![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Marriage?
Ha!
Regardless as to your opinion about marriage as an institution, it exists, it has existed for thousands of years, very likely it will not be chucked away any time soon.
But you know what? It has changed. From being a contract of ownership it's now a contract of partnership - ideally speaking that it and that's the assumption I'm going with at this point in time, because that's what the, erm, struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples over the world is about.
(I don't get it, I think it's counter productive to the notion of freedom, but hey, the choice should be out there)
The BBC have this truly marvelous article out titled: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go-ahead.
The scare 'quotes' are part of the title I shit you not. Really BBC? Really? You're implying that marriage between gay people isn't real? I'd be shocked and appalled if it weren't status quo with the way they same sex partnerships are treated in the media and under the law as a rule.
I wasn't planning on reading through this article, because it's not my country and I don't find the struggle for marriage to be of great import when it comes to QUILTBAG rights the world over. But I can't fucking ignore institutionalised homophobia, especially when it's white washed by human rights discourse.
I quote the BBC article:
Hello Double Standards! Hello Hypocrisy!
Remember how I said marriage has changed over time and all that? You know what else needs to change and is long over-do for an over haul?
Religion.
Period.
As an aside, it is my personal belief that religion, does and has done more harm than good, over all, where ever it has a foot hold, that is, every where. I don't begrudge people's belief in a higher power and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in the implausible.
I don't really understand why QUITLBAG people would want to continue to put their faith in an institution that has time and time again conceived us to be deviant and sub-human, but it should be a choice available to them. Why? Because part of being an institution that lives and believe in, as the Archbishop of York says he does, in liberal democracy and equality for all, then saying that the Church trumps that and can close its gates in the face of its believers simply because of people are uncomfortable with queers... well then.
Suck it up.
It's not simple, it's not easy, but religion, as I understand it, is there to be a go between, between god and the people who worship god? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Religion is part of a culture, culture changes, and you can bet that the religion of 100, 500, 1000 years ago does not resemble the religion of today, certainly not in industrialised countries and nations.
So, BBC, when you ask there, at the bottom of your article:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry in church? Would you be affected by this proposal?
There's another implication there. That people in same-sex relationships are not the ones being asked, when they're the ones who actually are affected by this decision. The mere fact that this you are framing this as a debate is homophobic, because yes, it is quite obvious that if Britain was in fact interested in equalising marriage between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions they would pass the law, no questions asked, and any religious institutions that refused to marry two men or two women to each other would be fucking penalised for discriminatory behaviour!
As some churches are already threatening:
It's so not just Islam you moronic islamophobic racists!
As I said, pass the law and penalise any institution and organisations that denies gay people the rights afforded to straight people. I can't think of anything that will get these places to "see the light" faster that either cutting their funds or fining them so much, they'll need same sex couples just to make sure ends meet.
Lucky them Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews have already wised up!
Good luck to you my UK Sibs, you're going to need it.
Ha!
Regardless as to your opinion about marriage as an institution, it exists, it has existed for thousands of years, very likely it will not be chucked away any time soon.
But you know what? It has changed. From being a contract of ownership it's now a contract of partnership - ideally speaking that it and that's the assumption I'm going with at this point in time, because that's what the, erm, struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples over the world is about.
(I don't get it, I think it's counter productive to the notion of freedom, but hey, the choice should be out there)
The BBC have this truly marvelous article out titled: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go-ahead.
The scare 'quotes' are part of the title I shit you not. Really BBC? Really? You're implying that marriage between gay people isn't real? I'd be shocked and appalled if it weren't status quo with the way they same sex partnerships are treated in the media and under the law as a rule.
I wasn't planning on reading through this article, because it's not my country and I don't find the struggle for marriage to be of great import when it comes to QUILTBAG rights the world over. But I can't fucking ignore institutionalised homophobia, especially when it's white washed by human rights discourse.
I quote the BBC article:
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gave the news a guarded welcome.
He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show he "believes in a liberal democracy, and actually wants equality with everybody" but did not want churches to be told what to do.
"You mustn't have rights that trump other rights," he added.
Hello Double Standards! Hello Hypocrisy!
Remember how I said marriage has changed over time and all that? You know what else needs to change and is long over-do for an over haul?
Religion.
Period.
As an aside, it is my personal belief that religion, does and has done more harm than good, over all, where ever it has a foot hold, that is, every where. I don't begrudge people's belief in a higher power and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in the implausible.
I don't really understand why QUITLBAG people would want to continue to put their faith in an institution that has time and time again conceived us to be deviant and sub-human, but it should be a choice available to them. Why? Because part of being an institution that lives and believe in, as the Archbishop of York says he does, in liberal democracy and equality for all, then saying that the Church trumps that and can close its gates in the face of its believers simply because of people are uncomfortable with queers... well then.
Suck it up.
It's not simple, it's not easy, but religion, as I understand it, is there to be a go between, between god and the people who worship god? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Religion is part of a culture, culture changes, and you can bet that the religion of 100, 500, 1000 years ago does not resemble the religion of today, certainly not in industrialised countries and nations.
So, BBC, when you ask there, at the bottom of your article:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry in church? Would you be affected by this proposal?
There's another implication there. That people in same-sex relationships are not the ones being asked, when they're the ones who actually are affected by this decision. The mere fact that this you are framing this as a debate is homophobic, because yes, it is quite obvious that if Britain was in fact interested in equalising marriage between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions they would pass the law, no questions asked, and any religious institutions that refused to marry two men or two women to each other would be fucking penalised for discriminatory behaviour!
As some churches are already threatening:
The [Sunday Telegraph] says the Church of England has already said it will not allow any of its churches to be used for civil partnership ceremonies.
The legislation would also cover synagogues and mosques although homosexuality is forbidden under Islam.
It's so not just Islam you moronic islamophobic racists!
The Roman Catholic Church has long held that homosexuality is a "deviation" and is not expected to agree to same-sex ceremonies.
As I said, pass the law and penalise any institution and organisations that denies gay people the rights afforded to straight people. I can't think of anything that will get these places to "see the light" faster that either cutting their funds or fining them so much, they'll need same sex couples just to make sure ends meet.
Lucky them Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews have already wised up!
Good luck to you my UK Sibs, you're going to need it.
