New UK gay marriage law.

[Sheizenhammer]

As some of you are probably sick of hearing about already (though, oddly, I couldn't find a recent topic on the matter), the UK government is currently arguing about letting gay people get married in exactly the same way as straight couples. The new law got through isn't yet official, and may not be approved after all, but it's looking more likely than ever that this is going to be a thing over here sooner rather than later. Even if it's overturned now, it'll only come back later.

However, there's something I don't get about this: The law doesn't actually force churches to marry gay couples. They have the ability to make the choice themselves, and every major religious organisation in the UK has already said they wouldn't do it regardless of the law. So what's the point of a law allowing gay marriage if there are no churches in the UK that'll play along? The only place you could get 'married' would be in a registry office, and that'd be no different than just getting a civil partnership in the first place (it comes with pretty much all the same rights as a marriage).

So... I dunno, is this just another pointless argument over the definition of a word, or am I missing something here? Are there any recognised churches in the UK that HAVE said they'd obey such a law?

P.S: I don't actually care about the opinion war behind gay marriage, hence the reason why it's not in the Politics forum. I'm only interested in the apparent logic failure in letting the churches decide the availability of places gay couples could get married.

[Xenomit]

This is the one of the reasons I hate the idea of government with every last bit of my soul

"What they're doing isn't hurting or bothering anyone, and it's their lives... but we don't like it so lets just not let them do it"

Sure, there are some that are starting to change that now, but it makes me almost mad that it was ever a thing in the first place.

[Havegum]

The problem is there's a moral issue for the priests. As you said, the majority of priests simply won't do it. There are, however, a small amount that will marry gay couples despite what the general consensus is. I think the point is to remove the ancient restriction, and what may follow, follows. At least there won't be this barrier of a law the church can hide behind.
After this legislation passes, if you want to get married through the church, you'll always find a priest somewhere that can make it happen.

The reason priests won't be forced to accept is sorta the same reason why Niqabs and Burqas are allowed, and falls under the category freedom of religion.

[Lemonardo]

At 2/5/13 03:49 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: every major religious organisation in the UK has already said they wouldn't do it regardless of the law.

They religious organisations think they're above the law.

OK.

[MrPercie]

At 2/5/13 04:06 PM, Lemonardo wrote: They religious organisations think they're above the law.

OK.

we will point a fucking gun at the priests

"MARRY THIS GAY COUPLE AND MARRY THEM NOW!"

[zag]

I find it odd that there are no churches that will marry homosexuals in the UK.
There are plenty in America, and from what I've heard, we tend to be far more radically religious that the UK.

[Xenomit]

At 2/5/13 04:28 PM, zag wrote: There are plenty in America, and from what I've heard, we tend to be far more radically religious that the UK.

Not to mention America has several gay pastures

[zag]

At 2/5/13 04:31 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 2/5/13 04:28 PM, zag wrote: There are plenty in America, and from what I've heard, we tend to be far more radically religious that the UK.

Not to mention America has several gay pastures

There's also gay bishop(s)
And many Methodist (and some Protestant) churches marry homosexuals.

[Lunaful]

Least it means Stephen Fry can now get hitched.

[BumFodder]

There probably wasnt a thread because theres no way its not going through.

[abbiegale]

At 2/5/13 04:06 PM, Havegum wrote: The reason priests won't be forced to accept is sorta the same reason why Niqabs and Burqas are allowed, and falls under the category freedom of religion.

That's right. As far as I'm concerned, state and church(es) are best kept separate. Yes, it would be ideal if all churches accepted gay marriage, but if we don't want religion to interfere with politics, why should it be the other way around, especially when it comes to its morals?

[zag]

At 2/5/13 05:05 PM, abbiegale wrote: we don't want religion to interfere with politics, why should it be the other way around, especially when it comes to its morals?

And I actually agree with this statement.
I would personally find it immoral to force churches to marry individuals, if they don't agree with it.

And as some of you might know, I'm not exactly the most moral individual. I have to draw the line somewhere though.

[Gagsy]

A gay MP made a great speech about why it matters. He started off by reminded the house that this is about people, and he summed that off with a story about his own life and how he and his partner had been together for 20 years, how they're in a civil partnership, which he admitted offered the same benefits as a marriage, but he said, you don't get down on one knee and ask them if they wish to have civil partnership benefits with you. You ask to be married. And there is no reason why two people in love shouldn't be able to say that they are married. Civil partnership is a cop out word. It might mean the same thing on paper but it doesn't mean the same thing in your heart.

Sure a lot of churches can reject marrying two men or two women if they want but places will allow it and then two very in love people can stand with their straight married friends and be equal.

[abbiegale]

At 2/5/13 06:44 PM, Shockoach wrote: on topic though gay people should stop being so sensitive about people not wanting them to be married

it's like having a party and wanting to invite everyone in your class except the retarded kid and your parents make you invite the retarded kid anyway even though you don't want him there

What an impeccable analogy!! gay <=> retarted !!

My compliments!

[Ragnarokia]

At 2/5/13 03:49 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: However, there's something I don't get about this: The law doesn't actually force churches to marry gay couples. They have the ability to make the choice themselves, and every major religious organisation in the UK has already said they wouldn't do it regardless of the law. So what's the point of a law allowing gay marriage if there are no churches in the UK that'll play along? The only place you could get 'married' would be in a registry office, and that'd be no different than just getting a civil partnership in the first place (it comes with pretty much all the same rights as a marriage).

n the apparent logic failure in letting the churches decide the availability of places gay couples could get married.
Tbh this is very good. It is good that it isn't being forced in such a way as it means eventually the religious places will learn to open up to it when they realise how normal gay marriage is. One place will turn, then another will turn, and slowly it will open up until most areas do it.

Forcing the religious buildings to do it will never be a good thing as the priests wouldn't want to and the churches as a whole will find it to be an unwanted chore they need to do rather than something they will happily perform.

They have absolutely no right to complain about this since it isn't forced upon them, if they complain they will be completely in the wrong. And this is exactly what the world needs to open up, to have people learning to accept it as normality.

[Ragnarokia]

At 2/5/13 05:53 PM, Gagsy wrote: you don't get down on one knee and ask them if they wish to have civil partnership benefits with you. You ask to be married. And there is no reason why two people in love shouldn't be able to say that they are married. Civil partnership is a cop out word. It might mean the same thing on paper but it doesn't mean the same thing in your heart.

Sure a lot of churches can reject marrying two men or two women if they want but places will allow it and then two very in love people can stand with their straight married friends and be equal.

This is both beautiful and true, I agree. If I was to marry one day I would want it to be marriage, not something else.

At 2/5/13 07:15 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: n the apparent logic failure in letting the churches decide the availability of places gay couples could get married.

Ignore that bit, failed quoting.

[hecticjon]

At 2/5/13 03:49 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: As some of you are probably sick of hearing about already (though, oddly, I couldn't find a recent topic on the matter), the UK government is currently arguing about letting gay people get married in exactly the same way as straight couples.

"sorry poor people, i can't hear your sounds of starvation and dying over me arguing whether people who are different than me should be subjected to the same rights"