Jobs & Education7 mins ago
Gay marriage – yes or no?
84 Answers
On the news tonight, both a representative of the Church of England and a spokesman for Islam said that since it is in direct contravention of God’s law, marriage between same sex couples must not be legalised. I don’t believe we’ve had a discussion on the subject in this section, so your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I am not sure why churches think that they can have a monopoly on what laws there should be....and I say this as someone who believes in god.
I really do not see what the problem is. The govt have said that no church will be forced to conduct gay marriages...so if a church's congregations decide that they don't wish their church to offer gay marriage then the church need not. Churches who wish to do so, can.
I really do not see what the problem is. The govt have said that no church will be forced to conduct gay marriages...so if a church's congregations decide that they don't wish their church to offer gay marriage then the church need not. Churches who wish to do so, can.
Gay marriage ? Perfectly fine IMO - without reservation too I might add.
If it's a question of the couple being members of a particular religeous group and that group disapproves, then they are faced with a choice:
either remain as adherants and 'live in sin' or reject it and have an alternative ceremony or convert to a religious order that isn't homosexist.
If it's a question of the couple being members of a particular religeous group and that group disapproves, then they are faced with a choice:
either remain as adherants and 'live in sin' or reject it and have an alternative ceremony or convert to a religious order that isn't homosexist.
As long as homosexual couples can have a civil 'contract' which gives them the same rights as a married couple I cannot see why they need to call it a marriage. Historically marriages have been between men and women, surely it is not beyond the creative ability of the homosexual community to invent a word that describes the 'relationship in law' without it being confused with a bisexual marriage. As for the religions it is entirely up to them I would think and if they won't marry homosexuals in a religious ceremony I don't see how they can deny them the legal part which is their right in law if they are acting as registrar. The best solution must be for homosexuals that are rejected by their religion to form their own church and devise their own form of 'marriage' ceremony.
While the Church of England is considering this, it might take time to explain why it will only marry divorced people in exceptional circumstances and says that the local priest may refuse, on grounds of conscience, to do so at all.
It's hardly surprising that it takes the stance it does on gay marriages when it thinks that way about heterosexual ones.
The Church and Islam think that homosexual sex is against God's law, but the Church is mealy-mouthed about it and does not condemn active homosexuals. It prefers to complain that it should not be made to conduct gay marriage services, something which no proposed law would make it do.
I approve of 'gay marriage' and see no reason why there should be a semantic argument about marriage. Words change their meaning by usage. What other word is there to describe it?
It's hardly surprising that it takes the stance it does on gay marriages when it thinks that way about heterosexual ones.
The Church and Islam think that homosexual sex is against God's law, but the Church is mealy-mouthed about it and does not condemn active homosexuals. It prefers to complain that it should not be made to conduct gay marriage services, something which no proposed law would make it do.
I approve of 'gay marriage' and see no reason why there should be a semantic argument about marriage. Words change their meaning by usage. What other word is there to describe it?
I can't imagione why people are fussing so much about what the Church thinks. Marriage is not a religious ritual but a contract between two people (currently male and female) which the state recognises in law. There is no earthly reason why that same state should not change the law to allow marriages between two homosexual men or two homosexual women.
The Church should think itself lucky in that (as with its treatment of women) it is again being allowed to circumvent the law.
People can get married in church if they wish, but the last two marriages I have attended have been in beautiful places chosen by the bride and groom with the registrar attending as a guest. They were full of the sort of joyous expressions forbidden in a stuffy church and not really done in a register office.
Ignore the Church. It has no rights in the matter.
The Church should think itself lucky in that (as with its treatment of women) it is again being allowed to circumvent the law.
People can get married in church if they wish, but the last two marriages I have attended have been in beautiful places chosen by the bride and groom with the registrar attending as a guest. They were full of the sort of joyous expressions forbidden in a stuffy church and not really done in a register office.
Ignore the Church. It has no rights in the matter.