What do people who support this bill think of the caveat to allow churches to decline without fear of discrimination should they wish? Price worth paying, or something that they see being tested?
I couldn't care less if gay people get married in a church, a registry office or at their local car boot sale.
Makes no difference to me whatsoever... but I am sick of hearing about it.
I don't really understand why people are against it. If you are against gay marriage, you are hardly likely to be invited to one or ever attend one, so what difference is it going to make to your life? Absolutely none.
Just let people live their lives and find a little happiness.
What do people who support this bill think of the caveat to allow churches to decline without fear of discrimination should they wish? Price worth paying, or something that they see being tested?
If a Church wants to decline then that's fine (oh that rhymes)... I don't want to force someone to marry me. I think Religious Freedom is important BUT it should not mean that certain freedoms or equalities of others should be affected. Marriage doesn't have to be in a church, it could be in a registry office or some other building or location, but as long as the term marriage encompasses all, that's all I care about. I also think that if other denominations of Christianity (like the Quakers) want to hold marriages then they should have the freedom and choice to and not be dictated to by the CofE or the RC church... This is what will be passed though in the bill. CofE and RC are banned from the services which is what they wanted in the first place (well those high up did but other members didn't)
What do people who support this bill think of the caveat to allow churches to decline without fear of discrimination should they wish? Price worth paying, or something that they see being tested?
I think it's a fair compromise for the time being, but it will possibly change given time.
It's obvious to me that gay people should have equal rights. It should have happened before now and I wish they would have just got on with it. I am a bit sick of hearing about it that though but glad for the people who want to get married.
I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, but that religious denominations that follow texts that describe homosexuality as a sin shouldn't be allowed to conduct homosexual weddings.
I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, but that religious denominations that follow texts that describe homosexuality as a sin shouldn't be allowed to conduct homosexual weddings.
It's not fair on anybody that an establishment that don't agree with it is forced to do it. Starts their marriage with a lie for one.
After years of trying to have a sensible argument and being told that i'm going to Hell/a freak/"choosing" to be gay/disgusting etc I think I'm entitled to a few hours of gloating.
What do people who support this bill think of the caveat to allow churches to decline without fear of discrimination should they wish? Price worth paying, or something that they see being tested?
I have no problem with churches et al staying out of it. What I objected to was the attitude of the major two churches that they would decide for all the other religious organisations. This way they all get to run their own groups how they want, and just as importantly they can't impose their views on other groups. It's the right path to take.
I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, but that religious denominations that follow texts that describe homosexuality as a sin shouldn't be allowed to conduct homosexual weddings.
Come on now. You know that large parts of all those Bronze Age religious texts are ignored on a daily basis. When was the last time you wore a cotton/polyester blend? It's banned in the Bible under Leviticus!!
Barbra said it. And in another one she said during a similar debate she said "Doesn't matter whether somebody's gay, straight or Australian! It's what they're like inside that counts!"
Barbra said it. And in another one she said during a similar debate she said "Doesn't matter whether somebody's gay, straight or Australian! It's what they're like inside that counts!"
Sue johnston plays her I believe? She is pro LGBT in real life.
It's not fair on anybody that an establishment that don't agree with it is forced to do it.
There are people in those establishments who want to conduct homosexual weddings, despite their religious texts saying homosexuality is a sin. If those people don't agree with the texts that are followed by their demoninations, they shouldn't be part of those denominations. Instead, they should either find a denomination that shares their beliefs, or create a new denomination.
It is because of people trying to get denominations to do things that are against the texts they follow that the legislation needs to include a ban on such denominations being allowed to conduct homosexual weddings.
Comments
Great news!
Piss off!
So glad it got past the commons vote. Let's just hope that it succeeds in the Lords.
A very good point.
If a Church wants to decline then that's fine (oh that rhymes)... I don't want to force someone to marry me. I think Religious Freedom is important BUT it should not mean that certain freedoms or equalities of others should be affected. Marriage doesn't have to be in a church, it could be in a registry office or some other building or location, but as long as the term marriage encompasses all, that's all I care about. I also think that if other denominations of Christianity (like the Quakers) want to hold marriages then they should have the freedom and choice to and not be dictated to by the CofE or the RC church... This is what will be passed though in the bill. CofE and RC are banned from the services which is what they wanted in the first place (well those high up did but other members didn't)
I think it's a fair compromise for the time being, but it will possibly change given time.
A big fat haha @ the homophobes and religious nutters.
Makes you look so much better than them...
It's not fair on anybody that an establishment that don't agree with it is forced to do it. Starts their marriage with a lie for one.
After years of trying to have a sensible argument and being told that i'm going to Hell/a freak/"choosing" to be gay/disgusting etc I think I'm entitled to a few hours of gloating.
Gay and homosexual are the same.
It`s a shame not all religous people share your views
I do think a lot hide behind their faith to justify their own personal prejudices.
Somebody doesn't watch The Royal Family!
Was actually making a TV reference lol. But yes, my views are pretty much that.
I used to! I don't remember that line though.
Barbra said it. And in another one she said during a similar debate she said "Doesn't matter whether somebody's gay, straight or Australian! It's what they're like inside that counts!"
Sue johnston plays her I believe? She is pro LGBT in real life.
Yeah, Sue Johnston's character. And yes, I did know that oddly enough.
There are people in those establishments who want to conduct homosexual weddings, despite their religious texts saying homosexuality is a sin. If those people don't agree with the texts that are followed by their demoninations, they shouldn't be part of those denominations. Instead, they should either find a denomination that shares their beliefs, or create a new denomination.
It is because of people trying to get denominations to do things that are against the texts they follow that the legislation needs to include a ban on such denominations being allowed to conduct homosexual weddings.