Is the church being forced to go against its beliefs? All that is being proposed is that legally same-sex unions are called marriage so it is the same for everyone. That doesn't mean the church has to agree to marry homosexual couples. Only a particularly contrary couple would want to be married by an institution that didn't welcome them equally (although I'm sure such contrary people exist).

The church doesn't own "marriage", society does.

I'm happy for the Catholic Church to oppose gay marriage. However, I don't think that the fact they oppose it should imply any sort of veto on a change in the law. The opinion of the Catholic Church should have no special value over opinions from other interested parties.

If me thinking that the opinions of the Catholic Church are no more important than opinons of other groups means that I "hate the church" then I must "hate" a lot of groups.

The B&B owners were unfairly discriminating against ANY un-married couple on the grounds that they offered a service/facility (a double bed room) to ONLY married couples, and in their defence they stated,
"....monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations between persons and that homosexual sexual relations (as opposed to homosexual orientation), and heterosexual sexual relations outside marriage, are sinful"

Therefore, irrespective of sexual orientation, but solely based on their religious beliefs, they discriminated against any unmarried couple. Unmarried couples were only offered twin or single rooms for no other reason than the couples religious beliefs of "living in sin".

The judge found that as CP offered the same legal rights and protection as marriage then in the eyes of the B&B owners, they should have been treated as married. However they did not and the judge found direct discrimination, as he felt that the B&B owners were solely discriminating against this particular couple based on their sexuality.

However as has been commented on since that test case, ANY unmarried could have brought a prosecution under the equality act, due to be being denied a service or facility unfairly that is offered to another group.

The judge also commented that "I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold. It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around."

Indeed their B&B website still has reference to unmarried couples being unable to book a double bed room, so if any unmarried couple of any sexual orientation wishes to test this out, feel free.

"Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you."

It would be interesting to see any unmarried heterosexuals are denied booking a double bed room under this rule.

So can we put that to rest now please, it is not an example of "the gays" going after that couple, just someone standing against discrimination that heterosexuals could have also done in this case.

Im wrong?

Have you read the Governments consultation paper?
Have you read the replies by gay rights organisations - I actually posted a link about 40 pages ago. Go back and read it.

You are wrong.

In the future I might be forced to go to church, by gay women priests, in order to be forcibly civil-partnered to a transsexual lesbian

Thanks. It's nice of you to say so. I've been trying to get the numbers up for a while now and I seem to be making headway. But I can't take all the credit. Lots of other posters have done their bit in spreading the word.

This is not really relevant, but just wanted to pick up on it. The judge actually stated that he was making no judgment on what the outcome would be had it been an un-married heterosexual couple (or un-civil-partnered homosexual couple). Of course, it could lead to the same result, but that's not certain.

Also, someone mentioned that civil partnership ceremonies have been held in churches - it is actually specifically stated in the legislation that civil partnerships may not be registered in religious premises, even if the operators of those premises want to.

Hate is such a strong word. I'm quite happy for the churchy types to get up to whatever they want behind closed doors, so long as they don't rub my face in it or do anything in public or try to convert me.

Seriously though, 'hate' is a very active verb. I think most people merely feel indifference and consider the Church an anachronistic irrelevance.

Having said that, can I just mention again that religious debates tend to go downhill pretty quickly on PH and are a sure-fire way to get a thread closed.

Just to help you out....

Question 5: The Government does not propose to open up religious marriage to
same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Stonewall believes that marriage for same-sex couples should be available in a registry
office and approved premises on the same grounds as civil marriage for opposite-sex
couples but also in religious premises without a mandate on religious organisations to
celebrate it and strictly where such denominations have chosen to conduct such
ceremonies.

There are already religious organisations which wish to celebrate marriage between two
people of the same sex. As far as such religious organisations are concerned, any
approach should be entirely permissive and the autonomous decision-making processes
of individual faith groups should be respected. This is an important issue of religious
liberty and respect. It is important that faith groups that wish to celebrate marriages
should be able to do so without inappropriate intervention or obstruction from other
groups. Equally, it is important that faith groups who do not opt to celebrate such
marriages should have no bearing on the decision of groups who do. Similarly, this is
also an important issue of religious liberty and respect.


Im sure neither TBT or Motorvator will believe this however.

Because spluttering indignation has given way to actually looking at this subject in a logical way?

Oh. Sorry. You meant that as in why would a gay person want to get married in a church that hates them? Yeah. They don't.

If they want to get married in a church they will go to the church that wants to marry them.

There are specialist websites for that sort of thing.



Apparently.