Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[Bryn]

That's the daft reasoning of many religionists in the media who seem quite able to redefine things to suit their own way of seeing things but not able to imagine that the rest of us don't share their fixed ideas.

And how come the dog gets left out of the proposed arrangement?

[Serial_Apologist]

And how come the dog gets left out of the proposed arrangement?

dog-ma

[MrGongGong]

And how come the dog gets left out of the proposed arrangement?

Given that Scotty and chums profess to believe in transubstantiation (though i'm not sure they REALLY do believe a word of it ) then I guess they think that anything can become anything else ....... so marrying a shed is no more ridiculous than thinking that wine is really blood etc etc

[scottycelt]

And how come the dog gets left out of the proposed arrangement?

The dog, a pedigree Scottie, sensibly sniffs at the proposed arrangement ... and then the boAT comes in ...

[jean]

Scotty has told us about gay people who are opposed to gay marriage.

For balance, I think we should also consider the views of those gay Catholics who would not reject the proposals:

...Quest believes that the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage in parts of theUnited Kingdomis an opportunity for a more radical change in the marriage laws and we therefore call for a separation of civil registration of marriages from faith-based ceremonies. We advocate a system similar to that found inFrance, where only civil marriage is recognised. Religious ceremonies are optional and have no legal status; they may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day). In this way, faith-based groups will be under no obligation to marry same-sex couples and may continue to abide by their own traditions.

At present a heterosexual marriage is civilly registered in the context of a religious ceremony. If this practice was to continue following a change in the law allowing same-sex marriages to take place in religious buildings, a divergent situation would arise between those faith groups that allow such ceremonies to take place in its buildings and those which do not. In essence, the state would legitimise discrimination by faith groups opposed to same-sex marriage whilst those same groups are fulfilling state functions in respect of heterosexual marriages.

At the very least, it would be better for those faith groups that will not solemnise same-sex marriages or allow their premises to be used for such ceremonies on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriages, to forfeit the right to civilly register opposite-sex marriages in the context of a religious rite, i.e. a complete separation of the civil registration in space and time from the faith-based celebration of a marriage...

(It's a long article. Read it all.)

[Flosshilde]

Scotty has told us about gay people who are opposed to gay marriage.

For balance, I think we should also consider the views of those gay Catholics who would not reject the proposals:

...Quest believes that the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage in parts of theUnited Kingdomis an opportunity for a more radical change in the marriage laws and we therefore call for a separation of civil registration of marriages from faith-based ceremonies. We advocate a system similar to that found inFrance, where only civil marriage is recognised. Religious ceremonies are optional and have no legal status; they may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day). In this way, faith-based groups will be under no obligation to marry same-sex couples and may continue to abide by their own traditions.

Why can't the various churches adopt such a sensible approach? Then it would be up to gay Catholics, gay CofE people etc to campaign in their various organisations to perform same-sex ceremonies.

[scottycelt]

Scotty has told us about gay people who are opposed to gay marriage.

For balance, I think we should also consider the views of those gay Catholics who would not reject the proposals:

...Quest believes that the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage in parts of theUnited Kingdomis an opportunity for a more radical change in the marriage laws and we therefore call for a separation of civil registration of marriages from faith-based ceremonies. We advocate a system similar to that found inFrance, where only civil marriage is recognised. Religious ceremonies are optional and have no legal status; they may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day). In this way, faith-based groups will be under no obligation to marry same-sex couples and may continue to abide by their own traditions.

At present a heterosexual marriage is civilly registered in the context of a religious ceremony. If this practice was to continue following a change in the law allowing same-sex marriages to take place in religious buildings, a divergent situation would arise between those faith groups that allow such ceremonies to take place in its buildings and those which do not. In essence, the state would legitimise discrimination by faith groups opposed to same-sex marriage whilst those same groups are fulfilling state functions in respect of heterosexual marriages.

At the very least, it would be better for those faith groups that will not solemnise same-sex marriages or allow their premises to be used for such ceremonies on an equal basis with opposite-sex marriages, to forfeit the right to civilly register opposite-sex marriages in the context of a religious rite, i.e. a complete separation of the civil registration in space and time from the faith-based celebration of a marriage...

(It's a long article. Read it all.)

Jean, it was actually myself who attempted to strike a balance (in tone at least) at the accusation that those who oppose gay marriage are automatically 'bigots'.

I simply demonstrated that this is totally untrue and it is simply a familiar tactic of abuse hurled by those who have little else to offer in the debate.

Reading the view of 'Quest' I was struck by one particular line .. 'Catholic lesbians and gay men who choose to make a public and formal commitment in a civil marriage ceremony do so in full knowledge that they live in contradiction to the Church‘s teaching ...'

I think that says it all really, whatever one's views, don't you?

I readily accept that gays opposed to gay marriage and Catholics who say they support it are in a minority.

My point is that one cannot claim that those who are opposed to gay marriage are automatically intolerant and bigoted against gays without including some gays themselves in that charge?

That's all ... it's simply a point of logic, really.

[Serial_Apologist]

It is possible to be against marriage of any kind, while supporting the right of gay couples to enter into it, without being a bigot.

I've succeeded in avoiding it, so far...

[scottycelt]

It is possible to be against marriage of any kind, while supporting the right of gay couples to enter into it, without being a bigot.

I've succeeded in avoiding it, so far...

Another point of logic, S_A ...

If you are against marriage of any kind why would you bother to support the right of anybody entering into any kind of it?

In such a scenario, when you have voluntarily contracted-out of the scheme of any kind, how could any aspect of it be any kind of business of yours ... ?

Finally, congratulations ....in a funny kind of way.

[MrGongGong]

That's all ... it's simply a point of logic, really.

said the man who believes in the sky fairies

[Flosshilde]

Another point of logic, S_A ...

If you are against marriage of any kind why would you bother to support the right of anybody entering into any kind of it?

I'm quite happy for people to engage in activities that I am opposed to, or don't think is a good idea, as long as they don't have any negative impact on me (or other people). Marriage is between two people, & is the concern of nobody else. It's quite simple, although one wouldn't expect you to understand the principle.

[Serial_Apologist]

Another point of logic, S_A ...

If you are against marriage of any kind why would you bother to support the right of anybody entering into any kind of it?

In such a scenario, when you have voluntarily contracted-out of the scheme of any kind, how could any aspect of it be any kind of business of yours ... ?

Finally, congratulations ....in a funny kind of way.

I can't figure it out either scotty, tbf; I've long regarded marriage as bourgeois institution for socially engineering compliant reproducers and consumers. I suppose the turnaround came when I realised that while that could put barren couples in a bit of a quandary, it by no means absolves them of any prior rosy expectations of said institution, in which surely those of all sexual orientations should be given a chance of indulging. Why ever not? They're not doing me or anyone who views marriage as a fixed concept any harm unless they overpopulate the globe apart from availing themselves of taxpayers' money for child benefits etc., and I'm all for making the world a happier and, er, freer place.

[MrGongGong]

There is more in the Bible about not eating seafood than about homosexuality
make of that what you will

[Flosshilde]

Did she say morons, or Mormons?

[scottycelt]

I'm quite happy for people to engage in activities that I am opposed to, or don't think is a good idea, as long as they don't have any negative impact on me (or other people). Marriage is between two people, & is the concern of nobody else. It's quite simple, although one wouldn't expect you to understand the principle.

Ah, yes I admit I'm getting a bit confused, Flossie .. it's getting extremely difficult for me to understand anything at all right now.

Pab says he agree with you, but you say that marriage is between two people.

I agree with you, not Pab (though we may differ slightly on the gender of each partner) and Pab also says that marriage has no particular definition ... it's open to Toff Dave to decide on that apparently ... Red Ed doesn't really believe in marriage of any kind, and only tied the knot out of political convenience, so he probably doesn't give a jot, anyway... and now you don't seem to be saying the same as Pab after all?

Please help me here, Flossie ... do you think that marriage is between two people or agree with Pab that it could be between, say, 1,647,074 men and women and a herd of African elephants, if Toff Dave or Red Ed thus decreed?