The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no issue with a privately funded golf club deciding it's own rules - but then I religiously hate golf.

Even if those rules openly descriminate against gay people..?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hey, don't shoot the messenger here.

I'm merely clarifying where you stand.

Inconsistant much?

you're asking a direct question, you're not a messenger

and in what sense am I being inconsistant?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Even if those rules openly descriminate against gay people..?

If it's a private club, what does it matter?

We're talking about institutions effecting people's public lives here!

Public or private are two entirely separate isssues!

NuMarvel wrote: »

What inconsistency?

And I'm not sure why anyone's position on this needs clarity. Most posters looking for marriage equality have been very upfront that it's about marriage in a civil, legal context. Not a religious one.

I'm only asking the question. Once you're secure on your beliefs you shouldn't have a problem when challenged on them.

By the way none of you have answered my question.

If a gay couple are denied a religous marriage ceremony in a church, would you advocate for their right to said ceremony..?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm only asking the question. Once you're secure on your beliefs you shouldn't have a problem when challenged on them.

By the way none of you have answered my question.

If a gay couple are denied a religous marriage ceremony in a church, would you advocate for their right to said ceremony..?

we've all answered you CONSTANTLY!!!

the answer is NO!

OR they can find a church that is open to them, from one of many different denominations.

eviltwin

I'm getting totally confused with all this talk of golf clubs

All gay people want is the right to get married in the first place, I'm sure venue isn't really all that important.

tommy2bad

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If a gay couple are denied a religous marriage ceremony in a church, would you advocate for their right to said ceremony..?

Speaking for myself, yes I would. I'm a member of the RCC and have a right to do so. It wouldn't be right for people not members of the RCC to dictate who it choses to give sacraments to. Of course the couple in question would have to be RCC to even make such a request.

Links234 wrote: »

we've all answered you CONSTANTLY!!!

the answer is NO!

OR they can find a church that is open to them, from one of many different denominations.

Thank you.

Oh, what if the gay couple want a Catholic ceremony and are denied said ceremony. Would you not advocate for their right..?

Benny_Cake

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If a gay couple are denied a religous marriage ceremony in a church, would you advocate for their right to said ceremony..?

I think that your question has been answered here by a pretty universal "No". I'd see how a church or religious body decides who can and can't be married a purely internal matter. However, I think that members of a church should certainly have the right to express their feelings on how their denomination handles the issue. BTW, calling people who disagree with you "liberalistas" is up there with calling conservative religious folks "fundies" - pejorative and unnecessary.

NuMarvel

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm only asking the question. Once you're secure on your beliefs you shouldn't have a problem when challenged on them.

By the way none of you have answered my question.

If a gay couple are denied a religous marriage ceremony in a church, would you advocate for their right to said ceremony..?

If you go through my posting history, you'll see I've addressed this matter in only the last few days. But I'll repeat it:

"Most people have no problem with a faith saying that x,y, or z is their definition of marriage and that practitioners of that faith must adhere to that definition."

For complete clarity, you can take it that I include myself in most people in that statement. As long as there is adequate separation of church and State, I see no reason to force a Christian Church to let two gay people marry. Same way I see no reason to force a church to let divorced people marry, or indeed to let ANYONE marry.

I trust that makes my position perfectly clear?

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm getting totally confused with all this talk of golf clubs

All gay people want is the right to get married in the first place, I'm sure venue isn't really all that important.

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

Benny_Cake

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

Undoubtedly. I saw a documentary about while back on the issue featuring a gay couple who were committed members of their Catholic parish and we're involved in a variety of charitable activity in connection to that (I couldn't help but admire this, as marriage aside, the church's approach to gay people has been cack-handed and insulting, by and large). They ended up getting married in a Metropolitan Community Church.

I'm sure they would have loved to have been married in their own church, but they acknowledged that wasn't possible. If Catholics feel differently about that, they are entitled to make their voices heard.

doctoremma

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

It might. And if it is, then they would be required to identify a venue/parish/celebrant who is open to their needs. If one cannot be found (because it's a universal "no" from their church of choice), I'd encourage the couple to examine whether they truly want to belong to said church.

You might struggle to understand it but, in principle, I'd defend the church's right to make it's own rules.

My husband occasionally plays at a "men only" golf club. Do I care? Do I protest? No. Their club, their rules. I'll settle for thinking that they're a bunch of sexist pigs who run a club I wouldn't want to be part of*.

*If I played golf, of course.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you go through my posting history, you'll see I've addressed this matter in only the last few days. But I'll repeat it:

"Most people have no problem with a faith saying that x,y, or z is their definition of marriage and that practitioners of that faith must adhere to that definition."

For complete clarity, you can take it that I include myself in most people in that statement. As long as there is adequate separation of church and State, I see no reason to force a Christian Church to let two gay people marry. Same way I see no reason to force a church to let divorced people marry, or indeed to let ANYONE marry.

I trust that makes my position perfectly clear?

I could live with that...:)

MrPudding

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

We can quite happily concede that having a religious setting might be important to some people, but that does not mean they have an entitlement to it at the cost of that religious place having to compromise its beliefs.

Really, is it that difficult to understand? We do not want to see churches forced to carry out same sex marriages. Understand?

MrP

eviltwin

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

Yes but the Church has the right to say yes/no to whoever it wants.

They won't marry divorcees, I've heard of people being refused a wedding in their local church because they had kids outside marriage etc.

Thats just how it is but at least if gay marriage was an option the couple could get the wedding they wanted somewhere.

You seem happy to totally prevent them having the freedom to get married at all !!

eviltwin wrote: »

You seem happy to totally prevent them having the freedom to get married at all !!

I do..?

NuMarvel

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes but the Church has the right to say yes/no to whoever it wants.

That's it in a nutshell. Feasibly, the Church, or any religion, can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for absolutely anyone, even their most devout of followers. As far as I know, the right to a religious marriage isn't set out anywhere in Irish law.

There may be have options to appeal such a decision, but it would be completely internal to the church or religion in question. There's no question of someone's legal rights be denied, because the right doesn't exist (again, as far as I know).

PopePalpatine

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

To some, having a religous or even Catholic setting might be very important. Would you not concede that possibility..?

In Japan, 50% of weddings take place in a "western" style, i.e. in a church with a tuxedo-clad groom and a bride in a white dress, even though Christians make up c.1% of Japan's population. The ceremonies are performed by people acting as priests.

Of course, I recognise that to some gay couples, a wedding like this wouldn't suffice.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, well - lookie here.

'Christian perspectives on marriage' again - what about those Christians who do not agree with your perspective on marriage Phil?

Did you forget about them?

Strange as we so recently had a lengthy discussion about that very thing in this very thread.

And it was revealed that your position was completely inconsistant, as well as you disingenuously making theological declarations like, 'There is no Christian postion on homosexuality', then running from your declarations by declaring, 'Oh, I wouldn't know about that, but if there are some people who say they are christian and disagree, that means there is no Christian position'. Like it was pointed out before, its no different to saying, 'There is no Scientific position on the shape of the earth, because these guys over here, who say they are scientists, say its flat'. If you do not have the interest in the theological discussion on the matter, then don't make theological declarations and run away. Then you have the nerve to make light of Phils learned position on it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Much of what you say is propaganda on behalf of a particular religious ideology. You glorify it. You insist that only by following one particular religious path can a person be saved.

The difference is - you believe you have the right to proselytize but then accuse others of propaganda.

You believe that because something is against your religious beliefs the Civil State should be prevented from implementing it. Yet, it has been made clear that no advocate for gay marriage is calling for the civil State to impose it upon Religious institutions. Spin it any way you want Phil - but what you are advocating amounts to a religion/state relationship that you would be very unhappy with were that religion to be, for example, the Roman Catholic - or Islam - or Judaism - or Buddhism.

If we were to allow religious ideology to dictate civil legislation - whose ideology exactly will be allowed to do this Phil? Will we have Sharia Law?
Will we ban blood transfusions?

Or should it be the Civil State treats all citizens equally - including allowing religious organisations to determine their own internal rules.

A civil marriage is a legal contract of partnership between two adults. It has nothing to do with religion.

You would be offended if I were to conflate the relationship between a man and his God to that as between a man and his anti-depressants yet feel that you have the right to conflate the relationship between 2 adults with that between a person an their pet dog.

The fact that this post got so many thanks shows that a lot of people misunderstand what I've already said as you've done.

1) Much of what I say is propaganda? I have the right to my views, as do you, but I don't think that ramming a liberal philosophy about sexuality into the education system is the right thing to do. This is about the education system. As far as I'm concerned you're more than entitled to publicise your views about it, but not in the classroom. That should be neutral on this topic.

2) No. I supported civil partnership in 2009 despite the fact that Christianity is opposed to same-sex relationships. I've made this crystal clear, if the Government want to redefine marriage that's their volition, however if this legislation impacts adversely on the lives of Christians I can't advocate it, and I think that Christians who are forced to glorify the redefinition of marriage in the classroom, or church ministers who risk being sacked as chaplains for proclaiming Christianity, and so on and so forth. I think a line comes where Christians have to peacefully disobey the law.

3) I'm not spinning anything. Aidan O'Neill QC's legal submission to the Coalition for Marriage shows that there is a risk that legalising this will have an adverse affect on Christians and those of other religions in British society. Do you expect me to be indifferent when that is the case?

4) No, I don't want religious ideology to affect civil legislation. I don't want civil legislation to affect the freedom of religion. That's key. It's also the reason why the whole secularism concept came about in America to begin with for example.

I'm not going to do the usual thing of block by block going through your post as I've already responded to much of your argument already.

28064212 wrote: »

Not all beliefs are equal. If you believe eating pork is taboo, the government discriminates against you by allowing pork to be sold.
.

This is nonsense. You have a choice to eat pork. You don't have a choice in the event of this legislation being passed to refuse to glorify same-sex marriage in the classroom.

Your analogy should be modified to this. State policy says that all people must eat pork twice a day. Muslims can't eat pork twice a day as a result of their policy.

In the same way they would be forced to go against their conscience. That's wrong and it's also wrong in the other case. The better solution is to come to a reasonable via media between the rights. The right to freedom of conscience and religion is no less than anything else.

Edit: let me go even softer on the example. Let's say the Government forced teachers to promote pork eating and claim that it is a great thing for you. Muslims and Jews can't agree with this. They don't do it and are sacked.

Would this be religious discrimination?

tommy2bad

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.

tommy2bad wrote: »

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.

Where did I say any of this about the classroom context?

Again, it shows that the people who thanked your post don't understand what I'm saying.

I was asked about pork by another poster as an example.

Refusing to glorify same-sex marriage in the classroom as a Christian is quite on the same level as refusing to glorify the consumption of pork in the classroom as a Jew or a Muslim.

This could be relatively simply protected against by putting robust conscience clauses in the legislation to protect those who disagree.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

3) I'm not spinning anything. Aidan O'Neill QC's legal submission to the Coalition for Marriage shows that there is a risk that legalising this will have an adverse affect on Christians and those of other religions in British society. Do you expect me to be indifferent when that is the case?

Really? Does it? Show it to me.

MrP

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Where did I say any of this about the classroom context?

Again, it shows that the people who thanked your post don't understand what I'm saying.

I was asked about pork by another poster as an example.

Refusing to glorify same-sex marriage in the classroom as a Christian is quite on the same level as refusing to glorify the consumption of pork in the classroom as a Jew or a Muslim.

This could be relatively simply protected against by putting robust conscience clauses in the legislation to protect those who disagree.

I understand exactly what you're saying. You want your world view 'glorified' regardless of all reasonable argument to the contrary. People who want gay people to be equal have a conscience too, you know.

lazygal wrote: »

I understand exactly what you're saying. You want your world view 'glorified' regardless of all reasonable argument to the contrary. People who want gay people to be equal have a conscience too, you know.

Actually, no I don't as I've very very clearly pointed out so far.

lazygal

tommy2bad wrote: »

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as someone thinking if gay people can marry, those wanting to marry their pets will start a campaign. Or that gay marriage and/or love is comparable to loving a Labrador.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Actually, no I don't as I've very very clearly pointed out so far.

No, you've said you want the status quo, ie the 'glorification' of man/woman marriage taught in state schools. Do you think people will turn gay if we teach them its a perfectly normal thing for two adults in love to marry in a state ceremony?