Gay marriage 'to be illegal'

[Mr Right Wing]

Prove it..go on then..Show me where the law says we must show tolerance towards any belief?

To show tolerance, means to put up with.. The law in the UK and Ireland doesn't say what we can and cannot put up with in our lives.. We do not have to tolerate anything

By tolerant I mean you arent allowed to incite violance against the followers of a religion, you arent allowed to commit acts of violance on them, you cant discriminate against them in the workplace and you have to respect their religious practises (head towels, crosses, etc).

You know that too because if you went and hit someone in a Burka or sacked them for not taking it off you'd get locked up. The same applies to Christains and gays.

You can dislike the followers of a religion all you like but the moment you try to alter or force change onto a religion you're breaking the law because they have the right to practice their faith.

[RockabyeBillie]

http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm

Back when the church allowed gay marriage.

"These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded. Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded." Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books. While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place. At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report. "

[JGirl]

You can dislike the followers of a religion all you like but the moment you try to alter or force change onto a religion you're breaking the law because they have the right to practice their faith.

but they are free to try to force change onto society based on their own subjective religious beliefs. kind of a double standard there.

[Beckys_Mom]

By tolerant I mean you arent allowed to incite violance against the followers of a religion, you arent allowed to commit acts of violance on them, you cant discriminate against them in the workplace and you have to respect their religious practises (head towels, crosses, etc).

You know that too because if you went and hit someone in a Burka or sacked them for not taking it off you'd get locked up. The same applies to Christains and gays.

What is - violance ? I am pulling your leg, I know you were speaking of violence,

What you have described there is not intolerance, it is more extreme - Hate crimes and so forth I am speaking about being tolerant- generally means to tolerate- to put up with

You can dislike the followers of a religion all you like

I said nothing about the followers, I speak of certain beliefs held.... I am opposed to so many, and I will not be as tolerant ( the non criminal kind ) of them... I can be opposed and say why I cannot tolerate any belief..

If someone said to me - You must join us in a protest agonist gay pride in the streets, I will tell them - I am not interested, I have nothing against gays, so kindly take a hike.. I am within my rights to do so

Edited December 12, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[+Liquid Gardens]

I wonder, could a church made up of mostly gay members refuse to perform a marriage between two straight folks?

Absolutely, just as churches, in the US at least, can refuse to marry two gay people or an interracial couple or two people with bad breath (from a legal sense, that particular denomination's leaders may have their own rules concerning this). I'm not positive on the details, but I believe the 'marriage' that occurs in churches is strictly ceremonial and doesn't have any necessary legal standing, nor is any church or reverend under any legal obligation to marry anyone. It is the submission and approval of a marriage certificate I believe with the government that makes you married in the legal sense. Which is all that the vast majority of gay people are asking for, the legal recognition of the marriage, not religious recognition.

[Mr Right Wing]

but they are free to try to force change onto society based on their own subjective religious beliefs. kind of a double standard there.

They are not allowed to violate the equalities act and they dont.

[Cassea]

Churches themselves should decide what they want to do. It's not a civil issue.

[Grandpa Greenman]

They are not allowed to violate the equalities act and they dont.

And yet what we are discussing right now discriminates a segment of the population because the Abrahamic religions have a prohibition of who they can marry and share their life with. That means benefits married people have they can't get, at least here in the States. I don't know how that works in the UK.

[shadowhive]

Churches themselves should decide what they want to do. It's not a civil issue.

Same sex marriage is a civil issue since currently same sex couples can't marry. Why is that the case? In large parts because of religious meddling. Like I said, this legislation was originally just for civil marriage (nothing to do with church marriage at all) yet even though it was stated as being solely civl, religions made it their mission to try and make it stop.

Churches should be allowed to decide, but they need to be mature and let others do the same. Unfortunately all the process has shown is how immature and irelevent the church has become. Even now churches that don't want to know they won't be forced to, they STILL want the law not to go through. no one is forcing them to do a damn thing (and they've been told that from the start) yet they want to force other people to do things their way.

Edited December 12, 2012 by shadowhive

[Cassea]

Same sex marriage is a civil issue since currently same sex couples can't marry. Why is that the case? In large parts because of religious meddling. Like I said, this legislation was originally just for civil marriage (nothing to do with church marriage at all) yet even though it was stated as being solely civl, religions made it their mission to try and make it stop.

Churches should be allowed to decide, but they need to be mature and let others do the same. Unfortunately all the process has shown is how immature and irelevent the church has become. Even now churches that don't want to know they won't be forced to, they STILL want the law not to go through. no one is forcing them to do a damn thing (and they've been told that from the start) yet they want to force other people to do things their way.

Your first part has nothing to do with what I said. Churches should be allowed to decide themselves. That is what I said. Why do you and others. Continually post replies to me. Arguing something I didn't say. I'm going to ignore you from now on. It is very rude.

[Mr Right Wing]

And yet what we are discussing right now discriminates a segment of the population because the Abrahamic religions have a prohibition of who they can marry and share their life with. That means benefits married people have they can't get, at least here in the States. I don't know how that works in the UK.

Thats a Strawman argument because I havent discssed discriminating against them on this thread.

[shadowhive]

Your first part has nothing to do with what I said. Churches should be allowed to decide themselves. That is what I said. Why do you and others. Continually post replies to me. Arguing something I didn't say. I'm going to ignore you from now on. It is very rude.

I was responding to the second part of what you said, that it's not acivil issue. I was pointing out that it is a civil issue and elaborating the church's failure both to understand that and wanting to impose their will on other religious groups that didn't toe the party line.

It's rude to ignore someone for merely responding to what you said simply because what was said in reply was more than you wanted to hear.

Edited December 12, 2012 by shadowhive

[Cassea]

I stated. It is up to the church to decide for themselves. You are creating a debate out of nothing. We both said the same thing. A religious preference is not a civil issue. That is why you had to qualify your first paragraph.

It isn't rude to refuse to deal with someone. Who tries to twist your words to mean something else.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Cassea

[shadowhive]

I stated. It is up to the church to decide for themselves. You are creating a debate out of nothing. We both said the same thing. A religious preference is not a civil issue. That is why you had to qualify your first paragraph.

It isn't rude to refuse to deal with someone. Who tries to twist your words to mean something else.

We do agree that it's up for the church to decide for themselves. What my point was (and I'll bold this so it's clear) was that the church needs to realise that everyone has to decide for themselves, not just them deciding for everyone and people should be free to make the choice the church doesn't make not forced to do things only the churches way.

I was not trying to twist your words. I was merely elaborating on something, which is something people do. Person A makes a statement, person B replies and adds something else. I don't see why you're taking what I said so badly, like I was personally atatcking you.

[Beckys_Mom]

Same sex marriage is a civil issue since currently same sex couples can't marry. Why is that the case? In large parts because of religious meddling. Like I said, this legislation was originally just for civil marriage (nothing to do with church marriage at all) yet even though it was stated as being solely civl, religions made it their mission to try and make it stop.

Stall the ball for a sec Question .. Are you saying, that religious people are trying to stop civil partnerships? If so, can you share a news article?

[with bells on]

Your first part has nothing to do with what I said. Churches should be allowed to decide themselves. That is what I said. Why do you and others. Continually post replies to me. Arguing something I didn't say. I'm going to ignore you from now on. It is very rude.

cassea, on an Internet forum people are always going to misunderstand points or read what they want into something another says.. im really sorry it upsets you so much.. i know yesterday i had the same issue with you somewhere else, and was accused of the same by you, when in actual fact you were forgetting what you were saying/writing, and i caught you out and you chose to ignore it.. so go figure, yeah?

try not to let it get to you.. im sure you are a really nice person, so its not worth tying yourself so much emotionally to what others say to your posts.. dont take it on.. its not an attack at you.. peace to you..

[Beckys_Mom]

cassea, on an Internet forum people are always going to misunderstand points or read what they want into something another says.. im really sorry it upsets you so much.. i know yesterday i had the same issue with you somewhere else, and was accused of the same by you, when in actual fact you were forgetting what you were saying/writing, and i caught you out and you chose to ignore it.. so go figure, yeah?

try not to let it get to you.. im sure you are a really nice person, so its not worth tying yourself so much emotionally to what others say to your posts.. dont take it on.. its not an attack at you.. peace to you..

In general and over time - If I had a £1 for each time I found myself saying to someone - Did I say that? Show me? lol It's no wonder I bold some points I make

I have the same trouble at home with the hubby.. There isn't a week that passes by without me saying - Look Gary, I did not say that, what's up with you? lol... We laugh it off, he admits his listening comprehension is wacky

Edited December 12, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Cassea]

cassea, on an Internet forum people are always going to misunderstand points or read what they want into something another says.. im really sorry it upsets you so much.. i know yesterday i had the same issue with you somewhere else, and was accused of the same by you, when in actual fact you were forgetting what you were saying/writing, and i caught you out and you chose to ignore it.. so go figure, yeah?

try not to let it get to you.. im sure you are a really nice person, so its not worth tying yourself so much emotionally to what others say to your posts.. dont take it on.. its not an attack at you.. peace to you..

Because of my cognitive issues. I try very hard to be careful in what I say. So to write a specific thing. And to have someone try to twist it to mean the opposite is very upsetting. I do think it is rude.

Also the title of this thread is misleading. It is not a civil issue. Actions in the church would not be called illegal. Each church should decide for themselves.

[with bells on]

Unless I'm missing something God is quite clearly against it in the Bible.

Laws protect religious freedom in this country so you'll have to learn to be more tolerant.

well, the bible is a distorted book of fiction, so it has little relevance in todays society and for the general population.. (unless you live in the USA, as its a dying horse in my country)..

if god is against it why are his priest and christian brothers mostly gay?? i grew up in the catholic world, and at my schools there wasnt one christian brother (most of them were Irish) or clergyman that wasn't clearly into males.. with most of them being pedophiles.. the minute they got us away from the lay teachers and at a "religious retreat" where it was just us and them, it was all on..

im deeply spiritual, but that doesnt involve me following a long outdated book and being a part of a church.. it just is.. it comes from within..

[with bells on]

Because of my cognitive issues. I try very hard to be careful in what I say. So to write a specific thing. And to have someone try to twist it to mean the opposite is very upsetting. I do think it is rude.

Also the title of this thread is misleading. It is not a civil issue. Actions in the church would not be called illegal. Each church should decide for themselves.

demanding people answer your questions is rude too.. people in glass houses.....

[Cassea]

demanding people answer your questions is rude too.. people in glass houses.....

Where did I demand that?

[shadowhive]

Stall the ball for a sec Question .. Are you saying, that religious people are trying to stop civil partnerships? If so, can you share a news article?

When civil partnerships were introduced they absolutely resisted and tried to stop them However, that was not what I was saying. The legislation of equal marriage started as completely related to civil marriage, not religious. However, the church complained even then and have done so ever since to make people panic into thinking they'd be forced into doing something.

[Beckys_Mom]

I think each church should decide for themselves Reason being, is because I most certainly do not like anyone pushing their way on to me... So, if I don't like it done on to myself, I wouldn't expect others to sit down and take it either

Is it discriminating? For so many of us that are not Christian, the answer could be - Yes Is it discriminating..... Discrimination is part of what they believe is right.. It would be hard to say the belief in not wanting to marry certain people is not discriminating, because they are literally pushing aside a group of people and saying - No we wont help you or we wont provide you with any service, not in our church.

Regardless how so many non religious see it as discriminating, the church still owns the right to do so, as it is part of their beliefs.. If we take away the religious freedom, you may as well start shifting other freedoms of others to..

[with bells on]

Where did I demand that?

page 4 of the sperm/blood thread from yesterday.. you repeatedly stated that i answer your silly question.. and then told me i was dishonest by not answering it.. that is considered rude where i am from..

[shadowhive]

Because of my cognitive issues. I try very hard to be careful in what I say. So to write a specific thing. And to have someone try to twist it to mean the opposite is very upsetting. I do think it is rude.

Also the title of this thread is misleading. It is not a civil issue. Actions in the church would not be called illegal. Each church should decide for themselves.

Again, I didn't try to twist what you said. I'm sorry that you thought so but I was merely responding and elaborating what I meant in an attempt to be clear.

Each church can decide for themselves: apart from the church of england. Because of the church of england's constant and persistant assertion that they'd be forced ito doing it, the government's actually making it illegal for same sex couples to marry in church of england churches. This creates a problem however. If the church of england does decide it wants to marry same sex couples it has to go through the hurdle of changing the law to do so (whereas any other church that changes it's mind can simply opt in). Ultimately all they've done is shoot themselves in the foot.

To be clear, not trying to twist your words, merely explaining.