A few points to consider....

[Sam Slater]

I thought that although there's a thread on this subject already, I want my thoughts to stand on their own rather being lost in the other thread.

The views of some on here regarding gay marriage really worries me. I can only assume those against it are only that way inclined due to prejudice. Yes. Prejudice.

Why do I think this? The only point put in defence of keeping the discriminatory laws in place have been 'for the sake of tradition'. I find that people who're using this argument are being insincere and hypocritical. Firstly, as I've already pointed out, we do away with traditions all the time. No society would progress at all if it stuck to rigid traditions. Should we have kept Paganism for the sake of tradition? Why did we go against tradition in keeping slaves throughout the colonies and why don't we still send children into workshouses? Let's take the vote away from women while we're at it? I could argue that none of us should have the vote at all. I mean, once upon a time that was the tradition. You get my point.

That's not to say all traditions should be confined to history. The point of ethical and moral philosophy is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some traditions are useful. Here is one very important British tradition I think we should keep:

The famous British sense of fairness.

Renowned British poet, James Kirkup said, "A sense of fairness is embedded deep in the English soul ? the fairness of not jumping the queue, of tutting disapprovingly of those who do. We don't mind waiting, you see, just as long as everybody is made to wait the same way."

Hands up who is not in agreement here? Who wants an unfair society? Many a time I've read comments on here regarding immigrants and lazy dole-scroungers who live off the state and are not contributing to society. Likewise they are mostly, along with others, angered at MPs putting houses, duck ponds and light-bulbs on expenses when most of us have to pay for such things out of our own pocket. And who isn't completely enraged at bankers who've continued to give themselves multi-million pound bonuses for failure while laying off cleaners and toilet attendants? These things, we cry, are unfair. And they are.

So why is it then, I ask myself, that too many on here are vehemently opposed to fairness when it comes to gay marriage - especially since no one has even attempted to convey any half-decent counter-argument? Some people will benefit from this and no one will lose out. It's like holding a door open for an old lady. She benefits and you lose nothing. In fact I tell a lie; holding a door open for an old lady means you lose a tiny amount of your time. Not much, but you do lose something. You don't even lose that with gay marriage. Nothing; Rien; Nada; Nichts.

So - traditionalists have a dilemma. Do you keep the traditional discriminatory legislation regarding gay marriage or keep up the tradition of fairness we've prided ourselves on so long and for which we are known for throughout the world? I think fairness is much more important than some people's worries over same-sex couples getting married. You only have to ask yourself which is more important to teach your child: fairness or an aversion to gay marriage? There's really no sensible argument when it's put in such a way.

So, here we are. If you're against this proposal you really ought to refrain from attempting witticisms, cool the vitriolic paragraphs about liberals, stop infantile comparisons with the Gestapo and ask yourself why you really really are annoyed and angered at a few gays being able to do what heterosexual couples have been able to do for millennia. Maybe you really are just prejudiced and slightly bigoted. Maybe you are more like the Gestapo than the people you're so keen to deride.

I'll finish with this: If it wasn't for people fighting to break tradition we wouldn't have a BGAFD in which to argue about it. As I've said before regarding science, people will accept science, or in this case actually encourage progress, if they either get something out of it themselves or it falls in line with their own thinking. If it doesn't it's dismissed as poppycock or subjugated with condemnation, scorn, and -quite hilariously, and without any awareness in the irony- by placing oneself as the victim that's being dictated to. Utterly comical.

P.s. Please remember why the CofE was established in the first place. Can't remember? Well, some king or other wanted to do away with the pesky traditions surrounding the conditions for divorce. Yes, the CofE came about to change a marriage law. Again, utterly comical.

Sorry for the long post, and if you've made it this far, thank you for taking the time in reading it (whether you agree with me or not).

[Flat_Eric]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Gays already have their civil partnerships, which is marriage in all but name (in the same way that National Insurance is a tax in all but name).

But if - as the pro gay marriage camp argues - it's NOT the same, should straights now be entitled to enter into "civil partnerships" as well, rather than only be able to "get married"?

After all, if gays are now to have a choice between a "civil partnership" AND "getting married" while straights can only "get married", surely this is "unfair" and the law needs to change in order to give everyone the same choices. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality" of course. !wink!

In any case I'd be willing to wager that far from being a major issue in their lives that they lose sleep over, most gays don't really give a fuck about it one way or the other, and that apart from you Sam (and maybe David Johnson), it's mainly just a bunch of middle-aged straight politicians like Cameron and Clegg who are obsessing about it in an effort to try and come across as all "in touch" and "right on" and pick up a few extra "pink" votes come election time.

Probably the only gays who see it as a real issue are the militant tub-thumper types like Tatchell (who lets face it make his living on the back of stuff like this), and a few opportunistic chancers who might see a nice compo claim there somewhere.

I also can't for the life of me understand why any gays would want to get married in a church whose Bible condemns their lifestyle as unnatural, obscene and perverse in the eyes of God (or whatever it is the Bible says).

- Eric

[David Johnson]

"But if - as the pro gay marriage camp argues - it's NOT the same, should straights now be entitled to enter into "civil partnerships" as well, rather than only be able to "get married"? After all, if gays are now to have a choice between a "civil partnership" AND "getting married" while straights can only "get married", surely this is "unfair" and the law needs to change in order to give everyone the same choices. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality" of course."

There seems some confusion in the above, Eric. First, all that has happened is that there has been a consultation on the subject of same sex marriages in church. No decisions have been made nor legislation passed. As part of that consultation, certain sections of the Church have voiced their opposition.

A civil partnership is, in effect, a legal marriage between two people of the same sex as you state. A couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple. This is because it would clearly be prejudicial and discriminatory if individuals of different sexes could marry and have more legal rights and protection than two people of the same sex who entered a civil partnership. However, while a gay couple may form a civil partnership, they are not legally allowed to be married. And, vice versa, straight couples may be married but are not legally allowed to form a civil partnership.

The extent to which this setup may change in the light of legislation allowing same sex marriages is I think, unclear until legilsaton is or is not put to the House of Commons.

"In any case I'd be willing to wager that far from being a major issue in their lives that they lose sleep over, most gays don't really give a fuck about it one way or the other, and that apart from you Sam (and maybe David Johnson), it's mainly just a bunch of middle-aged straight politicians like Cameron and Clegg who are obsessing about it in an effort to try and come across as all "in touch" and "right on" and pick up a few extra "pink" votes come election time. "

This supposition I suspect is wrong. Why would some same sex couples want to get married in church? Err, exactly the same reasons as why heterosexual couples want to get married in church. Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. As in heterosexual couples, some same sex couples are religious and want to have a religious ceremony. Others will want to have ceremonies in churches simply because of the sense of tradition in having a ceremony in a centuries old building.

"I also can't for the life of me understand why any gays would want to get married in a church whose Bible condemns their lifestyle as unnatural, obscene and perverse in the eyes of God (or whatever it is the Bible says).

Well the bible, in particular, has all sorts to say about evil people e.g. prostitutes, money lenders etc etc. Hasnt stopped people getting married in the 21st century.

[David Johnson]

Good stuff, Mr Slater. This is a bit like coming across a diamond in a dog turd.

We can only await some equally sensible, intelligent stuff from the likes of Jim Slip as he explains why same sex couples shouldn't get married in churches should those establishments allow it - preferably without comparisons between those people in favour and the Gestapo.

[Gusset Sniffer]

It's not for the 'for the sake of tradition' it's because Gay marriage is against the rules of the church. Marriage allows procreation. The Bible is clear, marriage is, from the first, an institution for one man and one woman, for life. You can't force clergy to go against the teachings of the bible.

I don't mind personally but I don't think it's unfair. If those are the bibles rules and your a christian you have to live by them.

I believe the European court believes it would be wrong to force religious organisations to perform same sex marriage.

[Flat_Eric]

>>

I understand that David, but Call Me Dave and the Cleggster seem hell-bent on forcing the relevant legislation though in the current Parliament and screw any opposition. The "consultations" are just window-dressing really, going through the motions to give the appearance of due process. Opposing voices will be politely listened to ? then completely ignored. That's usually what happens when a government has made its mind up that it wants to get a piece of "pet" legislation onto the statute books no matter what.


>>

I think it's probably spot on. Very 'unscientific' I know, but I was recently talking to a gay bloke about this (he plays the clarinet in the same band that Mrs Eric plays the cornet) and he says he doesn't give a fuck about it and (more to the point) none of his gay friends give a fuck either, nor is he (personally) aware of any gays who give a fuck. Likewise an old schoolfriend of mine who's gay and who I still see down the pub occasionally when he's back up this was reckons it's all a "red herring" and a "storm in a teacup" that isn't really an issue for most gay people.

You may be able to cite contrary opinions and I'm sure that there are some gays (probably a small minority) who do care. But on the other hand there are probably far more churchgoing folk who would be genuinely offended and upset by it.

"Tough shit" I hear you cry, but whether you or I or Cameron or whoever believes in the church or the Bible etc is utterly irrelevant. The fact is that many people still do believe in it, believe in it genuinely and for them, gay marriage in church is a major problem. And it cuts no ice to simply handwave them away as "ignorant" or "intolerant" or "bigoted" or whatever. Or labelling them as "homophobic" or "Daily Mail readers". That's utter bollocks ? a disingenuous tactic often employed by the so-called "liberals" to try and stifle debate and intimidate their opponents into silence.

They may have gay friends, they may have no problem at all with civil partnerships, they may have no problem at all with what gays get up to in private. But why should they be forced to accept something that they believe is fundamentally wrong and devalues an institution that they hold dear, i.e. gays getting married in church? For them it's all about the religious institution of marriage (as opposed to a secular civil partnership) being between a man and a woman.

So shouldn't we as a society be just as "tolerant" of their religious beliefs as we are told we have to be about the religious beliefs of Muslims, Hindus and other minorities? Do their views count for nothing? Are "gay rights" more important than "Christian rights", because that certainly seems that's the way things are going now? Is it (as I suspect) once again all about pandering to minorities ? about "political correctness"?


>>

Not really sure what prostitutes and moneylenders have to do with people getting married but thereyago.


>>

That's actually quite funny David. Made me smile.

- Eric

[bamboo]

Hi Eric,

>>

"Not really sure what prostitutes and moneylenders have to do with people getting married but thereyago"

I think David was saying that money lenders and prostitutes etc, have a bad press in the bible, yet the church doesn't, as far as I know, ban bank managers, prostitutes, or, dare I say it, porn stars, from getting married in churches.

I think I can just about recall my sunday school lessons and I'm fairly sure prostitutes and moneylenders are openly vilified a number of times in the bible.
Peter giving Paul a reacharound, not so much. !tongueincheek!

[David Johnson]

Correct Mr. Bamboo. The Old Testament has references to prostitutes being stoned to death. Can't remember this happening in Blackpool recently.

It is also worth pointing out that the Church was once dead set against divorcees darkening the CHurch marriage ceremony. Not any more. We now have female clergy. I doubt if that would have gone down too well in the medieval Church either.

[Flat_Eric]

Nor does it (as far as I know) ban convicted murderers, rapists, nonces and bank robbers from getting married in church - not specifically anyway. But I'm sure that a lot of clergy would refuse to marry them if they knew their backgrounds. Ditto porn stars and hookers.

But that's not the point is it? The Bible dosen't (as far as I'm aware) say that any of the above can't get married. Just that two people of the same gender can't get married in the eyes of God and the church. That's what the debate is about. It's not about what people do for a living, or whether or not they're criminals.

The fact is that that the church holds that the religious institution of marriage (as opposed to a 'civil partnership') should be between a man and a woman, not between two people of the same sex.

Liberals are constantly lecturing us on how we should all "respect" and be "tolerant" towards people's religious beliefs. Yet there's really not much "tolerance" going on here is there? Those opposing gay marriage in church are being shouted down as "-ists" and "-phobics" at every turn by so-called "liberals" resorting to the same type of "lazy stereotyping" (to use their own phraseology) that they themselves are normally so quick to condemn.

- Eric

[mrchapel]

tl,dr