There was that argument here in Ireland too, and there is a case for it. It would be ridiculously onerous to do so though and just doesn't stack up.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There was that argument here in Ireland too, and there is a case for it. It would be ridiculously onerous to do so though and just doesn't stack up.
Just on that last point, I'd add again - is it not great that in a lot of countries we can disentangle that intertwining and not get murdered for it? They're not intertwined in a lot of countries.
On the edit, lawyers here in Ireland did sterling work putting together a spreadsheet of all of the differences before the referendum here between civil partnership and marriage. There were 21 key differences, related to separation, next of kin, priveleges in a court of law, constitutional protection vs legislative protection, etc
I wasn't calling you a bigot directly although such discriminstion is bourne out of bigotry.
Why do you care what a non-religious activity is named? Call it something different for one group of people and that is discriminatory. Sexual apartheid.
Last edited:
Civil legal marriage has no religious connection and this is what is being discussed. The religious version has little or no legal standing on it's own in most countries. Nobody is talking about forcing religions to perform gay religious marriages so why the religious should object (apart from they hate gays because God told them so) to a change in the civil ceremony to give everyone the same legal rights as each other is beyond me.
Nope, that's another myth you can add to the list of shit religious people have made up to justify their bigoted ideology. Marriage far predates all the religions you lot follow. The shit they spout about marriage now is a collection of myths invented at some point in the last century entirely designed to keep homosexuals as second class citizens. Their historical accuracy is on par with Noah's magical boat.
Last edited:
I've pondered this for a long time and come to the conclusion it's out of fear and fear of change. Also, many religious people take things that are denounced in the bible extremely personally. I know it's ironic because the core teachings of religion is supposed to be acceptance and tolerance, but the truth is fear controls the masses.
Many are fearful of change, they don't like or can't accept it, and many religious people see each new law that most see as giving freedom to people (abortion, gay marriage) as taking away their religion and stomping on their beliefs. They take it personally and many see it as the demise of something that is of great importance in their lives.
Each law passed that contradicts the teachings of their holy books is another step towards the death of their faiths and in their eyes, a step closer to hell on earth. Many will believe this, but many are also clever enough to see that this trend ultimately only ends in one way, and that is the death of religion as we know it. I doubt it will ever truly die, but I do believe it will have to adapt and change to continue in modern society. People will have to start reading the texts differently and stop taking everything so literally, because if they don't it's guaranteed that Religion as we know it will cease to exist the more attitudes in society change and the more information is shared around the world via the internet.
The next versions of the religions will have the exact same problem. People will take in the version their parents liked, make it suit themselves a little bit, then 30 or 40 years later they'll faced with a society telling them how archaic their views are and will throw their toys out of the pram. It's just what happens when you commit yourself to books written by cave dwelling charlatans. They're not built for our times. Any ideology claiming to be the final definitive truth will struggle in a world that's constantly changing.
Last edited:
Exactly! But the more the world progresses and the more people have access to information the wiser the world will eventually become. I honestly feel that groups like ISIS will eventually be responsible for their own downfall. Attacks like the recent ones in Paris actually hurt their cause more than anything because I firmly believe they turn more people off than on. But you only need a leader like Trump or Cruz to feck it all up and give meaning to their cause. It's difficult to fight against someone like Obama when all his policies have been more olive branch than cluster bomb.
What any of this has to do with Gay Marriage I am not really sure. My apologies for derailing the thread.
@Jerch you need to get back here and get it back on topic.
@Jerch you need to get back here and get it back on topic.
Not totally irrelevant since the justification for discriminating against gay people is religious in nature.
I don't entirely agree with that tbh. It may applies wherever the Abrahamic religions hold/held sway but most of East Asia for example is just as discriminatory towards the LGBTQ and there were no official religious doctrine condemning them. IMHO, the justification for discriminating against gay stemmed mostly from patriarchy and the idea of nuclear family, so to speak.
We are discussing marriage equality in countries where the Abrahamic religions hold sway.
Last edited:
Those two always go together
I just think religion is less of an issue in these discussion than we'd like to portray them to be. Minorities rights in general are suppressed in socially backward and economically disadvantaged parts of the world, it just happens that those conditions are also perfect for religious indoctrination.
I think it's the other way round. Gay couples wish to have priest or religious figures ordain the marriage. Not all of them, but some do.
I'm sure gay people who are religious would like that but no marriage equality law changes are considering such a thing. This is purely about having legal civil marriage for all and avoiding gay people having to do with either nothing or a second class civil union arrangement.
True but in developed nations the (primarily Christian) religious right is the prime mover against marriage equality.
Let's not forget the Catholic Church and former Popes being partially responsible for the spread of Aids (and other diseases) and a population problem throughout the world, especially Africa, because they continually refuse to condone the use of condoms or other forms of contraception. It's also true that homosexuals have been in hiding for centuries because laws that were derived from religious texts have always made homosexuality a crime, and often punishable by severely strict laws, and sometimes even death.
There are seriously bigoted and hateful people out there that just hate gays, period, but I should think that the largest percentage of people against gay marriage, or against it enough to vote against it, or campaign against it, would be religious people doing so because it goes against their beliefs and faith. It's only fair to mention though, that I know a fair amount of religious people who hate the perception they are all against it, and are completely fine with everyone having equal rights.
My mate who is an Anglican minister who became a civil celebrant so that he could perform civil unions for gay couples. He was also heavily involved in inter-faith reconciliation. Neither stance made him very popular with the powers that be of course.
Here in Australia our fairly extreme right wing government has been blocking marriage equality for ages. We have a new more moderate PM now so I guess we may revisit the issue after the next election (he is beholden to the right wing of his party at the moment). The electorate are firmly in favor but the right religious right wing white blokes know better.
Let's not forget religious lobbies in developed nations are the most active in suppressing sex education as well, which has a direct link to the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It just happens that their effect has been more devastating in the less developed parts of Africa.
Good point, also the fact that RE is still a mandatory lesson for many kids up to a certain age and the vast majority of primary schools in the UK are Catholic or Christian/C of E schools so it's still taught and practised to kids from a very early age.
Yeah, I've read a few articles about it and seen a bit on the news, at least there is more hope for the future now. I'm sure it will happen soon, although I am surprised it hasn't happened before now for a couple of reasons, but mainly because of how well the gun laws were accepted 20 years ago.
Good luck with that, Labours have no balls and Liberals are bigots.
I'd like to think positively on this issue but the fact is with the way the economy is doing now, gay rights have been relegated to the back of people' minds. Can't see it become a reality here for at least the next 6 years.
I have no qualm with this never happening in the religions we have here, who are against it. That's not what was on the table and it should never be on the table.
I have to say though, we had months and months of debate here and not one person said they wanted gay marriage in a church, can you support that claim?
Why on earth would gay couples, who are treated as second class citizens by a given religion want to have a priest/minister marry them? I mean, I can't speak for them all, but I'd wager it's a very, very small percentage want to get married in any sort of religious restablsihment. Any gay couples/people that I know just want to get married and have the same rights a heterosexual couple do.
In secular India, a heartwarming display of unity saw Hindu, Muslim, and Christian groups join hands (the government did not join them in fighting to uphold a law) in the supreme court to re-instate gay sex as illegal. They won.
Don't worry. I dislike all religion, not just Christianity.
Such as the right to get married in a church for example?
Not sure anyone has that right.
That's correct, getting married in a place of worship isn't a right. It's got nothing to do with the civil law of the land.
Not discriminating on the grounds of sexuality is also a civil law of the land right?
It's got nothing to do with discrimination, nor has it actually got anything to do with sexuality. Any religion has the right to set its own rules, which includes its own definition of marriage. Divorced people can't get married in the Catholic Church (or in some Protestant denominations). Some religions require a period of preparation before a religious wedding can take place.
We can't even get our civil marriage blessed in my own church (which I attend every week), as I still have a living ex-husband. It's just something you accept and respect.
The civil law of the land allowed me to get married after a lawful divorce. The same laws apply to gay couples, and if they get divorced, they can remarry if they wish. We have the same rights.
Last edited:
To each their own.
My take is that renting the church is a commercial transaction... And like a bnb or baking a cake it's a transactional service that should be available to all... Not saying a priest could be made to conduct the service but if money changes hands to rent the church then that part imo should be available to all and then bring your own registrar etc.
At a minimum I feel tax efficient status should not be available to those institutions not complying with this though I'd feel comfortable with closing the place down or massive fines.
Of course if a church did not charge a rental fee then that would be different
This will never be permitted.
It is written in the bible that Homosexuality is a sin.
- Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
- Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
No white text?
Would you expect Muslims to rent out a Mosque to non Muslims and allow them to cook Pork inside?
I'm not a religious person but I do believe that Religious views should be accepted.
The Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination. Why would you expect them to "rent" the church out to allow a gay marriage when it's not accepted by that religion?
Churches vary. In Catholic marriage, you normally make a donation as a courtesy, but you don't have to pay anything if you can't afford it. Marriage is one of the Sacraments, it's freely given. It's not like hiring a civil registrar to conduct a ceremony in an hotel (as we did, and it was quite expensive).
Priests in the Archdiocese of Liverpool earn a princely £9,000 a year. They all get the same, whether in a poor or a wealthy parish. It's not about the money.
Dude, I'm not religious at all. I couldn't care less whether two men want to bum each other or two women want to become members of the munch bunch. I say good luck to people and have plenty of gay friends.
I also know some very religious people that follow every word of the bible. One guy I know believed that there was no water on the earth until the great flood in Noah's Ark!! Crazy shit!
My point is, that if homosexuality is a big no no in the bible, gay marriages in a church will never be accepted by the most devout.
Yes it's not like they pick and choose already...
I wonder how many churches won't marry people who eat bacon sandwiches (leviticus 11:14)
Or won't marry people with tattoos (leviticus 19:28)
In fact as women are banned from speaking in churches the whole marriage vow thing it's self seems strange (Corinthians 14:34)
And obviously they ban people wearing suits / wedding dresses made of more than one material (leviticus 19:9)
And they refuse to marry people offering seafood platters at the reception (leviticus 10:11)
Presumably they don't have to refuse to marry anybody who works in Sundays as they will have already executed them? (exodus 31: 14-15