Religion Vs Homosexuals

I was interested to read this morning that a proposal (I think a Bill in parliment) that would force churches (and presumably other religious entities) to employ homesexuals was rejected.

Why should a religious entity be allowed to break laws that apply across the land because of what they believe?

At the same time, a religious person cannot be prejudice towards homosexuals on a personal level (not that I'd condone it)? Therefore, is the law full of contradictions?!

If it was a Bill (I could be wrong, interestingly it seems to buried in the dark depths of the news pages and I cannot find it ) then are we saying that religion takes precedent over eliminating prejudice?

Here is the Bill I think it relates to:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...#1001252000287

What's your thoughts on this?

I'm caught in two minds, you surely can't punish the majority of institutions for prejudice whilst ignoring others but then you're going to have all the religious people going crazy.

I know there should always be compromise in the world but I just don't think that these two fit. You either have a blanket rule for all or none.

I don't think religions - any of them - should have a place in policy making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

I was interested to read this morning that a proposal (I think a Bill in parliment) that would force churches (and presumably other religious entities) to employ homesexuals was rejected.

Why should a religious entity be allowed to break laws that apply across the land because of what they believe?

At the same time, a religious person cannot be prejudice towards homosexuals on a personal level (not that I'd condone it)? Therefore, is the law full of contradictions?!

If it was a Bill (I could be wrong, interestingly it seems to buried in the dark depths of the news pages and I cannot find it ) then are we saying that religion takes precedent over eliminating prejudice?

Here is the Bill I think it relates to:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...#1001252000287

What's your thoughts on this?

I'm caught in two minds, you surely can't punish the majority of institutions for prejudice whilst ignoring others but then you're going to have all the religious people going crazy.

I know there should always be compromise in the world but I just don't think that these two fit. You either have a blanket rule for all or none.

---

In simplistic terms I cant see how its any different from them telling the BNP to accept members from Minority groups, dont see why the church should get away with it to be honest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

I was interested to read this morning that a proposal (I think a Bill in parliment) that would force churches (and presumably other religious entities) to employ homesexuals was rejected.

Here is the Bill I think it relates to:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...#1001252000287

---

The link above is saying that a priest should not be allowed to be sacked for being gay, not that the church must employ gay people, which is slightly different.

If you read the article, it reads that if a priest is gay by inclination, but completely celibate, that is still grounds for dismissal, whch seems very unfair.

All very sad.

Religion eh? Dontcha love it

I don't see how you can legislate to force a religion to deny their beliefs. It's a bit like the banning the burqa debate.

Religion isn't compulsory in this country, if you don't like what they believe you're not forced to comply yourself.

Another little hornets nest being stirred up here I think, cue the pro bible brigade.

A bit strange that the church isn't allowing priests to practice religion if they're practicing homosexuals but when one of them gets caught out abusing little choir boys, they are very quick to try to cover it up and sweep it under the carpet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leicester Fan

I don't see how you can legislate to force a religion to deny their beliefs. It's a bit like the banning the burqa debate.

Religion isn't compulsory in this country, if you don't like what they believe you're not forced to comply yourself.

---

:agree: Sounds about right to me. The Bible has rules for followers. Believing and following a religion is an option.

Luckily in this country we are free to practice religion, or choose a non practicing lifestyle.

If an openly gay man wants to be a priest or whatever, then the law of the land says that he should not be prejudiced from doing so. But, it's very hard to police as evidence is often hard to come by and incidents/allegations are few in number.

If a priest turns out to be gay, and then gets the sack, then Employment Tribunal here we come! And rightly so, IMO.

Where religion and law clash, the law must always win. No discussion.

Look at countries who have not seperated Church and State (and even some who have) and you can see what the consequences are.

Ireland is a good example (recent Blasphemy laws, illegal abortion etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

:agree: Sounds about right to me. The Bible has rules for followers. Believing and following a religion is an option.

Luckily in this country we are free to practice religion, or choose a non practicing lifestyle.

---

What would happen in the case of a gay man who was a commited Christian and wished to become a priest/vicar?

Obviously homosexuality is viewed as inherently wrong by the majority of Christian doctrines but in my view one cannot help being gay anymore then i can help being hetrosexual.

My point is this, is it right that a gay man or woman be denied entry into their chosen career on the basis of their sexuality purely because the employer in question is a religous group?

These people are not in any way being forced to practice their faith, they are choosing to and under current legislation are potentially being denied that chance.

Why would you believe in something that tells you that you are 'wrong'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foreverhibs

What would happen in the case of a gay man who was a commited Christian and wished to become a priest/vicar?

Obviously homosexuality is viewed as inherently wrong by the majority of Christian doctrines but in my view one cannot help being gay anymore then i can help being hetrosexual.

My point is this, is it right that a gay man or woman be denied entry into their chosen career on the basis of their sexuality purely because the employer in question is a religous group?

These people are not in any way being forced to practice their faith, they are choosing to and under current legislation are potentially being denied that chance.

---

The Bible talks about hating the sin, not the sinner.

The Bible is also pretty clear that sexual relationships are only permitted within marriage.

Most Christians I assume would not have a problem with a gay priest/minister as long as they weren't a practicing homosexual.

Allowing a practicing gay priest/minister to take up an appointment would be contradicting the Bible, and Christians believe that the Bible is Gods word with serious punishments for disobeying his word.

A practicing gay man is incompatible with Christian doctrine, therefore by extension a practicing gay man cannot be a committed Christian as they are not being true to God's word.

*These are not my views, I am merely stating what the scriptures have to say on the matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

The Bible talks about hating the sin, not the sinner.

The Bible is also pretty clear that sexual relationships are only permitted within marriage.

Most Christians I assume would not have a problem with a gay priest/minister as long as they weren't a practicing homosexual.

Allowing a practicing gay priest/minister to take up an appointment would be contradicting the Bible, and Christians believe that the Bible is Gods word with serious punishments for disobeying his word.

A practicing gay man is incompatible with Christian doctrine, therefore by extension a practicing gay man cannot be a committed Christian as they are not being true to God's word.

*These are not my views, I am merely stating what the scriptures have to say on the matter

---

The issue is that as I understand it, the priest need not be sexually active, but gay by inclination to be liable for dismissal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

The issue is that as I understand it, the priest need not be sexually active, but gay by inclination to be liable for dismissal.

---

Really? I thought they were just against practicing homosexuals. If so that really is crazy.

If a gay priest chooses not to act on his feelings because he believes them to be sinful then he is doing no wrong in God's eyes surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Really? I thought they were just against practicing homosexuals. If so that really is crazy.

If a gay priest chooses not to act on his feelings because he believes them to be sinful then he is doing no wrong in God's eyes surely?

---

Taken from the OPs original link

"...Sexual orientation is not the same as having sex inside or outside of marriage. This is not semantics, and it is at the heart of what I am seeking to correct. Simply by being gay, the law allows religious organisations-in this case the employer-to sack a priest, in this case the employee. So even where a gay man takes a vow of celibacy, the law still allows for his dismissal. The law is not about adultery; it is not about sex outside of marriage; it is not even about gay sex. It simply allows for the dismissal of the individual for being gay...."

Terrible, isnt it?

For a start there are plenty of gays in the church, some practising, some not.

Should the catholic church be allowed to sack a priest who gets married?

What right does a govt have to tell people what they are allowed to believe? If you don't like what the church stands for then don't join it. Do what they do in America and start your own church that matches your own views or better still don't bother with churches at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

Taken from the OPs original link

"...Sexual orientation is not the same as having sex inside or outside of marriage. This is not semantics, and it is at the heart of what I am seeking to correct. Simply by being gay, the law allows religious organisations-in this case the employer-to sack a priest, in this case the employee. So even where a gay man takes a vow of celibacy, the law still allows for his dismissal. The law is not about adultery; it is not about sex outside of marriage; it is not even about gay sex. It simply allows for the dismissal of the individual for being gay...."

Terrible, isnt it?

---

So they just do what they have done for hundreds of years tell lies and continue doing whatever they like gay or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leicester Fan

What right does a govt have to tell people what they are allowed to believe?

---

None. But equally, people have no right to disregard the law because it clashes with their chosen religion.

My own faith, Orthodox Nonshinyfinishism, considers paying for cinema tickets to be inherently evil. Despite my constant correspondence quoting the appropriate scriptures, Cineworld still won't let me in for free. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nonshinyfinish®

None. But equally, people have no right to disregard the law because it clashes with their chosen religion.

My own faith, Orthodox Nonshinyfinishism, considers paying for cinema tickets to be inherently evil. Despite my constant correspondence quoting the appropriate scriptures, Cineworld still won't let me in for free. :confused:

---

Disgrace. :grr:
What did the Creed Relations Board say to that when you reported it? :dunno:

Religion quite simply should be disregarded when it conflicts with the law or personal wellbeing and the things we know to be true (I.E, proven facts such as the cervical cancer jag helping to combat the disease) being allowed to rule the roost.

For example, not allowing pupils of a Catholic Primary school to recieve the Cervical Cancer jag because it apparently encourages them to have premarital sex is unbelievably stupid. A school in my area decided to be excluded within the scheme that gave out the free injections across the region.

Some parents sought the injection from the local doctors surgery.

IMO, one's personal religious beliefs should not in any way shape or form be allowed affect the personal wellbeing of another Human Being.

Rant over .....:blah:

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dinkydoo

Religion quite simply should be disregarded when it conflicts with the law or personal wellbeing and the things we know to be true (I.E, proven facts such as the cervical cancer jag helping to combat the disease) being allowed to rule the roost.

For example, not allowing pupils of a Catholic Primary school to recieve the Cervical Cancer jag because it apparently encourages them to have premarital sex is unbelievably stupid. A school in my area decided to be excluded within the scheme that gave out the free injections across the region.

Some parents sought the injection from the local doctors surgery.

IMO, one's personal religious beliefs should not in any way shape or form be allowed affect the personal wellbeing of another Human Being.

Rant over .....:blah:

:greengrin

---

But if you want to send your kids to a Catholic School, you gotta go by the rules of the school, surely? And as you say, parents went to the local doctor for the jag anyway.

Not sure what the problem is with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

But if you want to send your kids to a Catholic School, you gotta go by the rules of the school, surely? And as you say, parents went to the local doctor for the jag anyway.

Not sure what the problem is with this?

---

Religious dogma taking precedence over something that will actively save lives?

Hmmmm. Thats a tough one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

Religious dogma taking precedence over something that will actively save lives?

Hmmmm. Thats a tough one.

---

That is only one opinion, though. In the opinion of the Catholic church, avoiding premarital sex will save lives. Who is to say whose opinion is correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergus

That is only one opinion, though. In the opinion of the Catholic church, avoiding premarital sex will save lives. Who is to say whose opinion is correct?

---

Human nature and peoples desire/need to have sex/reproduce will always triumph over only having sex post marriage.

Marriage is something that was created by man. We're not wired up to stay with one person, we're conditioned to think like that. Therefore, people will always have sex before marriage.

The vacination wins unless everyone conforms to the religion and sticks to the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergus

That is only one opinion, though. In the opinion of the Catholic church, avoiding premarital sex will save lives. Who is to say whose opinion is correct?

---

And they would be correct (insofar as cervical cancer caused by HPV is concerned) assuming neither partner had been sexually active.

I have no issue in them preaching this as both a moral guide (although I disagree with it) - you pays your priest and you takes your lesson. However, given that religiously driven celibacy hasnt really been very effective ever in the history of the world (because guess what - turns out people like sex), then I'll say that their opinion is incorrect and will, in all likelihood, result in some girl dieing directly as a result of being denied the jab.

(With apologies to the OP for going off topic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

Human nature and peoples desire/need to have sex/reproduce will always triumph over only having sex post marriage.

Marriage is something that was created by man. We're not wired up to stay with one person, we're conditioned to think like that. Therefore, people will always have sex before marriage.

The vacination wins unless everyone conforms to the religion and sticks to the rules.

---

We're not made of wires, we have a will and can choose what to do. Based on the results we know if our action is in conformity with our nature or opposed to it. E.g., if you eat stones you can soon discover whether you are supposed to do so.

The Catholics (or all other serious religions for that matter) are not suggesting that people do not have sex, in fact they advocate that people do - but within very specific parameters. Celibacy is not the protection, marriage is.

Our trouble is IMHO that we have degraded sex to the point that it is seen as little more than a recreation with zero responsibilities, however if you consider the potential power within it, is this view correct? I know it is inconvenient, but is it correct? Is there any other area in life where the more powerful a thing is the less careful you have to be about how you use it?

PS Sorry for going off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

Human nature and peoples desire/need to have sex/reproduce will always triumph over only having sex post marriage.

Marriage is something that was created by man. We're not wired up to stay with one person, we're conditioned to think like that. Therefore, people will always have sex before marriage.

The vacination wins unless everyone conforms to the religion and sticks to the rules.

---

Wasn't always the case.The reason more people have sex before marriage is the improvement in contraception methods and the removal of the stigma of having an illegitimate child.

****ging is brilliant and excellent fun, wheras church attendance is the most dull and boring thing known to humanity.

Those who attend church and follow religion should have their pontifications on sex treated with as much seriousness as a perverted sex addict's ramblings on ecclesiastical matters.

[QUOTE=ArabHibee;2332800]But if you want to send your kids to a Catholic School, you gotta go by the rules of the school, surely? And as you say, parents went to the local doctor for the jag anyway.

Not sure what the problem is with this?[/QUOTE]


But you don't have to be Catholic to attend the school - I was friends with a few guys that were never baptised or confirmed.

I know it's the parent's choice as to where they send thier child to get an education but it wasn't as if the school in question said, we're participating in the new cancer jag scheme, it's out of school hours and we don't encourage people to attend but for the people that want thier child to recieve it then please go ahead.

This type of cancer can't only be caught through sex though - so the nature of the disease kinda undermines thier reasoning behind not offering it IMO.

Some parent's are still on the waitinglist for the jag - because Primary schools in the area were given priority, then secondary, then presumably every female under the age of 18.............

This then brings me back to my original point around a person (or a group of people's) personal beliefs affecting the wellbeing of others. I know that the children that are having to wait longer for the jag aren't being completely disadvantaged but to me the whole situation doesn't feel 'morally right', which is what I thought Christianity was all about - doing what is morally right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

****ging is brilliant and excellent fun, wheras church attendance is the most dull and boring thing known to humanity.

Those who attend church and follow religion should have their pontifications on sex treated with as much seriousness as a perverted sex addict's ramblings on ecclesiastical matters.

---

I know this might take a bit of imagination, but.....

....what if the perverted sex addict is also a priest?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I know this might take a bit of imagination, but.....

....what if the perverted sex addict is also a priest?:confused:

---

Watch out Altar Boys!