The road to equality.

[King Mob]

What do you mean by that? That every mosque/church/temple must marry any two people who ask, or that each mosque/church/temple sets their own rules on who can marry?

Obviously the latter.

 

[ebia]

Obviously the latter.

It wasn't obvious to me - that's why I asked

 

[lismore]

Will the European Courts agree that a church/mosque can opt out of gay marriage?

 

[Paradoxum]

As God created us he has the right to determine what is right and wrong.

Let us examine what the Word of God has to say about homosexual conduct:

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination {Leviticus 18:22)
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" (Lev 20:13)
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10)
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-28)

What has that got to do with the law? The law doesn't ban immoral things. eg: lying, adultery.

It is sad that people believe this bill creates equality and fits in with God's commands to us which we are now wilfully ignoring as a nation and people. I suggest if they do believe that this creates equality that they like many MP's simply haven't read it. It is a monsterous piece of tyranny that removes rights and does nothing for equality. It is going to cause tremendous problems in the years ahead unless significant changes are made to it. You only need to look to Canada and all the problems they are now having to know this is not a good thing.

You seem to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The Bill promote equality, though it has flaws to be addressed.

One Liberal Democrat MP who has read the bill also notes this that it is anything but equal, and this is an MP on the left who would probably vote for it if there weren't so many flaws with it. I highly recommend you read this:

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Greg Mulholland MP)

The Bill, which is supposed to make marriage 'equal' does not actually do that. The Bill does not propose one equal definition of marriage in law, but instead proposes two different definitions of marriage, one that will apply to opposite sex couples and one that will apply to same sex who choose to marry. That simply is not acceptable. The Bill as currently drafted will lead to a legal reality where a heterosexual marriage has to be "consummated", in other words that for it to be a binding legal contract, the couple have to have sex (at least once) and that if it can be proved that they have not done so, one party can have the contract declared void (annulled). Yet this will not be the case for same sex couples. Secondly, the Bill as currently drafted also specifies that adultery shall remain a reason for legal dissolution of the marriage for opposite sex couples, but not for same sex couples. So the reality is that this Bill as drafted does not even deliver what the Government is seeking to achieve, which is an equal form of marriage for same sex and heterosexual couples. The other area in which the Bill fails to deliver equal rights is that it fails to simultaneously deal with civil partnerships which will lead to an unequal and unfair system that gives the option to same sex but not opposite sex couples. I also believe this is a significant flaw it the Bill and the logic behind it.

I also believe that, as currently drafted, there remain concerns about protecting freedom of conscience, allowing people to express different views of what marriage means and also what they believe is right and wrong in this regard. This is of concern to me as a liberal who beliefs in freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, two founding principles of the liberal political movement. To be clear, the issue of concern is not, as has been suggested in many emails, about whether churches could be forced to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies, it is about whether those who believe in a religious form of marriage will any longer be able to say so in positions in (particularly) public sector organisations where doing so may be deemed to breach equality policies which therefore could be a valid reason for disciplinary action and dismissal. I appreciate that Ministers and civil servants have worked hard to try to deal with the freedom of conscience issue, but this remains an area of concern as expressed by lawyers expert in the field - and we need to realise that if lawyers have different interpretations of the implications of the proposed law, they are not cut and dried. So I am seeking reassurances on this and will support any sensible amendments that will protect people's freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which I am sure you will agree is vital (and I would hope would be the case for people on both sides of the debate).

I agree that these are problem, and that is why you need political liberals in control of government. They will try to respect freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and also the equality and liberty of homosexuals.

I believe they should have made changes to make civil partnerships on a same legal footing with traditional marriage as this would have been the fairest situation and result for all and would not have trampled on the rights of the majority. When the coalition government receives its order from Brussles though it has to act pretty quickly.

Because some are more equal than others right?

Why don't we just give black people a special black water-fountain.

It's the most sensible. Government and the civil authorities perform civil partnerships; churches, mosques and the rest do marriages. Probably makes sense.

I don't know. Marriage is an important cultural tradition for everyone, not just the religious. It has to be possible for the non-religious to be guaranteed the possibility of marriage. I guess this could be done by humanist groups.

 

[apocalypto]

What has that got to do with the law? The law doesn't ban immoral things. eg: lying, adultery.

The Law of God does. Those who will not live by the Law will be judged by the Law.