Thursday, February 07 2013, 5:59PM
“I do agree in a way..this should never have been about 'bills' etc, but a change in the way we view our religion, a particular 'religious' matter...those of non-religious beliefs already have 'civil partnerships' which involve non-religious ceremonies, and the same legal rights. As for 'polygamy' im glad you said 'non-christian' lol. It would never be so..I don't know about other religions, but certainly not allowed in mine in any shape or form, neither in the old order nor in modern day christianity :)”
Thursday, February 07 2013, 6:11PM
“Mam - I am one of those of non religious beliefs, in a heterosexual marriage. We were not married in a church and there was no religious element to the ceremony but in the eyes of the law we are a married couple, we do not have a civil partnership. Which is why I believe the only thing this bill has actually changed is which tick box on census forms etc homosexual couples tick.”
Thursday, February 07 2013, 6:29PM
“If you look at the other thread, you will see my stand on this Oh_come_on..in fact the bill brings little change at all for gay marriage, only to those that only cared about non-religious aspects of marriage..which I believe were already covered by non-conventional 'marriages, and 'civil partnerships' that were already in place.”
Thursday, February 07 2013, 11:57PM
“Mam - I have seen your other posts and to be honest I think we are actually in agreement but just coming at the issues from different angles. I do not think that churches should be forced to carry out marriage ceremonies for everyone. They should be allowed to refuse on religious grounds be that for divorcees our same sex weddings. I do think the term marriage has evolved past its religious beginnings to mean a solemn commitment between two people already so as you have said in real terms the bill had changed very little. I don't believe an approach to the ECHR's would be successful as even if it its law, its not necessarily a human right, although I may well be wrong, where's sansue when you need him!”
Friday, February 08 2013, 9:41AM
“Marriage itself isnt really 'religious', the word itself is a 'union' between a couple. Its just that each religion has chosen its own ways to interpret what a marriage is and should be. In the past it was almost unheard of for different religions to marry, my first husband was Jewish and of a different religion to me. This, through the natural course of moving with the times, is very rarely a problem, and the same for mixed race marriages...this is what I mean by it being more important for changes within the religions, rather than a meaningless bill by government”
Saturday, February 09 2013, 4:29PM
“mam35: I think bringing religion into the equation does make this a every complex situation, but the bill has get out clauses which means the Church is excluded from having to conduct weddings, unless it wants too. This therefore makes this a question of whether same sex couples should be allowed to have cilvil marriage and opinion polls suggest that; although this is an issue about a minority group, a majority agree with it in principle.
It would be great for religion to accept and embrace homosexuality rather than, at best tollerate, at worst hold it with great contempt. But that doesn't look like its going to happen any time soon. That doesn't mean that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in the meantime. It just means that any homosexuals wishing to hold a religious ceremony will have to look very hard for a Catholic or Protestant institution or allign their affiliation with the Quakers. For the rest of us, we have one less stigma attached to us (being asked if i'm married and having to point out i'm civil partnered, highlights a personal aspect of my life i may not want to widely divulge).”
Saturday, February 09 2013, 5:39PM
“why wouldn't you want to divulge it though Bikerdan.. if you have nothing to be ashamed of, why would it bother you?
I know some Gay people relish the limelight, where others are quite private people. I hope they are private rather than ashamed that is.. no one should feel ashamed of their private life, but protecting your privacy should be a right. I know you have disagreed with me in another topic,
but most of my gay friends who value feel that the Overt - carnival loving stereotypical, camp gay people don't do any favours for those who do value their privacy.
In the same way I suppose that the hedonistic 18-30 holiday types don't show british heterosexuals in the best light.”
Saturday, February 09 2013, 5:51PM
Gareth Thomas - he wanted to be known as Rugby Player - not a Gay Rugby Player..
and when he came out - not one of his team mates cared a jot.. and why should they, he only mentioned it in interviews when he was asked about it.. otherwise the topic never came up.
Even Robin from Strictly - women still love him, but he isn't camp.. he doesn't need to be.
Jodie Foster - a well respected actress, not well respected Lesbian..
These people have a life where their sexuality comes second..
Every hetero-sexual worker is known for what they do, not what they are..
If someone had called me a Straight Submariner, I'd be concerned, because it's irrelevant to my ability, my sexuality is between me and my partner. Not every man and woman and Child in the street.”
Sunday, February 10 2013, 12:23PM
“I dont want to proclaim my sexuality every day or every time i meet someone new, having to tell people i'm civil partnered rather than simply maried, sets me appart. Completely agree with you that sexuality should come second but this isn't just an issue for gay people, its an issue for straights as well. like i said in my post, telling people i'm civil partnered sets me appart because of a status i'm forced to accept, by people that are't comfortable with me.....Ironially there are people out there that wold complain that me telling them i'm civil partnered, means i'm throwing my sexuality in their face.....
I think we both hold some similar views, we maybe come at them from different angles.
I'm not a fan of gay pride parades and haven't attended one since being an over excited 20 yr old that had newly accepted my sexuality and felt a need to celebrate it with other like minded people. That doesn't mean they should be banned because i'm over my sexuality. There are many more that still aren't comfortable with themselves and those kind of events may help them become more accepting of themselves.”
Sunday, February 10 2013, 1:16PM
“Why dont you just tell them you are married???? civil partnership is basically the same legally...to me anything else is simply the 'religious' aspect....the word marriage means a union which is exactly what a cilvil partnership is. This bill for same-sex marriages, changes absolutely nothing..everything is already there in civil partnerships, except the religious aspects of your marriage being accepted as a marriage by religions..this bill does nothing for that whatsoever.”
Sunday, February 10 2013, 2:47PM
“By the way, im also not 'married' to my current partner, we had a civil union, and I tell everyone he is my husband and we are 'married' ..il never have another marriage in the eyes of my church and religion, but he is by all purposes my husband :)”
Sunday, February 10 2013, 3:12PM
“Let be be happy, the end!”
Monday, February 11 2013, 11:56AM
“If its as easy as "just" telling people i'm married, why can't i "just" get married??
As you say, marriage for heterosexuals can be religious or civil, this shouldn't be different for Homosexuals (Just as it isn't anymore for inter marriage between white/black people). If certain denominations of Christianity aren't comfortable with holding same sex marriage, that's a shame. But it shouldn't stop religious denominations that do want to conduct them, from being allowed too. The CofE and Catholic Church do not hold the rights to Marriage, it is sanctioned by the state and should be for the state to determine who is permitted to be married.
I do agree that if a religious institution isn't willing to realise the error of its ways and wants to continue persecuting someone based on their DNA, then they should be allowed to refuse to marry them in their institution. As long as that's as far as their persecution goes, vocalise this with language such as disgusting, abomination, unnatural etc and it then officially becomes a hate crime.”
Monday, February 11 2013, 1:01PM
“Completely agree with 'Happy' – Let people be happy, why does everyone seem to stereotype gay people as some form or evil? Gay, Lesbians and either bi-sexual people are all humans and should have the same equal rights called human rights. For me this is the end of it.”
Tuesday, February 12 2013, 1:11PM
“It would be a lot simpler if at the moment, they just had the following on forms,
Ethnicity (where relevant)
Marital Status Single/Divorced or Legally Separated/Estranged/Widowed - specify
or Married/Civil Partnered (Yes or No)
That way no one would have to disclose anything prejudicial to their sexuality.”
Tuesday, February 12 2013, 10:42PM
“Bikerdan..."The CofE and Catholic Church do not hold the rights to Marriage, it is sanctioned by the state and should be for the state to determine who is permitted to be married."
This is my whole point..it does not change in the two predominent religion..lets face it :/...If you are religious in the UK those are the two predominent religions. These religions have been given clauses in the new bill...a cop out...you ever make a law or you don't...simple as :/ It changes nothing for those who are of those religions yet in a same sex relationship
I do hope in your last paragraph you are not referring to modern day christianity?? We do not view homosexuality as an abomination, disgusting or anything of the kind :/”
Wednesday, February 13 2013, 12:09PM
“Completely get that mam35, but should we stop progress for the sake of religion needing to catch up with the rest of society?
It's a great shame that the Catholic leadership refuse to be enlightened to the fact that a certain % of people will be homosexual, because that's what DNA dictates; it is not a free choice. Maybe 2000 yrs ago before we had scientific enlightenment that view would have been acceptable, but today we know this to be incorrect.
The church shouldn't teach people that it's wrong to be homosexual because it isn't, its nature working in a natural way. Being prejudice to someone because of natural laws is wrong (if being homosexual isn't natural, can someone please explain to me why 1000's of species of animals have been observed conducting homosexual activities???).
How do we open up a dialog with a group of people hell bent on vilifying a group of humans due to their genetics, if that group won't listen to reason or logic due to being blinded by out dated teachings in a book (that apparently is so holy the rules on homosexuality can't being ignored, whilst at the same time ignoring innumerable rules that inconvenience their day to day lives in the modern world….)?
Apologies if people see this as an attack on their religion as it isn't, I just don't believe you can hide behind religious reasons for being anti gay anymore. Either call a spade a spade and admit you have a problem with homosexuals that extends past your religious beliefs, or wake up and understand that the teachings are now wrong in their assertion and allow people to live and let live.”
Wednesday, February 13 2013, 2:07PM
“I also get your viewpoint bikerdan..Modern Christians believe the bible was misinterpreted, yes it talked of unions between a man and a woman, adam and eve etc, but then we still do in modern society even though we know that same sex relationships are a way of life, it was never meant to be taken that there would not be other natural preferences of secuality such as a man wanting to be with another man or a woman with another woman..the bible talks far more of fidelity, of compassion, of loving your fellow man and loving, faithful relationships, etc...”
Wednesday, February 13 2013, 3:06PM
“In fact bikerdan, there is a lot of old school christianity that is wrong, including the opinions on homosexuality...we often doubt the need now for an 'archbishop of canterbury'...it very rarely reflects the view of modern day Christians, of which there are many more then the old school :) ..the only things in recent years that seems to go in line is the objection to the welfare bill, and certain proposed changes to the EU, thats about it really, and I don't see the need for an 'archbishop' to put our case there :/ Archbishop paid far too much for little relevance to our modern religion to be honest :/”
Something about your area you want to voice and debate with others? Let your community know and see how they feel.
Join the debate
Copyright © 2013 Local World. All Rights Reserved.