Gay Marriage

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

Different faith systems have every right in the world to officially condemn homosexuality.

:roll: Not if it’s a fit lesbian couple, surely?

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

Different faith systems have every right in the world to officially condemn homosexuality. If them’s the rules, them’s the rules.
Do I personally? Absolutely not.
Should civil, constitutional law? Absolutely not.

We also have the right to question those rules, religion has evolved over time… its acceptable to question and lobby for change…society changes…so should the church. Just to say them’s the rules suggests take it or leave it…..maybe thats why our churches are empty…….. maybe :D

The church argument clouds the issue…it really has nothing to do with the church or religion.

Marriage is not controlled by the Church, it is controlled by legislation and a change to the legislation would not force religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages if they opposed it. Granting gay people the right to get married would not give them the right to marry in church, whatever denomination they are, any more than it gives divorcees the right to marry in church.

Take religion and the church out of the argument; now what do people think?

HeHe well spotted pundling 8)

Yep Jen, I don’t see why there should be any impediment to the legality of gay marriage under state law.
The church issue was raised in scept’s original post and Reigions right to object and I do agree with Mrs T, but unfortunately some established faiths do not have the best of records on “evolving”.
I’m certainly not saying I agree with such a stance, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that there has never been a rush to change fundamental views and principles , let alone one as seemingly radical as this.
The whole notion of progressive Religion is a deeply complex one I guess, as some would see Religion based on the very foundation of certain core absolutes.
A difficult one indeed.
In fairness, some institutions have taken steps with varying degrees of success.. Some of the Anglican communities for example.

@panda12 wrote:

If that’s the case, then the Church and marriage laws cannot be separated. If Parliament passes the law allowing same sex marriages then surely the Church of E and W must abide by the law and allow the ceremonies and carry them out, without prejudice?

The law allows remarriage of divorcees, but churches and clergy are still free to refuse to do so. The law says that women should be treated equally, but clergy and churches are free to refuse access to ordination to women and to make specific provision for those who refuse to be served by a woman (or even by anyone who has been served by a woman).

I think christian groups tacitly recognise the hypocrisy. I have heard wedding sermon after wedding sermon where one of the purposes of marriage was to prevent promiscuity . But the opposition to gay marriage is being solely explained in terms of marriage being for raising children. Christian groups have made great claims of gays being more promiscuous than heterosexuals, so it seems hypocritical to do so while excluding them from the practice which is meant to prevent promiscuity.

Churches will maintain the right to refuse to marry gays, but the entrenched and unreasonable nature of this refusal will be exposed.