If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Gay Marriage
This discussion has been closed.
Essential support for under 25s
Comments
No you don't.
Good, we're making progress here.
Unless you've spoken to hundreds/thousands of churches about this how could you possibly assume such 'accepting' churches are a minority (which is what I'm guessing you are trying to suggest)?
Will it change anything really? Would you want to get married by an organisation that had to be forced in to accepting you?
The point I'm making, and you're ignoring, is that the CofE (and the pissing church in wales) should never have been mentioned in the law. Relgions shouldn't have been mentioned in the law, oh wait, they weren't. There isn't a clause about sharia islam, or orthodox judaism, nothing about catholicism, or baptistism, or mormons, or 7th day adventists, nothing about hinduism or sikhism. Just the CofE (and the pissing church in wales).
And it's not because all the other are more or less accepting, it's because it was a bullshit inclusion, and it is rightly being challenged.
And do try to remember that because of the equalities act 2010, no-one who can demonstrate religious or philosophical convictions can be forced to do anything contrary to that. Like marry gays, or attend the wedding of gays. But apparently homosexuals having been born into the CofE, have to fuck off somewhere else because of a completely bullshit inclusion.
That's all it is, it isn't religious protection, that already exisited. It was bullshit.
Based on what I know of the churches in the UK (and most of my professional connections are ordained ministers), I'm afraid they are. Especially when you consider that a number of inclusive churches are in the CofE, Methodist, etc., churches that means that they are restricted by church policy to only conduct heterosexual weddings.
Or refuse them a room at a B&B.
As it was, yes. But I think the law having a changed to a "You can if you want" status will mean a lot more churches will feel more free about announcing their acceptance of homosexuals getting married.
You know that's not the same thing. Religious convictions have nothing to do with running a hotel or B&B.
Yes they have when the reason for the refusal was due to the B&B owners'.....religious convictions.
...wasn't quite right then.
I think you're being very pedantic. The point was that their religious convictions in the context of religious activities are important.
I don't think it's pedantic at all - the religious convictions of the B&B owners had no effect in law. Not saying I think that's right or wrong but it proves the above assertion is wrong. If someone runs such a service but declines a room to a gay couple they are acting illegally. So quoting a part of the Equalities Act is a bit pointless in this sense especially when the rights (and feelings) of homosexuals were prevalent over religious beliefs in this case.
They could have done, those beliefs are protected in law. It was a case-by-case judgement. They may matter in a different case in future.
From my 'limited' experience, i've seen that being gay isn't a sin, 2 guys having bum sex is. Correct me if i'm wrong, but there's nothing in the bible about being gay, just gay sex.
It's presumptious of Mr and Mrs Godly B&B to think 2 guys are gonna fuck in their badly decorated hell hole of a house. Would they of turned away an unmarried male/female couple, probably not.
For WHO SO EVER, believeth in me shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Unless thay tacked on 'unless you take it up the arse queer boy' why i wasn't looking.
They could have - but didn't. The original assertion made about the Equality Act was made as if it is absolute - and it isn't.
Anyway far more emphasis has been placed on the B&B thing here than is necessary. My original question point, I really can't see why they're trying to force the CoE to marry them unless it's just an opportunity to "get one over" the church. Perhaps a petulant action for previous persecution.
OK granted - but they are trying to force a change in the law to allow the option of something that the upper echelons are against.
I'm on my way out so I'll reply properly in a bit, but can I just say that "gay" is not a noun. It sounds very derogatory when it's used that way, although I'm sure that was unintentional.
I appreciate your understanding with that but it's another thing that I take issue with. If it sounds derogatory as you say then some people not as understanding as yourself could get really arsey with me for what I said. I mean really, WTF? I confess my unintentional ignorance about certain matters. I'm willing to get onboard with issues once I've got my head around them but when I get that sort of attitude and accusations of being 'offensive' I really just feel like telling them to sling their hook. Obviously not in this case as you've identified that any possible offence on my part was not intentional *hug*
I think you need to toddle off and read the judgment in that case, as opposed to what the Daily Heil reported it as.
The Equality Act does not apply to religious organisations and places of worship, nor does it apply to private members clubs. It does apply to people operating a commercial service for profit, as it rightly should.
She didn't lose her appeal last month because her religious beliefs were not as valuable as gay rights, she lost her appeal because she was trying to argue that she should be allowed to discriminate in a commercial operation. The law specifically prevents that.
In other news, only Church of England clergy are automatically able to legally (as opposed to religiously) marry someone. For all other faiths and denominations a registrar must be present to legally marry someone. So the idea of "go down the street to the other church" doesn't really apply here, because the church down the street probably can't marry you lawfully.
The decision of whether to marry a gay couple, or provide a blessing, or not should be a matter for their personal conscience. It should not be a matter of law. A refusal on grounds of conscience should be provided for in law, just as it is for doctors and pharmacists, but it should not prohibit clergy from exercising their judgement.
It should be a choice. Currently the CofE doesn't have the choice - which seems quite simply daft.
Does that not apply to heterosexuals too then?
It does. Some ministers in other branches of Christianity are licensed, and some churches, for weddings but by no means all and that applies to same-gendered or opposite-gendered couples.
Yeah, it should never be used as a stick, I wasn't trying to make you feel bad but if you don't know then you can't do anything about it.
So it's not like it's an issue that homosexuals should feel marginalised about?
Well you've still missed the point.
If you are CoE and go to the same church every week and are straight and ask your minister and they say yes they are allowed to marry you.
If you are CoE and go to the same church every week and are gay and ask your minister and they say yes they are not allowed to marry you.
If your minister didn't want to marry you for moral reasons (or even if they just didn't like you very much), thats a different aspect. This is about your relationship with your church where they may accept you and your sexuality and want to allow you to get married, but the law prohibits them. You have to go to the 'gay' church to get married.
Your argument is just as indefensible as saying segregation was ok because 'well there were still schools for black people, just different schools'.
I would feel pretty marginalised about it too.
I don't think so (although the question I just asked remains). My point has always been why someone would want to marry in an organisation which by-and-large does not want them to.
Because to many people, faith is not something they can pick and choose.