maxmaximus Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 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. There was another idiot on question time that thought everyone that opposes gay marriage is a homophobe. Little bit like the idiots that think opposing immigrations make you racist. ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 08:00 ---------- 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? An MP explained why this was necessary on question time and said quite clearly that should the CofE change its stance then the law would be changed and same sex marriages would be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 There was another idiot on question time that thought everyone that opposes gay marriage is a homophobe. Little bit like the idiots that think opposing immigrations make you racist. Many of the arguments opposing immigration are to do with population size and economy (whether they are right or wrong). Many are just racist. What reason is there for being against same sex marriage? An MP explained why this was necessary on question time What was the reason given? and said quite clearly that should the CofE change its stance then the law would be changed and same sex marriages would be allowed. MP's say a lot of things, they even make promises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Many of the arguments opposing immigration are to do with population size and economy (whether they are right or wrong). Many are just racist. What reason is there for being against same sex marriage? I'm not against it and many of the reasons have been given, the main reason being the religiouse beliefe that being gay is a sin and that marrage is the union of one women and one man, I don't have to agree with them to accept they are entitled to their belief. What was the reason given? I didn't understand it, something about the way the church is set up. MP's say a lot of things, they even make promises Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm not against it and many of the reasons have been given, I didn't say you were & I've only ever heard one "reason", which may have been worth consideration only if marriage was a religious thing... the main reason being the religiouse beliefe that being gay is a sin and that marrage is the union of one women and one man, I don't have to agree with them to accept they are entitled to their belief. My point was that the arguments against immigration are about it affecting others, argument(s) against same sex marriage are about how individuals feel about something that won't affect them. At least, I've never heard an argument concerning anything that will affect them. I didn't understand it, something about the way the church is set up. I might see if I can find the explanation myself this weekend if I get time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Which the first 3 "loacks" from the article should protect against adequately. Unless you can think of a reason they would fail? 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? No it doesn't, it only provides reassurance for the Church of England and Wales, no other religions. 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 ---------- 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. I was referring to all of the locks. I suppose you have a point about the 4th lock but as it says 'canon law' will still apply wouldn't that mean if the church did at some point decide that it wanted to change it would only be a matter for the church changing canon law? So it's not actually 'banning' it per se but simply saying canon law applies? So if canon law is changed by the church then the ban would become a moot point because the law says 'the C of E will follow Canon Law which currently bans marriages', not 'Gay marriages are banned forever'. And about the last point, I do think that marriage retains some meaning as a union for the procreation of life which gay relationships by their very nature can't do. But I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with being gay, or that gay relationships shouldn't be religiously accepted and blessed. It's not a matter of saying gay relationships are 'wrong' because I don't believe they are, I believe they are a part of the norm. However I do believe in marriage as part of the act for creating children and as such would prefer if gay relationships were only blessed or perhaps given some other sort of ceremony but actual marriage was reserved. If other religions choose to marry gay people that's up to them and they should have the freedom to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 If people in a same sex relationship want to get married in a religeous building I don't have a problem with it. It seems a very weak and outdated argument to me. Same here, and I'm a Christian. If it's wrong then let God sort it out, not a normal biased man on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Same here, and I'm a Christian. If it's wrong then let God sort it out, not a normal biased man on Earth. It's not necessarily a case of thinking it's 'wrong' though is it? I don't think it's wrong at all but I do see marriage as an institution for the sexual act which can result in the procreation of children in my religion. It's nothing to do with thinking it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Church of England and Church in Wales protest at gay marriage ban. The headline is a bit misleading but it appears the government went further that either church wanted and they are not happy about it. "It's absolutely extraordinary," he said. "The government gave the clear impression that this had been done at the request of the Church of England … but the bishop of Leicester said: 'We didn't ask for it' … and was very upset about it because it gave the impression that the Church of England were unfriendly towards gays." A spokeswoman for Dr Barry Morgan, the archbishop of Wales, confirmed that the Church in Wales had not been consulted over the "quadruple lock" either, saying it had come "completely out of the blue" and had left the church "completely shocked". The spokeswoman said: "We feel it's a step too far and we weren't consulted and we're now looking into what we can do. We will be pushing to have it amended, I would imagine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Couldn't help but laugh at the final line in that article from Ben Bradshaw: '' It makes the Church of England look much more reactionary and unreasonable than it actually is.'' Which is saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 The church should be removed from politics then they should be left to decide for themselves. They already vet people who want to get married and can refuse a heterosexual couple if they wish so I don't see how they could be forced to marry homosexuals. If they want to remain outdated let them. Same argument for female bishops-if they want to discriminate, let them but don't allow them a free pass into the house of lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.