a small victory for religious freedom,… not just a victory for gay rights… and a victory for the 21st century people , I was beginning to think I was living in Victorian times ….
But it is just a small victory, full marriage equality (civil and relgious!) is the one I want!
Yes!!!!!!!! Full marriage equality! Fairness requires nothing less.
I dont see them as a step, merely a detour. They are nice to have for some people, but not vital. What is crucial is to upgrade CPs to full marriage and drop this whole farce.
Go, David! A wonderful story and a positive step for l&g people and religious freedom.
Without a committment to equal marriage, I’m not impressed. I think it’s just as likely that people could use this step to say that LGBT people don’t NEED marriage because ‘CPs are now just the same as marriage’.
To me, it further entrenches the idea of ‘separate but equal’.
Why would anyone from the lgbt community feel the need to join or practice a particular faith? Its not like any of the churches or religions have been good to us in the past. Its just too contradictory.
I’d just be happy for full marriage equality in the eyes of the law. I wouldn’t want to marry in an establishment which for so long fought against me. Church is meant to be the house of God but has many anti gay people in it. What I find more offensive is some of them spreading hatred towards gay people and say we’re pedophiles. That’s really upsetting. If they really mean that then they know nothing about gay people. We just want equality. We shouldn’t even have to fight for it – it should be there already. We want to live our lives in peace. We’re not harming anyone.
I do believe that there will be consequences for anyone spreading hate and hurting others.
You neglected to mention Unitarians who would also be supportive of such a move. Why was this comment removed?
I see this as a relgious freedom victory more than a LGBTvctory. The CofE and the cathoilic church don’t own christianity .. eveyone has a humna right to believe in God and that includes gay people…God can’t be owned by anyone..there isn’t some guy in the middle ,like the pope or the Archishop, with a direct line to God…..
The LGBT victory would be the full equality ie marriage…I’m really sad that no date has been put on it,,, I don’t know what the consultation means… it sounds awfully like spin!
Hmmmm, does anybody else detect a whiff of some religious institutions turning this freedom to allow same-sex marriages as an opportunity to recruit more followers? ‘Oh, the nasty C of E and Catholics won’t let you get married, come my children, we Unitarians/Quakers/Random Jewish Branch welcome anyone who shares our values’. Remember, once you’re on the books, you’re on the books!
If people weren’t so naive or obsessed with having pretty wedding photos outside a crumbling edifice, then I wouldn’t be concerned. But, alas, humans are often rather ovine.
mmmmm, dont presume to speak on my behalf or represent my principles and values thank you very much. Your insinuations are unfair and unrepresentative of what Quakers and Unitarians stand for. Dont tar all spiritual thought systems with the same brush. Its pretty obvious you’ve not had much contact with either Quakers or Unitarians.
“mmmmm, dont presume to speak on my behalf or represent my principles and values thank you very much.”
Erm, where have I done that? No, seriously, can you ACTUALLY show me where I have given a statement of what YOU personally believe? Or what the Quakers believe? No, I haven’t, so stop being a wally just because your mind has wildly and deliberately misinterpreted a statement just to for the sake of being offended.
“Your insinuations are unfair and unrepresentative of what Quakers and Unitarians stand for.”
Please state these PRECISE insinuations I have made. Otherwise your comment is dismissed. Like the previous.
“Dont tar all spiritual thought systems with the same brush.”
Erm, again, Mr lliterate, I haven’t. If you’d like to show me where, then that’d be grand. I’d have thought the fact that the article pointing out how not ALL religions were going to allow marriages would have given you a clue that they’re not all the same. Didn’t pick up on that either? Not doing too well today, are we.
Now, back to reality. What I HAVE done is justifiably imply that the opening up of marriages within religious institutions could well lead to an opportunity for religions target new recruits. ‘You want to get married and your church won’t let you? Great, come and join ours!’ The three mentioned above were EXAMPLES, not a definitive list. Which I’m sure you well know, but you’re just being a pedant because you enjoy being offended.
“Its pretty obvious you’ve not had much contact with either Quakers or Unitarians”
Can you substantiate that claim with evidence from what you have seen on here? Have I made any comments about the specific beliefs or teachings of Quakers or Unitarians specifically? No. So you can’t actually claim I don’t know anything, can you? Erm, again, no.
Ultimately, it would appear you’re just p***ed off that I am not religious and that I am exercising my democratic right to comment on ideologies that are espoused within British society. Oh, and the fact that they focus on a ‘god’ and his apparent teachings – for which there has never been a scrap of evidence.
10-0 to me. Goalaccio!
” ‘Oh, the nasty C of E and Catholics won’t let you get married, come my children, we Unitarians/Quakers/Random Jewish Branch welcome anyone who shares our values’. Remember, once you’re on the books, you’re on the books!”
What the above statement suggests is what I take exception to. Firstly that the beginning of that remark “‘Oh, the nasty C of E and Catholics” presumes to represent Unitarian and Quaker views about other spiritual and religious thought systems.
“Come my children we welcome anyone who shares our values” ’. Remember, once you’re on the books, you’re on the books!
I see in that remark a misrepresentation of how Unitarians and Quakers relate to people, how they treat people from different walks of life. I see a very cynical and inaccurate representation of the ways that Quakers and Unitarians seek to promote their philosophy and their outlook on life to others.
“Ultimately, it would appear you’re just p***ed off that I am not religious and that I am exercising my democratic right to comment on ideologies that are espoused within British society.”
No not at all. I support your right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, or lack of it. I have no need to ‘recruit’ you since there are no prepackaged dogmas and doctrines within Unitarian spirituality and therefore no requirement to impose a specific set of beliefs on others, religious or otherwise. I actually have alot of time and respect for atheists and atheist and humanist perspectives. There is a great deal of common ground between Unitarian spirituality and humanism.
Your suggestion that this is some kind of recruitment ploy is also what I take exception to. Unitarians and Quakers have been actively involved and supportive of GLBT equality for a long time. This isn’t just some sudden thing to ‘recruit more followers’. They have been actively involved in campaigning for this for some time as well other of other aspects of GLBT equality. What I am insulted by is not the fact that you are not religious, I have no need or requirement for you to be so. What I take exception to is your belittling of the efforts of Unitarians and Quakers in support of GLBT equality.
“10-0 to me. Goalaccio!”
I wasn’t aware that this was a competition.
Go, David indeed. At least in the US, where same-sex marriage is legal, the couple can opt for a religious ceremony if their faith is willing to perform the ceremony.
“Oh, and the fact that they focus on a ‘god’ and his apparent teachings – for which there has never been a scrap of evidence.”
This is a whole other debate which is more complex than your short and curt closing remark betrays. I would raise questions about the sentiments and assumptions contained in that statement. I am not ‘offended’ by it but I do consider it worthy of deeper discussion and analysis.
“‘god’ and his apparent teachings ”
My understanding of the divine does not include the notion of gender or any of the characteristics of an individual living being. So I dont think of what you refer to as ‘God’ as a ‘his’. In philosophy we are given the notion that in order for something to be disproven one must first define what it is one is trying to disprove. When it comes to ‘God’ this is not such a clear cut and easily answered question since there are a number of possible definitions of what ‘God’ is depending on who one asks.
The question of what would constitutes ‘evidence’ is also not so easy to define. The existence of ‘consciousness’ and ‘self awareness’ are attributes of being human that one would not readily dismiss and yet can these be successfully and easily reproduced in a laboratory experiment set up to measure and define exactly what they are? Do they therefore ‘not exist’ because we are unable to easily explain them using physical sciences?
Does love exist? Can we prove it scientifically? Can it be measured and defined imperically?
And as noted in quantum physics and the ‘observer effect’, would the attempt to try to do so somehow affect the outcome of any such experiment?
God hes good looking…..think im going to be Jewish…..
What the above statement suggests is what I take exception to. Firstly that the beginning of that remark “‘Oh, the nasty C of E and Catholics” presumes to represent Unitarian and Quaker views about other spiritual and religious thought systems.”
Erm, no it doesn’t, that’s what YOU want it to presume. It actually lists a number of religions as examples of the stances currently held. Which you know full well, but are choosing to ignore. The C of E and Catholics won’t allow the marraiges, but the latter three will. Examples of each case, ta-dah. Simple, non? And, yawn, you know that, just as well as the rest of us. You merely have a gripe against me ridiculing religion full stop. As ‘liberal’ as the Quakers are, their roots are still in Judeo-Christianity, cherrypicking which bits of the Bible suit them. How does that make them fundamentally any better than the others? Just less extreme, but still as full of bull***t.
Now, for the REAL situation. I gave examples of religions who might seek to recruit on the basis of appealing to LGBT people to bump up their numbers. All religions are competitive, the idea being to convert as many as possible, though how that is actually carried out varies from religion to religion. Islam is rather aggressive, Quakers less so. But the intention is still the same. After all, if it is ‘the way’, then wouldn’t the goal be to make sure everyone saw ‘the true path’? And ANY religion could potentially seek to exploit this gay marriage in religious institutions inequality for their own benefit. Quakers, Unitarians, Zoroastrans, Mormons, Jehova’s Witnesses, Presbytarians, Lesbystarians or anything else. Don’t claim to speak on behalf of the Quakers or Unitarians either, that’s rather arrogant of you. You are just one of their flock, not a leader with the responsibility to undertake such things. I would wait for a statement from Dr Williams rather than take the view of a random Christian on Leicester Square. The same applies to you and your porridge oat brigade.
Even then, the fact that you believe in a god, despite no evidence for it, means I cannot really take anything you say seriously. Or at least no more than I would anyone believing in fairies, goblins or cerberus. It’s no more feasible than an invisible friend or pretending a teddy bear is real. Illogical, irrational and often dangerous. It doesn’t deserve any place in a rational society that focuses on humans and their needs.
“Does love exist? Can we prove it scientifically? Can it be measured and defined imperically?”
Much more than you can that apparent god of yours. For love to exist you need living things, so that’s 1-0 to the humans already. I can’t speak for other animals, but humans have certainly demonstrated a good case for it.
Emotions (longing, yearning, despair, emptiness, loneliness, trust, friendship, rejection etc) which are expressed physically (loss of appetite, crying, smiling, increased heart rate, perceived happiness or depression and other behaviour. Sexual responses, loss of rational thought regarding another human to whom one is attracted, pain/grief at losing someone…..that’s quite a few already. Emotions may be psychological, but the fact they are universal, shared by all humans who use them as guages for relating to each other, then the evidence is really rather strongly in favour of love’s existence.
Now, just what is there to support your god theory? Unauthenticated books from thousands of years ago. The testimonies of those who have been socially conditioned to believe in a particular god and cannot bring themselves to denounce it through fear that it may be true. The insane who hear voices in their heads. Those who lack the intelligence to question the LACK of evidence. If I told you that if you pray you will be cured of cancer, would you believe me? I’d hope not, I’d expect you to ask for evidence. So how come all you need to believe in this god of yours is…..nothing? Bit odd.
As for the wider world, the fact that the god in question is not universal across continents and cultures (emotions/feelings are). ‘God’ is essentially a product of questioning our origins over time. Can’t find an answer? No problem, we’ll invent one and, what’s more, it’ll double up nicely as a form of population control, hurrah. So why is your god more believable and ‘real’ than, say, Allah or those depicted in Greek or Roman mythology? Why has your god not appeared to everyone to give them an opportunity to believe in him/her/it? You may say it is up to us to seek Him, but unless we are told that there is a god, how would we know to seek it ourselves? And what if we get the wrong one? Maybe the real god is that of some obscure Amazonian tribe that has yet to be discovere? Oops, we’re all stuffed then! So many questions that cannot be answered, yet a bizarre willingness by the masses to take passages from a book no more reliable than an astrological chart still persists. And, therefore, scientifically, the idea of a god has to be dismissed.
One cannot prove a negative. If I have two boxes, one with Lego in, the other empty, how would you prove to me that the second really did have Lego in too? You couldn’t because it’s not physically there and observable by any scientific instrument. But that doesn’t then give you the right to justifiably say ‘oh well, I BELIEVE it is there, so it must be’. It should be dismissed by any rational human.
It’s been filling our kids heads with bulls**t since time immemorial and the culture that grows out of faith – ‘because it’s what God wants’ (as if anyone would actually know!) – causes social division, hatred and inequality. Such as….oh wait…..marriage inequality!
It doesn’t matter how much you try and divert the conversation to ‘proving’ other things, the truth that there is no proof of your apparent god still remains.
You merely have a gripe against me ridiculing religion full stop.
Erm no not really. I see that there are many aspects of religion that are worthy of criticism. I have criticised and questioned many aspects of religion myself and continue to do so. Lets clear one thing up since your so keen to pigeonhole me so you can conveniently dismiss, dehumanise and disrespect me. I don’t think of myself as religious and I dont like to be described as religious. Just because I believe that there is a spiritual aspect of the human experience or that we can have spiritual experiences does not mean I am some kind of religious zealot intent on recruiting and brainwashing people into some kind of authoritarian mind control cult. You obviously have negative ideas about what it means to be a spiritual person and I dont recognise myself in any of your perceptions about that. I am not a bad person and I do not foster and promote hatred and inequality. If believing in love, unity, in life and all that supports life, believing that humanity is more than just flesh and bones and chemical reactions, that life has value and meaning, that there is more to the Universe and everything in it than just dust and rocks and elements, that its not all just some random, meaningless accident or fluke, if that makes me irrational and worthy of your disdain and contempt then so be it. Science, though it can and does tell us alot, is not the only way that truth can be known and ascertained. I dont believe in a weird, vindictive, angry god any more than you do but I dont accept that it is irrational to believe that there is a level of consciousness or intelligence within life, that all life is part of something bigger that we are all part of and connected to. I don’t think that is an irrational view of life. Why do you think that it is?
I don’t presume to speak for other Quakers or Unitarians. I only speak for myself and from my own perspective and experience. I have identified as a Unitarian in my spiritual life for nearly 4 years. I have been the Publicity & Programs Committee Chair & Library Acquisitions & Administration Supervisor of the particular Unitarian Church I attend for almost 3 of those years. I have coordinated and led numerous spiritual meetings, courses and workshops at that church. I have researched and studied spirituality and religion for over twenty years. I have accumulated and read over 3000 books in that time and no they are not all ancient texts. I am currently undertaking studies of religion, theology, philosophy and critical thinking in preparation for training as a Unitarian lay pastor. I have previously coordinated, organised and led courses and workshops on various spiritual thought systems, material and practices including Kabbalah, Buddhism, & meditation. So no I’m not just some little f***wit that doesn’t know what he’s talking about and neither does all I have to support my beliefs solely consist of ancient religious texts.
I don’t have to justify myself to you or anybody else and I have done nothing to warrant your disdain or disrespect – nothing at all. I disagree with your outlook on life, that does not mean that I am worthy of your prejudice and intolerance of different views.
You’ve described and alluded to particular ideas about what God is, none of which I give any credence to and have not done so for quite some time. My views about that do not fit in the box marked traditional orthodox religion. So don’t try and second guess what my beliefs are on the basis of what other people who say they believe in a ‘God’ say because I don’t share alot of their views about that particularly in terms of traditional orthodox religious beliefs. I dont buy into the seperation theology and exclusivist philosophy which is expounded by most organised religions. And I dont believe alot of the images and ideas which are presented about God by those thought systems.
You’ve raised alot of issues and questions and since you’ve made it clear that you’ve already decided what the answers are and that any ideas or answers I might have about those questions and issues are not worthy of consideration or being taken seriously I see little point in continuing this dialogue any further. Lets just agree to disagree. You dont get me, I get you more than you realise and I’m not your enemy.
Neither am I opposed to science, reason, or rationalism.
It seems that only atheists can voice their support for GLBT equality on this site. Anyone with any kind of spiritual outlook on life is unwelcome and their motives for supporting GLBT equality are viewed with suspicion, cynicism and derision. I will continue to support GLBT equality but I have cancelled my account here.
Please feel free to throw your toys out of your pram, but it won’t make people agree with you. If your life is so empty that you feel you need ‘believe’ in something that is unprovable, go ahead, but don’t get a snot on when rational people wade in and pick your arguments apart.
For someone who seems so intellectual on the surface, it is quite astounding that you have followed such a path.
If you cannot take the heat, take your Quaker oats and vacate the kitchen.
It is sad that so many people on this site don’t seem to respect LGBT people of faith.
I am, and always have been an abject atheist, but I have no problem if they have a particular faith. If it helps their lives and doesn’t impinge on mine, I say live and let live. I would also say the same about LGBT people.
It is organised religion and it’s political objectives that I do have a problem with, and such attitudes such as the Catholic Church banning condoms has undoubtedly killed thousands of people with it’s ignorance and lack of foresight.
The problem is that if you say you are of a particular faith, you are automatically lumped in with everyone else, and are assumed to have the same ethos as the religious hierarchy, which is often not the case. LGBT people scream out about being stereotyped, yet they treat people of faith is exactly the same manner.
Don’t question the faith, question the religion.
Faith (spiritual) and religion (organised politics) are not the same thing. I couldn’t care less what people believe in, it’s the screwed up rules they adhere to. As Spanner mentioned about condoms, the priorities of religions are warped – they’d rather a woman died than allow her an abortion, or condemn millions to death by AIDS than promote contraception. Is that something enlightened LGBT people should support?
But, in all honesty, a religious LGBT person to me is an oxymoron. Why would anyone subscribe to a doctrine that has always oppressed them? It seems like they are using it as a way for them to try and ‘fit in’ with society, by trying to be more like everyone else. In reality, it’s sleeping with enemy or being some kind of gay Uncle Tom.
Faith is one thing, religion is another. Faith has no rules, religion does.
You haven’t read properly a single thing I’ve said. When did I say I was a Quaker? When did I say I was religious? When did I say I was a fundamentalist, or a literalist, or an exclusivist? When did I say believed in a wierd, vindictive, angry God or any sort of ‘sky pixie’ as you so called rationalists often put it? Who the hell are you to dictate to me what to think and believe? All you’ve done throughout our entire encounter is put words into my mouth and been generally rude and nasty…how dare you treat me like that, you don’t know me, you haven’t lived my life, how dare you sh** on my life with your nasty negative attitude you ignorant self righteous control freak bully. Yeah like your so much better than me.
mmmmmm and how exactly is it that you have disproved my ‘beliefs’? What are my beliefs since your so keen to tell me what they are and how exactly have you disproved them or demonstrated them to be false?
Why are you being like this to me? Who exactly are you reacting to in your past?
How exactly have you demonstrated that there is no proof for my spiritual outlook on life? What are the main tenets of my spiritual philosophy and how have each of them been disproven?
I look forward to hearing your answer to that line of questioning since you seem to think you know more about my spirituality than I do.
And in what sense is the following sentiment ‘rational’? ‘Anything and everything spiritual is bad and should be banned’
“But, in all honesty, a religious LGBT person to me is an oxymoron.”
Er, I’m not religious.
“Why would anyone subscribe to a doctrine that has always oppressed them?”
“it’s the screwed up rules they adhere to”
What exactly is “screwed up” about the Goldern Rule?
“when rational people wade in and pick your arguments apart.”
You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented virtually everything I have said in this conversation so how exactly do you figure out that you have ‘picked apart’ anything I have said.
You think that you are intelligent and well educated but actually you have demonstrated ignorance and shown yourself to be illinformed about the difference between spirituality and religion
And I’ll tell you another thing. If you equate Quakers with Islamic fundamentalists you really are seriously ignorant, bigoted and prejudiced.
I suggest that you would benefit from carefully considering the contents of the following book:
From Queer To Eternity – Spirituality In The Lives of Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual People by Peter Sweasey
Unless of course you consider the reading of books about contemporary spirituality to be ‘irrational’.
Whoah, you need to see a shrink pronto, this religious thing is seriously eating you up. Any further contribution from me will be too rational for your too handle.
Really, for your own sake, get help. Whatever it is you are turning your spirituality into, it isn’t healthy if it makes you react in a way that makes you look like a nutter.
Yep thats right…avoid answering the questions, sidestep the enquiries…the typical response of a rigid, inflexible fundamentalist which is exactly what you are. And theres that word again isnt it, ‘religious’, not a word I’ve used to decribe my thinking, your word not mine, so there you are again putting words into my mouth despite the fact that I have made the point several times now that I am not religious. You are an ignorant bigot.
And if you support gay equality what exactly is ‘rational’ about attacking people and organisations which also support gay equality?
And not only that, but attacking them BECAUSE they support gay equality? I guess I’m not the only one thats a bit of a nutter as you put it.
“Yep thats right…avoid answering the questions, sidestep the enquiries…the typical response of a rigid, inflexible fundamentalist which is exactly what you are”
No, that’s what you are. See, it’s all above in your psychiatric assistance-warranting rants above. There is NO point answering your questions because a) they won’t generate anything we don’t already know and b) you’re a nutter. All this spitting feathers is just going to give you a coronary, so just step away from the keyboard before you need a bypass.
You write like anutter, you have the aggression of a nutter, presumably you pray like a nutter too. I can only conclude that you are, indeed, a nutter.
Cluck, cluck, cluck Chicken…cop out.
And now language that stigmatises and fosters intolerance towards people with mental health issues. My my aren’t you a blessing to our secular democracy.
Nice try Mr Holier Than-Thou, but now you mention it, I genuinely think you may need to seek psychiatric help. After all, you were just impersonating a breed of domestic fowl. More to the point, though, is that you are a bit of a nutter. Is that a mental illness? Possibly, possibly not, it could just simply be that your disturbed psyche is actually an immutable element of your biology that has existed from birth.
So, not mentally ill, just a nutter down to your DNA.
You’ll have to find someone who gives a toss to answer your realy rather boring questions. I’m sure if you trawl through enough threads, you’ll find all the answers from me you wanted.
Now go and be a nutter somewhere else.
I’ve as much right to be here as you have, nutter or not, so I think I’ll stick around actually. So unless you own this site and ban me you can shove your pompous head up your pompous ass bitch.
Oops, looks like your ‘spiritual side’ is a bit off-kilter today Heretic. Try and bit more….zen, eh.
I love the whole ‘look at me, look at me, I can be here if I want an dyou can’t stop me (blows raspberry)’. You’re like a character from Just William.
Anyway, I’ll leave you to comment to yourself, your wittering is boring me senseless. Maybe you should take a ‘time out’ before you come back though.
I’m simply reflecting what your projecting back to you.
You are ACTUALLY twelve years old. I mean, just throw a ‘talk to the hand’ in ther while you’re at it. Who needs car crash tv when I’ve got you sweet lips.
Don’ make me click ma fingers in a Z formation umm hummm
Yes I am human, I have human flaws and emotions. Reviewing this dialogue I’d like to try to understand exactly where your coming from. You seem to think that believing that there is a god is a problem but doesn’t that rather depend on what kind of god one believes in or what one believes about god as to whether such a belief is a problem?
I understand that there are ideas and concepts put forward by religion which have a very damaging impact and why you would feel hostile about these but do you acknowledge and accept that there are also more positive concepts and ideas put forward in religion which have a benefical influence in the world or are they all bad in your thinking – is every concept and idea they put forward bad in your view?
You said earlier that you didn’t want to discuss your thinking with me because it would be too rational for me to handle. I would like to hear it now please. I like to engage in the process of considering different perspectives and also challenging and testing my own beliefs and adapting and changing them. What would you say to convine me to become an atheist?
I dont think that I am a fundamentalist because I do not adhere rigidly to a prescribed set of religious doctrines and while I have been intolerant in the past towards Christian views, I have endeavoured in recent years to try to learn and understand Christians and Christianity better. Now I’m trying to do the same with atheism so I dont think I am especially intolerant of different views. When I said you were a fundamentalist I meant that you seemed intolerant of different views and in this instance you must surely concede that you have shown a degree of intolerance to religious and spiritual ideas and beliefs. The other aspect of fundamentalism is an opposition to secularism. I am not opposed to some of the ethical principles and values put forward by secularism and would even go as far as saying that I support some of its aims so I would again argue in that regard that I am not a fundamentalist. So in what sense do you regard me as a fundamentalist?
I didn’t say you were a fundamentalist, just a nutter – these aren’t the same thing.
Carry on with your god thing, no-one’s stopping you, but you can’t demand that anyone gives you any advantages in life for believing in something that is as unprovable as Zeus. Nor can you demand any respect for those beliefs.
Discussion here endeth.
Are you quite sure that you did not call me a fundamentalist? Do you need me to quote you back to yourself?
You copied and pasted my statement calling you a fundamentalist and then wrote ‘No, thats what you are.’
“you can’t demand that anyone gives you any advantages in life for believing in something that is as unprovable as Zeus. Nor can you demand any respect for those beliefs.”
When, where and how have I done that? Other people have, religious people, but I’m not religious. I’m going to repeat that again because it doesn’t seem to be sinking in.
I am not religious.
“believing in something that is as unprovable as Zeus.”
I’ve made this point already. You seem to be second guessing and assuming what I believe on the basis of what other people believe. I am not those other poeple and I dont neccessarily share their beliefs. Forget about the word god and any previous notions you have attached to that term because I don’t believe any of those things.
I understand why you feel as you do about religion. I feel similarly but I approach the problem very differently mmkay.
Merlyn, actually, in the U.S., marriage equality only exists in five states, not the country in general. Even then, married gay couples in those states don’t even have the full rights, benefits and privileges at the federal level, so in fact, there is no full marriage equality in the five states until the federal government recognises them.