UK Government Stance on Gay Marriage

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We're fast reaching a stage where we need to consider whether the Established Church should continue to be established. The recent decision prohibiting women bishops (while allowing women priests) is a theological nonsense - the CofE has decided that women can be priests but cannot do the management job that is involved in being a bishop. The present CofE objections to gay marriage are similarly ridiculous. We seem to have reached the situation where they are desperately offended even at the idea of being permitted to conduct a gay marriage. Curiously banning them might actually work - but they need to be relegated to the territory of religious nut jobs.

The media keep reporting that Quakers and Unitarians have no objections. I wonder what impact the publicity will have on attendance.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The recent decision prohibiting women bishops (while allowing women priests) is a theological nonsense -
Hardly unprecedented then.

the CofE has decided that women can be priests but cannot do the management job that is involved in being a bishop.
Reminds you of big industry, doesnt it?

We seem to have reached the situation where they are desperately offended even at the idea of being permitted to conduct a gay marriage.
The report I heard said the Cof E had not been consulted, Cameron had decided by fiat that he would not permit it. (or someone twisted his arm)

The media keep reporting that Quakers and Unitarians have no objections. I wonder what impact the publicity will have on attendance.
I assume the Quakers are more in tune with their congregations. i did hear it said that the CofE refusal to allow bishops was because the congregational delegates had been packed with anti-female representatives despite congregations being in favour of the change, because no one realised this was to be the major voting issue. As to gay marriage, this struck me as quite a fundamental issue if the national church refuses to marry you, despite its established nature and the obligation on it to perform marriages of the normal sort and other services for parishioners, yet other churches will. I dont have any problem if specific clergy want to opt out, but banning the whole thing by act of parliament...
 
Last edited:
S

superbot

Guest
I have to say I am STILL getting more and more perturbed by Camerons near forcing this issue down peoples' throats.If there was a genuine hard core demand for actual marriage then I would be less suspicious.What seems to me to be happening is that the LGBT (self serving gravy-train) are trying to push their own agenda under the guise that a)they are the VOICE of all gay people and b) that they have some sort of mandate to to dictate terms on my behalf.
Frankly these organizations, and the likes of Tatchell, need to realize that we don't all sing from the same songsheet and also politians need to realize that these small minority groups, with an agenda, are representitive of a certain way of thinking only.
There are many gay Christians who feel as if the Churches are going to be,in time,bludgeoned into having to conduct these services and possibly be forced by law to do so,despite what Cameron says.It all sounds much like collective state bullying without allowing people to have a conscience.
From what I can see,I see no real ground swell of demand from gay men for marriage at all.Even Civil Partnerships are the exceptionand not the norm.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have to say I am STILL getting more and more perturbed by Camerons near forcing this issue down peoples' throats.If there was a genuine hard core demand for actual marriage then I would be less suspicious.What seems to me to be happening is that the LGBT (self serving gravy-train) are trying to push their own agenda under the guise that a)they are the VOICE of all gay people and b) that they have some sort of mandate to to dictate terms on my behalf.
Hmm. Apparently opinion polls say there is a big majority of people in the UK who think same sex couples should be allowed to marry just like mixed sex couples. So this is more allowing the public to have what it wants rather than ramming things down throats.

The most peculiar thing about this is that it FORBIDS the church of England from marrying mixed couples. The second biggest group is presumably catholics who are pretty hard against this sort of thing and the proposal gives them the clear legal right to refuse, so it seems to me this measure will do more to ban gay marriage than allow it. The Church of england left to itself is heading towards seeking the right to carry out gay marriages, whereas this bill clearly says the government will not allow it, so they should just shut up.

It may be that this bill anticipates legal challenges both on moral and human rights grounds to discrimination against gay couples, and what they are seeking to do is grant rights to churches to refuse to marry gay people.
 
Last edited:

bigred0818

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
227
Media
0
Likes
84
Points
188
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Personally, as long as I have the same rights in my partnership as a straight couple, I don't care what it is called or where I get it done. The name "marriage" automatically suggests a religious institution where the couples union is "blessed by god". The reason Cameron isn't forcing churches to conduct gay marriages is simply because the church (aside from Unitarian) doesn't not condone homosexual relationships. But honestly, who would want to be blessed by a group of miguided, fairytale worshippers that obviously doesn't want them in their group? (Who would want to be in their group to start with?!) It's almost like a black person getting bent out of shape because he can't join the Ku Klux Klan. However, this whole Church and State mess is getting entirely out of hand (see the recent American Presidential race), and is an entirely different debate.

So on to my point - The implications of gay "marriage" is HUGE! If the UK finally have the label of gay marriage, instead of just a civil partnership. The impact throughout the globe would be immense, especially in the fight for equal marriage rights in the US. It would hopefully cause a well deserved push for the US, creating a whole new wave of pressure on the US government to follow suit. So really, who cares what Cameron does (even if he is a complete tool), as long as he carries on calling it "Gay Marriage"! Go, Cameron! Set the standard for the rest of the world to follow! (Except, maybe, Uganda... Shit's crazy over there!)
 
S

superbot

Guest
Personally, as long as I have the same rights in my partnership as a straight couple, I don't care what it is called or where I get it done. The name "marriage" automatically suggests a religious institution where the couples union is "blessed by god". The reason Cameron isn't forcing churches to conduct gay marriages is simply because the church (aside from Unitarian) doesn't not condone homosexual relationships. But honestly, who would want to be blessed by a group of miguided, fairytale worshippers that obviously doesn't want them in their group? (Who would want to be in their group to start with?!) It's almost like a black person getting bent out of shape because he can't join the Ku Klux Klan. However, this whole Church and State mess is getting entirely out of hand (see the recent American Presidential race), and is an entirely different debate.

So on to my point - The implications of gay "marriage" is HUGE! If the UK finally have the label of gay marriage, instead of just a civil partnership. The impact throughout the globe would be immense, especially in the fight for equal marriage rights in the US. It would hopefully cause a well deserved push for the US, creating a whole new wave of pressure on the US government to follow suit. So really, who cares what Cameron does (even if he is a complete tool), as long as he carries on calling it "Gay Marriage"! Go, Cameron! Set the standard for the rest of the world to follow! (Except, maybe, Uganda... Shit's crazy over there!)
I think you views on religion,particuallythe churches don't do you any credit.You can hardly call for compassion for same sex partnerships when you collectively dismiss literally billions of people and their beliefs simply because their opinions don't coincide with yours.Just because someone may not agree with the notion of gay marriage does not make them anti gay..! Incidentally,there are a great number of gay people themselves who don't much like the idea of actual marriage.
Most Christains I have known over the years have never come across as being remotely anti gay and many Church leaders,most notably the late Cardinal Hume always showed great compassion and did much to dispell anti gay rhetoric when I was a young man growing up.Call it a fairy tale if you wish,but do not make such silly generalizations.
 
1

185248

Guest
I still think the gay population should stop fighting against the establishment. It causes division and angst. Instead, start a church or political movement with the backing of supporters, groups and individuals. It all has to do with interpretation. I believe in freedom for all to express opinions, views and love. I do not think harmony will exist in one group as long as individuals possess opinions that are poles apart from others within the group.

But I do believe harmony can exist between different groups when so much can be in common. Such as many churches and religions nowadays, bar the extremists of-couse, they will always exist. But most churches have differing views on some points, yet agree and are at peace with almost everything else, and, it works.

Trying to hijack a plane will never work. Start your own airline in friendly competition usually goes ok.

I think the gay population suffer from not being confident in themselves. How many of the Muslim, Christian, Hindu and every other religion are not happy with where their beliefs are taking them? They feel saddened and heart broken from the lack of support, yet have to seek it at times in secrecy. Yet believe in 80 to 90% of what they have been taught, but feel at times ostracized from family and friends because of the love and security of the same sex. Perhaps I missed my point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I think many churches have been taken by surprise by this move and simply haven't yet had their internal discussion on what they think about it. It's like someone stopping you in the street and asking you what you think on some moral issue that you just haven't thought about.

So far three groups - Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews - have expressed their support. I suggest that the gay population that is Christian or Jewish and supports gay marriage might like to consider membership of these groups.
 
1

185248

Guest
Surprise? With something that has existed since before time and date were invented? 100,000 soldiers on an ancient battlefield? Open discussion has not taken place I agree, internal discussions I am sure have been raging for a millenia or more, ignorance has been a friend, but slowly has become an enemy. These issues should have been resolved eons ago. I just think it has been ignored, disguised and covered.

By the by. Why did Jesus supposedly have twelve male diciples and no female? Bare in mind that I be not religious in any way whatsoever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I seem to remember that the churches opposition to gay partnerships was not an original part of its teaching. Nor was marriage. Someone puritanical added these in.
 
S

superbot

Guest
I think many churches have been taken by surprise by this move and simply haven't yet had their internal discussion on what they think about it. It's like someone stopping you in the street and asking you what you think on some moral issue that you just haven't thought about.

So far three groups - Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews - have expressed their support. I suggest that the gay population that is Christian or Jewish and supports gay marriage might like to consider membership of these groups.
So an individuals core spiritual beliefs, on one issue, can be shunted around as if were a vote on 'Strictly Come Dancing'...So silliy!!
 
1

185248

Guest
I seem to remember that the churches opposition to gay partnerships was not an original part of its teaching. Nor was marriage. Someone puritanical added these in.

Puritans, all sides have these. Each side wished they didn't. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigred0818

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
227
Media
0
Likes
84
Points
188
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think you views on religion,particuallythe churches don't do you any credit.You can hardly call for compassion for same sex partnerships when you collectively dismiss literally billions of people and their beliefs simply because their opinions don't coincide with yours.Just because someone may not agree with the notion of gay marriage does not make them anti gay..! Incidentally,there are a great number of gay people themselves who don't much like the idea of actual marriage.
Most Christains I have known over the years have never come across as being remotely anti gay and many Church leaders,most notably the late Cardinal Hume always showed great compassion and did much to dispell anti gay rhetoric when I was a young man growing up.Call it a fairy tale if you wish,but do not make such silly generalizations.

I'm hardly making a silly generalization. "literally billions of people" base their beliefs on something that has absolutely NO evidence of it actually being real. Literally, no evidence at all! This ardent belief unquestionably runs people's lives, and when there is an idea that goes against it, it is burned at the stake (another literal historical reference). The use of religion throughout the eons of human history has provided for the most atrocious acts ever to be conducted by man. Religious violence spans human history, and it is STILL going on today.

With that in mind, the church should NOT dictate what goes on in government. Political leaders should not base their campaigns into power on their religious beliefs - Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you! And legislation should not be written around religious dogma. The church should have to adhere to what the state says, not the other way round. Religion is a personal belief, and therefore, it should not make its way into a democratic governance of the masses.
 

tbrguy

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Posts
1,123
Media
18
Likes
133
Points
183
Location
The North of England
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Time to disestablish the CofE.

Enough already.

If people want to live by a set of values delivered to them on a plate without thinking or reasoning themselves - then so be it. But I don't want them influencing the way I have to behave.

Time to separate church and state once and for all.

As long as churches conform to the law in the same way as everyone else, and I include corporation and charities, then let them and their followers get on with it - whatever it may be...

Just don't expect to demand or dictate what the majority of us do (I know the census... blah blah blah - but that's just infantile conditioning, a Pavlovian reaction) or how society is organised.
 
S

superbot

Guest
I'm hardly making a silly generalization. "literally billions of people" base their beliefs on something that has absolutely NO evidence of it actually being real. Literally, no evidence at all! This ardent belief unquestionably runs people's lives, and when there is an idea that goes against it, it is burned at the stake (another literal historical reference). The use of religion throughout the eons of human history has provided for the most atrocious acts ever to be conducted by man. Religious violence spans human history, and it is STILL going on today.

With that in mind, the church should NOT dictate what goes on in government. Political leaders should not base their campaigns into power on their religious beliefs - Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you! And legislation should not be written around religious dogma. The church should have to adhere to what the state says, not the other way round. Religion is a personal belief, and therefore, it should not make its way into a democratic governance of the masses.
I'm sorry but you are clearly talking nonsense.The churches (and other religions) 'dictate' nothing.What they offer is a set of cor beliefs which one choses to follow or not follow entirely on personal choice.That is not dictating...It's free choice.All followers of religions be they clergy of leity have the right to vote according to their conscience so of course their religious beliefs will effect how they vote.Their vote will inevitably stand against the votes of people who don't share their opinion and the outcome of this procedure is DEMOCRACY.
Is it not a 'silly generalization' for someone to assume that the 20th century (the most brutal era in our entire history in terms of lives lost) was entirely the fault of all aesthiests and agnostics simply because of the policies of Stalin,Hitler,Pol Pot,Chairman Mao et all ?? Nothing to do with religion.Yes, of course it would be outrageous to make the comparison.So neither should you...!! Such a cliche.
I hardly need remind you that the various dominations of churches (and other religions) have been at the forefront in improving the plight of millions of the worlds dispossosed and forgotten. Feeding them, clothing them and giving paliative care even when their own politians have failed in their task.So exalt the State as high as you like,but remember it is the State that has failed (and continues to fail )many of these people.
Your assesment of the individual belief in the existence of God takes into account NOTHING of concept of 'faith' which is clearly an alien concept to you and yet MIRACULOUSLY there 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world as well as all the other wonderful faiths that exist on our planet.But I guess all these people must seem to you seem both stupid and deluded....afterall I WOULD'NT DREAM of contradicting an athiest...they know everything...!!
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Right now the head of the Church of wales is on the radio hopping mad that not only do they not want to be banned from having gay marriages (should they at some point decided to do so), but the government is telling porky pies in claiming that they were consulted and have expressed a view. They want to have the right to choose, thanks very much.
 
S

superbot

Guest
Time to disestablish the CofE.

Enough already.

If people want to live by a set of values delivered to them on a plate without thinking or reasoning themselves - then so be it. But I don't want them influencing the way I have to behave.

Time to separate church and state once and for all.

As long as churches conform to the law in the same way as everyone else, and I include corporation and charities, then let them and their followers get on with it - whatever it may be...

Just don't expect to demand or dictate what the majority of us do (I know the census... blah blah blah - but that's just infantile conditioning, a Pavlovian reaction) or how society is organised.
"If people want to live by a set of values delivered to them on a plate without thinking or reasoning themselves.."
Wow!! Whatever you do,don't ever allow anyone to accuse you of making patronizing and whopping generalizations What a jerk.
 

bigred0818

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
227
Media
0
Likes
84
Points
188
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm sorry but you are clearly talking nonsense.The churches (and other religions) 'dictate' nothing.What they offer is a set of cor beliefs which one choses to follow or not follow entirely on personal choice.That is not dictating...It's free choice.All followers of religions be they clergy of leity have the right to vote according to their conscience so of course their religious beliefs will effect how they vote.Their vote will inevitably stand against the votes of people who don't share their opinion and the outcome of this procedure is DEMOCRACY.
Is it not a 'silly generalization' for someone to assume that the 20th century (the most brutal era in our entire history in terms of lives lost) was entirely the fault of all aesthiests and agnostics simply because of the policies of Stalin,Hitler,Pol Pot,Chairman Mao et all ?? Nothing to do with religion.Yes, of course it would be outrageous to make the comparison.So neither should you...!! Such a cliche.
I hardly need remind you that the various dominations of churches (and other religions) have been at the forefront in improving the plight of millions of the worlds dispossosed and forgotten. Feeding them, clothing them and giving paliative care even when their own politians have failed in their task.So exalt the State as high as you like,but remember it is the State that has failed (and continues to fail )many of these people.
Your assesment of the individual belief in the existence of God takes into account NOTHING of concept of 'faith' which is clearly an alien concept to you and yet MIRACULOUSLY there 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world as well as all the other wonderful faiths that exist on our planet.But I guess all these people must seem to you seem both stupid and deluded....afterall I WOULD'NT DREAM of contradicting an athiest...they know everything...!!

But the Church's influence DOES dictate government, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate on this thread now, would we? There would already be legislation that makes marriage equal! The only reason it hasn't been made equal yet is because of the Church, and the Church's influence over politics! Don't misquote me and imply that I said that the general population shouldn't vote with their beliefs in mind. I stated that legislation should not be written with religious beliefs in mind. There is a huge difference.

And, yes, you are absolutely right! I don't account for the concept of 'faith'! Faith is a complete disregard for the facts. Faith is a concept that hopes and wishes and prays on something being real, rather than looking at the evidence and making an informed, educated decision. Every morning I wake up and have faith that there will be enough milk in the fridge so that I can eat my Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes. But that still doesn't mean that I DO have milk, does it? When the facts are taken into account, and I remember that I used most of it making a cheese sauce for my dinner last night, no amount of 'faith' will fill that bottle back up! At that point, it's time to face the cold hard FACTS OF LIFE, and get my ass out to the shop! So, do I think that people with religious faith are deluded? YES! Stupid? No. Don't put words into my mouth.

And Atheists don't know everything. But we know how to think logically... that's the first step, at least.
 
1

185248

Guest
Right now the head of the Church of wales is on the radio hopping mad that not only do they not want to be banned from having gay marriages (should they at some point decided to do so), but the government is telling porky pies in claiming that they were consulted and have expressed a view. They want to have the right to choose, thanks very much.

Tides turn, the fellow has probably been discussing behind closed doors for as long as he has been part of his church and belief, as his predecessors did before him, how to deal with this issue. All the while, knowing it to be a part of what makes humanity what it is. How do you separate and gain control of human minds? Through invention and imagination.
 
Last edited by a moderator: