[MERGED] Poll: Same Sex civil marriages, yes or no.

Originally Posted by Russ

As expected some anti-religionists on my fb are saying the new laws don't go far enough and that all churches ought to be forced to accept gay marriages if requested. Superiority, not equality is only good enough for some people clearly.

For some people indeed. This doesn't seem to represent the main body of opinion that is in favour of this change to the law, rather a discontented minority of that group who are unhappy.

Who will now campaign to have this religious aspect overturned because there is a section within the gay and lesbian community who just will not be happy until they have everything they want. I was a bit puzzled by all of this as the admittedly few gay and lesbian friends i have were not interested in this at all they are all couples through civil partnership and were very happy with that. They too have expressed the view that constant campaigning by some will end up turrning public opinion against them and that it is time to let things go and be happy with the advances that have been made in the last fifteen or twenty years i guess we will see. Personally i think the law strikes the right balance between giving people a means but protecting the church and religious belief time to let things go.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Who will now campaign to have this religious aspect overturned because there is a section within the gay and lesbian community who just will not be happy until they have everything they want. I was a bit puzzled by all of this as the admittedly few gay and lesbian friends i have were not interested in this at all they are all couples through civil partnership and were very happy with that. They too have expressed the view that constant campaigning by some will end up turrning public opinion against them and that it is time to let things go and be happy with the advances that have been made in the last fifteen or twenty years i guess we will see. Personally i think the law strikes the right balance between giving people a means but protecting the church and religious belief time to let things go.

The constant campaigning is what has gotten them this far. You don't win rights by staying quiet for fear of upsetting those who don't want you to have them. They also shouldn't be happy with anything less than equality despite the advances made in the last 20 years. These rights should be no less then their entitlement as citizens, not a gift graciously bestowed upon them by the majority.

So I agree that this law strikes the right balance. I presume the ban of CofE churches is to help protect them against a legal challenge and protecting religion from the state telling them what they can do in their own churches is a right thing to do. They shouldn't be forced to perform these marriages just as they can't force other organisations to adhere to their definition of marriage.

I don't agree with the tone of the last part of the sentiment. 'Let Things go' implies that this is somehow an unjustified chip on their shoulder, I think it's a shame it's taken this long for them to be treated equally.

Most of what you have taken issue with is aimed not at the majority who properly campaigned and petitioned for the changes we have seen it is about the more extrreme end of the community for whom nothing other then total granting of what they want will be enough. I didn't make that overly clear and that was my fault but give it a little time and you will see the ones i am on about because they will not be happy with this and will not stay silent for long either. They do no good to any cause they are a part of and will end up doing more damage then good.

You also highlighted why this isn't a debate anymore you saw something and before asking if what you saw was right or meant what you took it to mean you went on the attack and that is why so few people will air anything other then the in attitude to this or any subject right now. This is not something that is a gift but in the current atomosphere in this country it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or supported it just means right now people that don't support things such as this or race or any subject keep stum to avoid being incorrectly labelled.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Most of what you have taken issue with is aimed not at the majority who properly campaigned and petitioned for the changes we have seen it is about the more extrreme end of the community for whom nothing other then total granting of what they want will be enough. I didn't make that overly clear and that was my fault but give it a little time and you will see the ones i am on about because they will not be happy with this and will not stay silent for long either. They do no good to any cause they are a part of and will end up doing more damage then good.

Well fair enough, my mistake. I don't see the value is focusing on the extremes of the debate however. These people don't represent this policy or the majority of those that campaigned for it.

You also highlighted why this isn't a debate anymore you saw something and before asking if what you saw was right or meant what you took it to mean you went on the attack and that is why so few people will air anything other then the in attitude to this or any subject right now. This is not something that is a gift but in the current atomosphere in this country it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or supported it just means right now people that don't support things such as this or race or any subject keep stum to avoid being incorrectly labelled.

I didn't go on the attack so much. I just forcefully put forward the case for making it legal. I didn't call anyone homophobic but I did make it clear that this should be a right they should have already had. That it isn't something that is unfair to grant but something that's overdue.

[Escapee]

I voted no.

I have no problem with people choosing to have a same sex partner, but I believe marriage is something completely different.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Russ

As expected some anti-religionists on my fb are saying the new laws don't go far enough and that all churches ought to be forced to accept gay marriages if requested. Superiority, not equality is only good enough for some people clearly.

I never said a church has to accept gay marraige, but surely that should be the choice of any single church. Making it illegal thus prevents any priest from performing a ceremony which although the church might not agree with he might be happy to perform.. It's exactly the same with priests blessing civil partnerships the church disagreed with it yet there was my priests who would happily do it..

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

So I agree that this law strikes the right balance. I presume the ban of CofE churches is to help protect them against a legal challenge and protecting religion from the state telling them what they can do in their own churches is a right thing to do.

But surely, the state telling them they can't marry Gay people when other religions can IS the State telling them what they can (or can't) do in their own churches?

Originally Posted by danielf

But surely, the state telling them they can't marry Gay people when other religions can IS the State telling them what they can (or can't) do in their own churches?

Well yes. That bit is weird. I thought that it was done to help them, the CofE, fight legal challenges away. They don't want it so we shouldn't force it upon them. I assumed they would have wanted to be banned from doing it but to be honest I am not sure why that ban has been introduced (or left there, depending how you look at it).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well yes. That bit is weird. I thought that it was done to help them, the CofE fight legal challenges away. They don't want it so we should force it upon them. I assumed they would have wanted to be banned from doing it but to be honest I am not sure why that ban has been introduced (or left there, depending how you look at it).

The only way I can see it as not interfering is if the Church of England actually asked for the ban as a safeguard, but I'm struggling to see they would. It's just a really weird move to ban some churches from carrying out same-sex marriages whilst allowing others to do so.

Originally Posted by danielf

The only way I can see it as not interfering is if the Church of England actually asked for the ban as a safeguard, but I'm struggling to see they would. It's just a really weird move to ban some churches from carrying out same-sex marriages whilst allowing others to do so.

I must agree with you there ,i just don't understand the logic behind it and i fail to see how the gay community is happy with this

[Tezcatlipoca]

Gay marriage ban 'step too far' says Archbishop of Wales

Originally Posted by BBC News

The Archbishop of Wales says making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages will be a "step too far".

Dr Barry Morgan says the freedoms of the church would be curtailed by a ban.

The UK government announced the Church in Wales and Church of England will be banned in law from offering gay marriages.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller said both organisations had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015.

"I think that's a step too far," Dr Morgan told BBC Radio Wales.

Nurture

"This seems to exclude the possibility in the future."

He said although the Church in Wales was not currently contemplating offering same-sex marriages, he said the church believed in "nurturing family life".

He said the law had "curtailed" the church's freedom.

"There are those of us who think it ought to be a free choice and this increases the hurdles for people to pass," Dr Morgan said.

"It will have to get the legislation changed in parliament and change its cannon law - and it might be harder to change the law of the land than cannon law.

"In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it.

"It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

(snip)

[danielf]

Ah. So I haven't gone mad (yet).

Originally Posted by danielf

Ah. So I haven't gone mad (yet).

not at all ,i think the government have though

I am even more confused.