Gay marriage to be made illegal in Churches (?)

[altus]

I we don't know the reality until it happens so for now imagination will do.

 

Clearly someone doesn't think they will protect adequately, maybe the top brass in the CofE want to prevent the possibility of some rogue vicar marrying a gay couple.

 

That should be an internal matter for the CofE, as it is for other religions, not the law.

[trainwalker]

i am so relieved that the church are not bending over on the subject of gay marriage. Homosexual acts are a taboo in christianity and justifiably forbidden. Mr cameron and his n.w.o friends can shove their immoral ideas up their own backsides.

[biotechpete]

I am pragmatic and open person, but almost every religion seems to be ridiculously out of touch with the modern world.

 

Gay is not something people choose to be, it is in their genetics, and part of nature.

 

A long time ago when no one could even begin to explain why everything was the way it was or how it was made, I can understand how religions could have started and got popular, but in this day and age, after centuries of observations and research by the brightest minds, it's hard for me to believe in any religion and understand how people can be so "brain washed".

 

AFAIK nobody has found a gene or set of genes which define homosexuality, not that there has been much research due to the controversies.

 

I can't understand how anyone who realizes how little we know about anything despite the brightest minds in science can believe that science and religion are incompatible.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[mikem8634]

i am so relieved that the church are not bending over on the subject of gay marriage. Homosexual acts are a taboo in christianity and justifiably forbidden. Mr cameron and his n.w.o friends can shove their immoral ideas up their own backsides.

 

So you've changed your mind on Cameron then? Not so long ago you thought he was a decent chap doing a sterling job. You clearly didn't get the changes you wanted.

 

Would you care to elaborate on why you consider homosexual acts to be justifiably forbidden? Do all Christians agree with you on this issue?

 

Where do you stand on the immorality of intolerance?

[Badlittlepup]

I haven't suggested anyone should change what they believe. I'm talking about it being made illegal.

 

I think half the point is that people who may have been against it because they had worries about churches being forced to perform gay marriages or the odd rogue vicar causing scandals by doing it even though it's against the particular religions belief, worries that churches would eventually be prosecuted if they refused to perform them or halted from performing marriages altogether if they won't do gay ones.

 

This gets rid of those type of worries. I had concerns about the above happening but now I know they're not I can wholeheartedly say I would support this legislation. I believe that if a religion as an organisation wishes to marry gay couples they should be allowed to do so and support this measure so the quakers for example can perform gay marriages and so gay people can have an actual marriage rather than a civil partnership.

 

It just provides reassurance for those whos are religions don't wish to perform gay marriages that their beliefs will be protected whilst allowing religions to go ahead.

 

Personally I would prefer if the CofE would keep marriage for men and women but have no problem with civil partnerships being blessed in the CofE.

[Harleyman]

If gays argue that denying them the right to be legally married is undemocratic then by the same token forcing religious establishments to perform same sex marriages against what is written in the bible is also undemocratic.

 

Let them be happy with registery offices and let the issue drop

[mikem8634]

If gays argue that denying them the right to be legally married is undemocratic then by the same token forcing religious establishments to perform same sex marriages against what is written in the bible is also undemocratic.

 

Let them be happy with registery offices and let the issue drop

 

Who is suggesting that religious establishments should be forced to perform same-sex marriages?

 

Let homophobes be happy with gay marriage and let the issue drop.

[Garbo]

i am so relieved that the church are not bending over on the subject of gay marriage. Homosexual acts are a taboo in christianity and ujustifiably forbidden. Mr cameron and his n.w.o friends can shove their immoral ideas up their own backsides.

 

fixed that for you

 

 

the churchs stance on this is just another nail in the coffin of christianity

[Harleyman]

Who is suggesting that religious establishments should be forced to perform same-sex marriages?

 

Let homophobes be happy with gay marriage and let the issue drop.

 

I'm not against gay marriage. Gays do me no harm or cause me any offence whatsoever.

 

Four States in the US already recognize same sex marriage and there is a legal battle in California currently taking place to overturn Proposition 8 which bans same sex marriage.

 

The issue of religious institutions ever being involved will never arise either as there is separation of church and state and no civil laws could ever be passed compelling religious institutions to perform same sex marriages. That would be strictly up to the individual church to decide whether or not they chose to perform such marriage ceremonies.

 

I dont see the Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Baptist churches as well as obviously the Catholic church ever performing same sex marriages... not in this part of the world anyway.

[RootsBooster]

I think half the point is that people who may have been against it because they had worries about churches being forced to perform gay marriages or the odd rogue vicar causing scandals by doing it even though it's against the particular religions belief, worries that churches would eventually be prosecuted if they refused to perform them or halted from performing marriages altogether if they won't do gay ones.

Which the first 3 "loacks" from the article should protect against adequately. Unless you can think of a reason they would fail?

This gets rid of those type of worries. I had concerns about the above happening but now I know they're not I can wholeheartedly say I would support this legislation. I believe that if a religion as an organisation wishes to marry gay couples they should be allowed to do so and support this measure so the quakers for example can perform gay marriages and so gay people can have an actual marriage rather than a civil partnership.

The fourth "lock" would prevent this if the C of E ever changed it's mind, so I take it you're against the idea after all?

 

It just provides reassurance for those whos are religions don't wish to perform gay marriages that their beliefs will be protected whilst allowing religions to go ahead.

No it doesn't, it only provides reassurance for the Church of England and Wales, no other religions.

 

Personally I would prefer if the CofE would keep marriage for men and women but have no problem with civil partnerships being blessed in the CofE.

You're entitled to prefer that, but out of interest do you have a reason for it?

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 06:16 ----------

 

If gays argue that denying them the right to be legally married is undemocratic then by the same token forcing religious establishments to perform same sex marriages against what is written in the bible is also undemocratic.

 

Let them be happy with registery offices and let the issue drop

 

I don't think you understand the situation, same sex marriage is set to go ahead.

The thread is about the "quadruple lock" to reassure the Churches of England and Wales, the 4th of which is (IMO) overkill, unfair to individuals of the C of E (and Wales) and unfair to other religions.