It is true I am afraid a religious institution will be able to refuse to carry out a ceremony for a gay couple for no other reason than they are gay.
I am not going to accept it as true merely on your say-so. Please establish this claim. As it is being reported, the proposal is to allow churches to apply to be allowed to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. In that context, there is no question of a religious institution being "allowed to refuse"; it is instead the converse, a case of religious institutions of being "allowed to officiate".
Institutions that do not apply will not be allowed to discriminate; they will simply not be allowed to officiate at same-sex ceremonies at all. So they won't have a choice.
Institutions that do apply are hardly likely to do so if they intend to refuse to officiate, and there's no evidence that, having once applied, such refusal would be acceptable; so it is not established that they have a choice to discriminate either.
In short, your objection appears to be without substance.
That is a rather silly argument if a gay person was straight they would not have a problem. The idea is that equality works irrespective of who or what you are and irrespective of what you believe. Giving a church a right to discriminate, which is what it is, is a right that is illegal in any situation for most others and if they do discriminate it is called evil and unacceptable. The diversity industry has assailed us with a mass of legislation where the rights of an individual to consider for himself what is best in the affairs of his own estate are subsumed in a plethora of laws, rights, prohibitions and considerations that bind him hand and foot. All I say is no more. We have more than enough.
You mean that equality means bigots don't get away with their ignorance anymore and you don't like that
The diversity industry has assailed us with a mass of legislation where the rights of an individual to consider for himself what is best in the affairs of his own estate are subsumed in a plethora of laws, rights, prohibitions and considerations that bind him hand and foot. All I say is no more. We have more than enough.
I missed the beginning of the debate in the Commons so i wasn't aware earlier that the C of E and the C of W are to be banned from conducting same sex marriages whilst all the other religions can apply to hold them if they want to
This is disgraceful !
Why do they want to complicate it like this ?
Surely the same rules should apply to all religions ?
I am not going to accept it as true merely on your say-so. Please establish this claim. As it is being reported, the proposal is to allow churches to apply to be allowed to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. In that context, there is no question of a religious institution being "allowed to refuse"; it is the converse.
Then if that is the case if a gay couple approach their church and ask if their church can apply to perform same sex marriages that church can either apply or not apply. If they decide not to apply do we just call that bad luck, or is it something else?
You can regard it as the royal we, the broad we, the local we, the pissed off we or just any we that includes more than I and I can assure you I am not alone in thinking this so perhaps regard that as the we.
You mean that equality means bigots don't get away with their ignorance anymore and you don't like that
Realistically a 'bigot' has equal rights as a non' bigot'. Just as the ignorant have identical rights to the non ignorant (is that the opposite of ignorant?). The definition of each is of course a matter of opinion and debate. Equality means just that and each law that is enacted should impinge, restrict, prohibit, allow and treat each person without favour. If it does not it is not an equality law, it is something else entirely, and this law would just be another one of those.
You can regard it as the royal we, the broad we, the local we, the pissed off we or just any we that includes more than I and I can assure you I am not alone in thinking this so perhaps regard that as the we.
So your pissed off but how are you really impacted on a day today basis ? You say it's not fair that the church can discriminate against gay people and you won't be allowed. I'm pretty sure you'll survive. You might not even notice, unless daily discrimination of gay people getting married really matters to you....however I doubt that.
Then if that is the case if a gay couple approach their church and ask if their church can apply to perform same sex marriages that church can either apply or not apply. If they decide not to apply do we just call that bad luck, or is it something else?
Your hypothetical gay couple, are they members of the church? Do they adhere to the doctrines of the church? If so, and if it is a matter of church doctrine that marriages is between a man and a woman, they would know better than to make such a request. If they did so regardless, are they not heretics - and therefore does the church not have a right to refuse to grant such a request on the grounds of heresy, never mind what their sexuality is?
Not as it stands, it is better not tot allow discrimination at all. Our current equality laws are a sad state of affairs that actually enforce diversity by favouring groups instead of allowing equality. This would just be another discriminatory law which will be challenged further down the road leading to who knows what?
That's not what I asked. Nevermind. I'm starting to get dizzy going around in circles.
Your hypothetical gay couple, are they members of the church? Do they adhere to the doctrines of the church? If so, and if it is a matter of church doctrine that marriages is between a man and a woman, they would know better than to make such a request. If they did so regardless, are they not heretics - and therefore does the church not have a right to refuse to grant such a request on the grounds of heresy, never mind what their sexuality is?
Yes, which is the church's belief. However whatever reasons you give the base line is they are discriminating against a person because of their sexual orientation they may call that heresy, some call it morals, some call it a host of other things but in reality only the church will have the right to participate actively in discrimination on that basis.
I'm very disappointed but not surprised that we will end up with a situation where the Church of England and the Church in Wales will be unable to opt in to holding gay marriage ceremonies even if they decide at a later date they want to.
I realise this is because the CE Bishops have probably threatened to try to derail the thing in the Lords but it's a concession too far.
I see no sound reason why the CofE couldn't be left in the same position as other religious groups. Although they are the 'established' church I don't think it's right to create such an enormous distinction between them and other churches.
So your pissed off but how are you really impacted on a day today basis ? You say it's not fair that the church can discriminate against gay people and you won't be allowed. I'm pretty sure you'll survive. You might not even notice, unless daily discrimination of gay people getting married really matters to you....however I doubt that.
So let get realistic. Who loses out here ?
Realistically I survive all sorts of things that do not impact me directly or even indirectly. Rapists, murderers and football hooligans have impacted me very little that does not preclude me from having an opinion on them and wishing to see laws in place that take them off the streets. If a law was enacted that prevented me from standing on my head and whistling through my axxx and was not applicable to many others that would still be wrong despite the fact that I may never wish to engage in such an activity. Not wanting to do something is not the same as being legally blocked from doing it.
That's not what I asked. Nevermind. I'm starting to get dizzy going around in circles.
I answered what you asked as best I could, the fact that I had to qualify the answer is because it is not possible to give a true or false answer because in reality it is both.
. Not wanting to do something is not the same as being legally blocked from doing it.
True, but if take that view then pretty much every law going is going to get your blood pressure sky rocketing. There are laws everywhere that stop you doing things that Im sure you dont want to do anyway. Nothing, in this case, is being taken away from you and if you feel that bad about wanting to not marry gay people Im pretty sure you could get yourself ordained over the internet and then not marry gay people. Job done - equality.
True, but if take that view then pretty much every law going is going to get your blood pressure sky rocketing. There are laws everywhere that stop you doing things that Im sure you dont want to do anyway. Nothing, in this case, is being taken away from you and if you feel that bad about wanting to not marry gay people Im pretty sure you could get yourself ordained over the internet and then not marry gay people. Job done - equality.
You lost me on that one. It is the act of being allowed to discriminate for one group that is denied to another group on a legal basis. What form that discrimination takes is realistically irrelevant.
Yes, which is the church's belief. However whatever reasons you give the base line is they are discriminating against a person because of their sexual orientation
A church cannot in conscience apply to perform a ceremony that its own doctrines prohibit. It would be guilty of hypocrisy or heresy itself. To such a church, the definition of "marriage", in the terms of its faith, requires two people of different genders. Asserting that it is anything else makes as much sense to it as a square circle. This is not discrimination; it is basic logic - from a certain set of premises. This is not discrimination on the grounds of sexuality; the ceremony by definition has certain requirements, and two partners of the same gender do not meet those requirements - whatever their actual sexuality may be.
But - and it's a big "but" - they do not have the right to a monopoly on the definition of "marriage", and if people of other faiths or none see it differently, they do not have the right to a veto on that.
You quibble over a perceived (and disputable) right to discrimination, while turning a blind eye to the far larger injustice that the status quo entails: that the most conservative of institutions have a veto over liberal institutions as to what the accepted definition of "marriage" is.
they may call that heresy, some call it morals, some call it a host of other things but in reality only the church will have the right to participate actively in discrimination on that basis.
There is no active participation in discrimination. Even if your charge of discrimination were justified, the participation would be entirely passive - by way of failure to apply for a licence in which it has no interest. The right to marry does not grant one the right to marry wherever one likes, nor does it place an obligation on others to officiate at your wedding.
You lost me on that one. It is the act of being allowed to discriminate for one group that is denied to another group on a legal basis. What form that discrimination takes is realistically irrelevant.
You mean like the rights of those who want to rob you are discriminated agaisnt by laws that say they cannot ? I would say your 100% wrong when you say "What form that discrimination takes is realistically irrelevant". Its very relevent in some cases, in fact I would go as far as saying its the framework of a civilsed soceity that dictates what you can and cannot do. What if someone decided they didnt like the look of you and it was there right to run you out of town, should they have that right ? No of course not, the form of discrimination in this case is very relevent.
However lets take this case in isolation, assume for the moment you had the power to rule on this issue..whats the answer ? Allow everyone to discriminate on grounds of sexuality ? Or allow no one... is it an either / or option ?
There are people who are non-believers who get married in churches every week. Mostly they keep quiet about it either to keep their partner/family happy or still like the idea of a big church wedding. Weddings, funerals are christenings are big money makers for the churches (and also a marketing opportunity to attract newcomers) so if they insisted on people actually believing their stuff before taking part in their rituals they would be half empty.
The idea that people join churches because of weddings and funerals or that church funding would dry up without them is ridiculous. I don't know who told you that but its nonesense.
I'm very disappointed but not surprised that we will end up with a situation where the Church of England and the Church in Wales will be unable to opt in to holding gay marriage ceremonies even if they decide at a later date they want to.
I realise this is because the CE Bishops have probably threatened to try to derail the thing in the Lords but it's a concession too far.
I see no sound reason why the CofE couldn't be left in the same position as other religious groups. Although they are the 'established' church I don't think it's right to create such an enormous distinction between them and other churches.
Perhaps the thinking was that once the Church of England opted in as an institution, its status as the state religion might leave individual parishes or ministers open to claims of discrimination if they declined to carry out services, even with the caveat that they would not be forced to? This bar seems to add an extra level of protection.
I'm very disappointed but not surprised that we will end up with a situation where the Church of England and the Church in Wales will be unable to opt in to holding gay marriage ceremonies even if they decide at a later date they want to.
I realise this is because the CE Bishops have probably threatened to try to derail the thing in the Lords but it's a concession too far.
I see no sound reason why the CofE couldn't be left in the same position as other religious groups. Although they are the 'established' church I don't think it's right to create such an enormous distinction between them and other churches.
I find the whole concept of a ban for two church denominations astounding. Where exactly is the freedom of religion if everyone but the CoE and Church of Wales can opt in or out as they choose? Surely the possibility of rebel vicars is covered by other parts of the proposals, so it would be up to the Synod to decide policy.
Your hypothetical gay couple, are they members of the church? Do they adhere to the doctrines of the church? If so, and if it is a matter of church doctrine that marriages is between a man and a woman, they would know better than to make such a request. If they did so regardless, are they not heretics - and therefore does the church not have a right to refuse to grant such a request on the grounds of heresy, never mind what their sexuality is?
The bible supports many types of marriage. Out of curiosity are you in favour of all of these over gay marriage:
The idea that people join churches because of weddings and funerals or that church funding would dry up without them is ridiculous. I don't know who told you that but its nonesense.
You might not like it, but it's true nonetheless. Most Brits don't actually give a damn about religion, and while many self-identify as cultural christians, it really does only go so far as weddings and funerals. And the majority don't have a church wedding or funeral out of any genuine religious observance. They do it because it has sentimental appeal. They have a church wedding because it looks pretty in wedding photos. Same with a funeral. The British tend to bury their dead, which means a graveyard, which means a service of some kind. It's the sentimental appeal again, a sombre, symbolic moment to say goodbye to the parted.
Even most actual religious people don't seem to care much. Religion is typically no more than a social outlet. Something to do on a weekend. No more spiritual an experience than a backyard family barbecue. Dress up in their Sunday best, meet with friends, family and neighbours, go through the rehearsed motions of prayer, sing some hymn, mime or mumble the words they don’t know, fall asleep during some boring sermon, go home. Same again next week.
Comments
I am not going to accept it as true merely on your say-so. Please establish this claim. As it is being reported, the proposal is to allow churches to apply to be allowed to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. In that context, there is no question of a religious institution being "allowed to refuse"; it is instead the converse, a case of religious institutions of being "allowed to officiate".
Institutions that do not apply will not be allowed to discriminate; they will simply not be allowed to officiate at same-sex ceremonies at all. So they won't have a choice.
Institutions that do apply are hardly likely to do so if they intend to refuse to officiate, and there's no evidence that, having once applied, such refusal would be acceptable; so it is not established that they have a choice to discriminate either.
In short, your objection appears to be without substance.
You mean that equality means bigots don't get away with their ignorance anymore and you don't like that
We have ? Who is we ?
This is disgraceful !
Why do they want to complicate it like this ?
Surely the same rules should apply to all religions ?
Then if that is the case if a gay couple approach their church and ask if their church can apply to perform same sex marriages that church can either apply or not apply. If they decide not to apply do we just call that bad luck, or is it something else?
You can regard it as the royal we, the broad we, the local we, the pissed off we or just any we that includes more than I and I can assure you I am not alone in thinking this so perhaps regard that as the we.
Realistically a 'bigot' has equal rights as a non' bigot'. Just as the ignorant have identical rights to the non ignorant (is that the opposite of ignorant?). The definition of each is of course a matter of opinion and debate. Equality means just that and each law that is enacted should impinge, restrict, prohibit, allow and treat each person without favour. If it does not it is not an equality law, it is something else entirely, and this law would just be another one of those.
So your pissed off but how are you really impacted on a day today basis ? You say it's not fair that the church can discriminate against gay people and you won't be allowed. I'm pretty sure you'll survive. You might not even notice, unless daily discrimination of gay people getting married really matters to you....however I doubt that.
So let get realistic. Who loses out here ?
Your hypothetical gay couple, are they members of the church? Do they adhere to the doctrines of the church? If so, and if it is a matter of church doctrine that marriages is between a man and a woman, they would know better than to make such a request. If they did so regardless, are they not heretics - and therefore does the church not have a right to refuse to grant such a request on the grounds of heresy, never mind what their sexuality is?
Yes, which is the church's belief. However whatever reasons you give the base line is they are discriminating against a person because of their sexual orientation they may call that heresy, some call it morals, some call it a host of other things but in reality only the church will have the right to participate actively in discrimination on that basis.
I realise this is because the CE Bishops have probably threatened to try to derail the thing in the Lords but it's a concession too far.
I see no sound reason why the CofE couldn't be left in the same position as other religious groups. Although they are the 'established' church I don't think it's right to create such an enormous distinction between them and other churches.
Realistically I survive all sorts of things that do not impact me directly or even indirectly. Rapists, murderers and football hooligans have impacted me very little that does not preclude me from having an opinion on them and wishing to see laws in place that take them off the streets. If a law was enacted that prevented me from standing on my head and whistling through my axxx and was not applicable to many others that would still be wrong despite the fact that I may never wish to engage in such an activity. Not wanting to do something is not the same as being legally blocked from doing it.
True, but if take that view then pretty much every law going is going to get your blood pressure sky rocketing. There are laws everywhere that stop you doing things that Im sure you dont want to do anyway. Nothing, in this case, is being taken away from you and if you feel that bad about wanting to not marry gay people Im pretty sure you could get yourself ordained over the internet and then not marry gay people. Job done - equality.
You lost me on that one. It is the act of being allowed to discriminate for one group that is denied to another group on a legal basis. What form that discrimination takes is realistically irrelevant.
A church cannot in conscience apply to perform a ceremony that its own doctrines prohibit. It would be guilty of hypocrisy or heresy itself. To such a church, the definition of "marriage", in the terms of its faith, requires two people of different genders. Asserting that it is anything else makes as much sense to it as a square circle. This is not discrimination; it is basic logic - from a certain set of premises. This is not discrimination on the grounds of sexuality; the ceremony by definition has certain requirements, and two partners of the same gender do not meet those requirements - whatever their actual sexuality may be.
But - and it's a big "but" - they do not have the right to a monopoly on the definition of "marriage", and if people of other faiths or none see it differently, they do not have the right to a veto on that.
You quibble over a perceived (and disputable) right to discrimination, while turning a blind eye to the far larger injustice that the status quo entails: that the most conservative of institutions have a veto over liberal institutions as to what the accepted definition of "marriage" is.
There is no active participation in discrimination. Even if your charge of discrimination were justified, the participation would be entirely passive - by way of failure to apply for a licence in which it has no interest. The right to marry does not grant one the right to marry wherever one likes, nor does it place an obligation on others to officiate at your wedding.
You mean like the rights of those who want to rob you are discriminated agaisnt by laws that say they cannot ? I would say your 100% wrong when you say "What form that discrimination takes is realistically irrelevant". Its very relevent in some cases, in fact I would go as far as saying its the framework of a civilsed soceity that dictates what you can and cannot do. What if someone decided they didnt like the look of you and it was there right to run you out of town, should they have that right ? No of course not, the form of discrimination in this case is very relevent.
However lets take this case in isolation, assume for the moment you had the power to rule on this issue..whats the answer ? Allow everyone to discriminate on grounds of sexuality ? Or allow no one... is it an either / or option ?
The idea that people join churches because of weddings and funerals or that church funding would dry up without them is ridiculous. I don't know who told you that but its nonesense.
Perhaps the thinking was that once the Church of England opted in as an institution, its status as the state religion might leave individual parishes or ministers open to claims of discrimination if they declined to carry out services, even with the caveat that they would not be forced to? This bar seems to add an extra level of protection.
I honestly don't get why it's needed.
Oh, absolutely. Anybody who disagrees with you must be a bigot. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Try practising the tolerance you preach.
The bible supports many types of marriage. Out of curiosity are you in favour of all of these over gay marriage:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/04/the-varieties-of-biblical-marriage/
Even most actual religious people don't seem to care much. Religion is typically no more than a social outlet. Something to do on a weekend. No more spiritual an experience than a backyard family barbecue. Dress up in their Sunday best, meet with friends, family and neighbours, go through the rehearsed motions of prayer, sing some hymn, mime or mumble the words they don’t know, fall asleep during some boring sermon, go home. Same again next week.
Non sequitur.