Giving gay people the right to marry in church

[Eve]

Could someone please explain to me why men and women are gay/lesbian then? Just curious as to what some think. After all, he created us didn't he? For as long as we have been, there have been those who are gay/lesbian.

 

[Tegans Mama]

*Steps away from this discussion* because it's gonna get ugly, and I don't want to be involved

 

[sparkle_1979]

I know lol...I am keeping :/

Interesting though to hear different opinions x

 

[Nibblenic]

News and debates rarely gets ugly

 

[Missy86]

I thought ministers had the right to turn away straight couples? So that would remain the same, all things being equal

Why does the Bible say that marriage should be between man and woman? Is it for the propagation of children?

I believe so yes

 

[bumpy_j]

I thought ministers had the right to turn away straight couples? So that would remain the same, all things being equal

Why does the Bible say that marriage should be between man and woman? Is it for the propagation of children?

I'm not sure, if they do than it's equal and I dont see the problem. I still think people who aren't religious should have civil partnerships.

 

[TattiesMum]

And Tattiesmum- as Christian's the main basis of our faith is the New Testament not the Old Testament.

Indeed ... but the majority of biblical references assumed to condemn homosexuality are in the Old Testament - not the New - and it is from the Old Testament that the common description of marriage being 'One Man and One Woman comes

Not one of the Gospels so much as mentions it independently, so it would seem that it wasn't an issue with Jesus or early Christians. In the New Testament, marriage is described more in terms of being an earthly manifestation of the relationship between Christ and The Church ... and as a means of almost 'teaching' devotion and spiritual connection to enable the married couple to come closer to God.... which should surely apply just as much to a gay couple as to a hetero one

For me, the whole crux of Christianity is indeed Christ ... His teachings of love, acceptance and (paraphrasing) basically not hurting others and of course the big one ...."And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:26). No Old Testament judging - just acceptance and belief

A few people here have said the church should 'modernise' but I really dont get it, if the church changes the beliefs that it is built on then surely there is nothing left? IF the church doesnt follow the Bible then what is the point to it? True Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, sometimes these might make us uncomfortable but if we take away those teachings and make up our own teachings to go with the times then surely it is not Christianity anymore?

It's not a question of making up our own teachings though - it's believing in Christ that makes people Christians - not how they interpret the bible (and it is a book that leaves itself wide open to interpretation) .... every bible class I've ever been to interprets different passages in slightly different ways

 

[tina3747]

I thought ministers had the right to turn away straight couples? So that would remain the same, all things being equal

Why does the Bible say that marriage should be between man and woman? Is it for the propagation of children?

I'm not sure, if they do than it's equal and I dont see the problem. I still think people who aren't religious should have civil partnerships.

I agree with this also, especially recently with the amount of civil places you can get wed in. If you don't believe in god or go to church then I suppose they should have the right to turn you away... It's being hypocritical in a sense isn't it?
I had a civil ceremony, no desire to do it in a church at all.

 

[Eve]

Oh I don't want it to get ugly by no means I am honestly curious about it. It confuses me. I am not religious. I do not believe in organized religion really either. I am a person of faith, and I do believe in God. My God loves all equally and accepts all as they are, since he is the one who created us all, and he loves all of his children. We are who we are, and that is that lol in my mind.

 

[TattiesMum]

Oh I don't want it to get ugly by no means I am honestly curious about it. It confuses me. I am not religious. I do not believe in organized religion really either. I am a person of faith, and I do believe in God. My God loves all equally and accepts all as they are, since he is the one who created us all, and he loves all of his children. We are who we are, and that is that lol in my mind.

The answer that you will get is that 'we' need to separate the person from the act ...

In other words that God does love all of his children, regardless of what they do - but that free choice is given to us as to whether we sin or not .... so, yes it may be that God has created an extra challenge in life to those who are attracted to the same sex, but the challenge is in fighting the urge and being disciplined enough not to act on those attractions.

Which is why you are seeing the 'we don't hate homosexuals but don't condone what they do' type of arguments.

Personally I see that as a get out clause for allowing intolerance, but it is a matter of interpretation and I'm sure I will be told that I'm wrong

 

[caz81]

And Tattiesmum- as Christian's the main basis of our faith is the New Testament not the Old Testament.

Indeed ... but the majority of biblical references assumed to condemn homosexuality are in the Old Testament - not the New - and it is from the Old Testament that the common description of marriage being 'One Man and One Woman comes

Not one of the Gospels so much as mentions it independently, so it would seem that it wasn't an issue with Jesus or early Christians. In the New Testament, marriage is described more in terms of being an earthly manifestation of the relationship between Christ and The Church ... and as a means of almost 'teaching' devotion and spiritual connection to enable the married couple to come closer to God.... which should surely apply just as much to a gay couple as to a hetero one

For me, the whole crux of Christianity is indeed Christ ... His teachings of love, acceptance and (paraphrasing) basically not hurting others and of course the big one ...."And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:26). No Old Testament judging - just acceptance and belief

A few people here have said the church should 'modernise' but I really dont get it, if the church changes the beliefs that it is built on then surely there is nothing left? IF the church doesnt follow the Bible then what is the point to it? True Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, sometimes these might make us uncomfortable but if we take away those teachings and make up our own teachings to go with the times then surely it is not Christianity anymore?

It's not a question of making up our own teachings though - it's believing in Christ that makes people Christians - not how they interpret the bible (and it is a book that leaves itself wide open to interpretation) .... every bible class I've ever been to interprets different passages in slightly different ways

One of the quotes already that I gave was from the new testament '"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality"- Corinthians 1 6:9-10 and "For this reason God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."- Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27

Marriage in the new testament "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." —Matthew 19:4–6 and For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly-Titus

But I really dont want this to become a discussion about the rights/wrongs of homosexuality and I feel that Im being asked to discuss this/justify it when the point that I was making right from the beginning was that this debate is nothing to do with homosexuality its to do with redefining God's word which is wrong. I feel very uncomfortable when this becomes a discussion about the sin of homosexuality because I myself am full of sin (as we all are) and by singling this out it makes me feel like im saying I have less sin in the eyes of God and I really dont- we are all equal. Please understand the true reasons why this is important- the changing of God's word.

Yes, I agree Christianity is about acceptance and belief and for (what feels like the millionth time) I am not judging anyone- I am disagreeing with changing the definition of something God as said.

I agree that believing in Christ makes us Christians but as a response to the amazing sacrifice we should try and live our lives according to his words. Our deeds do not save us, our faith does but we should try and live in faith and deeds (see the book of James).

Anyway, im stepping away now I think, as I thought when I responded to this what I have actually said has pretty much been ignored and what I was saying it was not actually about ( the issue of homosexuality) has been dragged out and I have been made out by many people to be saying something I am completely not saying. and I am starting to feel uncomfortable with this.

 

[louandivy]

I don't understand why they can't honestly. I see it this way, I can get married in a church, cheat on my husband, beat my children etc... which would look bad on the church and it's bad as the bible says to cheat etc... why so concerned now? I personally feel if someone wants to get married in a church, regardless of sexual orientation, it should be allowed. Love is love and god, above all would see that.

I feel the same way. I mean, considering how easy it is to get divorced how is it that only when gay people want to get married in a Church, that is 'breaking the sanctity of marriage'? So dumb. There are loads of things that the Bible explicitly tells you not to do that many Christians ignore! Its just homophobia masked by 'religious beliefs'.

 

[TattiesMum]

I'm sorry if I've made you uncomfortable and I'm certainly not trying to make you out to be judgemental and full of hate.... I'm just trying to say that I'm a Christian too but I interpret the Bible in a different way to you

Personally I take Paul's letters to be his interpretations For me they are not God's word but Paul's (and on the whole I find him to be misogynistic, intolerant and pretty much at odds with much of Christ's message at times) ....

The quote from Matthew is a direct lifting of words from the Old Testament and pertains to divorce - to take it out of context as a teaching on homosexuality is simply disingenuous in my opinion

And this is what I mean .... I'm a Christian, but my views and interpretations differ from yours To ask the Anglican Church to allow same sex partners to marry in the eyes of God is not wrong to me ... it celebrates love and commitment and as such espouses much of Christ's message and teachings.

Earlier in the discussion you asked why the Church should change it's practices in the face of what you, as a Christian believe ... but equally I would ask why the Church should not change it's practices to reflect what I, as a Christian, believe. We are both Christians after all and equal (as are all men) in the eyes of The Lord

 

[caz81]

I'm sorry if I've made you uncomfortable and I'm certainly not trying to make you out to be judgemental and full of hate.... I'm just trying to say that I'm a Christian too but I interpret the Bible in a different way to you

Personally I take Paul's letters to be his interpretations For me they are not God's word but Paul's (and on the whole I find him to be misogynistic, intolerant and pretty much at odds with much of Christ's message at times) ....

The quote from Matthew is a direct lifting of words from the Old Testament and pertains to divorce - to take it out of context as a teaching on homosexuality is simply disingenuous in my opinion

And this is what I mean .... I'm a Christian, but my views and interpretations differ from yours To ask the Anglican Church to allow same sex partners to marry in the eyes of God is not wrong to me ... it celebrates love and commitment and as such espouses much of Christ's message and teachings.

Earlier in the discussion you asked why the Church should change it's practices in the face of what you, as a Christian believe ... but equally I would ask why the Church should not change it's practices to reflect what I, as a Christian, believe. We are both Christians after all and equal (as are all men) in the eyes of The Lord

Sorry, said I wasnt going to comment but just wanted to respond to this! I think you make a lot of good points, but surely this is about the government forcing the church to change, not the church making the choice?

It was not you really that was making me feel uncomfortable it was the way that the discussion was being turned round to the 'sin of homosexuality' that a few different people were bringing up and I feel uncomfortable as I dont think that homosexuality is any worse a sin than any of the other sins, I myself struggle a lot with it being a sin (as I struggle to understand if im honest why it is a sin- my guess is that at the time I think it was linked to sexual immorality as people who were homosexual were sleeping around and so that is why God condemned it- although I could be wrong)and im sure I have done far worse things!

To me it is about Government control over the church which even if you agree with changing the definition do you think that the government has the right to force the church to do something? shouldn't it be up to the church to change if it wants? You said at the end about the church changing if it wants and I completely agree with that but isnt this the goverment choosing not the church?

 

[louandivy]

I have to say Caz, even though I don't agree with your opinion I do think that you put forward an intelligent argument and I respect that you have obviously given it a lot of thought unlike a lot of people who oppose gay marriage in a Church

 

[TattiesMum]

Sorry, said I wasnt going to comment but just wanted to respond to this! I think you make a lot of good points, but surely this is about the government forcing the church to change, not the church making the choice?

It was not you really that was making me feel uncomfortable it was the way that the discussion was being turned round to the 'sin of homosexuality' that a few different people were bringing up and I feel uncomfortable as I dont think that homosexuality is any worse a sin than any of the other sins, I myself struggle a lot with it being a sin (as I struggle to understand if im honest why it is a sin- my guess is that at the time I think it was linked to sexual immorality as people who were homosexual were sleeping around and so that is why God condemned it- although I could be wrong)and im sure I have done far worse things!

To me it is about Government control over the church which even if you agree with changing the definition do you think that the government has the right to force the church to do something? shouldn't it be up to the church to change if it wants? You said at the end about the church changing if it wants and I completely agree with that but isnt this the goverment choosing not the church?

The thing is that for the Anglican Church ... and I am just talking about the Church of England here ... the Gov't (State) has always been involved

It only exists because of State interference and indeed has 'changed' so many of it's practices to reflect state requirements (convenience?) ... Take the verses from Matthew that we were discussing earlier - the Anglican Church was not only created to facilitate a divorce, but three children of the current Head of the Church are divorced, two of them are remarried and the direct heir to the Title of 'Head of the Church of England' is indeed both ... and to reflect that, Anglican Ministers are given the freedom to marry previously divorced parties in Church.

So it thus becomes very difficult for Anglican hierarchy (and indeed members lol) to climb onto a high horse and talk about it's autonomy

In respect of the 'why is it a sin?' question - well there is a school of thought to the effect that, firstly - the direct references in Leviticus etc were actually intended to condemn the practices of Greek priests who spent so much time on their own pleasures that they neglected the spititual needs of their flock and, secondly, that certain errors in early translation mean that the true meaning in these passages has been lost and that they were never intended to be a condemnation of homosexuality as a sin

 

[Carrie&Char]

Well i have just logged on a seen this and dear me i hope everyone who has commented is ok....

I am a lesbian, i am in a civil partnership with my wife and have been for 4 years, we had a ceromony in a registered hotel and in my eyes it was beautiful.

I was brought up to attend church, went to sunday school my dad was in the army and in his eyes he assumed i would marry a man and have children and be happy for ever after........ i tried male relationships but i was always unhappy and it just did not feel right then i meet my partner and it felt right, my wife is the only same sex relation ship i have ever had and i am proud of this,

I fell in love with the person

As someone who has had that background, i feel that the only people who should get married in a church or religious building are people who practice the religion...... i honestly think there is enough places out there for gay and lesbian couples to marry (i know some people wont like that but hey ho)

Me and my wife did have a baby girl through IVF granted with the help for a man !!! and obviously in any context it does take both male and female to make a baby either natural, ivf, surrogate.......

I have had my little girl blessed in a church though becuase i feel she will maek her own mind up when she is older and will be supported in any way, the vicar came to see us in our home and welcomed us to the church and we have taken her along to christmas celebration and i may take her to easter celebrations, if she wants to be a christain, catholic, muslim, gay, morman i will support her

i have googled the difference between the 2, but basically marriage in a church is for religious people not to make pretty picture for the wedding album

Taken from a website

Introduction

A civil partnership is a legal marriage between couples that are gay or lesbian. Once a civil partnership occurs between these couples, they are entitled to receive similar treatment and benefits as that of any married couple.

On December 5, 2005, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into effect in the UK, allowing couples of the same sex to have legal recognition of their relationship. Any couples who enter into a civil partnership obtain the new legal status of “Civil Partners”, instead of the traditional husband and wife status.

The act was not met without controversy, as the government had expected. Christian groups spoke out against civil partnerships, and committed mixed sex couples who live together argue that they do not receive the same rights as 'married' same sex couples now do.



The Ceremony & Registration

The Civil Partnership Act states that it will not allow any form of religious activity to occur during the process of registering the union. The act does not include a ceremony, and any couple that wishes to have a ceremony will need to contact the registration authority, where the union is to be entered, to find out whether a ceremony is possible.

During the registration. couples will be allowed to speak vows prior to signing the registration. Couples are also required to bring a minimum of two people, who will serve as witnesses and are able to sign the registration documents.

A same sex couple cannot enter into a civil partnership just anywhere. There are certain offices where the registration can take place; some examples being hotels, restaurants, and prestigious buildings. To enter the registration of a civil partnership there are a few steps to be taken:

Visit any office where registration may occur, and give notice of your intention to form a civil partnership.
Wait for fifteen days, the official notice period
Sign the registration, the two witnesses present must also to sign the registration
After entering the civil partnership, couples will receive a package that will outline the responsibilities and rights of each party that entered into the union. These will help to determine what is allowed as partners in a civil partnership. The responsibilities and rights that are outlined will begin the moment the partnership begins.



Benefits & Rights

In comparison with a civil marriage, civil partnerships will have the following equal rights, and responsibilities:

Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment
Tax, including inheritance tax
Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment
The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party
Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have
Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy
Domestic violence protection
Access to compensation of fatal accidents
Succeed to rights of tenancy
The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration
Hospital visiting rights as next of kin
Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another
Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages
Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance
Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment


Anonymity of Union

When heterosexual couples enter a civil marriage, certain information becomes available for public viewing, including names, occupations, and addresses of both parties.

However, because same sex marriages have become the centre of much controversy, and in effort to minimise the risk of harassment to either of the persons involved in a Civil Partnership, the government has decided that less information should be made public. Only names and occupations of the prospective civil partners are required to be made public.



Differences between Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriages

Although a civil partnership is essentially viewed as a “gay marriage”, between same sex partners, the reason it is not called a “gay marriage”, is that there are a few differences between a partnership and a marriage on a technical level.

A civil partnership becomes legal when the registration certificate is signed by both partners. This does not mean that it must be signed during a ceremony that is public or during any specific event. This allows the partner to enter into the partnership on a private basis. There need be no words exchanged. During a civil marriage, typically words are exchanged and then the register is signed.

A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.

There are also vast similarities between the two. In both a civil partnership and a civil marriage, the couples are required to give public notice of the intentions. The records of both are kept as official and public documents with the registry offices. Couples are required to wait a total of 15 days prior to registration but after giving notice of the partnership. After the 15 day waiting period the registration is given, and then it is valid for one full year after the date of registration.​

 

[Yammas]

I agree with the above I am straight and want to get married in a church as it is important to me as a christian although there are plenty of beautiful locations to choose from it just wouldnt be the same.

May I also ask why it iis only about christianity what about other religious buildings? I very much doubt that a gay couple would be allowed to get married in a mosque or synagogue. The way I see it is that all couples should have the same rights however each religion has its own custom and this unfortunatly is one of them. I just dont see why someone would want to get married in a place where they know theri union is frowned upon I'd want to get married somewhere where I feel happy being me not looked down on.

 

[Eve]

I just feel that either heterosexual or homosexual, if you are a member of a church and wish to me married there, you should be able to.

 

[alaskagrown]

Where can the church draw the line, though? Should a polygamous family be outraged they can't get married in a traditional Christian church?

I don't like the idea of diluting the traditional Christian idea of marriage to conform to societal pressures.