Should gay marrige be allowed?

essex1990

MamaMoo wrote: »

I'd say it depends on whether the priest etc would be happy and comfortable with performing a ceremony for two homosexuals.
If a religion, or a sect of a religion, condemns such an act, then it's unfair to force them to perform a marriage ceremony.
However, if the priest or whoever has no moral issues about performing said ceremony, then go for it.
My priest would be morally against performing such a ceremony, but other Catholic priests may not be, and as long as the priest etc is happy to perform the ceremony, no-one should have the right to stop them from doing so.

What annoys me is that religions such as Paganism, who are Wholeheartedly happy to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony with a religious element are not allowed to do so, an that's a total pi*s take.

No religion should be forced to allow homosexual marriages, but equally, no religion should be denied the ability to perform such a ceremony.

I also think it's disgusting that homosexual people cannot legally be classed as being 'married'. It's so petty. "Ok, you can have all the same legal rights as straight couples, but you can't legally declare yourself married"
I doubt many people get married for the tax breaks and the legal implications, so much as they do for love, and to 'be married'. To deny any homosexual the right to legally say "We're married" is just pathetic.

I know that what makes me proudest is being "Mrs. X" or "X's Wife". I still get excited when I say "I'm married" or tick the "married" box on a questionnaire. It's sad, I know, but it's the best part, and a part that homosexuals should be able to enjoy just as much as heterosexuals.

If they are part of the congregation im sure their priest would have no objection to it, because otherwise why would they be going to his church?

Apparently you are allowed to do a handfasting but it is required to go to the registry office also - why can they not do it at their main ceremony?

Im glad that there is someone else on my wavelength though, why should what some people who call themselves 'christian' think or say intrude upon anothers private life.

MamaMoo_2

essex1990 wrote: »

If they are part of the congregation im sure their priest would have no objection to it, because otherwise why would they be going to his church?

Apparently you are allowed to do a handfasting but it is required to go to the registry office also - why can they not do it at their main ceremony?

Im glad that there is someone else on my wavelength though, why should what some people who call themselves 'christian' think or say intrude upon anothers private life.

Just because they are part of a congregation, it doesn't necessarily mean the priest is comfortable with them being there. I'm part of a church, and play quite an active role in it (and have done for most of my life), however, as a bisexual, should I have swung t'other way and married a woman, I know my priest would not (were it legal) have conducted the ceremony, and it was for this reason that I got married with no religious elements, because I didn't feel comfortable getting married in a church that could so very easily have turned against me if I'd followed a different part of my life.

Similarly, there are plenty of divorcees in my congregation, and the priest would not conduct a marriage service for them either.
When my mother was getting married, her fianc!e was divorced, and as such my mother could not marry him in her church (a church she had been attending for 30 odd years)
It upset her, as she will now never be able to get married in a church, because (funnily enough) the church would not recognise her civil marriage, but now she is divorced, it recognises her as a divorcee (go figure!)

essex1990

MamaMoo wrote: »

Just because they are part of a congregation, it doesn't necessarily mean the priest is comfortable with them being there. I'm part of a church, and play quite an active role in it (and have done for most of my life), however, as a bisexual, should I have swung t'other way and married a woman, I know my priest would not (were it legal) have conducted the ceremony, and it was for this reason that I got married with no religious elements, because I didn't feel comfortable getting married in a church that could so very easily have turned against me if I'd followed a different part of my life.

Similarly, there are plenty of divorcees in my congregation, and the priest would not conduct a marriage service for them either.
When my mother was getting married, her fianc!e was divorced, and as such my mother could not marry him in her church (a church she had been attending for 30 odd years)
It upset her, as she will now never be able to get married in a church, because (funnily enough) the church would not recognise her civil marriage, but now she is divorced, it recognises her as a divorcee (go figure!)

If he wasn't comfortable with me being there - it would be fine see you later im going to join a different church that does offer me the same esteem as any other member and respect that sometimes there are reasons for things like being divorced - such as abusive partner.

MamaMoo_2

essex1990 wrote: »

If he wasn't comfortable with me being there - it would be fine see you later im going to join a different church that does offer me the same esteem as any other member and respect that sometimes there are reasons for things like being divorced - such as abusive partner.

I agree. I think that the 'goodness' of a person is more important to God than their sexuality. Or at least it should be.

Why allow Person A (an abusive, violent, law-breaking heterosexual) to marry, but not Person B (a kind, friendly, law-abiding homosexual) or Person C (a kind, charitable woman, who divorced her violent rapist of a husband to protect herself and her children)
Under what circumstances can Person A be considered a better Christian, or be considered to have better 'moral fiber' than Persons B or C?

I agree with many of the fundamental teachings of Catholicism, but some just make me want to smack my face off of a wall.

essex1990

MamaMoo wrote: »

I agree. I think that the 'goodness' of a person is more important to God than their sexuality. Or at least it should be.

Why allow Person A (an abusive, violent, law-breaking heterosexual) to marry, but not Person B (a kind, friendly, law-abiding homosexual) or Person C (a kind, charitable woman, who divorced her violent rapist of a husband to protect herself and her children)
Under what circumstances can Person A be considered a better Christian, or be considered to have better 'moral fiber' than Persons B or C?

I agree with many of the fundamental teachings of Catholicism, but some just make me want to smack my face off of a wall.

exactly! Same here i do agree with most of it, but i dont like the fact that people use religion as an excuse to defend their bigotry or when they start to quote the bible ...

it is the words of someone who interpreted and translated someone elses words into english who had also interpreted the 'word of god' my view is that if certain parts of the bible do not seem to match up with the primary teachings then it is probably mistranslated either deliberately or by misinterpretation

redped

redped wrote: »

In your opinion, which you are entitled to.

Again, in your opinion, which you are entitled to.

But when you call a religious person a "religious nut" it is an insult. Likewise, calling a gay person a "homosexual nut" is an insult.

You didn't answer my question - do you consider the phrase "homosexual nut" to be insulting?

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

In anyone with half a brain's opinion. F'ing hell, get a grip.

Being brought up with this rammed down my throat makes me more against it now than most.

You've deflected away from answering my question about your "religious nut" comment. Twice I've asked you whether you find "homosexual nut" to be an insult, and twice you've ignored the question. Therefore I can only assume that you do find it to be an insult, yet you don't find "religious nut" to be an insult. That makes you a hypocrite.

I've followed this thread with interest to see the arguments from both sides. As you now have lowered yourself to insulting people and swearing to get your point across, it clearly shows that you are incapable of calm, rational debate.

poet123

essex1990 wrote: »

This IS NOT about whether they can have a church wedding though ... this is about whether they are a allowed a "civil marriage" BUT if they are both religious and they regularly attend church, why should what some people from the religion think deny them the right to be married in a house of their OWN god?

I am ambivalent about the concept of gay marriage, if someone could explain the practical differences between that and the current civil partnership then maybe I could see why it needs to have a name change.

With regard to their God, if their religion allows it (and some do) there is no issue, but others which don't should not be forced to bend to what is still a minority view within many religions. You don't join a club and change the rules the majority want and abide by.

fluffnutter

poet123 wrote: »

With regard to their God, if their religion allows it (and some do) there is no issue, but others which don't should not be forced to bend to what is still a minority view within many religions. You don't join a club and change the rules the majority want and abide by.

I think you're suggesting that the majority of Christians are homophobic. This is (thankfully) not my experience.

fluffnutter

youropinioncounts wrote: »

I am not a "weird religious nut" people have gut instincts and mine is marrige is between a man and woman.

Laws are based on a little more than 'gut instincts'. Which is a good thing really. Imagine the chaos if our legal system were based on nothing more than whimsy and the 'gut instincts' of a few random people.

MamaMoo_2

poet123 wrote: »

I am ambivalent about the concept of gay marriage, if someone could explain the practical differences between that and the current civil partnership then maybe I could see why it needs to have a name change.

With regard to their God, if their religion allows it (and some do) there is no issue, but others which don't should not be forced to bend to what is still a minority view within many religions. You don't join a club and change the rules the majority want and abide by.

Civil Partnership basically gives homosexual people the same legal rights as civil marriage, the main difference is a gay couple cannot ever legally say that they are married, and are not recognised as married in the eyes of the law.
It's basically so people can say "there you go, you have the same rights as a married couple" whilst protecting the 'sanctity' of marriage by not actually allowing homosexuals to be married.