egafd.com

I'm not religious but like many people, I was forced to go to church/Sunday school as a kid, so I do have some methodist washed brain-matter, somewhere in my skull.

I can't remember the bible specifically 'banning' marriage between two people of the same gender. I don't think it goes into that.
There are the various passages about... it being an abomination for a male to lie with another male....etc.
But then, when used as food, rabbits, pork, shellfish are also classed as abominations.

I think Monty Python really hit the nail on the head with the stupidity of it all, with Life of Brian.

However, many other people clearly do believe in a religion and whatever their sexuality, I personally don't see it as an issue for them to get married in church.

The church will change eventually, it's only a matter of time. Otherwise, it'll die on it's arse, much sooner than it was going to anyway.

In several years, people will look back with incredulous expressions on their faces, at the fact the church wouldn't ordain female or gay clergy, wouldn't allow same sex marriages etc.

Just as most people look back now,
regarding the church/crown led witch trials in the 1600's.
religious intolerance which included genocide, in it's name.
believing in saints and their 'miracles'.
believing in angels/mary/jesus/aslan appearing to them in various locations around the world.
banning of birth control in AIDs ravaged countries.
turning a blind eye to child/sex abuse in the priesthood.

Then after several more years, people will look back with incredulous expressions on their faces, at the fact that anyone, ever believed in such nonsense in the first place.

[quote]The church will change eventually, it's only a matter of time.[/quote]

Agreed. Nobody ever got their morals from the church. The church gets its morals from us. It's like everything else - it either adapts to the times are gets left behind.

As I suspected, nobody from the 'nay' camp has any good point in favour of keeping things as they are.

Just a bunch of grumpy, conservative men who don't change.

Sam Slater wrote:

> As I suspected, nobody from the 'nay' camp has any good point
> in favour of keeping things as they are.
>
> Just a bunch of grumpy, conservative men who don't change.


No Sam. Counterpoints HAVE been put forward by myself and by others over the two threads.

Just because YOU don't agree with them doesn't mean that they're not valid - or even "good".

That's called arrogance my friend.

- Eric

ar?ro?gant (r-gnt)
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.

From:

I think you'll find, Eric, that #2 describes almost perfectly those who've thought up any crappy excuse to support discrimination.

It's called 'dramatic irony', where the character fails to see what the audience can.

"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."

You said it - "unscientific". There are a substantial number of heterosexual couples who get married in church. I may be wrong but I think it is over a third of people who get married. Surveys suggest that at least 50% of gay people think being able to get married is important. I don't see why gay people should be any less interested in a church marriage where both the church and its congregation are in favour.

"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."

As you have probably noticed, the Church hierarchy is slow to change but change does occur. As Bamboo has pointed out, the church is no longer in favour of burning witches and as well as divorcees now being able to get married in church, you also see couples with kids getting wed. In times past this would have been a "major problem" to use your term for many congregations.

So as Sam pointed out, traditions evolve. If they did not we would still be in the situation here in which some Middle Eastern countries are with people being stoned to death for adultery. Would you prefer that we were still living in that kind of world where the Old Testament talked of prostitutes being stoned to death?

Of course you dont. Nor do church congregations nowadays. Some of your argument I would characterise as the Mary Whitehouse argument. "I was horrified to be watching the Play for Today in which a bare breast was shown three times? Err, there is a an on off switch Mrs Whitehouse.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there are absolutely no plans whatsoever in this consultation to FORCE churches and congregations to have gay marriages. If however, a time arises when a church and congregation decide to have a gay marriage ceremony, you know what? - the objectors needn't attend the gay marriage just as Mary Whitehouse didnt have to watch the bare tits. None of this would impact in any way whatsoever on the heterosexual marriage ceremony.

If a church and its congregation decide in favour of gay marriages why should you or anybody else object and stop it, if it has absolutely no impact on any heterosexual marriages?

Sam Slater wrote:

> ar?ro?gant (r-gnt)
> adj.
> 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or
> self-importance.
> 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's
> superiority toward others

> I think you'll find, Eric, that #2 describes almost perfectly
> those who've thought up any crappy excuse to support
> discrimination.


Whereas both #1 and #2 describe you to a tee, Sam !drink!

- Eric

David Johnson wrote:

> If a church and its congregation decide in favour of gay
> marriages why should you or anybody else object and stop it, if
> it has absolutely no impact on any heterosexual marriages?


This time you've said it David!

It should be a matter for the Church itself and for individual congregations to decide, not for it to be imposed from on high by meddling politicians cynically courting the votes of a minority group.

If (as we're told) no vicars will be forced to perform gay marriages, then I have much less of a problem with it. However I remain sceptical that this will be the case, especially once the ECHR decides to stick its oar in, as is pretty much inevitable at some point.

- Eric

"This time you've said it David! It should be a matter for the Church itself and for individual congregations to decide, not for it to be imposed from on high by meddling politicians cynically courting the votes of a minority group.

If (as we're told) no vicars will be forced to perform gay marriages, then I have much less of a problem with it. However I remain sceptical that this will be the case, especially once the ECHR decides to stick its oar in, as is pretty much inevitable at some point."

Err, I have alway said it, Eric. Maybe you just didn't notice. For example,

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=257714&t=257699

Secondly here is some stuff below on the issues re. the ECHR and same sex marriages. There were no threats from the ECHR as far as I am aware over the need to allow gay marriages prior to this consultation. For a start, I doubt if any such threats would go down well in Italy. The only possible point of contention is if civil marriages go ahead in the UK based on legislation coming from this consultation and a case is brought on the basis of churches having to do the same.

However, you have the example of Sweden, an EU country that has same sex marriages in civil ceremonies and in Lutheran Churches that decided to go down that route. Catholic churches in Sweden do not have same sex marriages. So the example of leaving it up to the churches and their congregations to make a decision appears to be already established.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/ ... sfeed=true

Just #1, Eric.

I don't think you're inferior, just wrong.