I think we've been here before - if a gay couple want marriage recognition from a priest then that's between them and the priest - it's not for me to get involved with people who believe in religion - especially people who are mad enough to try get their gay union accepted by a religion. If a gay couple want to be married by the state, then they are fully entitled to like every other person in that state. I was married by a Maltese registrar with my marriage certificate in the Maltese language - I've no idea if it's recognised by any church and I couldn't really care if it is or not. As I said the church doesn't own marriage. For future purposes, because it's really not clear, if we could separate whether your argument is solely about gay marriage in a church - or includes gay marriage by the state, it would make it a lot easier to debate.
No religious group will be forced to perform gay marriage services or perform 'blessings'. The change will allow those churches and religious groups that want to do it the right perform marriages of same-sex couples. The Catholic Church doesn't want to do it so it won't be forced to. The call for a referendum from the unelected Cardinal is to try and stop the democratically elected Scottish Government making this law. To make things worse the campaign is being funded by collections at services throughout Scotland.
So it's a back door (pun intended) way of getting religions to accept homosexuality. The sneaky bastards.
Fair enough. It seems to me though that even though they are not going to be forced they will still see it as an erosion of their religious beliefs, and worse, further sign of the waning power of the religious institutions. Don't get me wrong. I've nothing against gay marriage, and I care nothing at all about religion. I just don't get what the gay community are hoping to get out of this. I was at a lesbian wedding (registry office civil partnership) a couple of years ago. Everybody that knows them considers the couple to be married. They consider themselves to be married. Who needs anything more than that?
So no answer then? Discrimination is discrimination, and your ****ty religion doesn't have immunity to the law you pathetic moron
Why would you want a church wedding if you were gay, knowing full well that said church doesn't approve of your relationship?
in terms of legal protection there is no difference, but in terms of receiving a christian sacrament then there is.
It isn't just me Mick, I have only spoken only of marriage as a sacrament I thought I was explicit in stating and re-stating that, as I believe Keith O'Brien is too. People want to jump all over it as some kind of anti-gay sentiment. I do not believe it to be that.
Yes, of course I have an answer. Your analogy is that of a complete simpleton. Marriage is celebrated as a sacrament for a specific purpose. If you do not meet that criteria, or have no intention of meeting that criteria, then you are not eligible to receive that sacrament. Is it discriminatory that I am not allowed to fly a plane? No, or course not. I am not a pilot, nor have I any intention of becoming a pilot.
There are a few issues here that people are missing/are not aware off. In a nutshell - the bloke you are talking about may not be elected but neither were the people lobbying to get gay marriage on the political agenda - civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same, except in name - the gay lobby groups are less interested in marriage but are looking to take on religious establishments, not just the church. Basically the way it will work is that if the gay lobby get their wish, a gay couple would be in a position to 'demand' a church/mosques/synogogue to marry them or be taken to court for discrimination etc. marriage may not have been 'religious' in origin, but gay didnt mean homosexual. Apart from that it wa always a union between man and woman. This whole gay marriage thing is nothing more than using that word ''marriage' in law to challenge the church etc As for the church being homohobic, how do you figure that? Thats like saying any man who refuses to have gay sex is homophobic. The church has guidelines that forbids a man to lay with another man, they dont exclude the man from their church just as they dont any other sinner
As an institution I think it would be fair to say that the church is a socially conservative organisation. I don't think I would fool too many people if I tried to argue that on an organisational level that the church was welcoming to homosexuals.
