Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
None of the above

Former Archbishop slams gay marriage

77 posts in this topic

The underlined part is a distortion of reality.

A lot of people dont accept gay marriage.

The majority simply don't care. The majority personally know a gay person and have empathy with their situation.

It is the minority who are not willing to accept gays as having equal rights - and it is the Conservative party and the Churches who are pandering to this dwindling minority.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concern is that churchs will be forced to perform gay marriage if they want to or not. That if the push for gay rights is pushed too hard that the Bible might be outlawed as hate speech. A slippery slope no doubt but that's the fear.

An ungrounded fear then - since there is no compulsion in law to perform gay marriages in churches or even to agree with them. The only point of law is not to express hatred and discriminate against Gay people. I do not see that situation changing any time soon so there is little that the Church has to fear from the state - if they do not preach hatred.

It is the loss of authority which is at the heart of the churches concerns - not the fear of been forced to do things which they find morally objectionable.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ungrounded fear then - since there is no compulsion in law to perform gay marriages in churches or even to agree with them. The only point of law is not to express hatred and discriminate against Gay people. I do not see that situation changing any time soon so there is little that the Church has to fear from the state - if they do not preach hatred.

It is the loss of authority which is at the heart of the churches concerns - not the fear of been forced to do things which they find morally objectionable.

Br Cornelius

Imagine you are a priest and conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples only. A gay couple approach you to conduct their ceremony, which you politely decline. What excuse would you make that does not infringe their human rights to not be discriminated against?

In this case, the human rights of the priest or the gay coupe will be breached as the priest has the freedom of religion and the gay couple have the right not to be discriminated against for their sexual orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't!! There is absolutely no suggestion of this, never has been.

Civil Partnerships between same sex couples (affording the same rights as heterosexual couples) have been legal since 2004. Carey is just venting his ownextreme form of Bigotry

Civil Unions grant the same rights as marriage. The word marriage creates tensions for religious people/organizations as it has been solely their domain for the last few hundred years.

My sister is gay, but she doesn't like the gay marriage debate currently going on in our country and around the world as it draws the spotlight onto people who just want to live their lives and are currently not suffering any form of discrimination. Marriage is defined (and always has been) as a union between a man and women. Why change that definition?

If me and my (opposite sex) partner ever decide to have a ceremony, it will be a civil union as i am against religions in general and see marriage as their domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless this 'lord' calls for the execution of women who aren't virgins when they marry with equal fervour, God isn't going to be happy with him at all.

Call me a radical, but I think marriage as an institution should be abolished all together.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I agree.

2. From my online debating I think 80% of them actually believe all people are gay. They are unable to see that their sexual desire is different from that of a hetrosexual.

3. I agree.

The lifestyle choice of homosexuality is at odds with the one deemed acceptable by religion. Homosexuals know that religion is a threat to their existance and this is why I think the ex-Archbishop is correct. I believe that given the chance homosexuals would -

1. Close down government to protect themselves.

2. Promise not to violate anyone elses rights.

3. Try to 'educate' those against them.

4. When education fails then the violation of peoples rights would begin.

5. The first violation would be the labeling of those against them as 'bigots' or 'homophobes' (Hitler used the Star of David).

6. The second violation would be employment restrictions (Hitler stopped Jews being business owners).

7. These measures will fail to make people accept their lifestyle choice leading to the third violation which is 'correction' (prison sentences and brain washing)

8. When correct fails I believe genocide would begin whereby millions of people would simply 'disappear'.

are you insane or just pretending to be ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you insane or just pretending to be ?

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.

But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.

He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.

He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.

But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.

He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.

He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

i really couldnt agree more with you however you know he will just see this as "lefties"ganging up on him dont you :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.

But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.

He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.

He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

Who's rights take priority? A priest who's religion tells him that he cannot marry two men, or the two men who want to get married? Either way, human rights are breached

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's rights take priority? A priest who's religion tells him that he cannot marry two men, or the two men who want to get married? Either way, human rights are breached

Discrimination is not a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discrimination is not a right.

Freedom of religion is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lifestyle choice of homosexuality

You have no clear understanding of biology, nor sex or gender roles.

Freedom of religion is

But discrimination is not a protected right. Doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or a business.

Edit: It's not like religion hasn't changed its mind about thousands of other things over the course of history.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But discrimination is not a protected right. Doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or a business.

So you can alter someones religion to suit your own needs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can alter someones religion to suit your own needs?

Religion needs to do the altering, not me. The whole bible is against gays thing is a bunch of crap anyway.

No form of discrimination should be protected at all. If that means forcing churches to marry gays, then so be it. Gay people can be religious, too.

Edit: It is incredibly stupid and ignorant to discriminate against somebody because of biology.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of religion is

So if I marry a fundamentalist Muslim, he should be allowed to beat me for going outside without an escort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion needs to do the altering, not me. The whole bible is against gays thing is a bunch of crap anyway.

No form of discrimination should be protected at all. If that means forcing churches to marry gays, then so be it. Gay people can be religious, too.

Edit: It is incredibly stupid and ignorant to discriminate against somebody because of biology.

Not being a christian (or involved with any religion) this would not effect me in anyway. But on the one hand you are saying discrimination is wrong, on the other you are trying to tell people what their religion should say. It sounds very hypocritical.

Human rights have been set in law. Why change one at the expense of another?

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

If you read back through this thread it is full of people stating that religions will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. In reality, this is incorrect, as any discrimination can be taken before a human rights tribunal.

So if I marry a fundamentalist Muslim, he should be allowed to beat me for going outside without an escort?

If you want him to.

Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your bum as well? Maybe how to breathe?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a christian (or involved with any religion) this would not effect me in anyway. But one the one hand you are saying discrimination is wrong, on the other you are trying to tell people what their religion should say. It sounds very hypocritical.

Human rights have been set in law. Why change one at the expense of another?

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

If you read back through this thread it is full of people stating that religions will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. In reality, this is incorrect, as any discrimination can be taken before a human rights tribunal.

If you want him to.

Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your bum as well? Maybe how to breathe?

Marriage is controlled by the state here in the US, yet everyone keeps hammering on about how it's a 'religious' thing. I don't want a religion dictating who can enter into a contractual agreement with each other, and who the bloody heck cares what it's called? Unless you're just looking for reasons to discriminate.

Plus, if marriage needs to be 'protected', stop allowing divorces, if they're entering into some vow with each other and their God, shouldn't it be all 'oh yeah, God wanted this so you guys have to stay together cause it says 'till death do us part.'' You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either marriage is special and needs to be protected at all costs, or it should be allowed for any free thinking adult to do so. A religion that says 'oh, just cause you do this in your bedroom God hates you,' is by no means a loving one. People who express these kinds of views are, sure, practicing religious freedom, but in a very poor manner of it that just makes religious freedom look dangerous.

Edit: Another view point would be segregated water fountains. 'Well, they can still drink out of a water fountain but not MY water fountain.'

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

Marriage is a legal contract. Religion only provides a pointless ceremony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage is controlled by the state here in the US, yet everyone keeps hammering on about how it's a 'religious' thing. I don't want a religion dictating who can enter into a contractual agreement with each other, and who the bloody heck cares what it's called? Unless you're just looking for reasons to discriminate.

Plus, if marriage needs to be 'protected', stop allowing divorces, if they're entering into some vow with each other and their God, shouldn't it be all 'oh yeah, God wanted this so you guys have to stay together cause it says 'till death do us part.'' You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either marriage is special and needs to be protected at all costs, or it should be allowed for any free thinking adult to do so. A religion that says 'oh, just cause you do this in your bedroom God hates you,' is by no means a loving one. People who express these kinds of views are, sure, practicing religious freedom, but in a very poor manner of it that just makes religious freedom look dangerous.

Edit: Another view point would be segregated water fountains. 'Well, they can still drink out of a water fountain but not MY water fountain.'

I'll lay my cards on the table here. I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE.

Now, why would i be in support of gay people doing something I'm against anyway?

I don't believe in a god that cares about everyone personally. I don't want to discriminate against homosexuals. All the gay marriage debate will do is cement religious people AGAINST homosexuals and created issues where there didn't need to be any.

If anything, my solution of civil unions (where there is a ceremony, but it doesn't have to be religious) will stop conflict not incite it.

I do not hold one human right over the others as you appear to be doing, as i hold them all in the same regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage is a legal contract. Religion only provides a pointless ceremony.

I can't find any stats but i am almost certain that the vast majority of weddings are performed by a member of a religious organization (90-95% estimate). I am happy to change my opinion if you can enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll lay my cards on the table here. I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE.

Now, why would i be in support of gay people doing something I'm against anyway?

I don't believe in a god that cares about everyone personally. I don't want to discriminate against homosexuals. All the gay marriage debate will do is cement religious people AGAINST homosexuals and created issues where there didn't need to be any.

If anything, my solution of civil unions (where there is a ceremony, but it doesn't have to be religious) will stop conflict not incite it.

I do not hold one human right over the others as you appear to be doing, as i hold them all in the same regard.

I'm not holding anyone's rights over anyone else's, I'm holding the fact that the religious people feel that their institution will be DESTROYED by gay marriage. My counter point is also, trying to stop gays from marrying will cement many gays AGAINST religious folks. A civil union is a solution but some gays are also religious, they don't feel that God hates them for loving the same gender. Why do the discriminated against have to give ground? Because the religious have a 'history' of having marriage? Man, the South should've fought harder for slavery, all that history, gone! I'm also not belittling slavery or the civil rights struggle that blacks had to go through, but I do see similarities between their civil rights struggle and gays civil rights struggle.

And that's fine and dandy, you're against marriage, wonderful to know that, but I don't see what that really has to do with religious folks wanting their version of marriage protected by laws, forbidding gays from using that word, or their views being cemented against each other because of the disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find any stats but i am almost certain that the vast majority of weddings are performed by a member of a religious organization (90-95% estimate). I am happy to change my opinion if you can enlighten me.

Priests performing marriages have to say 'The power vested in me by the state of _____', they get the ability to give out marriage contracts by that state. I'm unaware of how it's done in other countries though, I will admit.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priests performing marriages have to say 'The power vested in me by the state of _____', they get the ability to give out marriage contracts by that state. I'm unaware of how it's done in other countries though, I will admit.

But without his or her signature the marriage is invalid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But without his or her signature the marriage is invalid

You can get a judge to sign it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not holding anyone's rights over anyone else's, I'm holding the fact that the religious people feel that their institution will be DESTROYED by gay marriage. My counter point is also, trying to stop gays from marrying will cement many gays AGAINST religious folks. A civil union is a solution but some gays are also religious, they don't feel that God hates them for loving the same gender. Why do the discriminated against have to give ground? Because the religious have a 'history' of having marriage? Man, the South should've fought harder for slavery, all that history, gone! I'm also not belittling slavery or the civil rights struggle that blacks had to go through, but I do see similarities between their civil rights struggle and gays civil rights struggle.

And that's fine and dandy, you're against marriage, wonderful to know that, but I don't see what that really has to do with religious folks wanting their version of marriage protected by laws, forbidding gays from using that word, or their views being cemented against each other because of the disagreement.

Freedom of religion is a right and rights are not something you can just throw away. Why do you care if this cements people against religion? I don't. It's their own choice as they have that right. It should (as does) reflect poorly on them.

If i was gay, and wanted to be part of a religion i would find a church that accepted me, not change all churches.

You can get a judge to sign it.

If he conducted the ceremony (or at least witnessed it) and how often does that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.