Impact of Civil Partnership Bill

eightyfish

From today's Irish Times:

Madam, – As the Civil Partnership Bill passes through the Dáil, many of us within evangelical churches in Ireland are profoundly concerned.

We believe from God’s word that the sole context for all sexual activity is to be within a marriage union between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear that all sexual activity outside of this state is sinful, including homosexual practice. We also believe that one can hold these beliefs and still treat all people lovingly and with respect, while at the same time not endorsing their lifestyle choices.

Because the proposed legislation imposes a €2,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment on a registrar who refuses to facilitate a civil partnership we believe that this is a direct attack upon freedom of conscience and religion. Proprietors of guest houses and BB establishments may similarly be subject to penalty.

Our concerns are based on sincerely held religious convictions and we believe that, in accordance with normal good practice, in the framing of the Bill the Government should respect freedom of conscience and religion.

We therefore call upon Dermot Ahern TD, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to move to protect freedom of conscience and religion for Christians employed in the registry service and hospitality sector. – Yours, etc.

Pastor PAUDGE MULVIHILL,
Calvary Church Westport;
ANDREW COMPTON,
Midleton Evangelical Church;
Rev MICHAEL J WALSH,
Grace Community Church,
Roscommon; Pastor MERVYN
SCOTT, Youghal Baptist
Church; WILLIAM O’
MAHONEY, Cove St Christian
Fellowship, Cork; JONATHAN
McCRACKEN, Tramore Bible
Church; Pastor MATTHEW
BRENNAN, Clonmel,
Co Tipperary; KEITH
CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill
Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BEN SANTING, Corner Church
Tuam; STUART
CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill
Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BILLY HAMILTON, Covenant
Fellowship, Galway; Pastor
DAVE MARTIN, Immanuel
Church, Dublin; Pastor BRIAN
DUFFIELD, Newbridge Bible
Church; Pastor TONY
SIMPSON, The Upper Room
Church, Cork; KEN COWPAR,
JOHN STANFIELD, DAVID
STEVENS, Mallow St Christian
Fellowship, Limerick; Pastor
MICHAEL D TARDIVE, Laois
Bible Church, Portlaoise
Pastor VINCENT GANNON,
Christian Fellowship Church,
Dublin,
C/o Rowan Drive,
Castlebar, Co Mayo.

This makes me so annoyed.

1. Since when is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice"? The gay people I know, for the most part, believe it's innate. You know you're gay from a very early age, and it makes growing up a lot more complicated and stressful. Why would anyone choose this lifestyle? Secondly, recent research has also suggested homosexuality if something you're born with.

2. Based on their ignorant views, they endorse the discrimination of gay people. They support B&B owner's right to refuse gay patrons. They support a registrar's right to refuse a same-sex registration. They justify this prejudice by saying it is "based on sincerely held religious convictions". How is this different than refusing Nigerian patrons because of "religious beliefs"?

Well, I'm sorry, but a person's right to be treated equally outweighs your right to express bigotry because of your religion!

Gone Drinking

Humanities

Religion and Spirituality

Lesbian & Gay & Bisexual

Lux23

I thought Civil Unions would be in registry offices not churches? Is that not the whole point?

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

I thought Civil Unions would be in registry offices not churches? Is that not the whole point?

They are referring to Christian workers within the registry offices.


Meanwhile in Denmark, same sex couples are now allowed to jointly adopt. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11648.html/

Lux23

Deleted User wrote: »

They are referring to Christian workers within the registry offices.


Meanwhile in Denmark, same sex couples are now allowed to jointly adopt. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11648.html/

Oh right so they want them to have the right to refuse to do their job. If they are unhappy with it they should just quit. Get a job defending the rights of the ignorant.

mailforkev

Deleted User wrote: »

They are referring to Christian workers within the registry offices.

Let them find themselves new jobs and perhaps open their eyes to the modern world.

Stercus Accidit

eightyfish wrote: »

...They justify this prejudice by saying it is "based on sincerely held religious convictions". How is this different than refusing Nigerian patrons because of "religious beliefs"?...

Deeply held religious convictions are another way of saying ignorant beyond redemption.

The Zimbabwean gay death penalty is well in line with the bible's teaching, would these people support that?

There is a whole generation that has to die off in this country before we are going to see progress into the 21st century.

Mark200

More idiotic religious crap.


Either way, the civil partnership bill is a joke. What's the point creating a two-tier system for gay marriage? They should just call a referendum to eliminate any discrimination between gay and straight marriage and say "well if you say no, we'll pass the civil partnership bill". A referendum wouldn't/shouldn't impact a church's right to exclude whoever they want to exclude.

orourkeda

eightyfish wrote: »

From today's Irish Times:



This makes me so annoyed.

1. Since when is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice"? The gay people I know, for the most part, believe it's innate. You know you're gay from a very early age, and it makes growing up a lot more complicated and stressful. Why would anyone choose this lifestyle? Secondly, recent research has also suggested homosexuality if something you're born with.

2. Based on their ignorant views, they endorse the discrimination of gay people. They support B&B owner's right to refuse gay patrons. They support a registrar's right to refuse a same-sex registration. They justify this prejudice by saying it is "based on sincerely held religious convictions". How is this different than refusing Nigerian patrons because of "religious beliefs"?

Well, I'm sorry, but a person's right to be treated equally outweighs your right to express bigotry because of your religion!

How can that be true? Most people are not 100% sure about their sexuality until they hit their early 20's

NothingMan

I do think it's fair enough that a church could turn away a couple who didn't adhere to the churches rules and teachings. Anyone who would not be welcome would not want any part of such an organisation anyway.

But to try and say people working in the public sector, ie. registrars should be allowed not to perform a legal, civil ceremony because of their personal beliefs is absolutely rediculous. If you are a registrar and refuse to do a legal civil ceremony based on your own bigoted beliefs should be disciplined.

As for looking to make it legal for people in the hospitality sector to turn away a same sex couple, well obviously that is blatant discrimination any hotel manager or small B&B owner who tried to refuse someone for these reasons should have their license revoked immediately.

I hope the minister takes no more notice of this appeal other than maybe writing them a polite letter refusing to entertain their request. Although as he is a politician he will most likely try and do some awkward dance around this to try and appease all parties but just pissing everyone off equally.

eightyfish

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

There is a whole generation that has to die off in this country before we are going to see progress into the 21st century.

In this case, I don't think it's a generational thing. These are evangelical churches, a fairly new phenomenon in Ireland. Their views may be more hardcore than the catholic church, but their congregations are probably fairly young.

orourkeda

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Deeply held religious convictions are another way of saying ignorant beyond redemption.

The Zimbabwean gay death penalty is well in line with the bible's teaching, would these people support that?

There is a whole generation that has to die off in this country before we are going to see progress into the 21st century.

It's ignorant beyond redemption because YOU THINK IT IS.

These peoples beliefs are THEIRS whether you like it or not. Why do you think it's ok to belittle another persons religious or political beliefs. You don't have to agree with it.

You should practice what you preach.

eightyfish

orourkeda wrote: »

How can that be true? Most people are not 100% sure about their sexuality until they hit their early 20's

True. Maybe I should have said "early on". In other words you know when you're starting to notice people in a sexual way that you're noticing the "wrong" people.

NothingMan

eightyfish wrote: »

In this case, I don't think it's a generational thing. These are evangelical churches, a fairly new phenomenon in Ireland. Their views may be more hardcore than the catholic church, but their congregations are probably fairly young.

This is very true, and frankly quite scary, however I would say these poeple are a small minority as opposed to the mass scale majority of "Catholics" who are currently a strong voting force in Ireland. In about 20 years I would hope we have a much more liberal population as the overwhelming majority in Ireland.

eightyfish

Mark200 wrote: »

Either way, the civil partnership bill is a joke. What's the point creating a two-tier system for gay marriage?

Well that's the elephant in the room in this case. I agree 100%. This country is backward in terms of gay rights and marriage, and I'm ashamed of our laws.

orourkeda

eightyfish wrote: »

True. Maybe I should have said "early on". In other words you know when you're starting to notice people in a sexual way that you're noticing the "wrong" people.

Fair enough but most teenagers do go through a phase where this happens. In the majority of cases this phase passes and they realise they are actually straight. Like I say it's unlikely you can be 100% sure until you reach a certain point.

Aseth

IMHO if you are a priest, rabbi, whatever, you have every right to refuse to go ahead with such ceremony. However, as in this case, being a public servant, a registrar, they should have no right to refuse ass they are representatives of the state.

eightyfish

orourkeda wrote: »

Like I say it's unlikely you can be 100% sure until you reach a certain point.

True also. The point is that it wasn't a choice.

Annasopra

orourkeda wrote: »

How can that be true? Most people are not 100% sure about their sexuality until they hit their early 20's

Research has shown that the average age of people coming out is now 17

sasser

Originally Posted by eightyfish
True. Maybe I should have said "early on". In other words you know when you're starting to notice people in a sexual way that you're noticing the "wrong" people.

Fair enough but most teenagers do go through a phase where this happens. In the majority of cases this phase passes and they realise they are actually straight. Like I say it's unlikely you can be 100% sure until you reach a certain point.

I really dob't think that this is true, and it's not a phase, you are either gay or not. And most gay people will say they knew from an early age (as young as 4/5) that they were "different".

Lux23

sasser wrote: »

I really dob't think that this is true, and it's not a phase, you are either gay or not. And most gay people will say they knew from an early age (as young as 4/5) that they were "different".

What if your bisexual?

Daith

Lux23 wrote: »

What if your bisexual?

You still wouldn't be straight and would have noticed feelings for the same sex?

orourkeda

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Research has shown that the average age of people coming out is now 17

What research?

Perhaps teenagers nowadays are more advanced than I was when I was a teenager.

Funkfield

orourkeda wrote: »

It's ignorant beyond redemption because YOU THINK IT IS.

These peoples beliefs are THEIRS whether you like it or not. Why do you think it's ok to belittle another persons religious or political beliefs. You don't have to agree with it.

You should practice what you preach.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and I think most here would defend that. But its when your beliefs affect people who don't hold those beliefs that you have a problem. I would be quite liberal and I see nothing wrong with religion for the religious and secularism for the secular.

You cannot let your beliefs affect your work. Would a pacifist join the army? Should religious nurses refuse to tend to single mothers?
Remember that doctor (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65403472). Prime example.

wattlendaub

Why anybody would oppose two people who care for each other enough to want a civil union or even to get married is beyond me. I hope the minister politely ignores this letter. Our society needs all the egalitarianism it can get.

The_Minister

NothingMan wrote: »

As for looking to make it legal for people in the hospitality sector to turn away a same sex couple, well obviously that is blatant discrimination any hotel manager or small B&B owner who tried to refuse someone for these reasons should have their license revoked immediately.

The reason that's come up is because of a case in England (I think there was a thread on it somewhere).
Basically, most people have no problem forcing a hotel to take gay couples, but an eighty-year-old, tiny, helpless, just-trying-to-supplement-her-pension, more-room-in-the-house-because-her-husband-is-dead elderly old lady (:p) is a much more sympathetic person, who probably holds old views, and doesn't like the idea of a gay couple rocking her old marriage bed.

That provision is one aimed at the little old ladies of Ireland rather than the hospitality industry in general. Many of them will have operated B&Bs for decades before this was an issue, and just won't be comfortable having 'sodomy on the furniture'.

Lux23

orourkeda wrote: »

What research?

Perhaps teenagers nowadays are more advanced than I was when I was a teenager.

Well yes they are. When I was teenager 9 years ago most people lost their virginity at 17/18 nows its more like 13/14.

Funkfield

Lux23 wrote: »

Well yes they are. When I was teenager 9 years ago most people lost their virginity at 17/18 nows its more like 13/14.

I actually lost my virginity to a 17/18 year old when I was 13/14.

Mark200

NothingMan wrote: »

I hope the minister takes no more notice of this appeal other than maybe writing them a polite letter refusing to entertain their request. Although as he is a politician he will most likely try and do some awkward dance around this to try and appease all parties but just pissing everyone off equally.

Why be polite? They should have a template letter/email on file for this sort of crap:


Dear <Church Name>,

Fuck off.

Yours Sincerely,
The Irish Government.

bronte

Oh FFS!
They don't want to marry in your church, so keep your nose out of their business. If there's an element of your job you feel you can't perform, get a different job. It's like turning someone away because of the colour of their skin.
Idiocy of the highest degree. :rolleyes:

wattlendaub

Mark200 wrote: »

Why be polite? They should have a template letter/email on file for this sort of crap:


Dear <Church Name>,

**** off.

Yours Sincerely,
The Irish Government.

This, a million times this.

eightyfish

The_Minister wrote: »

an eighty-year-old, tiny, helpless, just-trying-to-supplement-her-pension, more-room-in-the-house-because-her-husband-is-dead elderly old lady (:p) is a much more sympathetic person, who probably holds old views, and doesn't like the idea of a gay couple rocking her old marriage bed.

Then she shouldn't be allowed operate a B&B. Old age is no excuse for outdated and immoral (homophobic/xenophobic/racist) views.

kodute

I'd be in favour of making it illegal to refuse to marry a gay couple in a church.

Take that Benedict!

DarkJager

I have a better idea. How about legislation making public execution the sentence for anyone found practising religion in this country? Quite extreme perhaps, but they seem to have no problem negating the human value of someone outside of their norms so why we should show any tolerance towards them or their faith?

A government party that promises to scrub every last bit of religious dirt from our constitution would have my vote in the bag.

Calibos

sasser wrote: »

I really dob't think that this is true, and it's not a phase, you are either gay or not. And most gay people will say they knew from an early age (as young as 4/5) that they were "different".

I know everyone is different but as a straight guy there was no time in my life where I was uncertain about my sexuality. From the age of 10 or 11 I just instinctually started fancying girls. There was no uncertain teenage or early 20's period. I didn't hit 20 and say to myself, "Yeah, I'm pretty confident now that I am straight"

Why would it be any different for gay people. The difference is heterosexual societal norms didn't have me second guessing myself or have me worried about what my friends or parents or society as a whole might think of my heterosexuality.

I don't think its that 'People' don't know for definate till they are in their 20's, its that some gay/bi people aren't confident enough till their 20's to start admitting it to themselves or others.

IMHO, If a person is unsure about their sexuality then tbh they are at least bisexual and there is nothing wrong with that.

As for Oroukeda! Wow, just wow. Why do you think its OK to belittle someones sexual orientation?? Is anyone asking you to marry a gay couple in your church? No. But if you want to bring your religious beliefs into your job as a civil marriage registrar then you are in the wrong job.

I may be wrong but your username sounds Nigerian. Are you an Irish-African member of an evangelical church as a lot of Irish-Nigerian Christians are? Imagine if I believed that black people where lesser people than white people and I was a registrar and refused to marry you to your partner based on my beliefs. Of course no one should respect my beliefs and not call me up on it and say I was unsuitable for the job. Thats the problem. Religous people seem to think their distastful beliefs deserve more respect than other beliefs.
No! I am not saying racist beliefs deserve as much respect as religious beliefs, I am saying religious beliefs deserve no more respect than is currently reserved for racist beliefs. ie none.

Half of this arguement and your offense to it is semantics anyway. A lot of Religious people think the word marriage is theirs. They think the state can do what it wants with legistlation for civil unions but those gays should not be allowed to 'Marry'. There is confusion about the word respect too. When an atheist says he does not respct your beliefs he simply means he doesn't think they are immune from discussion or arguement. He doesn't intend to chase you around the place trying to pick a fight but when you bring it up or prostylise to him or try to impose your religious views on others he feels that 'then' he has a right to argue against you. A lot of religious people think that when we say we shouldn't have to respect your beliefs, we mean we shouldn't have to be nice to you or should be allowed to be rude to you. Thats a totally different meaning of the word respect. Of course we should eb nice to you and should not be rude to you. You just have to get it in your head that when you say something distastful to us about religion or evangelise to us we are not being rude in arguing back.

You are entitled to your beliefs. As an Atheist I wouldn't go out of my way to argue against your beliefs, I would even fight alongside you for your right to believe what you want but I will fight against you when you want to impose your religious beliefs on someone else which is what you are doing if you are a civil registrar and refuse to marry a gay couple.

wattlendaub

Calibos wrote: »

A lot of Religious people think the word marriage is theirs.

Indeed, it seems that religious folk often forget that marriage predates religion!

Stercus Accidit

orourkeda wrote: »

It's ignorant beyond redemption because YOU THINK IT IS.

These peoples beliefs are THEIRS whether you like it or not. Why do you think it's ok to belittle another persons religious or political beliefs. You don't have to agree with it.

You should practice what you preach.

Bull****.

I don't have to respect a single one of those ludicrous beliefs.

I am an advocate of free speech and freedom of and from religion, I don't have to respect the piddling crap that people use those right for.

You can believe in fairies, I will defend that right, you can talk about fairies, I will defend that right, what do I think of someone who believes in fairies? As a respecter of the right to beliefs and expressing them, I can say that I think it is hogwash.

Respecting right to believe =/= Respecting belief itself

eightyfish

Calibos, I agree with most of what you day, but:

Calibos wrote: »

IMHO, If a person is unsure about their sexuality then tbh they are at least bisexual and there is nothing wrong with that.

Not sure about that one.

Calibos wrote: »

As for Oroukeda! Wow, just wow. Why do you think its OK to belittle someones sexual orientation??

I don't think Oroukeda was belittling, really.

Calibos wrote: »

I may be wrong but your username sounds Nigerian.

?!?!?!

Stercus Accidit

eightyfish wrote: »

In this case, I don't think it's a generational thing. These are evangelical churches, a fairly new phenomenon in Ireland. Their views may be more hardcore than the catholic church, but their congregations are probably fairly young.

I hope not.

The bible is a vicious little book, fundamentalist christians are as bad as fundamentalists get when it comes to disrespecting individual freedoms.

I mean, they believe there is a god who makes the rules, what is democracy to these people?

Its an obstacle, a hurdle, an annoyance and not worth scrapping off their boot with a stick.

If people would actually keep their religious views to themselves and not try to impose them on others, I wouldn't hate organised religion as much, I would completely tolerate it.

DarkJager

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I hope not.

The bible is a vicious little book, fundamentalist christians are as bad as fundamentalists get when it comes to disrespecting individual freedoms.

I mean, they believe there is a god who makes the rules, what is democracy to these people?

Its an obstacle, a hurdle, an annoyance and not worth scrapping off their boot with a stick.

If people would actually keep their religious views to themselves and not try to impose them on others, I wouldn't hate organised religion as much, I would completely tolerate it.

You'll find that to be the case with many religious zealots. They have this notion that their beliefs and views are somehow more important than the laws of the land. Must be all that free wine and wafers.

Calibos

eightyfish wrote: »

Originally Posted by Calibos
I may be wrong but your username sounds Nigerian.

It was a shot in the dark al right. In my defense, his surname looks Nigerian when you take the spaces and hypen out:o Didn't think of checking his profile:o Well it helped segue into the racism analogy so it wasn't a total waste:D That arguement would have been more powerful had Mr O'Rourke been a Nigerian and its implications hit closer to home.

Annasopra

orourkeda wrote: »

What research?

Perhaps teenagers nowadays are more advanced than I was when I was a teenager.

http://www.glen.ie/press/pdfs/Supporting%20LGBT%20Lives%20Report.pdf

Page 17 of this research

Stercus Accidit

DarkJager wrote: »

You'll find that to be the case with many religious zealots. They have this notion that their beliefs and views are somehow more important than the laws of the land. Must be all that free wine and wafers.

Now if it was just free wine and biscuits, I could totally get behind that

orourkeda

Mark200 wrote: »

Why be polite? They should have a template letter/email on file for this sort of crap:


Dear <Church Name>,

Fuck off.

Yours Sincerely,
The Irish Government.

And the response should be

Dear Government,

Ask me bollix.

Yours Sincerely

orourkeda

Calibos wrote: »

I know everyone is different but as a straight guy there was no time in my life where I was uncertain about my sexuality. From the age of 10 or 11 I just instinctually started fancying girls. There was no uncertain teenage or early 20's period. I didn't hit 20 and say to myself, "Yeah, I'm pretty confident now that I am straight"

Why would it be any different for gay people. The difference is heterosexual societal norms didn't have me second guessing myself or have me worried about what my friends or parents or society as a whole might think of my heterosexuality.

I don't think its that 'People' don't know for definate till they are in their 20's, its that some gay/bi people aren't confident enough till their 20's to start admitting it to themselves or others.

IMHO, If a person is unsure about their sexuality then tbh they are at least bisexual and there is nothing wrong with that.

As for Oroukeda! Wow, just wow. Why do you think its OK to belittle someones sexual orientation?? Is anyone asking you to marry a gay couple in your church? No. But if you want to bring your religious beliefs into your job as a civil marriage registrar then you are in the wrong job.

I may be wrong but your username sounds Nigerian. Are you an Irish-African member of an evangelical church as a lot of Irish-Nigerian Christians are? Imagine if I believed that black people where lesser people than white people and I was a registrar and refused to marry you to your partner based on my beliefs. Of course no one should respect my beliefs and not call me up on it and say I was unsuitable for the job. Thats the problem. Religous people seem to think their distastful beliefs deserve more respect than other beliefs.
No! I am not saying racist beliefs deserve as much respect as religious beliefs, I am saying religious beliefs deserve no more respect than is currently reserved for racist beliefs. ie none.

Half of this arguement and your offense to it is semantics anyway. A lot of Religious people think the word marriage is theirs. They think the state can do what it wants with legistlation for civil unions but those gays should not be allowed to 'Marry'. There is confusion about the word respect too. When an atheist says he does not respct your beliefs he simply means he doesn't think they are immune from discussion or arguement. He doesn't intend to chase you around the place trying to pick a fight but when you bring it up or prostylise to him or try to impose your religious views on others he feels that 'then' he has a right to argue against you. A lot of religious people think that when we say we shouldn't have to respect your beliefs, we mean we shouldn't have to be nice to you or should be allowed to be rude to you. Thats a totally different meaning of the word respect. Of course we should eb nice to you and should not be rude to you. You just have to get it in your head that when you say something distastful to us about religion or evangelise to us we are not being rude in arguing back.

You are entitled to your beliefs. As an Atheist I wouldn't go out of my way to argue against your beliefs, I would even fight alongside you for your right to believe what you want but I will fight against you when you want to impose your religious beliefs on someone else which is what you are doing if you are a civil registrar and refuse to marry a gay couple.

I didn't intend to denigrate anyones sexuality. I don't think I did

I didn't disclose any religious beliefs I may or may not hold.

I'm not offended by homosexuality no more than I'm offended by the expression of a religious belief.

I'm not african. I didn't, haven't or wouldn't impose any religious or political beliefs on anyone but that works both ways.

As with every other argument there are two sides to this one too and neither side has the right to claim any moral high ground.

thetonynator

Lux23 wrote: »

Well yes they are. When I was teenager 9 years ago most people lost their virginity at 17/18 nows its more like 13/14.

Maybe wherever you live but in the majority of places the average would be 16/17.

Iwasfrozen

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I don't have to respect a single one of those ludicrous beliefs.

You don't have to but unless you want to be a Bigot then it would be preferable if you did.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I am an advocate of free speech and freedom of and from religion, I don't have to respect the piddling crap that people use those right for.

Exactly everybody should have the right to worship as they see fit just as you have the right to call it all nonsense. But you don't have the right to harbout hatred towards religious people for no reason. That is as bad as Homophobia.

orourkeda

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Bull****.

I don't have to respect a single one of those ludicrous beliefs.

I am an advocate of free speech and freedom of and from religion, I don't have to respect the piddling crap that people use those right for.

You can believe in fairies, I will defend that right, you can talk about fairies, I will defend that right, what do I think of someone who believes in fairies? As a respecter of the right to beliefs and expressing them, I can say that I think it is hogwash.

Respecting right to believe =/= Respecting belief itself

Isnt the second sentence somewhat contradictory. Isn't the idea of true freedom of speech the right of the speaker to express their beliefs without fear of reprisal. Whether the listener agrees with them or not is not what counts.

Secondly, I never revealed any religious beliefs I may or may not hold and it is foolish of you to jump to conclusions in this manner.

Thirdly, lacking respect for an opposing viewpoint is different to disagreeing with it and does not warrant any respect in return.

raah!

Here's what the word ignorant means

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

If you honestly believe people are only religious because they lack knowledge of your "correct" views, then perhaps it is you who is ignorant.

orourkeda

raah! wrote: »

Here's what the word ignorant means

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

If you honestly believe people are only religious because they lack knowledge of your "correct" views, then perhaps it is you who is ignorant.

I agree. It's fine to disagree but the use of words to unnecessarily inflame someone who holds an opposing view is unhelpful.

orourkeda

kodute wrote: »

I'd be in favour of making it illegal to refuse to marry a gay couple in a church.

Take that Benedict!

Here's are some questions.

Why would a gay couple want to marry in a church of a religious denomination that does not agree with their partnership in the first place?

Secondly, why do you feel that your views should be forced on any denomination which does not recognise gay marriage?