Reader comments · Comment: When religious rights and LGBT rights conflict over equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: When religious rights and LGBT rights conflict over equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I suppose he’s saving himself some hassle by writing a whole article about religion and lgbt rights without mentioning the ‘M’ word or the ‘I’ word, but the article does feel a little incomplete.

  2. GulliverUK 30 Jul 2013, 7:19pm

    Excellent article, I agree with every single word – it captured exactly how I feel right now. I’ve gone from ignoring religion a few years ago to absolutely loathing and hating it now, or more precisely the bigoted leaders of the Anglican and Catholic churches, and pretty much most Evangelicals (they’re the worse of all).

    Don’t get me wrong, there are amazing Evangelicals like Steve Chalke, and Rob Bell, but Evangelical churches are so overwhelmed in their hatred they now can’t be reasoned with, not even by these respected leaders.

    Welby will find that within his homophobic empire there are few who are prepared to carry on fighting, and that a lot of bishops welcome change. I don’t know if they’re genuine about equality, or they just see the writing on the wall of their future.

    If would be good if we could have some reconciliation, but I personally think I’m now past the point where I will ever forgive them, and for many it may be decades too soon.

  3. Great article and thanks, the only thing I could add is my signature,

    Love Conquers Hate
    Always has, always will
    Mr. Pink

  4. The many obstacles that fundamentalism is up against is raw truths. The truth is that after all these many years of different countries, of different US states gaining marriage equality, so far to date absolutely none, not one of the religious right’s predictions have come true. Even if one thing came to pass, these and those like them would be shouting it from the housetops as proof of their dire predictions. In this time is on our side. Another truth that there up against is the fact that some people truly are “born this way from their mothers womb”. For sin to exist one must have a choice. The power of choice of whether to sin or not to sin. Being born this way removes choice and thus “sin” (in this particular case) has no foundation. In this is the greatest fear of fundamentalists, that this truth is becoming more and more apparent to not only science but to the people as a whole. People that unlike fundamentalists, still use their minds in critical thinking.

  5. The solution is simple. Civil liberty before religious bigotry.
    You have the right to believe what the heck you like. It’s not my place to police your views, but your beliefs should not be imposed on others.
    It’s amazing how many people agree with that statement, but make an exception to their own beliefs pushed onto others.

    1. GulliverUK 30 Jul 2013, 8:23pm

      And frankly religions only ever got to be part of the “protected classes” because they were constantly killing and fighting with each other, discriminating against each other, like in N.I.

      They weren’t born with religion, it’s not an innate characteristic, they can, and many do, just up and change their religion at will. And thus, when it comes down to protections, innate characteristics must come first, before things which people chose, like religion, or marital status. It is just a logical approach, a reasoned way to decide on rights.

      Given the way organised religions have behaved they don’t really deserve any protections. They have harmed us and our loved ones for thousands of years – they could apologise daily and it would never be enough.

      1. Keith, the eventual winner. 30 Jul 2013, 10:10pm

        If you don’t like religion, don’t join one, simples!

        1. ‘The eventual winner’? What a presumptuous title

          “If you don’t like religion don’t join one”?
          If only it was that simple. What choice do infants have when they’re baptized basically from birth. Male Jews circumcised from birth, (or if Muslim around age seven?) Christian evangelists ‘born again’ at age five? Or doctrine taught as fact in school? By the time these children are adults, they’ve had twenty years worth of brainwashing thrust upon them
          This is child abuse. These children, many of them have conflicts of faith vs reason, have nightmares of Hell clouding their rational judgement. To even question their religion can lead them (according to their belief) to eternal torture in Hell. They’re taught to “love & fear” their god. How can you love something you fear, anyway?
          And not only that, I’ve never been religious, and yet I still have religiously based laws and customs shoved down my throat, daily.
          So saying “If you don’t like religion don’t join one” simply doesn’t work

          1. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 9:39am

            “If only it was that simple. What choice do infants have when they’re baptized basically from birth. ”
            And what choice do some adopted kids have that should be entitled to a mother and father but end up with sames sex parents?
            The fact is, children have much imposed upon them.
            I was however referring to the freedom of choice adults have. Nobody is forcing religion down your throat or perhaps you could say how?
            is it not homosexuality that is being forced down peoples throats with their ridiculous Pride marches Rainbow flags gay bars, gay quarters gay cruises, gay associations.
            Your filthy harmful perversions are promoted everywhere, even in schools.
            Homosexuality has no benefit whatsoever to society. It does not create life, it creates death. Did you know that homosexuals are the most promiscuous group of all orientations and that the HIV plague is 50 times more likely in male homosexuals than heteros according to the center for disease control?

          2. bobbleobble 31 Jul 2013, 9:54am

            Oh Keith, you are such an angry little man, it can’t be good for you. Still not found someone to help you indulge all your fantasies?

            Religion is forced upon us daily. Everything you list there as homosexuality being ‘forced down people’s throats’ has its equivalent in religion. Plus gay person has a place reserved for them in our legislature unlike the 20 odd bishops of the CofE. Religion also creates plenty of death and I can’t see any benefit of it to society either.

            Please Keith, go and see a professional to help you deal with your anger towards people you don’t even know or go and get laid. Either way, it’s obvious you need help.

          3. bobbleobble 31 Jul 2013, 9:55am

            That should read ‘Plus NO gay person has a place reserved for them….’

  6. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 10:07am

    If religion is being forced down peoples throats as you claim, the gays are not the ones who should be saying it, for the reasons I have stated.
    You will be a calmer, less reactionary person if you deal with the content of my posts rather than the issue of my well being, especially as I could not give a toss about yours!

    1. The real Keith 31 Jul 2013, 10:29am

      Then bugger off to some website where you and your buddies can have a circle jerk for christ together.

      1. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 10:38am

        Wouldn’t it be better for your health if you just ignored my posts?
        Your anger will be your undoing!

        1. F\/ck off pr!ck….

          There is a village somewhere missing it’s idiot.

    2. thequeenofkings 31 Jul 2013, 10:35am

      Oh you poor, poor thing! I feel so absolutely sorry for you! Do you really have to troll this website and libel people as reactionary simply because they have turned away from the psycologically most damaging thing the world has ever seen(i.e. religion)? Do you have nobody else that you can impose your horrible views upon? Are you really that scared of free love? Oh you poor thing! I think you need a huge dosis of love that comes directly from the heart. Here’s a kiss for you :*

      1. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 10:58am

        I despise religion just as much as I despise homosexuality, perhaps more since many homosexuals are deluded due to brainwashing LGBT activists and militants whereas the religious leaders have no such ignorance and are misleading good people, not to mention the homosexual child abuse that is rampant in the church.
        As for my views being ‘horrible’, surely it is natural to be disgusted by filth. Aren’t you disgusted by sca-=t for instance? Does that make you a horrible person?
        As for what you call free love. It is not free when you consider the end result of the promiscuous lifestyle and degraded practices which the good for nothing homosexual community promote. Surely there is more to life than hanging around public toilets and looking through peepholes.
        You will clearly never know love in it’s pure form and the loyalty and bond that can exists between a mutually monogamous married couple, where two truly do become one.
        Go do some crystal meth or whatever it is you get off on!

    3. thequeenofkings 31 Jul 2013, 10:58am

      Yo, Keith, nobody’s being reactionary but you. You’re libeling people who have turned their backs on the construct of religion for a reason. Bobbleobble recommends you to either see a psychologist or get laid. Please do one or the other or both, or more. It’s for your own good, man. The last thing this website needs is comments by frustrated guys like you.

      May you be blessed with true love

  7. Religion gets in the way of one possible argument against gay marriage that I’ve not seen seriously addressed. This is the idea that marriage evolved as a way to ensure that children are properly supported by both natural parents. The purpose was to lock males into taking responsibility for their sexual behaviour, not just leaving females in the lurch to cope on their own. No-one else really wants to devote their resources to raising some other male’s unwanted offspring. So sex before marriage was forbidden, and divorce difficult unless provision made for children. If I’m right, marriage is irrelevant for those for whom sex cannot result in children. And if gays do marry anyhow, why should they be locked into that by irrelevant restrictive divorce laws? Risk is that pressure will grow to weaken such laws, so weakening what little protection remains for children. In short, gay marriage can be seen as undermining an institution created for a very specific purpose.

    1. “Marriage” was originally created to protect property rights. Nothing more.

      1. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 11:53am

        Really? By Who?

        1. Go look it up.

          1. Keith, the eventual winner. 31 Jul 2013, 12:50pm

            You made the claim but cannot provide the evidence. I always win, eventually!

    2. “No-one else really wants to devote their resources to raising some other male’s unwanted offspring.”

      That’s obviously not true, given the number of couples, both gay and straight, who are more than willing to adopt children.

      As for your first statement, it’s pretty much backwards — religion invented the idea of marriage as being about children. There are lots of variations on “marriage” as an institution, and anthropologists have even found societies that don’t recognize marriage at all. Marriage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition (which “Christians” would like us to believe is the only tradition that ever existed) was for establishing paternity to insure the orderly inheritance of property — which included women and children. In the middle ages and Renaissance, it was a means of cementing alliances between families and countries. If you want to know what marriage is about, look at what’s at issue when a marriage is dissolved: property.

      1. ukhuman1st 4 Aug 2013, 12:50am

        Those who adopt do so for a variety of reasons. Some cannot have children of their own, some have children and take on others. These days we have the resources to do so. In ancestral environment, such ‘altruism’ would have been much rarer. Marriage, or something akin to it probably evolved long before religion added its own skew to it. And if you read Old Testament, a lot more makes sense if you see avoidance of children out of wedlock as being main driver. Idea that men just decided to make life hard for women for no good reason doesn’t stack up, in my view.

  8. I don’t know the particulars of the relationship between church and state in the UK, except that the CofE is the “official” church, but what’s happening in the US is a concerted effort on the part of evangelical “Christians” in particular to establish that their personal religious beliefs trump everyone else’s fundamental rights. I have noticed some stories coming from the UK about “Christian” hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners trying to refuse service to gay couples, but nowhere near the heights of bizarre reached by the attorneys for a florist claiming that arranging flowers is “expressive speech” and therefore subject to First Amendment protections.

    The bottom line is not that they’re interested in “religious freedom” — they’re trying to establish their religious supremacy.

  9. Thank you Gary for higholighting some important issues. When a chuirch leader says we hould have religious freedom it usually menas freedom so long as you adhere to our beliefs.

    1. I’m Christian and while I don’t support gay marriage I know several Christian’s who do.
      The objection is not because it can damn our souls. It is only our own actions which need forgiving. Following the Bible’s teaching is to honour God and express of our belief and trust in him, not earning our way into heaven, which is impossible.
      The main reason is because Christians believe marriage was a part of God’s perfect creaton and homosexuality came with ‘the fall’. So a covenant that is from God shouldn’t support that lifestyle. Others believe ‘sin is here now and a gay couple marrying is better than a gay person being promiscuous’.
      I believe in treating gay’s with respect(as I would any person) but not necesarily accepting gay marriage. I didn’t come here because I’m bigotted or ignorant, but I’d like to ask; why SHOULD gay marriage be institutionalised? If you think it’s a stupid question then don’t answer, but it has to provide some societal value to merit a constitutional change.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.