[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Oh here we go again , this subject has been debated to death on here but again I make the point what does "legalising Gay marriage" actually mean ?

In law both gay and straight couples can marry in any building they want as long as they obtain a marriage licence and observe all other legal requirements.

That is Marriage... That's it the rest is down to personal religious preference , so if you are a member of a church that at its core does not marry gay couples then that is that...!!!

Go find a church that marries gay couples or start one of your own, but you will not and can not force a group of like minded people to change their views because someone tells them to.

It won't work, won't wash never gonna happen so move on and let these backward thinking bigoted people carry on with their own church . Who wants to be in a church like that anyway.

That's it really in a nutshell , gay marriage is a meaningless term as all marriage is allowed in the UK .

Religious wedding ceremonies well that's another issue and one that is best left to individuals.

It isn't just about churches however, they are talking about people exercising their christian,well whatever they are as to views,since christianity is really about no judging or condemning,in business and the workplace.

You have say a manager who thinks gay relationships are wrong,his views will be permitted to be 'used' against said individuals.
people in business, such as B&B's Hotels, would be then allowed to refuse the custom of said individuals.

That is very backward looking and unjust too in my view,such people, with such prejudices should not have authority over others or be allowed in a business either where they invite the public, as to custom.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It isn't just about churches however, they are talking about people exercising their christian,well whatever they are as to views,since christianity is really about no judging or condemning,in business and the workplace.

You have say a manager who thinks gay relationships are wrong,his views will be permitted to be 'used' against said individuals.
people in business, such as B&B's Hotels, would be then allowed to refuse the custom of said individuals.

That is very backward looking and unjust too in my view,such people, with such prejudices should not have authority over others or be allowed in a business either where they invite the public, as to custom.

I agree with you Joey, but my point was about the way the state tries to force a church to change its view through legislation it won't work , small minded bigoted prejudiced people will always find a way to protect their views using religious dogma when it suits them.

But I agree with your point gay relationships are just relationships like straight relationships , there should be no distinction and certainly no prejudice.

If there is then the law needs to come down heavily on the person or persons who are discriminating.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Can gay couples get married in mosques?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Can gay couples get married in mosques?

Yeah if you're a brave ****er.

[Livia]

So UKIP will protect Christians from being forced to marry gay couples. What's the problem with that? There are some Christians who will marry gay people but the church should not be forced. Otherwise you're also going to have to force the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs the Muslims et al. And good luck with that.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Livia

So UKIP will protect Christians from being forced to marry gay couples. What's the problem with that? There are some Christians who will marry gay people but the church should not be forced. Otherwise you're also going to have to force the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs the Muslims et al. And good luck with that.

Christians are not forced to marry anybody.....!!!!

I don't really understand this whole UKIP episode, which upsets me a little as I do support UKIP ...??

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Christians are not forced to marry anybody.....!!!!

I don't really understand this whole UKIP episode, which upsets me a little as I do support UKIP ...??

No, I know they're not forced, but there are some quarters who think the next step is to allow gay people to marry in church. Like I said, some vicars will do it of their own volition and good for them. But the church should not be forced. I don't know why they're making it an issue right now, it'll lose them more votes than it'll get them, I think.

On the upside, I've been asked to be 'best woman' at my friend's marriage next year and I predict it will be an extravaganza!

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, I know they're not forced, but there are some quarters who think the next step is to allow gay people to marry in church. Like I said, some vicars will do it of their own volition and good for them. But the church should not be forced. I don't know why they're making it an issue right now, it'll lose them more votes than it'll get them, I think.

On the upside, I've been asked to be 'best woman' at my friend's marriage next year and I predict it will be an extravaganza!

Hope you have a faaaaaabulous time........

[Iceman]

Yeah a bit of perspective with a kind of comedic twist is the video Brendan o Carroll did on it. I can't link it but it's on Facebook.

I mean the importance part.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Yeah a bit of perspective with a kind of comedic twist is the video Brendan o Carroll did on it. I can't link it but it's on Facebook.

I mean the importance part.

I'll have a look for it in a minute, seems to have almost everyone's backing anyway, it's great how far our country has come actually in such a short space of time. Since the church lost its hold really

[Mystic Mock]

Tbf I do agree with UKIP that Christians shouldn't be forced into marrying people that they don't want to do because it goes against their Religious beliefs.

However this party is very sinister to me, and I'm not sure if that's the end of it on this discussion really.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf I do agree with UKIP that Christians shouldn't be forced into marrying people that they don't want to do because it goes against their Religious beliefs.

However this party is very sinister to me, and I'm not sure if that's the end of it on this discussion really.

You are right,there is a sinister dark side to this party,not as bad as it was but still enough hopefully to turn more voters off them than on them.

Like you I wouldn't trust them,Nigel Farage maybe I'd trust a bit more but not the party as a whole.

[Mitchell]

Can us gays have extra protection from these people?

[kirklancaster]

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

[bots]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

that's false argument, or a false dichotomy
the law does not force people to agree to gay marriage, in this case individuals are allowed as in many cases to simply not conform and agree on grounds of religious consciousness. the only people breaking the law are radical gay activists making death threats. these people should be locked up.

There is also a distinction to be drawn between old and new testament. The new convenant of Christianity over rode the hard line of the old testament in many key areas. fundamentally Christ and his life and death allowed repentance, forgiveness and redemption. I have read the book and I find nothing of Christ denouncing homosexuality either. Though some people choose to look at the old testament, I don't. I think homosexuality is fine as far as Im concerned. frankly if 2 men or 2 women choose to love each other have sex together etc its none of my business

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people perform rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’" (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 (ESV) says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/new-cove...#ixzz3Ykq3D4gS

[bots]

Originally Posted by the truth

that's false argument, or a false dichotomy
the law does not force people to agree to gay marriage, in this case individuals are allowed as in many cases to simply not conform and agree on grounds of religious consciousness. the only people breaking the law are radical gay activists making death threats. these people should be locked up.

There is also a distinction to be drawn between old and new testament. The new convenant of Christianity over rode the hard line of the old testament in many key areas. fundamentally Christ and his life and death allowed repentance, forgiveness and redemption. I have read the book and I find nothing of Christ denouncing homosexuality either. Though some people choose to look at the old testament, I don't. I think homosexuality is fine as far as Im concerned. frankly if 2 men or 2 women choose to love each other have sex together etc its none of my business

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people perform rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’" (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 (ESV) says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/new-cove...#ixzz3Ykq3D4gS

With respect, my argument is anything but false. NO individual is above the law, and certainly not one who hides behind religion. Kirk stated that people should be exempt from law if it conflicted with their religious beliefs. I merely stated the reality which is that religion CANNOT be used as an excuse not to abide by the laws of the land.

Also, Farage would be on dangerous ground if he attempted to exempt a religious group from the law as it would create an incredibly dangerous legal precedent. Thank god he has no chance of getting into power

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

Exactly.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

I don't think the law should be used to compel companies to provide services to people or groups that offend their religious beliefs, the companies in question should always have a choice whom they wish to do business with and should should be able to politely refuse the work from such groups.

We should always have the freedom in business to choose where our business goes and it would not go to people with whose views we find offensive.

On the flip to that though when it concerns a person who works for a company and that person is discriminated against because he or she has views which are at odds to the boss or company owner, well that is unacceptable as the person is employed to do a job of work and their personal views in that situation are irreverent .

In fact I think there is a law passed recently in Ireland which reinforces this actual situation.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I don't think the law should be used to compel companies to provide services to people or groups that offend their religious beliefs, the companies in question should always have a choice whom they wish to do business with and should should be able to politely refuse the work from such groups.

We should always have the freedom in business to choose where our business goes and it would not go to people with whose views we find offensive.

On the flip to that though when it concerns a person who works for a company and that person is discriminated against because he or she has views which are at odds to the boss or company owner, well that is unacceptable as the person is employed to do a job of work and their personal views in that situation are irreverent .

In fact I think there is a law passed recently in Ireland which reinforces this actual situation.

Are you talking about the republic of Ireland or the North? and what law are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there was talk about a "conscience law" similar to what Nigel Farage wants after the printer story but certainly that's not been passed

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

..why should they have to go elsewhere though, Kirk..is that not wrong that they should have to do that and does that not go against basic teachings of Christianity, that we are all one and the same in the eyes of God...I mean if there was a God and that's not saying there is but for people who believe he did then wouldn't it be a thing of ...'what would God do'..and the God they believe in, the God they have faith in/the God, the good..would not show prejudices, surely/he loved everyone and judged no one...it's not God that shows prejudices, it's man that shows prejudices and then tries to blame their God for those prejudices..this God they believe in and follow so much, well they really sold him out, didn't they..not their fault/God's fault, type thing...

..and there is no history of gay people persecuting, torturing and killing Christians like the KKK did with black people or the Nazi's did with Jewish people, because of that I think that a Jewish shop owner or a black shop owner would have every right and justification for saying....nope, I won't write that on a cake..in fact wouldn't it even be an insult and extremely offensive and disrespectful to ask them to in the first place....so honestly Kirk, if these prejudiced people shouldn't be forced then I really do believe they should be exposed for their prejudices and let them be judged as they are judging other and not in the name of their Lord either/let's not let them hide behind that...


..you know even in things like teaching/schools/nurturing and educating establishments/with the people who work there..?.. you and I could introduce our partner to the pupils and say...oh, this is Mr Ammi, my husband or Mrs Kirklancaster, my wife etc...but with staff who are gay..?..they still often have to say with their pupils..(in primary schools specifically I mean, just because that's where I have encountered it frequently..)...'this is my friend' as opposed to this is my husband or this is my wife and 'hide' who they are from young ears and minds....how does that encourage and educate to create less prejudice and keep with 'Christian' values....

[Niamh.]

Kirk, the examples you just used are not even comparable, expecting anyone to accept an order containing slogans or messages that incite hatred like the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan would not only be unacceptable but I assume against the law. It's pretty insulting to gay people to compare them to groups like that :/

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Kirk, the examples you just used are not even comparable, expecting anyone to accept an order containing slogans or messages that incite hatred like the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan would not only be unacceptable but I assume against the law. It's pretty insulting to gay people to compare them to groups like that :/

With respect Niamh - I'm NOT comparing Gay people to groups like Nazis and the KKK, I'm comparing the principle of using a law to compel people to accommodate business, custom or practices from others if to do so genuinely offends their principles or beliefs, especially when alternatives exist.

The cake I quoted actually contained a slogan: 'Support Gay Marriage' which could be considered as incendiary and offensive to some people as any of the slogans in my hypothesis above would be to others, but it's just madness to run and try and legislate for things like this when alternatives are available.

.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

With respect Niamh - I'm NOT comparing Gay people to groups like Nazis and the KKK, I'm comparing the principle of using a law to compel people to accommodate business, custom or practices from others if to do so genuinely offends their principles or beliefs, especially when alternatives exist.

I understand that but it's not like for like when you're using hate groups as your example. When you say alternatives exist, I doubt anyone at all, not just Jewish owned companies would print posters supporting Hitler and the Nazis, they would more likely report them to the Police so the question you ask "Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?" is in no way strengthening your case in regards to this imo

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I understand that but it's not like for like when you're using hate groups as your example. When you say alternatives exist, I doubt anyone at all, not just Jewish owned companies would print posters supporting Hitler and the Nazis, they would more likely report them to the Police so the question you ask "Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?" is in no way strengthening your case in regards to this imo

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Gay rights are legal and anti-semitism and racism will get you in trouble. So they're nowhere near the same principals. Terrible examples.

He compared a Christians right to be homophobic to a Jewish persons right to dislike anti-semitism and a black persons right to dislike the KKK! his examples are actually the complete opposite to each other