Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[RedKing]

The Vatican even called it a "defeat for humanity".


I, for one, welcome our FAAAABULOUS overlords.





Should also be noted that this was a high-ranking cardinal who said that, not Pope Francis.

[TD1]

I will only welcome them if they vibrate. Our overlords must be 'Scans.

[Frumple]

And that's obviously not what I meant. I meant, it's fair enough to say the Church can marry gay couples. It is another thing to say they must.

And a third to say they must if they want to offer legally recognized marriages. Not sure which ireland went with, but I'd be most comfortable with that third, myself. Churches that don't want to are perfectly capable of having the ceremony and then shooing the couple towards a judge or whathaveyou to make it legal.

[RedKing]

I'm not so sanguine on that. I think that should be left to the four Irish Archbishops to decide for their archdioceses. Granted, even if they did decide to allow gay marriages in the Church, the Vatican would likely overrule them and replace them.

But then that's just going to shoot themselves in the foot more, by driving yet more young people from the Church and to other denominations that are more tolerant.

I don't think you should be able to force a religious group to perform things that are anathema to their religion in their own sanctuaries. A church refusing to do a gay marriage is a lot different than a bakery or a caterer.

[NJW2000]

Just heard about that Orthodox Jewish London area where some major rabbi is trying to ban women driving their kids home from school in cars on the grounds that its humiliating or something. I know loads of Jews, each with their own variation on the tenets of Judaism, but this is bullshit disguising sexism, and I'm pretty sure some major rabbis have said so.

Besides, cars are really in the domestic/homebuilding/feminine sphere rather than independent/maculine/authority sphere for modern Jews in modern countries mostly, even orthodox ones! What are they thinking, don't they realise that the kids'll only be sent to local schools and the women won't be able to go anywhere without their husbands driving them...wait a minute... forget I asked.

Never thought I'd say this, but some people deserve Jehovah's witnesses.

[martinuzz]

This thursday mr Putin Prison issued a new law by decree: Henceforth, any information regarding Russian soldiers killed in peace-time, will henceforth fall under the category 'state secret'.
Spreading information about Russian soldiers dying in peacetime is as of now, treason, and will get you arrested.

With this law he hopes to stop the increasing chatter on social media from families who loved their lost ones, as well as criminalizing the publication and spread of the report made by the recently assasinated opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, which claimed that over 220 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine since the start of the conflict there.
The Russian organisation 'soldier's mothers' has reported that families of fallen soldiers often will not dare to speak about it already, with or without the law, pressured into silence by army command.

[Frumple]

I don't think you should be able to force a religious group to perform things that are anathema to their religion in their own sanctuaries.

Neither do I. I do think, however, that if you're going to give them special privileges to enact legal ceremony on site/through the church, that they should be open to all who can be covered under that ceremony.

Would never say a church would have to perform a marriage ceremony they don't want to. Would say that they have to if they want to keep certification or whathaveyou to perform legally binding ones. They want to keep their relationship with the law, they can change their practices to be in line with it.

And yeah, the religious aspect is different from a caterer or a bakery. The legal aspect is not. I'd say it's fine to tell 'em to shape up or lose the extra revenue. They're perfectly welcome to perform religious ceremonies that don't have legal backing, as they always have been.

[mainiac]

So let's say someone applies for a marriage licence to preside over their best friend's wedding.  Should that person be legally required to preside over other weddings as well or lose the licence?  What difference is there between this and forcing churches to perform secular weddings for people that they can't religiously wed?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Should that person be legally required to preside over other weddings as well or lose the licence?

Yes. That's not a problem, is it? They got the license for one wedding. Losing it from disuse is completely reasonable.

[Sergarr]

I think UK really wants to become Little USSR with its own KGB.

[Loud Whispers]

We will imprison you in the name of free speech citizen. Peace and tolerance. Come with us.

[mainiac]

Should that person be legally required to preside over other weddings as well or lose the licence?

Yes. That's not a problem, is it? They got the license for one wedding. Losing it from disuse is completely reasonable.

Okay since you didn't seem to get the point:

Suppose I get a license preparing to marry my friend next year.  Should I be forced to marry other people in the meantime?  Is there any legal precedent you care to point to?

[Graknorke]

You cannot get a licence for

• A garden
• Your house unless it is made available for the public to use during the term of the 3 year licence and a “change of use certificate” has been granted from your local planning department
• A ‘one-off’ ceremony

The situation you describe is illegal anyway.

[mainiac]

Apparently it varies from place to place.

[RedKing]

Ok, but let's explore that issue a bit deeper. Baha'i traditions require the consent of all living parents of the two potential spouses (and it should be noted that the Baha'i authorities have been generally against same-sex marriage). What if two same-sex partners want a Baha'i wedding, but their parents refuse to give consent? Now you're forcing the Baha'i temple to violate TWO of their precepts, regardless of how outdated those precepts are.

As I said, I'd actually take the "invisible hand of the market" argument here, surprisingly. If denominations don't want to do same-sex marriages, that's their right. And then they'll see their congregations steadily dwindle. Eventually, that refusal may be one of the "quaint" hallmarks of their particular sect, like the Amish eschewing technology.