Gay rights

[Fallgal]

Hi, Bethany buchan.
"Same sex couples", a subject I'm very interested to learn from.

In order to understand, sympathise and accept the principle and cause,
I've tried seriously, logically, and with honesty to think about this.....

A side issue I've been attempting to understand and take on board is why
many same sex couples insist on the right to marry in church, when the
church is totally against same sex marriage.

Perhaps it's simply not a subject same sex couples would
want to take seriously or delve into.
Perhaps it's simply a wish to marry in church....."end of"
Perhaps it's simply the romantic idea of a church wedding.
Perhaps it's simply unknown or a belief of churches' principles.
Perhaps it's simply not been given a second thought and/or dismissed.

I'm irritated at myself for not coming to a final conclusion after all this time.
However, despite saying that, there's just possibly two "perhaps" up
there that could be considered a reasonable and acceptable answer.

If anyone can help, I'm very keen to learn and be educated.


PEACE.

willie.

I think (although I don't know for sure) that it is simply their desire to be *allowed* to marry in church, whether or not they actually want to, to be treated the same as everyone else, and have their love/relationship regarded and respected in the same manner as everyone else's. Simply equality.

 

[Pipp]

I think (although I don't know for sure) that it is simply their desire to be *allowed* to marry in church, whether or not they actually want to, to be treated the same as everyone else, and have their love/relationship regarded and respected in the same manner as everyone else's. Simply equality.

We don't really have equality though.
I know of a heterosexual couple who have been together over 20 years. They don't want to be married, but would like a civil partnership. They are not allowed because this has only been available to same sex couples.

Whilst I have no affiliation to any religious institution, and have great respect for anyone in any committed relationship, whatever their gender or sexual orientation, I feel uneasy if the state wants to dictate to to any faith that it should change its beliefs and prctices. Whether that be Christian church, mosque, synagogue, temple or whatever. Some may accuse me therefore of being bigotted. I deny this. As well as respecting people whatever their sexuality, I also respect people's right to observe their chosen religion.

 

[Spiker]

Good points there @Pipp
There's an argument that the Anglican church, specifically, should be more like a public or government service and open to all, because it's the Established church. I found that a dubious argument that argues more in favour of disestablishing the Anglican church than anything else.

 

[Pipp]

Good points there @Pipp
There's an argument that the Anglican church, specifically, should be more like a public or government service and open to all, because it's the Established church. I found that a dubious argument that argues more in favour of disestablishing the Anglican church than anything else.

Thank you @Spiker.
I was a bit dubious about posting that as it is a very contentious issue.

Whether we like it or not the culture in UK has been influenced greatly by the Christian religion. Not all bad.

 

[Patricia21]

@WeeWillie
As an Anglican, I find It very strange that non Christians can use an church as a venue for a marriage (romantic setting, no idea of the beliefs etc) yet this is denied to the gay members of our congregations.
Things are at least being discussed openly now.
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ls.on.cofe.to.consider.gay.marriage/48940.htm
(there are Churches that are far more inclusive and have been for many years.)

Also as an Anglican myself,I find it also strange that people who are none Christian to use the Church for baptism and funerals also,but who are we to turn anyone away,and question any beliefs.

 

[Pipp]

Also as an Anglican myself,I find it also strange that people who are none Christian to use the Church for baptism and funerals also,but who are we to turn anyone away,and question any beliefs.

I would think that those are just the opportunities when church members can show the 'non-believers' what it is that makes them believe.

 

[Spiker]

In an ideal world I would like us all to be tolerant and inclusive because we want to be. I'm uncomfortable when the government passes laws to force us to be tolerant and inclusive. It feels like a contradiction, on more than one level.

 

[Spiker]

I was a bit dubious about posting that as it is a very contentious issue.

Brave move, thanks for going first!

 

[Pipp]

Brave move, thanks for going first!

Don't want to derail thread though.
OP asked if we thought gay people should be allowed to marry. I believe they should be, and in England they are allowed, Though not in a religious ceremony. I do not believe churches or any religious group should be forced by the state to change their doctrine.

 

[azure]

We don't really have equality though.
I know of a heterosexual couple who have been together over 20 years. They don't want to be married, but would like a civil partnership. They are not allowed because this has only been available to same sex couples.

Whilst I have no affiliation to any religious institution, and have great respect for anyone in any committed relationship, whatever their gender or sexual orientation, I feel uneasy if the state wants to dictate to to any faith that it should change its beliefs and prctices. Whether that be Christian church, mosque, synagogue, temple or whatever. Some may accuse me therefore of being bigotted. I deny this. As well as respecting people whatever their sexuality, I also respect people's right to observe their chosen religion.

Forgive me, I hope this doesn't sound rude but I never get this. What is the specific problem your friends have with being married? And why would calling it a different name make any difference? A civil wedding can be as fancy or as simple as the couple want. I've been to some that are very personal and quite long, and others which have been over in less than 10 minutes because they just did the legal stuff.

Personally, I have no problem with religions choosing not to marry same sex couples in their religious buildings. Many already choose whom they marry, eg some will refuse to marry divorcees.

 

[Pipp]

Forgive me, I hope this doesn't sound rude but I never get this. What is the specific problem your friends have with being married? And why would calling it a different name make any difference? A civil wedding can be as fancy or as simple as the couple want. I've been to some that are very personal and quite long, and others which have been over in less than 10 minutes because they just did the legal stuff.

Personally, I have no problem with religions choosing not to marry same sex couples in their religious buildings. Many already choose whom they marry, eg some will refuse to marry divorcees.

I did not say they were my friends. I know them well though. They have been married before, to other people. Perhaps they did not like that commitment.

It is not about the day of the ceremony, or the party and celebrations. They are principled. Or pedantic. Not sure I agree with them, but there is a difference between a marriage and a civil partnership. Same sex couples can have civil marriage or civil partnership, but not religious marriage ceremony.. Different sex couples can have religious marriage, or civil marriage, but not civil partnership. Whole thing is ludicrous.

Edit because I slipped up and it did not make sense.changed 'same' to 'different' in penultimate sentence.

Apologies to those who 'liked' before I edited.

 

[Spiker]

There are very few legal differences between marriage and civil partnership. But, those for whom the difference is important should be allowed the choice, I agree.

 

[azure]

Sorry - I assumed they were your friends. My apologies.

I think civil,partnerships will gradually fade out. When they were introduced, I got the impression that it was as a kind of sop to the objectors - that is, to define them as not quite 'real marriage'. They also carry inferior pension rights, I believe.

Personally, I'm glad we have equal marriage now. That gives everyone the same choice. I don't think we need other options. Civil or religious is enough. In theory, if neither of those were acceptable to a couple, they could draw up their own legal agreement calling themselves 'partners', 'life companions' or whatever they want, so that's another option.

 

[Pipp]

What I absolutely hate, and will have no part in is the hateful vitriolic comments such as those I have seen in the media in response to the marriage of the TV presenter Clare Balding to her long time partner Alice Arnold, who converted a civil partnership to a civil marriage.

It makes you realise that there is much prejudice and bigotry still to be defeated.

 

[WeeWillie]

@WeeWillie
As an Anglican, I find It very strange that non Christians can use an church as a venue for a marriage (romantic setting, no idea of the beliefs etc) yet this is denied to the gay members of our congregations.
Things are at least being discussed openly now.
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ls.on.cofe.to.consider.gay.marriage/48940.htm
(there are Churches that are far more inclusive and have been for many years.)

Hi phoenix, it's due to the fact that churches' are against same sex marriage as written in the rule book.

I think (although I don't know for sure) that it is simply their desire to be *allowed* to marry in church, whether or not they actually want to, to be treated the same as everyone else, and have their love/relationship regarded and respected in the same manner as everyone else's. Simply equality.

I think you may just have hit the nail on the head Fallgal, I can understand that from the same sex marriage couples point of view.

We don't really have equality though.
I know of a heterosexual couple who have been together over 20 years. They don't want to be married, but would like a civil partnership. They are not allowed because this has only been available to same sex couples.

I'm sure heterosexual couples can indeed choose either a civil or religious marriage ceremony in the UK, Pipp.

Whilst I have no affiliation to any religious institution, and have great respect for anyone in any committed relationship, whatever their gender or sexual orientation, I feel uneasy if the state wants to dictate to to any faith that it should change its beliefs and prctices. Whether that be Christian church, mosque, synagogue, temple or whatever. Some may accuse me therefore of being bigotted. I deny this. As well as respecting people whatever their sexuality, I also respect people's right to observe their chosen religion.

I feel more than unease about the enforcement of bending church rules by any authority. It doesn't matter the status of the authority,
they don't know or understand the rules of the establishments they would be forcing to change.
Apart from that , they would be discriminating (this modern repetitive word again) against those establishments they would be attempting to force their rules upon.
They, the Government, in my view, cannot utter discrimination against one group and not another, as would be the case in this instance.
Baaah, they would only be doing it for votes.

Good points there @Pipp
There's an argument that the Anglican church, specifically, should be more like a public or government service and open to all, because it's the Established church. I found that a dubious argument that argues more in favour of disestablishing the Anglican church than anything else.

Absolutely agree... an excellent argument to raise, Spiker,

Also as an Anglican myself,I find it also strange that people who are none Christian to use the Church for baptism and funerals also,but who are we to turn anyone away,and question any beliefs.

This is a somewhat "watery" ('scuse the pun) answer Patricia1, but Baptisms are not really Baptisms in the fullest sense of the word in the vast majority of churches as we know them today.
Modern day churches have watered down the Baptism service, so when you think about it, I'm not sure it really matters.
As for funerals, well it would not be a very loving faith who would turn down a funeral request from someone of a different faith or with no religious affiliation.....
That would be heartbreaking for the bereaved.

Heck, look at the time 4:15am. I hope I don't find myself coming back in only to discover I've written utter poppycock. lol

A fascinating subject with excellent and helpful replies as far as I'm concerned.


Fond wishes.

willie

 

[Pipp]

@WeeWillie
You are right, heterosexual couples can have a religious or civil marriage. What they can't have is a civil partnership. To some that matters.

 

[copepod]

@WeeWillie
As an Anglican, I find It very strange that non Christians can use an church as a venue for a marriage (romantic setting, no idea of the beliefs etc) yet this is denied to the gay members of our congregations.
Things are at least being discussed openly now.
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ls.on.cofe.to.consider.gay.marriage/48940.htm
(there are Churches that are far more inclusive and have been for many years.)

Although I'm not a member of any church, I'd glad that the ones I have most contact with, namely Methodists [my parents still members, and I was taken until teenage years, when I decided that archery, climbing, caving, hill walking etc were better ways to spends Sundays than in church] and Quakers [I attend a few meetings per year on rare Sundays when I'm neither working nor playing in hills] have much more welcoming attitudes to gay and lesbian relationships. The most enjoyable wedding I've ever attended was between a former lodger who married his Balkan origin partner, in Sweden where they both live. As my friend is Scottish, both wore kilts. Wedding was in an open sided dance hall in an open air museum of old buildings, with reception in an old cafe, after which we went outside into the cool evening, and kids of all ages kept sneaking off to see and pat horses in nearby field.

 

[CollieBoy]

Although I'm not a member of any church, I'd glad that the ones I have most contact with, namely Methodists [my parents still members, and I was taken until teenage years, when I decided that archery, climbing, caving, hill walking etc were better ways to spends Sundays than in church] and Quakers [I attend a few meetings per year on rare Sundays when I'm neither working nor playing in hills] have much more welcoming attitudes to gay and lesbian relationships. The most enjoyable wedding I've ever attended was between a former lodger who married his Balkan origin partner, in Sweden where they both live. As my friend is Scottish, both wore kilts. Wedding was in an open sided dance hall in an open air museum of old buildings, with reception in an old cafe, after which we went outside into the cool evening, and kids of all ages kept sneaking off to see and pat horses in nearby field.

Sounds like a **** fine wedding!
If it's love, God will smile on it IMHO

 

[WeeWillie]

@WeeWillie
You are right, heterosexual couples can have a religious or civil marriage. What they can't have is a civil partnership. To some that matters.

Got you Pipp.

Well, the mainstream Churches can be blamed for banging that one on the head.
If I remember correctly they oppose legalising opposite sex couples civil partnerships.
Rightly or wrongly, I think they held/hold the view that to do so would undermine traditional
marriages, and I'm sure David Cameron agreed with that view also.

Perhaps we all should adopt the procedure of our ancestors millennia ago,
"just go into the **** cave and consummate the marriage, will ya".



willie.

 

[WeeWillie]

Although I'm not a member of any church, I'd glad that the ones I have most contact with, namely

Methodists [my parents still members, and I was taken until teenage years, when I decided that archery, climbing, caving, hill walking etc were better ways

to spends Sundays than in church] and Quakers [I attend a few meetings per year on rare Sundays when I'm neither working nor playing in hills] have much

more welcoming attitudes to gay and lesbian relationships. The most enjoyable wedding I've ever attended was between a former lodger who married his

Balkan origin partner, in Sweden where they both live. As my friend is Scottish, both wore kilts. Wedding was in an open sided dance hall in an open air

museum of old buildings, with reception in an old cafe, after which we went outside into the cool evening, and kids of all ages kept sneaking off to see and

pat horses in nearby field.

Excellent, copepod. I enjoyed reading your post and I know what you mean. We brought our children up in our church from when they were very young.
Our two boys would eventually leave, but in my experience young men usually do, then some will come back as the get older. They haven't yet.
They're still very close to us, they talk about such things, but are determining their own future, and that's as it should be.

However our daughter continued being involved, still does, and has become a confident speaker.
Anyway, her wedding ceremony was just slightly different to traditional ceremonies in that the wording was just a tad different.
The reception was held in a very old town hall which backed onto a large ruin of an old palace on the shores of a Loch.
Her wedding photos were taken in the palace grounds and the guests were free to mingle round the area or go into the palace
while the meal was being finalised.

The main reason I mention this is that all the relatives from either side had no affiliation with a church but, they had an absolute
ball at the reception and the dance. That was 26 years years ago, and they talk about it to this day.
It's a pleasure reading your memories.

For me, it's always pleasing to have my old memories nudged alive again.

Thank you.
Best wishes.

willie.