Gay Marriage to be Illegal in the Church of England

djshauny1 · 6 Feb 2013 at 16:53

Well gay

mmj_uk · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:03

Is it just an attempt to discredit the Church of England?

I don't see how the Church of England can possible support gay marriage without becoming a complete laughing stock (even among hardcore Christians), if they're just going to write the rules as they go along then why not just start worshipping Santa Clause instead of Jesus? or merge with Scientology? lol

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:08

Castiel said:
There is a difference in the Wild Animal Kingdom insofar that rarely (if ever, I have no heard of an example anyway) do animals display exclusive homosexual behaviour, it is normally as part of or in addition to their normal (and I mean that as in usual, not implying anything about homosexuality etc..) mating behaviour. Exclusive Homosexuality appears to be limited to Humans (unless you count a mutant gene in some fruit-flies).

Please correct me if I am wrong, I am not a zoologist or biologist.

The problem is to show that you'd have to track one animal for all or most of it's life. Due to that nature of zoological research which tends to only a set of a given species over a short amount of time that's a hard thing to do.

But exclusive 'homosexual' behaviour has been observed in the Fruit Fly (Drosophila melanogaster)

Behavior and Cytogenetics of fruitless in Drosophila melanogaster: Different Courtship Defects Caused by Separate, Closely Linked Lesions
D. A. Gailey and J. C. Hall
Department of Biology, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

The fruitless (fru) courtship mutant was dissected into three defects of male reproductive behavior, which were separable as to their genetic etiologies by application of existing and newly induced chromosomal aberrations. fru itself is a small inversion [In(3R) 90C; 91B] on genetic and cytological criteria. Uncovering the fru distal breakpoint with deletions usually led to males with two of the fru courtship abnormalities: no copulation attempts with females (hence, behavioral sterility) and vigorous courtship among males, including the formation of ``courtship chains.'' However, certain genetic changes involving region 91B resulted in males who formed courtship chains but who mated with females. Uncovering the fru proximal breakpoint led to males that passively elicit inappropriately high levels of courtship. This elicitation property was separable genetically from the sterility and chain formation phenotypes and provisionally mapped to the interval 89F-90F, which includes the fru proximal breakpoint. Behavioral sterility and chaining were also observed in males expressing certain abnormal genotypes, independent of the fru inversion. These included combinations of deficiencies, each with a breakpoint in 91B, and a transposon inserted in 91B.

http://www.genetics.org/content/121/4/773.abstract

Pawnless Endgame · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:15

Strife212 said:
Surely it's the best of both worlds, gay people can get married but the church isn't forced to marry them.

There would be even more of a media field day if gay marriages were proposed at mosques next.

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:23

Monserrat said:
There would be even more of a media field day if gay marriages were proposed at mosques next.

France are ahead of the game...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orlds-mosque-gay-community.html#axzz2K8mZ3ZFt

I bet the Daily Mail thought all their Christmases had come at once when they smelt a story that contained both Muslims and gay people

.

m4rk84 · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:24

Why does marriage have to involve religion at all? Gahhh it makes me mad.

Marriage has in the past co-existed with religion with no involvement at all... just at some point in the past some idiot religious person told everyone it has to be in the presence of God and now Christians think they own the term or something.

Castiel · 6 Feb 2013 at 17:53

estebanrey said:
The problem is to show that you'd have to track one animal for all or most of it's life. Due to that nature of zoological research which tends to only a set of a given species over a short amount of time that's a hard thing to do.

So we should not infer an anthropomorphic comparison, either way.

estebanrey said:
But exclusive 'homosexual' behaviour has been observed in the Fruit Fly (Drosophila melanogaster)

I already mentioned the fruit fly, and that isn't considered to be an example of exclusive homosexual behaviour in the way that we see in Humans due to the nature of why it happens....apparently it is a mutant gene (GB) that alters the way fruit flies sense pheromones, the researchers were able to manipulate how the gene affected the synapses responsible and turned their homosexuality on and off, and it somewhat goes against the preposition that homosexuality is inherent...in fruit-flies it is a genetic mutation that can be "fixed"....I'm not sure that is really helpful for Homosexual Humans who have enough prejudice already without having to deal with their orientation being treated as a disease or genetic disorder. Besides it is not known what, if any, part pheromones play in Human sexual behaviour.

http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html

Twirlywoos · 6 Feb 2013 at 18:02

cHk4 said:
Does Muslim-ism allow gay marriage?

It's Islam FWIW

and No it is prohibited. But then you'll always find a shady Imam who will perform the marriage for a few Donor Kebabs

C.R.A.Z.Y · 6 Feb 2013 at 18:25

bam0 said:
So let's disestablish it and be done with this mess. The currently instituted church would be free to do whatever it wanted then.

Well no it wouldn't though would it and rightly so!
A privately run night club cannot ban black or gay people from membership so why should a church be any different irrespective of some backward bigoted beliefs they may have?
At the end of the day it's discrimination which ever way you try to cut it, discrimination has no place in a modern, civilized and loving society

Castiel · 6 Feb 2013 at 18:45

bam0 said:
So let's disestablish it and be done with this mess. The currently instituted church would be free to do whatever it wanted then.

The problem with the legalisation of Gay Marriage and the Church would not go away if the Church was not part of the legislature. By making it illegal for the Church of England to conduct Gay Weddings it effectively stops Gay Couples from seeking an ECHR ruling to force them to conduct Gay Weddings. How it would effect other unestablished Churches such as the Catholic Church I have no idea, I assume they could be challenged in court, although the rules on Weddings in non-CoE religions is complicated anyway as the State is still the arbiter of the Marriage, unlike the CoE.

I don't know, it is a potentially complex and unknown quantity what would happen if a Gay Couple or an Organisation like Stonewall acting on their behalf decided to try the ECHR.

PriceEddie · 6 Feb 2013 at 19:55

I agree with gay marriage.

Castiel said:
The Church (at least the CofE) is part of the State in the UK Majnu....Itis part of the Legislature and so is not entirely a religious institution, it is also a political one.

Conversely I don't think that the Church should be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do (unless that is to cease to exist). As long as the Church refuses it, in my opinion, the longer it's shooting itself in the foot and demonstrating all of its flaws.

Homosexuality is arguably abnormal, but absolutely not unnatural. Those that think homosexuality is exclusive to humans, get googling. It's been observed in well over 500 known species. What is unnatural is homophobia, being observed in only one. Ours.

hurfdurf · 6 Feb 2013 at 20:11

mmj_uk said:
Is it just an attempt to discredit the Church of England?

I don't see how the Church of England can possible support gay marriage without becoming a complete laughing stock (even among hardcore Christians), if they're just going to write the rules as they go along then why not just start worshipping Santa Clause instead of Jesus? or merge with Scientology? lol

They are a laughing stock already to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

Their members bleat on about changing the definition of marriage, completely forgetting that the Church was set up for exactly that reason! Never mind forgetting that previously a marriage was described in the bible as all sorts of various ways, including having slaves and what not, so hardly a decent place to be taking values from in the first place.

Souleh · 6 Feb 2013 at 21:03

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Well no it wouldn't though would it and rightly so!
A privately run night club cannot ban black or gay people from membership so why should a church be any different irrespective of some backward bigoted beliefs they may have?

But at the same time a club will refuse you for not wearing the right clothes.... is that discrimination? Or just not "playing by their rules" ?
The church will only marry members of their congregate in such that the british computer society will only allow members with computing backgrounds and accreditations.
The legal right to a civil ceremony shows you are not withheld from joining a union so wheres the problem?

Tunney · 6 Feb 2013 at 21:11

mmj_uk said:
I don't see how the Church of England can possible support gay marriage without becoming a complete laughing stock (even among hardcore Christians), if they're just going to write the rules as they go along then why not just start worshipping Santa Clause instead of Jesus? or merge with Scientology? lol

The Church of England exists because someone decided to write the rules as they went along.

Are Quakers a laughing stock for supporting same sex marriage? It doesn't seem so.

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2013 at 23:33

Castiel said:
So we should not infer an anthropomorphic comparison, either way.

Depends of the context of it's use. Usually when the fact animals exhibit homosexual behaviour is brought up it is in response to people saying being gay is 'unnatural' (and the inference is usually the sexual act). The fact that all animal species have been seen to have sexual contact with a member of the same sex shows that not to be true.

Castiel said:
I already mentioned the fruit fly, and that isn't considered to be an example of exclusive homosexual behaviour in the way that we see in Humans due to the nature of why it happens....apparently it is a mutant gene (GB) that alters the way fruit flies sense pheromones, the researchers were able to manipulate how the gene affected the synapses responsible and turned their homosexuality on and off, and it somewhat goes against the preposition that homosexuality is inherent...in fruit-flies it is a genetic mutation that can be "fixed"....I'm not sure that is really helpful for Homosexual Humans who have enough prejudice already without having to deal with their orientation being treated as a disease or genetic disorder.

I take your point but science shouldn't be about giving a political correct answer but a correct one. If it can be shown that homosexuality in humans is due to a genetic defect or mutation then it should be published.

It doesn't follow though that it is then OK to see gay people and being ill or that they should be 'fixed'. Most genetic mutations are neutral or beneficial so why not add homosexuality to the neutral list?

Castiel said:
Besides it is not known what, if any, part pheromones play in Human sexual behaviour.

True.

Before I finish I'd also suggest a hypothesis that homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't two different entities but rather two ends of the same scale (with bi-sexuality filling in between them).

Most of the gay men I have met have had sex with at least one woman and most bi-sexual people I've met tend to have a preference either way. I'd throw in heterosexuals that will never have a homosexual encounter but may have no problems knocking the odd one out to gay porn (for lack of a nicer expression). It's hard to judge with society and its views playing such a big factor in the way people live their lives.

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Well no it wouldn't though would it and rightly so!
A privately run night club cannot ban black or gay people from membership so why should a church be any different irrespective of some backward bigoted beliefs they may have?
At the end of the day it's discrimination which ever way you try to cut it, discrimination has no place in a modern, civilized and loving society

I support gay marriage but I also support a Church right to not carry out a ceremony.

A nightclub is a commercial business and it's right that they should be bound by discrimination laws. I see a Church's more like a charity and on that basis I support their right to support the issues they want. For example you wouldn't use anti-discrimination laws against a charity that supported abused women and force them to give half the donations they receive away to men would you?

bam0 · 6 Feb 2013 at 23:48

Castiel said:
The problem with the legalisation of Gay Marriage and the Church would not go away if the Church was not part of the legislature. By making it illegal for the Church of England to conduct Gay Weddings it effectively stops Gay Couples from seeking an ECHR ruling to force them to conduct Gay Weddings. How it would effect other unestablished Churches such as the Catholic Church I have no idea, I assume they could be challenged in court, although the rules on Weddings in non-CoE religions is complicated anyway as the State is still the arbiter of the Marriage, unlike the CoE.

I don't know, it is a potentially complex and unknown quantity what would happen if a Gay Couple or an Organisation like Stonewall acting on their behalf decided to try the ECHR.

Not go away as such, no. But it would not require the "quadruple lock" actively making it illegal as they are proposing now. I imagine you're aware (although quite a few people may not be) that the CoE and Cow are legally required to marry eligible people (as long as one is of that parish) even if they aren't practising Christians. Disestablishment would remove that compulsion without the requiring the "protective" legislation being proposed.

Angilion · 7 Feb 2013 at 00:19

ic1male said:
Amazing post more like. I feel positively thick compared to Angilion's intellect.

It's not intellect. I just read a lot and have done for 40 years. It would be surprising if I hadn't picked up a variety of minor knowledge after all that

Etymology is a hobby of mine, which ropes in some history on the way (e.g. I once wondered where the word 'wedding' came from, which inevitably led me to learn a little about Anglo-Saxon marriage). Ancient Rome has interested me ever since I studied Latin at school - my teacher was superb and put the language in context. Besides, Rome had such a profound effect on western civilisation that it can hardly fail to be fascinating.

So it's not intellect. It's just reading millions of words and having some of it stick

But I appreciate being appreciated. Many people just switch off if they see more than a couple of lines of text, which is a shame. It also shows that you certainly aren't "positively thick" - if you were, you'd have ridiculed my post as a silly waste of time.

Angilion · 7 Feb 2013 at 00:27

Eeeeeethan said:
Every day is straight pride day, 99% of tv shows, movies, magazines, adverts, etc.. are all aimed at heterosexuals.

Sophistry, at best. That's not pride. Different kettle of fish entirely.

While I'm not equating the struggles of black people to that of the gay community, you would be ok with white pride days?

I'd be as OK with it as I am with gay pride, black pride, straight pride or any other kind of group pride, i.e. not at all. I don't like bigotry and group pride is inherently and profoundly bigoted because it rests on and vigorously promotes the assumption of group superiority. That's where pride comes from - people are proud of being better in some way (in their own perception).

Angilion · 7 Feb 2013 at 00:41

Castiel said:
That is actually a good point to make, if we are redefining the legal definition of Marriage to include homosexual relationships...which is fine as far as I am concerned...what reason is there to continue to ban polygamy and continue to imprison people for bigamy. Surely the entire system relating to marriage need to be looked at, while we should offer protections to married people from their partners marrying other without their consent or knowledge, I am not sure we should continue to discriminate against consensual polygamous relationships.

I agree, but there are practical issues since the law is involved. Anything to do with money (taxes, benefits, etc). Conflicts arising from >1 next of kin. There are differences between polygamy and monogamy whereas there aren't really any between homosexual monogamy and heterosexual mongamy.

Also, are we retaining Civil Partnerships and if so will they still be limited to homosexual couples as that will then allow greater provision for homosexuals and ironically be discriminatory against heterosexual couples who may wish to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

Discriminating against heterosexuals isn't a political issue, so there won't be any pressure about it.

Also, are we redefining the terms as well...as husband and husband seems strange as does wife and wife. The couples I know (5 of them) all simply refer to their "Life Partner" or "Partner" they all feel that Husband (or wife) is a bit strange. Do we need 21st century terms for 21st century marriage?

That's a point (although the people I know use 'husband' and 'wife' and are fine with that).

I'd rather get rid of the word 'marriage' entirely, starting with removing it from the law. It's too much of an umbrella term, covering three distinctly different things that I think should be described seperately. That would still leave words needed for the people involved, though. 'partner' seems to fit best, as that is (or, more accurately, should be) what the person is.