will sort it all out eventually. They are good people essentially.

 

[Castiel]

I suppose on some level you want your children to be like you. I know my dad is disappointed at my lack of snooker skills!

Maybe I am just weird. Maybe it's 'cos I am bisexual, but sexuality just doesn't seem all that important to me. I have a daughter, 3 years old. Happy, healthy, not hurting anyone, pretty much my hopes and dreams for her. Oh and rich, very, very rich.

Sexuality isn't important to me either, what people do in their own private lives is up to them.......I think it's more to do with the preconceptions of what is conventional and the concerns that a non-conventional life might put barriers up and subject him to prejudices and so on. I think we all want what is best for our children, sometimes we just don't always understand what that is.....sometimes the children are teachers in these things.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
The Abrahamic religions don't believe in gay relationships, so it's always confused me as to why people want to be involved with them but also be gay.
[..]

There's a wide scope for interpretation of almost everything in the Abrahamic religions. Most theists of all of them ignore the bits they don't like, anyway. Good job too - each of them contains vile things that any decent person should ignore.

If you go back to the original languages, it's entirely possible to construct a plausible interpretation of Christianity that does not disapprove of homosexual relationships.

For some Christians, there's a very simple argument that's compelling enough for them - what would Jesus do? Since there's no record of him ever saying anything about homosexual relationships or homosexual sex, it could plausibly be argued that he didn't consider homosexuality an issue...and if he didn't, Christians don't have to.

For others, there are also arguments showing alternative valid interpretations of the passages often interpretated as condemning homosexuality. There's hardly anything in the new testament anyway, and that's the specifically Christian bit. 2 of the 3 references are just plain wrong - the word currently "translated" as 'homosexuals' has no known meaning. No joke, people are just slapping 'homosexuals' in there because that's what they want their bible to say. A hundred years ago, the same word was "translated" as 'masturbators' because that's who the churches wanted to condemn. The 3rd reference and the references in the old testament could be interpretated as condemning homosexual sex under very specific circumstances, e.g. orgies in temples of other religions, and not homosexuality in general.

 

[bitslice]

It'll show just how ignorant and misguided the CoE are, as they refuse to marry homosexuals, but others do.

Some barely count as religions though.

It's not ignorant if they have a book that proscribes a set of beliefs, it's not as if they can ask God if he really meant it as an abomination or if that was just said for a laugh

The CofE isn't some fad either, it's not supposed to follow the whims of society, only to provide some kind of moral commentary on where it's heading.

 

[Ilikeitblackplease]

BBC link here

I thought England was a progressive country...I'm absolutely shocked and furious at this decision. I feel like we're stepping back into the Middle Ages, and, frankly, I think it's against human rights to be banned from marriage in a certain location. Reading the news before today I had been thinking that today would be the day that this farce would be turned around....apparently I was too optimistic in thinking that the church could accept people's differing choices.

Edit: Made a mistake, CofE isn't at fault here. Still shocking though, good on them for opposing it, however.

Well why the focus on Church of England, when Sikhism, Islam etc... would not allow it.

 

[platypus]

Surely it's the best of both worlds, gay people can get married but the church isn't forced to marry them.

Thats how I see it for people that want gay marriage.

Yes but without opting in gay marriage is illegal. Just madness.

Why?

So gays have to have their way or it's discrimination which is apparently bad but forcing a religion to do something it doesn't want to do is good discrimination?

I don't agree with gayism or religion tbh but as far as petty arguments go this is pretty absurd. Why exactly would you want to be married by an organisation that doesn't want to accept you?

It's kind of like a Cow protesting PETA.

It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously people within the religions are already gay, and wanting to get married, and if their religion won't opt in they can't.

But I agree that gay people are clamouring against descrimination, and yet are happy for hetrosexuals to be descriminated against. Reminds me of feminism.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I have a similar opinion. As I see it, there are three seperate things currently slopped together under the umbrella term 'marriage'. I'd seperate them out for the sake of clarity and fairness:

1) Personal. Whatever the spouses want to do as an expression of commitment. Open to any people who are fit to make an agreement. No legal status.

2) Legal. State recognition of a formal relationship, with all the legal rights and responsibilities that the state decides to assign to such relationships. Open to any people who are fit to make a legally binding contract.

3) Religious. Religious approval of a formal relationship. Open only to whoever any given religious organisation approves of and only in whatever relationships it approves of - they can exclude anyone for any reason, however irrational, because nobody should have a right to force other people to be their friends (and nobody should want to try - it's a mental thing to do). No legal status.

People could do more than one of them, but I'd make it clear that they were seperate things.

I'd call them 'wedding', 'civil partnership' and 'blessing', but the names don't really matter.

By clearly seperating the three things (which are actually seperate) and giving them different names, you remove any problems caused by mixing them up under the same word - 'marriage'.


But your approach might be easier to implement quickly.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal discrimination.

If I turned up at your house tomorrow and ordered you to be my friend, would you consider that reasonable? Would you obey my order? You discriminate regarding who your friends are - everyone does.

I drink tea in preference to coffee. That's discrimination. Should you have the right and power to force me to pretend to like coffee better?

I'd prefer religion to not exist. I think that Christianity doesn't actually require opposing homosexual marriage anyway - I think that it's a misinterpretation at best and outright lies at worst. But I don't think I or anyone else should have the right to force theists to grant official religious approval to things they think their religion disapproves of. I think that's either a strange and disturbing thing to want to do, or a foul psycho thing to do if it's being done for the sake of imposing dominance.

I think you've made a very good point there, and perhaps you're correct. This system you've devised could be good!

Well why the focus on Church of England, when Sikhism, Islam etc... would not allow it.

Because the C of E has a substantial amount of power in the government and the House of Lords which enables it to push for it's on way. The other religions should be ashamed, but they cant influence the government as much. Also, I dislike Christianity.

 

[kedge]

Why would you want to get married by an organisation who does not like you anyway?.

Maybe it's not the actual person/flesh and bone they don't like but rather the act they class as wrong conduct.