Gay marriage - Is it illegal to deny marrying them in other countries?

It looks like it will be law in the UK in the very near future.

 

I'll have to look around. My evidence is mostly anecdotal and things I am hearing from pastors in the UK.

 

In Canada we have gained legal protection in marrying only the couples of our choosing.

If the Church of England passes gay marriages then I expect so will the government. Not sure if all pastors will be obliged by law to do so, but they should get together and put it before the government before it happens, as did we in Canada, as evangelical pastors.

Cheers,

Jim

 

We are losing our religious rights to those who want to live immorally. They are getting laws passed to protect their right to live an immoral life, and Pastors who refuse to perform a homosexual marriage could be charged with a crime. Schools are teaching children about homosexuality and even taking them to a homosexual marriage without their parents' permission. Oh, Lord, how much longer?

 

Do remember that homosexuals are also law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of their respective countries. Shouldn't they have equal rights?

Now in saying that, remember, I was one of the evangelical ministers who had the marriage act changed so we didn't have to perform weddings not of our choosing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not if that includes them getting married, being ordained as ministers, adopting children, or working with children.

 

There are a lot of heterosexuals I wouldn't trust my children with, marry, be ordained, and all those things.

Ordination is not a question of civil rights. I am only talking about basic civil rights which they should be entitled to as are atheists, liberal theologs, unsaved etc.

I am not endorsing any of those viewpoints, but I just might fight for their rights in society.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. The majority of child molesters are actually heterosexual men!

 

And many of them are married. As a child I had an older brother who liked little boys (get my drift?). I was also fondled by two men who were strangers. I have no idea if they were homosexual or not; my brother was one his whole life. So some homosexuals do molest children. That abomination might not be any worse in God's eyes than adultery, but it's the only sin where the participants demand publicly to be recognized as a normal alternate lifestyle, and the only one where they want to teach it to school children. That in my opinion makes it more of an abomination that any other sin. ALL sin is an abomination before God. At least with other sins people try to keep it quiet and not found out. They don't proudly broadcast it and call it "adultery pride" or whatever.

 

We do not live in a Christian society. It is made up of many religions, cultures and concepts. Freedom is a key in the western societies and that is what we attempt to protect. This protection is not secured by denying rights of others just because we disagree with their life styles. Either all are free or none are free even though that freedom comes under laws to protect all.

I do not accept homosexuality because of my Christian beliefs, but I respect the fact they have the right to believe what they practice.

Our Bill of Rights in Canada does not exclude homosexuals, and as far as I know the US Consititution does not exclude homosexuals nor specifically include only heterosexuals.

They have legal won the right to unions in many states and in Canada. As evanelicals, we have won the right not to marry homosexuals in Canada.

That is democracy in action.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm just wondering why a pastor would get in trouble for refusing to marry any couple, homosexual or heterosexual. Why would a pastor be required to marry anyone? And if a pastor did refuse to marry a couple, wouldn't the couple just go and find a pastor who was willing to marry them?

There are six countries in the world that allow homosexual marriages: Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain. There are three states in the US that allow homosexual marriages: Massachusetts, California and Connecticut.

There are stories of marriage commissioners who were fired for not marrying homosexual couples. They are employees of the state who know that marrying homosexual couples is a requirement of their job. Are their religious freedoms being suppressed in this situation? Tough to say. It is similar to the pharmacists giving abortion pills dilemma.

 

I hope not....in Victoria Australia there is a bill being debated on action could be taken on folk who refuse to abort a human being, this would affect medical/nursing personnel. Political Correctness or plain old prejudice.....intolerance to those who profess tobe Christian.......

 

Only in the last 10 yrs. or so has any country allowed homosexual marriage. For centuries, this was never allowed anywhere, according to some articles I've read.

Even in Greece, where it was common for men to have younger men as "companions," they were not allowed to marry. It has always been self-evident that marriage is between a man and a woman. It has been self-evident because it is natural and normal. Two men or two women marrying is not the norm, never has been, and never will be, even if it's accepted.

Therefore, I do not think gay people have a civil right to marry; there is no such right.

 

Marriage has two levels. There is the union of a couple standing before an holy God and declaring their union. Then there is the state or civil union permitted by the laws of the state.

We have presumed over the years that marriage was a church function. It has always enjoyed a civil service for those not choosing a church service.

Ministers in Canada are licensed by the province and our names are submitted by our denomination or secretary of our association.

Changes in social demeanor has dictated that we must follow state laws.

Therefore, it is quite legal for gays to marry. Should we allowed it to be called "marriage"? That is our question. Our evangelical association in Ontario submitted that should be called a union and not a marriage, marriage being a church term. That point is before the parliament now and hopefully will become law.

The socond point is should we as ministers be forced to marry anyone who comes to us? We said no, and this has been accepted. Ministers have been removed from the role of civil servant and left to govern according to our church teaching.

That is all we can do from the church. We must observe laws. We petitioned and won. If we had lost, we would have surrendered our marriage certification and stuck to the publishing of banns for three successive Sundays at a public service, and the couple would then submit our private documents and these would be legal.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hello, Briony-Gloriana.
Now I know that sometimes we come across a topic for which (1) we may have strong opinions about, and/or (2) is something we have a soft spot for.

But I noticed you were Roman Catholic, and this is a "Baptist Only" venue, and as much we value your opinions and views, rules are rules.
Cheers.

 

Jim, I think the process you have described is good, and diplomatic, and affords everyone to "save face", so to speak.
I hope a similar process evolves here in the United States, that way believing and even just parents with a sense of decency will be able to answer children's questions, like "why do my friend at school have parents who are both female (or male) ?", or "why can't I go attend my friends' parents' wedding" ?

 

Who's children and who's church. The key to this entire argument is the separation of our political government and our religious convictions.

I believe they should have equal rights under the law and as couples should be able to have all the civil rights my wife and I enjoy. But I don't believe any church should be forced to recognize or ordain their union.

If a church wants to have homosexual ministers then they don't fit the definition of a church in my book, but as a private group of citizens with their own beliefs why not let them? Just don't tell me we have to recognize or perform it in my church.

Adopting and working with children, who's children. If the children are part of my church or religious organization I should have every right to say no, you cannot work with or adopt our children. But if the children are wards of the state or enrolled in government schools how can I force my religious conviction on a government organization? If you want to adopt a kid from the Baptist Children's Home we should have every right to impose our beliefs. But if you want to adopt a foster kid in state care, I don't know that I have that same right. If I want to hire a nanny or baby sitter for my own kids, I should have the right to exclude someone based on my religious convictions. If someone wants to work at a public school run by the government, I don't think I have that same right.

 

We are losing our rights, because WE are letting them take them. Prayer has been removed from schools, because WE have allowed it to happen. Abortion continues because WE allow it to continue. Homosexuality is taught in schools, because WE allow it to be taught.

The sad fact of the matter is that most "churches" in America today are only buildings with pretty manicured lawns full of "Christians" who are no more born again than the ground we walk on. We beg and plead for a supernatural act of God to come down and fix our problems when many of us don't even know who God is and can't even come to a common understanding of fundamental biblical doctrine. :tear:

(I'll get off my soapbox now)