EPTUK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. | ||
Waxangel
United States33079 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote: Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual? | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote: Marriage literally predates religions such as Christianity by at least 5000 years. Marriage is very much so a religious concept. Just because it predates Christianity doesn't make it a secular one - it's not the only religion in the world. As far as I know, marriage was always very ritualistic and heavily based on whatever beliefs the society held at the time. I wish modern societies moved towards and promoted the civil partnership concept (for everybody) a long time ago. | ||
KwarK
United States41959 Posts
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote: Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom. You have failed to read and to understand his post. Following the foundation of the Church of England there were a series of religious conflicts in which orthodoxy was enforced by the state, men who translated the Bible into English were burned for example. This is comparable to that and it is certainly not religion bashing, it's a point regarding the relationship between church and state | ||
|
lonelyPotato
Australia158 Posts
Also, the fact that 95% of people who get married in general under Christian lore most likely are condemned to hell anyway, just due to the simple fact that they haven't followed some small little text in the bible. "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men ... whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matthew 12:31-32". (We are all fucked) Their is already so much corruption, most people who get married aren't actually avid in terms of being Spiritual. If someone asks me personally if I'm religious, I can't exactly say that I am a Christian, but if I were to get married, I would most certainly get married under Christian pretenses. It's gotten corrupt to the point where it's just hypocritical not to allow Gays to get married, but we allow every single other sinning doomed to hell person get married (Doomed to hell under current texts). I say let gays get married and good on them, it seems like marriage these days is just for show and has no real meaning to it anyways. PS. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, in fact, if we are following the current scriptures I would be doomed to hell 400,000 times over... probably like most people. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing. Lets not pretend that religion created marriage because that is not true. On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote: Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual? As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
If moral objection is an excuse not to render a service that you normally offer to the public, OK... but then everyone gets that right. Not just religious figures. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On December 12 2012 18:51 tomatriedes wrote: Until 1978 the Mormon church didn't allow blacks to be ordained, but change happened without any direct government intervention. I think it's better if churches are given the chance to modernize independently as heavy-handed government interference will likely cause resentment. If it was the case that gays had no other way to get married outside of discriminatory religious organizations it would be different but as it stands there are other options. I can only imagine what kind of severe reaction there would be from Muslims in the UK if their organizations were forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gays. I happen to agree. Institutions will modernise independently of the mainstream and eventually the Church and similar institutions will give way. All it requires is the mainstream to change. That is all I am concerned about. Forcing churches to marry gay couples is not going to accomplish that. All it is going to do is form a hideous wrangling where backwater Tories try and push the issue through the courts. We don't want that - we definitely don't need people quoting freedom of speech in favour of what is essentially bigotry. Much better to exclude them by law, let people choose whether they want to engage with such obviously homophobic institutions and let them change over time as they have done over the last few hundred years. Give the CofE 30 years or so and they will catch up, assuming they have any congregation left by that time. | ||
|
cinnabun
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
| ||
|
HaniStream
Canada50 Posts
However I believe the notion of gay marriage is a major absurdity for the simple fact that "gay marriage" doesn't exist. Marriage does. Between men, women and both. An analogy for this would be a "gay car", which is not a car for gay people because "gay cars" don't exist. Gays use cars. In a similar way, gays don't get gay married, they get married. For certain, someday, I'll have to explain to my kids why their History teacher told them a while ago blacks were slaves. And great shame will haunt me (for I am white and so were my fathers). For certain, someday, I'll have to explain why gays didn't have equal rights. And great shame will haunt me once more (for I live in a time where gays are still viewed as more different then any other bloke). An issue like this reveals humanity as it really is: utter shit. We are flawed in every possible way and we strive to hate each other. As a whole, we are so viciously stupid that our combined average intelligence is lower than the average intelligence of each individual. (I'm not sure my english is clear here. I mean that ten united people's intelligence divided by ten is lower than ten seperate people's intelligence divided by ten. However this is true on a huge scale such as we now have.) I don't believe discrimination should be allowed outside of a private context. Everyone should have the right to hate anyone inside their own home, but outside that private residence, it shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is often a state recognized institution and benefits from the government's help (tax exemption, for one). Therefore, it shouldn't be considered "private" and discrimination shouldn't be tolerated. In the end, change is never an easy process. This change will come and those who oppose it will stand proud, covering everyone else with shame. This pattern isn't new because History repeats itself. It's funny to think how we could explain ourselves in front of a superior intelligence. "Well, we really didn't like them (very long list of people) because they looked different and we weren't ready for it yet, so we didn't treat them as equals. Can you, O very powerful aliens, consider us as equals, please?" They shouldn't. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but what will happen is: All major religions will opt-in. Same sex marriage will not be performed by any major religions in the UK, while hetrosexual marriage will continue to be performed in churches. There will be no grounds for homosexual couples to take a church to court for discrimination over refusing to marry them. What am I missing? | ||
|
Martyrc
217 Posts
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote: what? Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual? Ancient greece. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
I think the bigger problem here is the homosexual couples wanting to get married in religious settings that clearly want nothing to do with them. Time to find a more open-minded higher power. Keep in mind that this is all assuming homosexual couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, and are just seeking a religious ceremony to go along with it. It is my opinion that religious institutions should be able to decide who they perform ceremonies for on whatever basis they deem appropriate. All that shit is arbitrary anyways. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 13 2012 00:41 ZasZ. wrote: Honestly, churches should be able to refuse to marry gay couples if that is against their religious beliefs. As long as there is a way for a homosexual couple to be married in the eyes of the law, with all the same bells and whistles heterosexual couples get, religious institutions should be allowed to marry whoever the hell they want. It's called the separation of church and state, and these are all private organizations (albeit large) free to conduct themselves however they like. I think the bigger problem here is the homosexual couples wanting to get married in religious settings that clearly want nothing to do with them. Time to find a more open-minded higher power. Keep in mind that this is all assuming homosexual couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, and are just seeking a religious ceremony to go along with it. It is my opinion that religious institutions should be able to decide who they perform ceremonies for on whatever basis they deem appropriate. All that shit is arbitrary anyways. The Church of England is the state religion here in the UK. This gives them representation in the house of lords. Our church and our state is not separated. | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
I think it does. I'm surprised churches are allowing them to use the word Marry, but I'm not going to complain. I don't think you can change religions and FORCE them to accept gays into their churches or even marry them. I think of churches or religions like clubs - You can't join a club that's only for women if you're a man, right? It's a restriction the club is giving. If a church says you can't join their church because they believe that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin, it's no different than that same women only club claiming that being a man is a sin. It's absurd either way to a lot of people, but it's not belief you can take away from someone. If you feel left you, then welcome to real life. Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual? If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights? I don't see why not? We allow a lot of other groups to do this. Black college grants? Boy Scouts of America? The club example I gave above? Discrimination is not something you can make against the law in our society because everyone discriminates whether or not they want to admit it. You know certain stereotypes don't work in your belief system, so you avoid them. That's discrimination. Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far? Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct? No, I don't think so. It's funny because a lot of my answers I bet sound like i'm christian, but I don't even believe in a deity. I just think that while homosexuals should be able to marry, there's no way you can stop someone's belief that the idea is wrong. There are people out there who think stealing is ok as long as it's from those who don't need (Robin Hood), and those who don't believe in stealing at all, yet both sides have a point right? it's only about who you agree with. What this comes down to was that homosexuals were technically being treated as second class, but the only thing it felt religions were afraid of was that they would have to compromise their beliefs, whatever that may be, for laws. No religion or person wants to face that, so I think the UK did a great job of compromising. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 13 2012 00:45 hzflank wrote: The Church of England is the state religion here in the UK. This gives them representation in the house of lords. Our church and our state is not separated. Hrm, didn't know that. But it's my understanding that what you currently have for homosexual couples is essentially "marriage" in that it conveys the same benefits as marriage does to heterosexual couples, it just isn't called marriage. I can understand wanting to be able to call it marriage, but I'm not sure if that warrants its own legislation. I can't understand wanting to force religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies that they are uncomfortable with, for whatever reason. But if there is a legal precedent for not allowing private organizations to discriminate as they see fit, as mentioned in the OP, I suppose that is what the UK wants. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
The idea that marriage has to be embedded with religious institutions I feel is outdated, infact I feel that the idea that marriage has to be embedded with in government jurisdiction itself is also outdated. Individuals should have the ability, freedom, and also the avenue of pursuing marriage or civil union without the restriction of state or religious affiliation. But for much of the world's populace the two concepts are deeply embedded with in each other, and I can understand that and accept that, as long as it's on an individual decision basis where the right to both decline and accept exist. If you remove the right to choice in this respect, or monopolize the avenue, I see it as an infringement of the rights of the individual. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church. I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. | ||
| ||
