U K Parliament Backs Gay Marriage Bill

[Jingthing]

A discussion of church - state separation is definitely relevant to the legal issue of same sex marriage.

[thaicbr]

A discussion of church - state separation is definitely relevant to the legal issue of same sex marriage.

Really. Why in this context?

Edited February 12, 2013 by thaicbr

[Jingthing]

A discussion of church - state separation is definitely relevant to the legal issue of same sex marriage.

Really. Why?

Because the UK has a state church, the C of E, and accommodations were made in the pending law to account for that church specifically. Among other reasons. Secular countries SHOULD make decisions of marriage legality based on human ethics, not religious dogma.

[thaicbr]

A discussion of church - state separation is definitely relevant to the legal issue of same sex marriage.

Really. Why?

Because the UK has a state church, the C of E, and accommodations were made in the pending law to account for that church specifically. Among other reasons. Secular countries SHOULD make decisions of marriage legality based on human ethics, not religious dogma.

As I said in this context. Accommodation has been made... so no need to have anti church stuff

[Scott]

The topic is about Gay marriage. The Church of England is a secondary issue and direct discussion of religion is off-topic. I have removed one baiting post. Please keep the discussion civil.

[endure]

Why would you criticize another's beliefs?

I certainly have not criticized anyone's beliefs on this thread.

Or in fact accused them of something they are not.

I'll criticise anyone's personal beliefs when they think it gives them special rights that are over and above anyone else's personal beliefs.

If two Jedi want to get married in a church, as long as it is being subsidised by state revenue, they should have the right.

As long as it's being subsidies by the state eh. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Anything that is being subsidised by the state ought to be available to all citizens regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. That's what the Equality Act 2010 was all about.

[transam]

Why would you criticize another's beliefs?

I certainly have not criticized anyone's beliefs on this thread.

Or in fact accused them of something they are not.

I'll criticise anyone's personal beliefs when they think it gives them special rights that are over and above anyone else's personal beliefs.

If two Jedi want to get married in a church, as long as it is being subsidised by state revenue, they should have the right.

As long as it's being subsidies by the state eh. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Anything that is being subsidised by the state ought to be available to all citizens regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. That's what the Equality Act 2010 was all about.

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

[endure]

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

Can you point it out to me please. I don't understand what you mean.

[transam]

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

Can you point it out to me please. I don't understand what you mean.

Mr. Chicog said, anything is OK if financed by the state revenue. Please read before you attack, l fear your stick.

[Chicog]

An even more informed comment from a female journalist:

The church, in seeking to be above the law, is now a discriminatory organisation, though it holds 26 seats in the House in Lords, from which women are barred. This effective debarring of women from the legislative process is more than an "embarrassment", it is profoundly undemocratic.

A secular country – and that is largely what we are – should have no truck with this. Why on earth should we respect this bizarre sect any longer? The separation of church and state is long overdue. An institution that allows the maintenance of a stained glass ceiling for its female clergy to bang their heads against should not only lose its moral authority. Let it also lose its unearned privileges.

Why not take you anti church rants elsewhere.

Perhaps I don't feel like it when there's a thread that perfectly illustrates that there is a subsidised cult in Britain that holds a politicial influence that it does not deserve.

[Chicog]

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

Can you point it out to me please. I don't understand what you mean.

Mr. Chicog said, anything is OK if financed by the state revenue. Please read before you attack, l fear your stick.

Yes, I effectively agreed with endure. What mistake?

[endure]

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

Can you point it out to me please. I don't understand what you mean.

Mr. Chicog said, anything is OK if financed by the state revenue. Please read before you attack, l fear your stick.

What he said (and what I believe too) is that any organisation that is subsidised by the state (which is really all of us who pay taxes) ought to offer its services to those who qualify. I don't believe that being gay, black, female or Christian should disqualify anyone from taking advantage of those services. I don't complain about paying my share to keep the education system going to teach other people's kids even though I'll never have any. This whole gay marriage debate is about civil marriage and has little, if anything, to do with religion.

As far as religion itself is concerned I'm a great believer in people being allowed to practise whatever religion they choose as long as they don't attempt to force their views on others. Unfortunately the CofE is in a unique position where 26 of its senior members can, and often do, try and frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons. As I said before not all religions (or even all branches of Christianity) take the same view as the CofE and I don't see why their (the CofE) views ought to be taken into account any more strongly than any other religion.

[transam]

Think you must read the posts again. You have failed to see a mistake, or perhaps not.

Can you point it out to me please. I don't understand what you mean.

Mr. Chicog said, anything is OK if financed by the state revenue. Please read before you attack, l fear your stick.

What he said (and what I believe too) is that any organisation that is subsidised by the state (which is really all of us who pay taxes) ought to offer its services to those who qualify. I don't believe that being gay, black, female or Christian should disqualify anyone from taking advantage of those services. I don't complain about paying my share to keep the education system going to teach other people's kids even though I'll never have any. This whole gay marriage debate is about civil marriage and has little, if anything, to do with religion.

As far as religion itself is concerned I'm a great believer in people being allowed to practise whatever religion they choose as long as they don't attempt to force their views on others. Unfortunately the CofE is in a unique position where 26 of its senior members can, and often do, try and frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons. As I said before not all religions (or even all branches of Christianity) take the same view as the CofE and I don't see why their (the CofE) views ought to be taken into account any more strongly than any other religion.

So why did Mr. Chicog state, do what you want if financed by the state, tax payer, regarding this thread.. Simple really. Read post #355

[thaicbr]

referenced from the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Financial_situation

"Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.^[47]

The Church of England manages an investment portfolio which is worth more than £8 billion.^[48]"

also note 26 out of over 700 Lords...

Edited February 12, 2013 by thaicbr

[endure]

Post 355 on my PC is a post by Partington. Perhaps you could quote Chicog's post again?

[thaicbr]

Post 355 on my PC is a post by Partington. Perhaps you could quote Chicog's post again?

post 355 by Chicog...

I'll criticise anyone's personal beliefs when they think it gives them special rights that are over and above anyone else's personal beliefs.

If two Jedi want to get married in a church, as long as it is being subsidised by state revenue, they should have the right.

[endure]

Post 355 on my PC is a post by Partington. Perhaps you could quote Chicog's post again?

post 355 by Chicog...

I'll criticise anyone's personal beliefs when they think it gives them special rights that are over and above anyone else's personal beliefs.

If two Jedi want to get married in a church, as long as it is being subsidised by state revenue, they should have the right.

He'll have to speak for himself but what I believe he said is that institutions in receipt of state funding ought to be responsive to all citizens.

[endure]

referenced from the wiki. http://en.wikipedia....ncial_situation

"Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.^[47]

The Church of England manages an investment portfolio which is worth more than £8 billion.^[48]"

also note 26 out of over 700 Lords...

http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/05/government-agrees-%C2%A330-million-extra-to-resolve-vat-concerns.aspx

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7930875/Church-of-England-charity-set-to-receive-5million-from-Government.html

All Church of England schools are directly funded by local authorities.

As far as the 26 out of 700 is concerned it's still 26 more than any other religion. They ought to be disestablished, out of the Lords and take their chances with all the other religions.

[thaicbr]

Post 355 on my PC is a post by Partington. Perhaps you could quote Chicog's post again?

post 355 by Chicog...

I'll criticise anyone's personal beliefs when they think it gives them special rights that are over and above anyone else's personal beliefs.

If two Jedi want to get married in a church, as long as it is being subsidised by state revenue, they should have the right.

He'll have to speak for himself but what I believe he said is that institutions in receipt of state funding ought to be responsive to all citizens.

So therefor he was wrong again about the C of E churches they are not State funded. lets face it he has a bee in his bonnet about the C of E.

[thaicbr]

referenced from the wiki. http://en.wikipedia....ncial_situation

"Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.^[47]

The Church of England manages an investment portfolio which is worth more than £8 billion.^[48]"

also note 26 out of over 700 Lords...

http://www.churchofe...t-concerns.aspx

http://www.telegraph...Government.html

All Church of England schools are directly funded by local authorities.

As far as the 26 out of 700 is concerned it's still 26 more than any other religion. They ought to be disestablished, out of the Lords and take their chances with all the other religions.

You don't get married at school!

How do you know the religion of the other 700 Lords?

But actually i agree with you about the former Bishops

[endure]

referenced from the wiki. http://en.wikipedia....ncial_situation

"Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.^[47]

The Church of England manages an investment portfolio which is worth more than £8 billion.^[48]"

also note 26 out of over 700 Lords...

http://www.churchofe...t-concerns.aspx

http://www.telegraph...Government.html

All Church of England schools are directly funded by local authorities.

As far as the 26 out of 700 is concerned it's still 26 more than any other religion. They ought to be disestablished, out of the Lords and take their chances with all the other religions.

You don't get married at school!

How do you know the religion of the other 700 Lords?

But actually i agree with you about the former Bishops

If CofE schools weren't state funded the CofE would have to fund them itself thus the CofE is partly state funded.

I've no idea what the religion of the other 700 Lords is but as they're not there specifically as representatives of a particular religion that's not relevant. The Bishops are in the Lords purely because they're Bishops.

If there was a single representative from each major religion in the Lords I'd be much happier. I'd be happiest if religion were kept out of the place altogether.

[thaicbr]

referenced from the wiki. http://en.wikipedia....ncial_situation

"Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.^[47]

The Church of England manages an investment portfolio which is worth more than £8 billion.^[48]"

also note 26 out of over 700 Lords...

http://www.churchofe...t-concerns.aspx

http://www.telegraph...Government.html

All Church of England schools are directly funded by local authorities.

As far as the 26 out of 700 is concerned it's still 26 more than any other religion. They ought to be disestablished, out of the Lords and take their chances with all the other religions.

You don't get married at school!

How do you know the religion of the other 700 Lords?

But actually i agree with you about the former Bishops

If CofE schools weren't state funded the CofE would have to fund them itself thus the CofE is partly state funded.

I've no idea what the religion of the other 700 Lords is but as they're not there specifically as representatives of a particular religion that's not relevant. The Bishops are in the Lords purely because they're Bishops.

If there was a single representative from each major religion in the Lords I'd be much happier. I'd be happiest if religion were kept out of the place altogether.

if C of E schools were not state funded they would not be there..they would not be regarded as outstanding by Ofsted..http://www.churchofengland.org/education/church-schools-academies.aspx

I went to a C of E school, But i'm not religious. my best friend at school was Jewish. It was certainly not a Church school like the Catholic schools here run by Priest etc. I enjoyed a well rounded education (actually i hated maths )

taken from the wiki..

Do CofE schools encourage homophobia?

No. Bullying - whatever form it takes - has no place in schools and staff work to enable all students to learn in an atmosphere free from harassment and antagonism. In particular, discrimination on grounds of race, colour, belief or sexual orientation is usually expressly forbidden within a school's code of conduct.

The Anglican Church's traditional teaching is that homosexual practice (as distinct from orientation) 'falls short of the ideal' expression of sexual love, which should be set within the framework of a faithful marriage. However, this subject is widely debated within the Church. At the appropriate stage within the RE or sex education curriculum, all students, in all schools, should have the opportunity to examine the full range of views, including the different Christian views, and to develop their own considered position.

That was certainly my experience at school.. But that was sometime ago.

The schools are state funded to the advantage of the UK. The C of E charity has state funding which is an advantage to the UK.. The old heritage churches get state subsidy to stay in good condition an advantage to the UK.. Bishops in the Lords.. Probably not an advantage to the UK

Edited February 12, 2013 by thaicbr

[endure]

if C of E schools were not state funded they would not be there..they would not be regarded as outstanding by Ofsted..http://www.churchofengland.org/education/church-schools-academies.aspx

I went to a C of E school, But i'm not religious. my best friend at school was Jewish. It was certainly not a Church school like the Catholic schools here run by Priest etc. I enjoyed a well rounded education (actually i hated maths )

taken from the wiki..

Do CofE schools encourage homophobia?

No. Bullying - whatever form it takes - has no place in schools and staff work to enable all students to learn in an atmosphere free from harassment and antagonism. In particular, discrimination on grounds of race, colour, belief or sexual orientation is usually expressly forbidden within a school's code of conduct.

The Anglican Church's traditional teaching is that homosexual practice (as distinct from orientation) 'falls short of the ideal' expression of sexual love, which should be set within the framework of a faithful marriage. However, this subject is widely debated within the Church. At the appropriate stage within the RE or sex education curriculum, all students, in all schools, should have the opportunity to examine the full range of views, including the different Christian views, and to develop their own considered position.

That was certainly my experience at school.. But that was sometime ago.

The schools are state funded to the advantage of the UK. The C of E charity has state funding which is an advantage to the UK.. The old heritage churches get state subsidy to stay in good condition an advantage to the UK.. Bishops in the Lords.. Probably not an advantage to the UK

We're actually veering off topic now. I'll get a bollocking from a passing mod if I'm not careful

As I said before the matter of gay marriage is primarily a civil affair. Instead of walking out of the Registry Office as a couple in a Civil Partnership people will walk out as a couple in a Civil Marriage. If any particular religious outfit wants to give them a religious ceremony as well they should be allowed to. If they don't they shouldn't be forced to. If Catholic countries like Spain, Argentina and Portugal can manage to hold gay marriages I'm sure that the UK can as well.

[Jingthing]

Indeed. The pioneering nations that have already been doing this have discovered that the impact is basically a big NOTHING to society at large and to the institution of marriage at large. Of course it's huge to the tiny minority of the population that are actually the same sex couples getting married. What was all the fuss about?

[Publicus]

With Prez Barack Obama reelected by a wide margin while becoming the first candidate for prez to advocate same-sex marriage, I see some of the western European governments whether right or left are taking definite action after what seems to have been a very long and unaccounted for wait. As we look at recent developments in gender preference equality, one has to wonder what on earth took so many people so long to be consistent and to begin to get to the right place. Marriage and gender equaity however continue to face a long and winding road in so many countries.

The times they're a changin', as folk poet/songwriter Bob Dylan wrote in the 1960's. However, I'm not sure even Bob Dylan had any idea that in his lifetime the United States would have a black man as president, a woman in the 2016 (West) wings; that gays would serve openly in so many militaries, parliaments/congresses, ministerial positions both secular and religious, or that same-sex marriage would be advancing as well as it is. Changin' indeed.

[Jingthing]

Yes the general global trend is good but there are some very troubling exceptions in places like in Russia, the Middle East, Africa, etc.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.

[chiang mai]

I wonder if this is a debate that can actually be had here, with fifteen posts by Moderators in three pages it seems maybe it can't, or shouldn't, just an observation.

[Ulysses G.]

Indeed. The pioneering nations that have already been doing this have discovered that the impact is basically a big NOTHING to society at large and to the institution of marriage at large.

For a very short time in a very limited number of places.Society is turning into something out of Blade Runner slowly - not all at once. Edited February 13, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[endure]

I wonder if this is a debate that can actually be had here, with fifteen posts by Moderators in three pages it seems maybe it can't, or shouldn't, just an observation.

If you feel that any of the moderators (including me) who are posting as 'themselves' in this thread are breaking any of the forum rules then please hit the report button. I'm more than happy to be held to the same standards that you are.