Should gays be allowed to legally marry?

[Main Street]

Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?

It's based on the idea that if you are going to provide a service sanctioned by the state then you cannot discriminate about to whom you offer the service. When legislation was introduced in Britain to prevent guest houses discriminating on the basis of race, colour or sexual orientation, there was a lot of talk about how no-one would be forced to do anything that conflicted with their religious beliefs. And that's what it was - talk. When push came to shove, anti-discrimination laws trumped freedom of expression. And maybe that's fair enough. But let's be honest about the way it is heading rather than dismissing anyone who points it out as a scaremonger.

You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing  B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.

What you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent  same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.

[deiseach]

You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing  B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.

I'm saying that if the church wants to provide state-sanctioned marriage, it eventually either have to conform to the law or stop providing state-sanctioned marriage. This is the way it will go, as it is in France.

What you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent  same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.

I'm in favour of same sex civil marriage. Pointing out the inevitable consequences of this legislation is not scaremongering.

[Main Street]

You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing  B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.

I'm saying that if the church wants to provide state-sanctioned marriage, it eventually either have to conform to the law or stop providing state-sanctioned marriage. This is the way it will go, as it is in France.

What you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent  same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.

I'm in favour of same sex civil marriage. Pointing out the inevitable consequences of this legislation is not scaremongering.

You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.

Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.

[Hound]

As far as I know the thought itself is as much of a sin as the act. The church sees homosexuality as a sin in any shape or form.

I would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?

My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.

Its a sin now (as is any form of sex outside of marriage), but who's to say it won't be a sin in the future. As said before, charging interest on money lent used to be a sin.

What exactly do you fear about gays getting married in a church and being equal in every way?

Do you really think a person who is born gay, but is a good Christian in every other way, apart from having a faithful relationship with a partner, would be rejected by God because they are gay? That sounds very "unchristian" to me.

[appreciate this is a completely different debate to legalising gay civil marriages]

[deiseach]

You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.

Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.

I've presented my argument, i.e. that if you want to provide a state-sanctioned/regulated service you can't discriminate. There are multiple examples of this being the case. Can you imagine if there were a vintner's law that said publicans didn't have to serve Travellers? It'd be laughed out of any court, and canon law has about as much sway.

[Main Street]

You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.

Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.

I've presented my argument, i.e. that if you want to provide a state-sanctioned/regulated service you can't discriminate. There are multiple examples of this being the case. Can you imagine if there were a vintner's law that said publicans didn't have to serve Travellers? It'd be laughed out of any court, and canon law has about as much sway.

I guess you have accepted that it is scaremongering to use this fear as part of the argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
I also guess that you have accepted that the legislation allows for a Church not to be challenged on how they conduct their marriages.
The Church provides a marriage ceremony for its members which is also recognised by the state as a legal marriage. The state provides its own civil  marriage ceremony. The two are not the same.
When I hear of a sex discrimination case being carried out by a female cleric about the inherent sex discrimination within a church's canon laws preventing her from rising up the hierarchy, then I will take note.
Perhaps I will hear of a challenge being taken out in court, challenging a churches  dogma that a woman is spiritually an inferior being, compared to the male.

[deiseach]

We're going around in circles on this, so we'll agree to disagree and see who is right in the long run. However, there is one other thing:

The Church provides a marriage ceremony for its members which is also recognised by the state as a legal marriage. The state provides its own civil  marriage ceremony. The two are not the same.

In England, where the legislation currently in the news applies, this is wrong. As the Church of England is established, these are state-sanctioned marriages. The ceremonies are indivisible.

[Main Street]

We're going around in circles on this, so we'll agree to disagree and see who is right in the long run. However, there is one other thing:

You may be going around in circles but I have made my points clear and remained focussed

In England, where the legislation currently in the news applies, this is wrong. As the Church of England is established, these are state-sanctioned marriages. The ceremonies are indivisible.

I can't say I'm au fait with established churches marriages, that's why laws were passed in the UK protecting the established churches from any anti discrimination claims?

I do not see any move in France now to force Churches to change their canon laws policy.
I certainly do not see any precedent for a legal challenge to blatant anti female dogma as is practiced by the catholic Church. I do not even see a whisper of a campaign. It would be absurd,  and that's all in despite of a raft of  anti female discrimination legislation. In the main, a Church's canon law is sacrosanct, the common law does not apply effect on canon law.

[deiseach]

I do not see any move in France now to force Churches to change their canon laws policy.
I certainly do not see any precedent for a legal challenge to blatant anti female dogma as is practiced by the catholic Church. I do not even see a whisper of a campaign. It would be absurd,  and that's all in despite of a raft of  anti female discrimination legislation. In the main, a Church's canon law is sacrosanct, the common law does not apply effect on canon law.

I know I shouldn't go back to this, but if you're going to blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying . . . I never said the state can force churches to change their rules. They can't force the Catholic Church to have women priests any more than they can force Giovanni Trapattoni to field women soccer players. What they can do is require organisations providing state-regulated services to not discriminate in the provision of those services. And it doesn't matter if they include opt-outs to the requirements. It is my belief that in the future someone will take a case against a church saying that if they provide state-backed marriage to heterosexual couples then they have to provide it to homosexual couples. Based on precedent, I can't see any other outcome than a win for the plaintiff in that situation.

[seafoid]

It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.

People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.

Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun

Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.

what about all the gay priests?

[seafoid]

Someone upthread said it's "not natural" for gay people to marry. Which is true- it is far more "natural" for gay people to be persecuted because they are different. Nobody chooses to be gay and suicide rates for gay teenagers are far higher than for their straight peers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/03/comment.gayrights

In the 1950s there were no manuals for the young, and we had to do our best with baffling encyclopaedia entries. Our elders wanted to re-establish the imagined values of Britain's lost empire. They were full of warnings about VD and how Rome fell because of its tolerance of homosexuality. So as well as the disastrous Suez campaign of 1956, there was a tripling of prosecutions for homosexual offences after 1945. The police frequently obtained their convictions by offering not to charge a man in return for the names of his partners, until they had a whole "ring" to bring to court. Suicides before these mass trials were common, and those found guilty usually received long prison sentences

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.

People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.

Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun

Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.

what about all the gay priests?

Are we talking about the happy ones or the homosexual ones?

[Puckoon]

  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.

Where I was brought up there were no blacks. Only white Catholics and Protestants.

Does that mean that my view of normalcy in society should discount the rights of anyone outside those two groups?

[Puckoon]

EC, if you're going to hide behind the skirts of the church, at least get their pisition right.

Being homosexual is not a sin. Indulging in homosexual acts is.

According to Rome, that is.

[J70]

  Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.

Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.

Where I was brought up there were no blacks. Only white Catholics and Protestants.

Does that mean that my view of normalcy in society should discount the rights of anyone outside those two groups?

Or what if you grew up protestant in the north in the 60s? Normality then had catholics as second class citizens. The way things are or were is not always the right way.