[Wordsworth60]

According to available figures, at least 90% of the country is heterosexual, more than 90% of the country is white and 70% are Christian (not necessarily C of E, or anti-gay).

There is probably a lot of overlap between them and plenty of room to stall any threat of slow extinction.

But that’s the aspect of cliques that most people dislike (at least about the cliques to which they don’t belong). Enjoying and celebrating your group identity is one thing. Focusing your energies against outsiders, real or imagined, makes the clique aggressive and threatening.

[Wordsworth60]

Thanks Sceptical. Churches are free to decide for themselves what they want. It’s the Church of England’s political position in this country which makes its policies important.

Should a church attended by a minority be able to impose a ban on gay marriage on a majority who either agree or are indifferent to it?

If that church’s position is to appease bishops in Africa and other regions then it shows the usual cynically ironic link between apparent political correctness and bigotry.

[Wordsworth60]

The protection from discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexuality, race, religion etc, applies to ‘straight, white Christians’ and everyone else. That is why the churches are not forced by law to adopt equality in terms of gender, marriage or sexuality. If members or leadership of a church decide to conform to social changes, that is their right.

It’s to easy to suggest that modern freedoms are all about ‘them’. The law is phrased very specifically to make the freedoms apply to everyone. Like all laws, they are ignored by some (by no means all) SWCs because gossip and rumour are more powerful than fact. But SWCs have used the equality laws in courts and been successful.

Removing other peoples freedoms is unfair and vulnerable to bias. The test of which freedoms you really disagree with is actually the freedoms you would forego yourself. It’s a useful exercise: “To whom it may concern, I (state your name) am quite happy to be unfairly or badly treated by reason of the characteristics in the list below. I indemnify any individual or organisation, government or private of any civil legal consequence, if they discriminate against me because of . . . . (begin list here)”

You soon find that the specifics associated with rights that are resented when they are associated with “them” – freedom of religion, dignity in disability, equal pay, respect for gender, freedom to marry etc aren’t ‘theirs’ but ‘ours’.

You personally might not want to marry anyone, but you can choose to cohabit with them. If you change your mind, you might prefer the choice of who and how you want, rather than be forced to abandon the country of your natural allegiance – not much point marrying in Holland if that marriage is not going to be recognised in the country where you live. You also might want your soulmate to have the automatic rights of next of kin in terms of children, property or health decisions (wills etc can be challenged). These are recent changes.

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@(f)politics? wrote:

. . . . without sounding harsh they cant actually produce children which in basic terms is what we are mainly on this earth to do, . . .

So let’s refuse marriage to everyone who can’t have children. There’s no way of saying it without sounding harsh really is there?

That wasnt what i was saying i was saying the main reason for the majority not all of the animal kingdom and indeed the plant kingdom is to procreate, and mother nature works so that everything has some place in achieving procreation, what im saying is from your comments about child abuse animal abuse and so forth, there is no advantage to the human race at all in the move forward to gay marriages, no more no less.

I’m sorry Pol, I don’t find your arguments clear. Maybe it’s just too late at night for this stuff. Marriage isn’t about mother nature, it’s a legal and social protection for everything associated with a relationship, children, property, healthcare etc. Relatively few species naturally pair-bond for life. Exuberant homosexual activity has been observed in a large number of species. A recent news story revealed that one scientists reports of homosexual acts between penguins was suppressed because the behaviour was deemed to be depraved by the worthies who received the report.

As you’ve indicated bonding with your soulmate should be more important than the piece of paper.

If there is no advantage to the human race of gay marriage over civil partnership, then that really indicates that there is no advantage to the human race of religious marriage over civil marriage. In fact in many countries the religious ceremony has to be completely separate from the religious ceremony. Alternatively, couples are allowed to embellish a fundamentally civil ceremony with religious rituals. The difference in the UK is because we have an established Church.

And yet . . . from an early age children are encouraged to desire marriage in its religious form, nursery schools hold marriage ceremonies complete with cake and guests and in some cases conducted by real clergy. Happy Ever After still follows The Kiss with no explanation of how you resolve the inevitable differences between someone who’s spent years living in a palace and someone who’s spent years living as a frog, or with 7 dwarves or in a 100 year coma.

I still see no better reason for refusing same-sex marriage than for refusing opposite-sex marriage.

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@(f)politics? wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

. . . . . . . improving a culture should mean evolving with in not changing its core and fundamental values [/b]

At some point, if you’re going to evolve, you got to kill the dinosaurs . . . . . . .

So basically you are saying extinguish one culture*dinosaurs* to make room for the culture you want, dont evolve it by maintaining the dinosaurs living within their culture just get rid ? like i said before… so whats the point of anything,any cultures traditions faiths ? lets just have wars and kill each other off far less painful

That’s how it happens Pol. Cultures don’t slowly blend from one identity to another, wars, disasters, inventions, political campaigns and decisions etc produce conditions which all work to lurch society from one form to another. It’s never smooth and it’s often not not pretty.

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

. . . . without sounding harsh they cant actually produce children which in basic terms is what we are mainly on this earth to do, . . .

So let’s refuse marriage to everyone who can’t have children. There’s no way of saying it without sounding harsh really is there?

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

. . . . . . . improving a culture should mean evolving with in not changing its core and fundamental values [/b]

At some point, if you’re going to evolve, you got to kill the dinosaurs . . . . . . .

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

why shouldn’t there be a stop button or certainly a slow up button from changing a nations culture from what it was and is ?
Britain has become a melting pot in many ways agreed and inclusion in that respect is great, but why change what it was to suit those changes? You don’t buy a dog if you want a horse, or marry a man when you want a woman, so why do we feel the need to change so much that is our culture and our traditions ?
When in rome and all that, so yes i feel there should be a stop button, we need limits to maintain both our country, our faiths, our traditions… why bother being british and christian otherwise.. chose to be timbuktooish and follow the faith that suits your requirements not change the country and the faith to suit your own.
We have choices in this modern world we are in unlike ever before, exercise that right of choice and chose whats is best for you dont change something that doesnt suit your ideals, or what is the point in anything at all?

So if you’re British and gay, you should emigrate and change your citizenship and culture if you want to marry your soulmate? If you believe in God, Jesus, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the Ressurrection heaven and hell etc. and you are gay, you should change your religion to one whose fundamentals you disbelieve in order to marry. I don’t think that’s reasonable.

By that logic, shouldn’t the campaigners against slavery, or for votes for women, or rights for wives to own their own property or to report their husbands for violence have just left things as they were and done the same or left? Why campaign against cruelty to animals or children? why campaign for decent housing standards? Why challenge the sovereign’s absolute right over subjects?

If you don’t change a culture from what it was, then you preserve the bad as well as the good. Even if opening doors was every ‘ruled’ offensive, would you swap it for the vote, your own property, access to jobs, choice over child-bearing or marriage? Not saying you’d have to, but they were all absent from this country’s culture for far longer than they were present and they were regarded as far worse than PC when they were introduced

[Wordsworth60]

@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.

[Wordsworth60]

@(f)politics? wrote:

. . . . . There has to be a stop button somewhere, or who are we ? what is a christian ? what is a muslim ? what is a buddhist ? And i certainly can’t see other faiths being so free or being as pressured to change their ideals so why should the christian church of england bow down to this pressure ? Far better to spend the time and effort on loving god and each other than trying to fight the church. If people genuinely feel god has no issues with homosexuality then they can continue to worship him from within, which is where it should come from. Faith is far greater than human inclusions.

Why should there be a stop button? why shouldn’t society continue to evolve and – hopefully – become more fair more equal and iron out the mistakes made on the way. (opening doors for women was never generally regarded as offensive. Although once a guy says he only holds a door open for a woman so he can check out her rear, it’s never again quite as gallant as it might have seemed . . . . .

As Jen has said the church of England will not be forced to marry same sex couples against its will any more than any other religion. Having said that, no other faith is the established church of the country , with the sovereign as head and church leaders in the house of lords able to directly influence how the law of the land is shaped. So there is actually a good reason why the church should be made to be fairer in some respects. However despite fears that a challenge in Europe would result in the churches being forced to change, this has not happened over other issues like divorce or gender. Any changes there have come from within, even though legal challenge was possible.[/i]

[Author]

Posts