Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.

It does not come from any "Christian tradition". Christianity adds nothing to the concept of (legal/secular) marriage. In fact, virtually all of the privileges and obligations involved in marriage have nothing to do with religion. The Christian bible certainly doesn't determine things like tax rates or hospital visitation rights.

And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.

What's your point? You're indisputably wrong about your religion having ownership of secular/legal marriage, so why do your religion's beliefs about secular/legal marriage matter at all?

And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.

You can be opposed for that reason, but that makes you a bigot. You don't like another person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs), and you want to force them to follow your religion's rules. The correct answer in this situation is to acknowledge that, while your religion does not recognize gay marriage, your religion has no authority over marriage as a secular legal contract and allow people who don't care about your religion's rules or ceremonies to live their lives without interference.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.

Well, it wasn't actually called "marriage". Marriage is just a catchall term we use to denote a particular class of union between two or more people, which is one of the reasons that any argument regarding homosexuality and the dilution of marriage is likely to be rather silly. As to your claim about marriage and the Christian tradition in the West: How do you reconcile that position with the existence of non-Christian marriages in the same part of the world? Or, for that matter, the absence of any overt ties to Christianity throughout most of the same?

At any rate, marriage has never been universally tied to religion. Indeed, one of the more prominent elements of marriage throughout history has been service to one's group, as opposed to any sort of higher power. A great example of this was Sparta, where marriage was primarily about service to the state.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.

You certainly can, but that isn't usually the best way to begin an argument regarding a secular institution.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.

And that "Christian tradition" is deeply rooted in the Church's desire to make more money. Guys like Charlemagne weren't married in a church, they were married to whomever they pleased because they were the king. It wasn't until much later, like 12-1300s that major and minor nobles began to seek the priests "approval" as a sign to the people that they ruled through the will of "god", and the priests granted these blessings... for a price. Soon, it became common practice for everyone to seek the priests blessing on their marriage, and the church was knee deep in gold.





And no matter how secular MY marriage contract is, in no way invalidates YOUR religious experience in YOUR marriage. So keep your pompous religious BS out of my marriage, and the marriages of everyone else, thank you very much. (that is the "royal" your, not you individually IC)

Additionally, legalizing gay marriage for everyone doesn't in any way invalidate the religious practices or meanings that the religious types get from their marriage, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pastafarian or Rastafarian. As such, again, falling on "my religion says so" is not a valid reason for making something legal or illegal.

This is terrible news - I'm very much against the Irish being allowed to marry

(just kidding, you Irish are alright)

I'm happy for the Irish to marry, so long as they don't propagate!

Seriously though chaps why all the arguments? Who actually gives a feth who invented marriage and they're all different (what with being personal and all), so Just have an Raspberry Dakari, some Gay Cake and relax.

Also, can I just point out Iron_Captains lie before.

The Netherlands does not force priests to marry gay couples. We force government officials to marry gay couples, because it's their job.

Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian

It does not come from any "Christian tradition". Christianity adds nothing to the concept of (legal/secular) marriage. In fact, virtually all of the privileges and obligations involved in marriage have nothing to do with religion. The Christian bible certainly doesn't determine things like tax rates or hospital visitation rights.

How much do you actually know of Christianity? Not much evidently. The Bible is not the only source of Christian teachings, far from it. "Marriage" was made a religious institution by the Council of Verona in 1184 as confirmed and expanded upon in the Council of Trent in 1564, which established that a marriage can only be valid when conducted by a priest.
Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.

Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.

What's your point? You're indisputably wrong about your religion having ownership of secular/legal marriage, so why do your religion's beliefs about secular/legal marriage matter at all?

I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.
My religion's beliefs about marriage matter because they are my beliefs (and also of a significant part of society) and since we supposedly all live in a democracy they should therefore be respected.

Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.

You can be opposed for that reason, but that makes you a bigot. You don't like another person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs), and you want to force them to follow your religion's rules. The correct answer in this situation is to acknowledge that, while your religion does not recognize gay marriage, your religion has no authority over marriage as a secular legal contract and allow people who don't care about your religion's rules or ceremonies to live their lives without interference.

I don't want to force anyone to follow my religion's rules. I acknowledge that my religion has no authority over secular marriage and allow people who don't care about my religion to live without interference. That does not chance however the fact that I still dislike gay marriage for religious reasons. You can accept something while disliking it.

 Soladrin wrote:
Also, can I just point out Iron_Captains lie before.

The Netherlands does not force priests to marry gay couples. We force government officials to marry gay couples, because it's their job.

Now you sound like a Soviet official, twisting words to make them appear different from what they actually are.
The only way for a priest to conduct a marriage in the Netherlands is if he officially registers with the government, so in effect, the Dutch government does force priests to either marry gay couples or not perform marriages at all.

dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.

Well, it wasn't actually called "marriage". Marriage is just a catchall term we use to denote a particular class of union between two or more people, which is one of the reasons that any argument regarding homosexuality and the dilution of marriage is likely to be rather silly. As to your claim about marriage and the Christian tradition in the West: How do you reconcile that position with the existence of non-Christian marriages in the same part of the world? Or, for that matter, the absence of any overt ties to Christianity throughout most of the same?

At any rate, marriage has never been universally tied to religion. Indeed, one of the more prominent elements of marriage throughout history has been service to one's group, as opposed to any sort of higher power. A great example of this was Sparta, where marriage was primarily about service to the state.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.

You certainly can, but that isn't usually the best way to begin an argument regarding a secular institution.

Unless one were of the opinion that said secular institution should be replaced by a religious institution.
The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. Gay marriage, which in Christian teachings is a perversion of the sacred concept of marriage therefore also has to be accept as valid marriage, which would be blasphemy and explains the strong opposition from the Church.

The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.

That's up there with the least equitable ways to deal with it. Also, in your rambly, often times toeing the rule 1 line post just there Iron Captain, you missed responding to one of the people who addressed you. I'll help.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.

Just being in a democracy doesn't follow that your beliefs must be respected, especially to the extent that they take precidence over other people's right to equality. I'm not sure where this attitude that your 'beliefs' should expect automatic respect comes from.

Regardless, 'my religion says so' only has bearing on you. It has no bearing on what other people may do.

Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.

So would you agree that by introducing divorce (by no means a christian dogma and one of the reasons why GB has their own church nowadays) western societies have surpassed the historical phase were marriage was defined and regelemented primarily by christian law in the western christian world?

The lutheran church is accepting re-marriages and nowadays also gay marriages in my country. Are they wrong to do so? Who decides that?

 Iron_Captain wrote:


The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages.

Care to elaborate that argument? Being married is a legal status. A legal status does not grant special privileges in church, unless I have forgotten about some sacraments that are reserved to married couples? A church can still say "well, from our point of view, you are not married." They are not forced to publish your wedding in their church newspaper, they do not give you the special "I was married in church and I am proud of it" sticker etc.

If that was the case, your country would have an issue with the separation of church and state. Is that the case? Then that would be a topic in itself but with little connection to the underlying question in discussion here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.

I do not get your point. Equality under law is already the case (in most of Europe, at least): Everyone has to marry secularly to get the civil status (and the privileges) of "being married" but only those who wish - and fit their religion's preferred vision of a couple - may marry religiously. If that religious wedding gives you (metaphysical) boni, so be it. Your choice.

What you want is to give a religious ceremony legal status. Which is actually the opposite of separation of legal/secular status and religious status. (welcome to Islam!)

If you have a problem to marry legally (whichever that may be, given that you are not forced to do it), then do not do it. You can still marry in church and get all the benefits from church/religion associated with that.

Just do not expect society/the state to give you a legal status/ privileges despite the fact that you do not want to be part of said society/state.

motyak wrote:That's up there with the least equitable ways to deal with it. Also, in your rambly, often times toeing the rule 1 line post just there Iron Captain, you missed responding to one of the people who addressed you. I'll help.

How exactly am I toeing the rule 1? If I do, I am not realising it myself.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.

The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Just being in a democracy doesn't follow that your beliefs must be respected, especially to the extent that they take precidence over other people's right to equality. I'm not sure where this attitude that your 'beliefs' should expect automatic respect comes from.

If you read the constitution of your country (and most other Western countries) you will see it says that every religious belief is to be respected. If and how the right to religious freedom conflicts the right to not be discriminated is really complicated.

skyth wrote:Regardless, 'my religion says so' only has bearing on you. It has no bearing on what other people may do.

Agreed.

skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Define bigotry

Iron_Captain wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,

They do in the Netherlands

Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.

First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence

IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.

The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion.

Right... so someone else decided that wearing clothes made of mixed fibres is fine but gay people getting married isn't. So there's still picking and choosing of which parts to follow. And now people decide it's not okay for gay people to get married, not because it's in a holy text, but because someone else decided that we should follow that particular part of the holy text..?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Define bigotry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

 treslibras wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.

So would you agree that by introducing divorce (by no means a christian dogma and one of the reasons why GB has their own church nowadays) western societies have surpassed the historical phase were marriage was defined and regelemented primarily by christian law in the western christian world?

No, divorce was already allowed under Christian law.

 treslibras wrote:
The lutheran church is accepting re-marriages and nowadays also gay marriages in my country. Are they wrong to do so? Who decides that?

The Lutheran Church does, and they are free to do so. Christianity is not a single religion but rather a collection of many different but related religions. What the Lutheran Church of your country does has no bearing on the teachings and beliefs of other churches, and individual christians are free to have any beliefs they want.

 treslibras wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages.

Care to elaborate that argument? Being married is a legal status. A legal status does not grant special privileges in church, unless I have forgotten about some sacraments that are reserved to married couples? A church can still say "well, from our point of view, you are not married." They are not forced to publish your wedding in their church newspaper, they do not give you the special "I was married in church and I am proud of it" sticker etc.

If that was the case, your country would have an issue with the separation of church and state. Is that the case? Then that would be a topic in itself but with little connection to the underlying question in discussion here.

Marriage is a legal status, but it is also a religious status (See this for information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_marriage#Eastern_Orthodoxy)
A Church can not say "from our point of view you are not married" because a Church has to recognise a legal, secular marriage as valid. Since the only possible form of marriage under current law in the West is secular marriage, secular and religious marriage are currently one and the same. All a Church can do under Western law is to affirm a marriage that already exists.

 treslibras wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.

I do not get your point. Equality under law is already the case (in most of Europe, at least): Everyone has to marry secularly to get the civil status (and the privileges) of "being married" but only those who wish - and fit their religion's preferred vision of a couple - may marry religiously. If that religious wedding gives you (metaphysical) boni, so be it. Your choice.

What you want is to give a religious ceremony legal status. Which is actually the opposite of separation of legal/secular status and religious status. (welcome to Islam!)

If you have a problem to marry legally (whichever that may be, given that you are not forced to do it), then do not do it. You can still marry in church and get all the benefits from church/religion associated with that.

Just do not expect society/the state to give you a legal status/ privileges despite the fact that you do not want to be part of said society/state.

Currently, because the only possible marriage is a secular marriage, a secular marriage is also a religious marriage. By seperating these two by making religious marriage an alternate form of legal marriage you would take away the Church's arguments against gay marriage by removing the religious meaning given by churches to secular marriages. I do not get what is wrong about religious marriages (or Islam for that matter).

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.

The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion.

Right... so someone else decided that wearing clothes made of mixed fibres is fine but gay people getting married isn't. So there's still picking and choosing of which parts to follow. And now people decide it's not okay for gay people to get married, not because it's in a holy text, but because someone else decided that we should follow that particular part of the holy text..?

That is exactly how it goes, yes. And it is also the reason religions splinter into so many different forms because people disagree with following a particular part of a holy text or have a different interpretation of it.

So you're still choosing to follow that part, so it's still a personal thing.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Define bigotry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,

They do in the Netherlands

Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.

First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence

IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.

Okay, that is indeed a difference there.
Of course, what I meant by that is that if priests (or any religous person for that matter) in the Netherlands want to conduct a marriage, they are forced to also conduct gay marriages.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Define bigotry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group?

No, because one interferes with people's rights, and the other doesn't.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.

Define bigotry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group?

No, because one interferes with people's rights, and the other doesn't.

How does it not interfere with the right to freedom of religion? Forcing something contrary to one's religion upon someone limits that person in his free conduct of religious practices. It would be like a law stating that all muslims have to also eat pork if they want to eat any meat at all.

No it's not. You can still practice your religion, and believe whatever you want. On the other hand, people can't get married like the other 95% or whatever of the population, just because they happen to be marrying someone of the same gender.

Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

There is no compulsion on churches to perform same-sex marriages.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

I disagree with that definition.
For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals.
The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike.
If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas?

1. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it. I disagree that I have to pay for wine and can't have sex with Natalie Portman dressed at Daredevil. Wine should be free and Natalie should get with the program already. However, facts are facts, regardless of our opinions.
2. Phobia doesn't always mean fear. I have been diagnosed as photophobic. I am not afraid of bright lights, but I am extremely sensitive to it and have to wear sunglasses when I'm outside during the day, even when it is overcast.

Edit: Yes, Kronk isn't fething perfect.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they are not.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,

They do in the Netherlands

Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.

First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence

IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.

Okay, that is indeed a difference there.
Of course, what I meant by that is that if priests (or any religous person for that matter) in the Netherlands want to conduct a marriage, they are forced to also conduct gay marriages.

And you're really going to need to provide evidence for this statement of yours.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

A Civil Marriage IS the legal marriage, the Religious ceremony is just window dressing.

Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.

And if that is indeed the law in the Netherlands, how do those priests cope with being forced to marry people that are divorced? Or not even from their religion? Seems to me that if that was true, then those priests were being forced to do things that went against their religion long before same sex marriages were an issue.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.

No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.

No, they're not.

Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.

The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.

We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it.

It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.

If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages.

Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.