UK gays say gay marriage proposal doesn't go far enough

[novasteve]

they want to force all religious institutions to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage plans 'not enough' - Yahoo! News UK

 

[TruthSeeker56]

they want to force all religious institutions to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage plans 'not enough' - Yahoo! News UK

UK gays?

Gives a whole new meaning to "bangers and mashed".

 

[TheOldSchool]

That's dumb. It's one thing to try to force states to extend marriage rights to gays, but religions are separate entities. If you don't like what that religion believes then leave it and join or start another one.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ooh ooh I wanna see them force mosques to perform same sex marriages. Where will tickets be sold?

 

[martybegan]

That's dumb. It's one thing to try to force states to extend marriage rights to gays, but religions are separate entities. If you don't like what that religion believes then leave it and join or start another one.

The brits don't have that pesky 1st amendment.

 

[Noomi]

they want to force all religious institutions to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage plans 'not enough' - Yahoo! News UK

I am a strong and vocal supporter of same sex marriage, as most of you know, but this is just wrong. It is NOT right to force a church or mosque to perform a same sex wedding when their religion is against it.

The homosexuals are trying to take away freedom of religion, as they deem their own rights far more important. That is wrong, and it shows a real lack of respect.

 

[Esmeralda]

they want to force all religious institutions to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage plans 'not enough' - Yahoo! News UK

I am a strong and vocal supporter of same sex marriage, as most of you know, but this is just wrong. It is NOT right to force a church or mosque to perform a same sex wedding when their religion is against it.

The homosexuals are trying to take away freedom of religion, as they deem their own rights far more important. That is wrong, and it shows a real lack of respect.

I also support the right to same sex marriage and other equal rights for homosexuals. These are legal rights in countries with secular governments. You cannot, however, imo, force a religious entity to conform to ideology that is against their tenents.

I would just not patronize a church that doesn't agree with my own beliefs, whatever that church is. I'm not religious and wouldn't get married in a church anyway.

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course it is not enough. If it were, then the political heads of the movement would have nothing to agitate about. It is the same as with every other militancy; the original idea may have merit, but it becomes a movement with leaders whose position and existence depend upon ever more militancy.

In this case, homosexual marriage, the percentage of people affected is so small as to be absurd in relation to all the noise about it. In the US, blacks were around 12% of the population and women the majority. Those movements had greatly valid importance for society. That any adults can couple and share goods should be assured by law, but taking the term for the traditional male-female union, "marriage", is unnecessary. Still, if that must be, who really cares? Trying to coerce various institutions to kowtow to the movement of less than 4% of the population is going too far, clearly.

 

[Esmeralda]

Of course it is not enough. If it were, then the political heads of the movement would have nothing to agitate about. It is the same as with every other militancy; the original idea may have merit, but it becomes a movement with leaders whose position and existence depend upon ever more militancy.

In this case, homosexual marriage, the percentage of people affected is so small as to be absurd in relation to all the noise about it. In the US, blacks were around 12% of the population and women the majority. Those movements had greatly valid importance for society. That any adults can couple and share goods should be assured by law, but taking the term for the traditional male-female union, "marriage", is unnecessary. Still, if that must be, who really cares? Trying to coerce various institutions to kowtow to the movement of less than 4% of the population is going too far, clearly.

Approximately 10% of all humans are homosexual. So, it is a larger number than "less than 4%." However, I do agree with you about the effect of leadership in certain movements being too militant. That is what has happened to the women's movement and it has not done women any good, quite the contrary.

 

[there4eyeM]

Masters and Johnson in their famous report came up with that erroneous estimation. Three separate samplings in recent years in Europe and the US indicate maximum 2 to 4%.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I've got a secret to tell you all.

It's what the gays want to do here in the states as well.

Liberal hate is so strong, they will ignore the separation of church and state and force them to comply or be sued and shut down.

all part of destroying the family unit.

 

[Tech_Esq]

they want to force all religious institutions to perform gay marriages.

Gay marriage plans 'not enough' - Yahoo! News UK

Well of course. This was always the agenda here as well as there. Anyone should have known that.

If that wasn't the agenda, then civil unions would have been fine and had a very high rate of support across party lines. But, as we see, that was never the intent. This is just the first step in a path that must eventually included coercing religions into accepting marriage of gay couples.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course it is not enough. If it were, then the political heads of the movement would have nothing to agitate about. It is the same as with every other militancy; the original idea may have merit, but it becomes a movement with leaders whose position and existence depend upon ever more militancy.

In this case, homosexual marriage, the percentage of people affected is so small as to be absurd in relation to all the noise about it. In the US, blacks were around 12% of the population and women the majority. Those movements had greatly valid importance for society. That any adults can couple and share goods should be assured by law, but taking the term for the traditional male-female union, "marriage", is unnecessary. Still, if that must be, who really cares? Trying to coerce various institutions to kowtow to the movement of less than 4% of the population is going too far, clearly.

The who really cares part is what the militants were depending on though. They had to have "marriage" and not civil unions to take the next step. They have to use the force of law about having "marriage" legally to beat the institutions of religion about the head and shoulders until they relent on their positions.

You'll see over time as people become used to the idea of gay marriage, the churches, as the last holdouts, will be made to seem out of touch with society. They will be demonized as old, outmoded and homophobic. It's all coming....stay tuned.

 

[Esmeralda]

I've got a secret to tell you all.

It's what the gays want to do here in the states as well.

Liberal hate is so strong, they will ignore the separation of church and state and force them to comply or be sued and shut down.

all part of destroying the family unit.

'Liberals' are not planning to force churches to accept gay marriages. There is no such agenda.

And the 'hate' in America comes mainly from the right, not the left.

And, btw, gay families are families too. Stop hating so much and just accept. Live and let live.

 

[there4eyeM]

In the US, church weddings have official consequences. In France, a republic, things are not that way. Anyone has the right to a religious ceremony and that's all fine and good. Usually immediately after that, young couples that chose the church then go to the town office (mairie) for the official, legal part. Many people just get hitched officially and never seen a religious building from the inside to do it (and many in the US do that).
So, just separate church from state a little more and stop allowing religious people to perform legal weddings. That would not be a constitutional question or problem and would at least dilute any possible counter argument.

 

[Esmeralda]

In the US, church weddings have official consequences. In France, a republic, things are not that way. Anyone has the right to a religious ceremony and that's all fine and good. Usually immediately after that, young couples that chose the church then go to the town office (mairie) for the official, legal part. Many people just get hitched officially and never seen a religious building from the inside to do it (and many in the US do that).
So, just separate church from state a little more and stop allowing religious people to perform legal weddings. That would not be a constitutional question or problem and would at least dilute any possible counter argument.

Yes, in many countries it is the same as in France. Couples have a religiously sanctioned wedding and then a second legal marriage ceremony in State offices performed by a judge or other legal official. It would make sense to do that in the US too. But in the US, people do not like to change the status quo, so I don't think it will ever happen.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to get married in a church when the church does not believe in what they are doing. I guess there might be some ministers or priests who do agree with the right for gay couples to marry but are unable to perform the ceremony because the church doesn't sanction it. What about the Unitarian Church? They believe in God but seem to be open minded to all beliefs. If it is just about believing in God, that would be good enough. But if gays want to be married, say, in the Catholic church but the church does not sanction their union....I don't get that. I wouldn't want to be part of a religion that rejected me for being gay.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the US church weddings have no more official consequences than in a County Recorder's office. You are not married, anyplace, unless the person officiating signs the marriage certificate. Theoretically, no ceremony even need take place. Just sign the papers.

Religious leaders are empowered to sign the paper, like Judges are, or Clerks in the County Recorder's office. Religious officiants say that they reserve the right to refuse to sign the paper base on their religious beliefs. It's nothing more than that.