Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Gay Marriage

123457

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if hetro divorcees who want to re-marry in a Catholic Church are able to find other ways.....?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    It's not "the organisation", different ministers and churches may have their own views. Every other denomination has choice at this church level. CoE for some reason has (presumably because senior Tory political scientists said it would poll well) a legal bar on performing the service.

    Add in the fact that CoE is the largest and the official denomination, many of its members and ministers who would be fully supportive of gay marriage (like the rest of the population are), but are being denied the right to take part in these ceremonies by the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There isn't any "by and large". Every congregation is different.

    I had a CoE marriage and I was wed by a female vicar. Some congregations don't want women vicars. This one did, so this one had a female vicar. Choices, innit.

    There have been plenty of CoE vicars who have blessed countless civil partnerships, but now they're not allowed to.

    Besides which, a CoE vicar has to marry any straight couple living in the parish that want to be wed. A CoE vicar cannot marry any gay couple living in the parish that want to be wed. I'm all for removing both those barriers, allowing vicars to exercise their discretion and judgement.
    But if hetro divorcees who want to re-marry in a Catholic Church are able to find other ways.....?

    They're not able to find other ways.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if hetro divorcees who want to re-marry in a Catholic Church are able to find other ways.....?

    TBH that's discrimination as well as far as I can see, though the individual catholic parish or whatever they call it should have the choice (though the Catholic church does seem more hierarchical).

    Every human has the inalieble human right to get married. All we're doing is getting the law to reflect that, naturally. Individuals shouldn't have to perform religious ceremonies which are against their personal religious beliefs. Though doctor's opting out of abortion for moral reasons is wrong imo.

    The whole point is that in this case the ENTIRE CoE, by law, has been told they must not grant marriages to homosexual couples regardless of the parishioners actual feelings. A Catholic priest could, if he had a marriage licence, grant a legally recognised marriage to divorcees if he wanted to (but then he would probably be murdered or something by the Papacy :p).

    edit: didn't realise CoE vicars were also compelled by law to marry hetero couples. As Arctic said, I think that too should be choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    TBH that's discrimination as well as far as I can see, though the individual catholic parish or whatever they call it should have the choice (though the Catholic church does seem more hierarchical).

    It's not really discrimination though. The Catholic teaching is that marriage is until death parts the couple, and that you can't be married polygamously. They do not recognise divorce. Therefore a divorcee cannot marry in a Catholic church because they already have a spouse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The state recognises the divorce though (assuming if its done properly), so it would be legally fine if they decided to sign the marriage document. The fact that you wouldn't find a catholic priest willing to marry you is just testament to how dogmatic those pesky catholics are ;) (I'm actually from a Catholic background and both my parents were divorced and remarried, but I think probably in a registry office because money)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Catholic priests are not automatically licensed to marry though. Many cannot legally marry someone, only religiously, so you need to pay a registrar to attend too.

    I don't think it is dogma so much as taking "till death do us part" literally.

    It can work other ways too. They probably wouldn't recognise my marriage as it was in a CoE church without the consent of the Catholic Bishop ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not really discrimination though. The Catholic teaching is that marriage is until death parts the couple, and that you can't be married polygamously. They do not recognise divorce. Therefore a divorcee cannot marry in a Catholic church because they already have a spouse.

    Catholic teaching is that 2 men or 2 women cannot get married, but that IS discrimination though right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No one is stopping the Catholic church from marrying two people of the same sex, or divorcees. The Catholic churches are making that decision themselves. The option hasn't been removed from the church and enshrined in law - which is the key difference between this and the situation with the CofE.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My question hasn't been answered though.

    And neither has my suggestion that if heterosexual divorcees want to re-marry in a Catholic church, instead of trying to get things changed they simply seem able to go to another church that will marry them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Catholic teaching is that 2 men or 2 women cannot get married, but that IS discrimination though right?

    I think I would actually argue that it is, but nevertheless we have inserted the 'no religious ceremony with religious/moral objections' clause so that's that. The law states if you have a religious objection you don't have to perform the religious ceremony, with the exception of a Church of England vicar and a straight couple who might be forced to perform the ceremony for the person who killed their whole family...

    I personally believe anyone depriving someone of their inalieable human rights (though I am not sure of my opinion on polygamy - tricky subject!) because of either their orientation or because they're divorced. I think people have the right to get divorced and shouldn't have their rights compromised either.

    But my personal beliefs are one thing. As things stand it seems like we have a compromise: if you are performing a religious ceremony you should have a religious or moral opt out. CoE churches don't have this opt out - they are forced out by law. This discriminates against all LGBT people who are CoE denomination. Yes, they can go to their local 'gay friendly' church and have the ceremony performed there, but why should they have to just because of who they like kissing. Replace LGBT and gay in this paragraph with the word black and see how you feel about it then. At least most modern religions tend to be above white supremacy in their religious books...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    But my personal beliefs are one thing. As things stand it seems like we have a compromise: if you are performing a religious ceremony you should have a religious or moral opt out. CoE churches don't have this opt out - they are forced out by law. This discriminates against all LGBT people who are CoE denomination. Yes, they can go to their local 'gay friendly' church and have the ceremony performed there, but why should they have to just because of who they like kissing. Replace LGBT and gay in this paragraph with the word black and see how you feel about it then. At least most modern religions tend to be above white supremacy in their religious books...

    It just seems to me that for some reason hetro divorcees who want to remarry in a catholic church seem able to deal with it a lot better than homosexual couples who want to get married in one type of church only.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not the same though. There's no law that says Catholic churches are banned from performing marriages for divorcees. The fact is Catholic priests won't because like I said, the Catholic church is extremely hierarchical with very little autonomy, so the opinion of the priest is kind of irrelevant as they will use the 'religious objection' clause, as they've been told to by the Bishop or whatever.

    Also, I'm sure a lot of LGBT will deal with it just fine and go to a church that is more inclusive or non CoE denomination. These are not whinging moaners. They're asking why they have to go to 'gay people' churches. Are they second class citizens? If their vicar says 'sorry but I just don't like the idea of gay marriage because of my religious belief' then that's his opt out. If their vicar says 'I want to marry you' Mr. Moral Government comes in and says "No, we won't recognise that union because you're a bunch of gays. This church is for straights only." Would the police come and stop the groom and groom entering? The government does no such thing for divorcees. If anything Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg would probably agree the state has no place telling churches whether they can or can't marry divorcees.

    Honestly remember that everyone already has these rights. They're not something anyone can remove from you. If there was no government, no church of england, no bible - you are human and can still say you have married another human. Marriage predates all organised religion. The problem is getting the Government of the UK to recognise that you have exercised these rights and are now in a married union, and giving you the rights and privileges that come with that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It just seems to me this is more than because one thing is written in law. It feels more like trying to prove a point simply for the sake of proving a point. It's not as if they are not being stopped from getting married, just not in the church they want. That seems a just a little niche for it to be purely about a law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On segregation: it's not like black kids can't go to school, just not the one they want. (even if the teachers and pupils and parents are happy for them to go there)

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which schools are refusing black kids?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's actually about the government feeling the need to put what it thinks the CofE should be doing into law, and controlling the actions of the CofE through law.

    The government haven't felt the need to interfere with other religious establishments having the choice to make their own decision - so why the CofE?

    (and obviously CofE includes CofW in what I type)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's actually about the government feeling the need to put what it thinks the CofE should be doing into law, and controlling the actions of the CofE through law.

    The government haven't felt the need to interfere with other religious establishments having the choice to make their own decision - so why the CofE?

    (and obviously CofE includes CofW in what I type)

    Isn't it because the CoE is the State Church of England and because the CoE asked Ministers to (I also don't think it does cover Church of Wales as its disestablished). Unlike the other churches various things the CoE can do and can't do are often included in statute (same in Scotland for Church of Scotland) as it's not a church independent of the state
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which schools are refusing black kids?

    It's an analogy to demonstrate why the 'they can do it elsewhere' argument doesn't fly

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Straw man.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A straw man is where I make your argument to be about something it's not. So if i pretended you thought lgbt people should be murdered.

    I haven't done that, I've used an analogy to indicate that we wouldn't tolerate a similar situation if it was race because we've moved on as a society.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're asking me to comment on a scenario which you've admitted isn't real. I can't and won't do that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not, I'm using an analogy to demonstrate why 'other options are available for' can still be discriminatory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, I'm not going to comment on a scenario that by your own admission doesn't exist. I have no experience of it, I cannot witness it happening, you have no evidence for it so any opinion made based on it will be worthless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is a rather weird discussion. Are you familiar with the concept of an analogy?

    I mean sure, call me out and say it's a False analogy if you like.
    P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
    Object P has been observed to have further property x.
    Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

    LGBT persons and BME persons are similar in respect to being minority groups, marginalised groups, and protected by equality legislation

    BME persons are rightly protected by law and morally from segregation (that is, having to use facilities that cater to their group)

    Therefore, LGBT persons should probably be protected by law and morally from segregation as well, by being permitted to marry in churches that non-lgbt people can marry in (pending the individual church's agreement)



    The point I am making is that simply because there is a facility for [marginalised group] to use, it does not mean that they're not being subject to discrimination. It's better than nothing I agree, but that doesn't mean it's good enough.

    If you were having a meal with your family and they gave you just a breadstick (sorry, using another analogy), yes its better than no food at all, but you would still want to be able to enjoy the full meal the same as the rest of your family.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, I'm not going to comment on a scenario that by your own admission doesn't exist. I have no experience of it, I cannot witness it happening, you have no evidence for it so any opinion made based on it will be worthless.

    By your reasoning, unless you have experience in terms of gay marriage, should you then be avoiding making comments on it then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    By your reasoning, unless you have experience in terms of gay marriage, should you then be avoiding making comments on it then?

    Yes, when I posted something about this on my FB status the first comment was from a gay mate of mine who said:
    I don't get it either. Go somewhere where they'll like you, you stubborn gits!

    I make it damned clear that I'm gay on my CV. I *want* homophobes to reject my job applications: I don't want to work somewhere where I'll be hated!

    We went on to have a chat about how he thinks it's a bit of a drama. OK that's just one person but that's 1 more than anyone I can speak to about being black preventing them attending a particular school.

    But ok, let's assume the analogy about the black kids is true (which we have established is questionable at best, not true at worst), that indeed is unfair. But life is unfair to all of us in some way or another. No I'm not saying we should just sit there and take it - however the point I've made all along is that they are not being prevented from getting married, just not in the church they want. Sounds worryingly close to being 'spoilt brats' to me. Getting things changed for the sake of getting things changed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think you understand what an analogy is.

    He's using it to show that we wouldn't accept that happening, so why are we willing to accept a similar injustice just because it's a different minority group?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But life is unfair to all of us in some way or another. No I'm not saying we should just sit there and take it - however the point I've made all along is that they are not being prevented from getting married, just not in the church they want. Sounds worryingly close to being 'spoilt brats' to me. Getting things changed for the sake of getting things changed.

    I agree with the first bit - life is unfair.

    I don't agree that trying to get a fairer lot out of this unfair life is akin to being a spoilt brat.

    Were women spoilt brats when they said "Hey - it's not fair we don't get a say in our democracy?" and demanded the vote?

    Were children's advocates being spoilt brats when they said "Hey - it's not fair that children are being made to work at 12"?

    Were Irish dissidents being spoilt brats when said "Hey - it's not fair we can be interned with no legal recourse"?

    The whole point of the human rights movement is to try to make things fairer. There is obviously, as I think you are alluding to, an issue of priorities. But they have literally just been writing this law and getting through the courts, and it was nearly there. Why leave something discriminatory in it - something unfair - when they had the opportunity to remove it?
  • tkdogtkdog Posts: 258 The Mix Regular
    While I don't support the idea of marriage as a institution overall I support equal rights to it and it makes things easier for gay people and for them to be visible, decrease violence etc. Although it is worrying normalising something that is in some countries at least dying off. And that the fact the only way for gay people to be seen equal is for them to mimic heterosexual couples. It also hasn't led to the recognition of other sorts of relationships and things like polyamory. 
    The pressure of getting married has increases again.
This discussion has been closed.