Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do people still not accept homosexuality today ?

Page 8 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Oct 2020, 11:45 am

Nades wrote:
Yeah but it still came from some sort of religion, when or what one is up for debate but it seems inappropriate to say a church or mosque doesn't have the right to decide over whether to marry a same sex couple if it goes against their faith which by law they have the right to practice. The faiths of today are now the ones who carry out marrage ceremonies and it's up to them. Shoehorning oneself in such a building via social pressure or even law is against what I think society should do given freedom to practice religion has been a legal right for a very long time.

As an athiest I don't even like religion. I've had my conflicts with Christians in particular. I don't get along with them and I don't think they should deny gay people the opportunity to get married but just because I disagree with pretty much everything they stand for doesn't mean I won't defend their right to practice their faith.


But we have already agreed that no church is being forced to marry same sex couples! Just point to an example where a priest under protest was forced to marry two dudes.
And! And, you also don't need someone from a church to make a wedding official, I am sure that it can vary by region, but it is not uncommon to have non-religious people being able to make a marriage official.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_officiant#Civil


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Oct 2020, 11:50 am

Fnord wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
... your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married...
They can't.  What they CAN decide, however, is whether or not they will perform the ceremony.  No one can force them.


Indeed, and no one is legally forcing them to.
Let the churches chase people away from themselves by being bigots, if that is what they want.
They can start encouraging people to treat daughters as the property of their fathers, if they believe their scripture so well.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 11:52 am

Bradleigh wrote:

I apologise for assuming that you were religious.

but your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married. Would the Christian church recognise a Shinto marriage? Would it have the right to say that no atheists can get married? That Church is free to say that they don't recognise same sex couples, it would be sh***y but they can do it, but they don't get to makeup a whole knew kind of union so they stick the icky gay people into. That is plain bigotry that is only lip service in saying that same sex couples are the same as straight.


Because they are the people who can legally perform marriages and they also have the legal right to practice their own faith and not be pressured into going against the principals of said faith.



Bradleigh wrote:
The argument might have some space to stand if there were not already special privileges under the law for being married. That you would not sign a marriage to send into the government, and that people can have the right to marry people via power given by the government rather than the church. In aiming for a secular society marriage already became a secular issue, the government can choose to legally recognise a non-straight marriage, and even do so without forcing a church to do it themselves.


This is pretty much what I want to see. Government bypassing the religious wedding ceremonies in religious buildings with their own legal equivalent in all but name for same sex couples which gives them the full legal rights of married couples. That way both the right to practice a religion is respected and the opportunity for same sex couples to have a legally recognised partnership with a full ceremony can run side by side.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 11:56 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
Yeah but it still came from some sort of religion, when or what one is up for debate but it seems inappropriate to say a church or mosque doesn't have the right to decide over whether to marry a same sex couple if it goes against their faith which by law they have the right to practice. The faiths of today are now the ones who carry out marrage ceremonies and it's up to them. Shoehorning oneself in such a building via social pressure or even law is against what I think society should do given freedom to practice religion has been a legal right for a very long time.

As an athiest I don't even like religion. I've had my conflicts with Christians in particular. I don't get along with them and I don't think they should deny gay people the opportunity to get married but just because I disagree with pretty much everything they stand for doesn't mean I won't defend their right to practice their faith.


But we have already agreed that no church is being forced to marry same sex couples! Just point to an example where a priest under protest was forced to marry two dudes.
And! And, you also don't need someone from a church to make a wedding official, I am sure that it can vary by region, but it is not uncommon to have non-religious people being able to make a marriage official.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_officiant#Civil


I think it varies considerably by country but it's difficult to get into the fine details of where those can take place.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 12:02 pm

KT67 wrote:
That's why my solution is best.

Allow gay marriage.

Allow churches to say they won't perform ceremonies.

Seriously - have you never been to a registry office wedding? Or one in another venue?

And up for debate... yes in a way it's up for debate but that's between historical scholars and it's certainly not post Christianity. Even literature scholars can tell you that one.


A legal equivalent of gay weddings that is held outside of any religious group of building is pretty much what I want to see.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

09 Oct 2020, 12:04 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
... your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married...
They can't.  What they CAN decide, however, is whether or not they will perform the ceremony.  No one can force them.
Indeed, and no one is legally forcing them to.  Let the churches chase people away from themselves by being bigots, if that is what they want.  They can start encouraging people to treat daughters as the property of their fathers, if they believe their scripture so well.
Social Darwinism is at work in most churches, but we may never see a complete collapse of the religious  rackets  system.  If churches want to exclude the LGBTQ crowd, then the LGBTQ crowd is perfectly justified in abandoning churches.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

09 Oct 2020, 12:15 pm

Nades wrote:
This is pretty much what I want to see. Government bypassing the religious wedding ceremonies in religious buildings with their own legal equivalent in all but name for same sex couples which gives them the full legal rights of married couples. That way both the right to practice a religion is respected and the opportunity for same sex couples to have a legally recognised partnership with a full ceremony can run side by side.


Then what is the difference of a straight marriage overseen by the Justice of the Peace in a botanical garden, and one done by a priest in a Catholic church? These marriages not held by a church have been practiced for ages. And what difference does it make if I started the church of fairies that said we can marry gay couples?

I kind of decided to write that before thinking that calling gay people fairies is kind of a big insult, but I just like fairies okay. Such as brownies and dullahan.

And going further, I identify as non-binary, would I be able to marry no one because I am not a man or a woman?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,297
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Oct 2020, 12:20 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
This is pretty much what I want to see. Government bypassing the religious wedding ceremonies in religious buildings with their own legal equivalent in all but name for same sex couples which gives them the full legal rights of married couples. That way both the right to practice a religion is respected and the opportunity for same sex couples to have a legally recognised partnership with a full ceremony can run side by side.


Then what is the difference of a straight marriage overseen by the Justice of the Peace in a botanical garden, and one done by a priest in a Catholic church? These marriages not held by a church have been practiced for ages. And what difference does it make if I started the church of fairies that said we can marry gay couples?

I kind of decided to write that before thinking that calling gay people fairies is kind of a big insult, but I just like fairies okay. Such as brownies and dullahan.

And going further, I identify as non-binary, would I be able to marry no one because I am not a man or a woman?


Fae are cool and it's clear you're not making some homophobic double-entente. :nerdy:


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 12:40 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
This is pretty much what I want to see. Government bypassing the religious wedding ceremonies in religious buildings with their own legal equivalent in all but name for same sex couples which gives them the full legal rights of married couples. That way both the right to practice a religion is respected and the opportunity for same sex couples to have a legally recognised partnership with a full ceremony can run side by side.


Then what is the difference of a straight marriage overseen by the Justice of the Peace in a botanical garden, and one done by a priest in a Catholic church? These marriages not held by a church have been practiced for ages. And what difference does it make if I started the church of fairies that said we can marry gay couples?

I kind of decided to write that before thinking that calling gay people fairies is kind of a big insult, but I just like fairies okay. Such as brownies and dullahan.

And going further, I identify as non-binary, would I be able to marry no one because I am not a man or a woman?


The location is mostly irrelevant I think, other than beaches apparently where the geographical location of sand varies or so the TV show I watched said. They literally had to put a concrete block in the sand for the couple to stand on as it was always a fixed location. I always thought religious buildings are a bit cliché and bland anyway. If I was to ever get married it would be in in some pleasant but interesting location/building but I wouldn't rule out a cathedral but I'm not wealthy enough to hire a 1000 year old British cathedral for a day. (they're absolute behemoths despite their age)

Who does the marriage is the million dollar question though and what causes most of the problems with same sex marriages. It varies by country but I don't see any issue whatsoever with the government implementing their own "weddings" solely for same sex couples (or any sex/non sex) which is a guaranteed way of a same sex/any sex/non sex couples relationship being legally recognised as the partnership it is. Access to a the others pension should one pass, 50/50 split of "marital property" perhaps tax relief should they have a child (but I have no idea how that is implemented or even if any countries do). Pretty much the whole 9 yards but outside of any religious groups.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

09 Oct 2020, 12:44 pm

Nades wrote:
KT67 wrote:
That's why my solution is best.

Allow gay marriage.

Allow churches to say they won't perform ceremonies.

Seriously - have you never been to a registry office wedding? Or one in another venue?

And up for debate... yes in a way it's up for debate but that's between historical scholars and it's certainly not post Christianity. Even literature scholars can tell you that one.


A legal equivalent of gay weddings that is held outside of any religious group of building is pretty much what I want to see.


Apart from the second class language, how is it any different to what we have now?

Considering churches are allowed to refuse to marry gay couples...


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

09 Oct 2020, 12:47 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
This is pretty much what I want to see. Government bypassing the religious wedding ceremonies in religious buildings with their own legal equivalent in all but name for same sex couples which gives them the full legal rights of married couples. That way both the right to practice a religion is respected and the opportunity for same sex couples to have a legally recognised partnership with a full ceremony can run side by side.


Then what is the difference of a straight marriage overseen by the Justice of the Peace in a botanical garden, and one done by a priest in a Catholic church? These marriages not held by a church have been practiced for ages. And what difference does it make if I started the church of fairies that said we can marry gay couples?

I kind of decided to write that before thinking that calling gay people fairies is kind of a big insult, but I just like fairies okay. Such as brownies and dullahan.

And going further, I identify as non-binary, would I be able to marry no one because I am not a man or a woman?


Fae are cool and it's clear you're not making some homophobic double-entente. :nerdy:


Meh they're (I'm assuming pronouns so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Bradleigh) bi and part of the community anyway so who cares if they're making some double entendre. We've been reclaiming words for decades and fairies are cool and fairies outside of Disney are tough sometimes too...


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

09 Oct 2020, 12:49 pm

Fnord wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
... your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married...
They can't.  What they CAN decide, however, is whether or not they will perform the ceremony.  No one can force them.
Indeed, and no one is legally forcing them to.  Let the churches chase people away from themselves by being bigots, if that is what they want.  They can start encouraging people to treat daughters as the property of their fathers, if they believe their scripture so well.
Social Darwinism is at work in most churches, but we may never see a complete collapse of the religious  rackets  system.  If churches want to exclude the LGBTQ crowd, then the LGBTQ crowd is perfectly justified in abandoning churches.


Yeah I'd say don't get married in a homophobic church if you're LGT or if you're bi and marrying someone of the same sex.

It makes you a hypocrite.

Same as people who get divorced then complain the Catholics won't marry them.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 12:56 pm

KT67 wrote:
Nades wrote:
KT67 wrote:
That's why my solution is best.

Allow gay marriage.

Allow churches to say they won't perform ceremonies.

Seriously - have you never been to a registry office wedding? Or one in another venue?

And up for debate... yes in a way it's up for debate but that's between historical scholars and it's certainly not post Christianity. Even literature scholars can tell you that one.


A legal equivalent of gay weddings that is held outside of any religious group of building is pretty much what I want to see.


Apart from the second class language, how is it any different to what we have now?

Considering churches are allowed to refuse to marry gay couples...


I never really considered "gay" to be a bad word.

I'm not very clued up to same sex marriages but if marriages held outside of religious groups is what we have now then I'll consider that as a good sign.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

09 Oct 2020, 3:48 pm

Gay isn't a bad word.

But obviously lgbt people weren't happy with civil partnerships.

That's why there was gay marriages/same sex marriages etc in the first place. In religious places that approve them and in secular spaces too.

You're basically suggesting civil partnerships but acting like it's a brand new brainwave you had. Bit silly.

Venues can apply for wedding licenses and people can officiate weddings with the right (humanist) training.

Basically - if it's not broke, why fix it? (Rhetorical question)

People say same sex marriages to reflect the fact that bi peopel can have them, pan people can have them, they can be straight but between a trans man and a cis woman or trans woman and cis man etc...


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

09 Oct 2020, 4:19 pm

KT67 wrote:
Gay isn't a bad word.

But obviously lgbt people weren't happy with civil partnerships.

That's why there was gay marriages/same sex marriages etc in the first place. In religious places that approve them and in secular spaces too.

You're basically suggesting civil partnerships but acting like it's a brand new brainwave you had. Bit silly.

Venues can apply for wedding licenses and people can officiate weddings with the right (humanist) training.

Basically - if it's not broke, why fix it? (Rhetorical question)

People say same sex marriages to reflect the fact that bi peopel can have them, pan people can have them, they can be straight but between a trans man and a cis woman or trans woman and cis man etc...


Civil partnerships are very "out there" and almost unthinkable in many parts of the world. Many are not happy with civil partnerships so I think they need to be more normalised and feel identical to a wedding. They are made to feel separate from a normal wedding and I don't think that needs to be the case.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

09 Oct 2020, 4:29 pm

Nades wrote:
KT67 wrote:
Gay isn't a bad word.

But obviously lgbt people weren't happy with civil partnerships.

That's why there was gay marriages/same sex marriages etc in the first place. In religious places that approve them and in secular spaces too.

You're basically suggesting civil partnerships but acting like it's a brand new brainwave you had. Bit silly.

Venues can apply for wedding licenses and people can officiate weddings with the right (humanist) training.

Basically - if it's not broke, why fix it? (Rhetorical question)

People say same sex marriages to reflect the fact that bi peopel can have them, pan people can have them, they can be straight but between a trans man and a cis woman or trans woman and cis man etc...


Civil partnerships are very "out there" and almost unthinkable in many parts of the world. Many are not happy with civil partnerships so I think they need to be more normalised and feel identical to a wedding. They are made to feel separate from a normal wedding and I don't think that needs to be the case.


Or... we could just keep on allowing gay marriage.

I don't get why you keep flip flopping between talking about the UK and talking about the whole world.

Honestly this conversation is at a stalemate and I don't think either of us will convince the other.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him