"No place I know of is saying that any church has to allow gay marriage in their organisation"
Actually, some proposed legislation has implied that in its wording. In both the UK and US early forms of "equal rights" legislation has been worded in such a way that a church would not be permitted to refuse to perform a marriage, for instance, even if they disapproved of it (a Catholic church having to accept a divorced person being married, or gay marriage if that was legalised). In a similar way, laws have banned "men only" clubs, Scouting groups have been forced to have mixed troops. In my view I would happily allow groups to exclude whoever they wish, on the proviso that those excluded are permitted to form their own groups of the same nature (so if the Scouts don't allow girls you set up the Girl Guides -- oh wait, that was the case).
I can see such legislation putting people in a difficult situation, where they either have to discard their principles or break the law. Imagine if a law decided that women being denied the priesthood was discrimination, what would a number of churches do? They'd fight back because it's part of their core beliefs and that law would be a denial of freedom of religion. (Note that there's nothing stopping people from making a breakaway version of the church with different ideas -- it's how the Church of England started, after all, and many others including non-Christian ones.)
The same with things like gay marriage. It's hateful because it often looks as though people who believe that it's wrong would be forced to accept it, not just for other people but in their own communities (a proposed UK version would have forced mainstream churches to perform gay marriages; I'm not sure that it got to actual proposed law but certainly some groups were talking about it and it seemed a possibility).
So yes, as well as the subset of any population who are xenophobic, hating anything of "the other", there are some genuine reasons why people will think some things are wrong, and if they feel attacked they'll defend them. Ofen they'll go over the top in a "pre-emptive defense" (which looks rather like an attack), but there's also a possibility that some of it may be a response to something most of the rest of us can't see (the article in question here may have been in response to some criticism elsewhere).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 03:56 pm (UTC)Actually, some proposed legislation has implied that in its wording. In both the UK and US early forms of "equal rights" legislation has been worded in such a way that a church would not be permitted to refuse to perform a marriage, for instance, even if they disapproved of it (a Catholic church having to accept a divorced person being married, or gay marriage if that was legalised). In a similar way, laws have banned "men only" clubs, Scouting groups have been forced to have mixed troops. In my view I would happily allow groups to exclude whoever they wish, on the proviso that those excluded are permitted to form their own groups of the same nature (so if the Scouts don't allow girls you set up the Girl Guides -- oh wait, that was the case).
I can see such legislation putting people in a difficult situation, where they either have to discard their principles or break the law. Imagine if a law decided that women being denied the priesthood was discrimination, what would a number of churches do? They'd fight back because it's part of their core beliefs and that law would be a denial of freedom of religion. (Note that there's nothing stopping people from making a breakaway version of the church with different ideas -- it's how the Church of England started, after all, and many others including non-Christian ones.)
The same with things like gay marriage. It's hateful because it often looks as though people who believe that it's wrong would be forced to accept it, not just for other people but in their own communities (a proposed UK version would have forced mainstream churches to perform gay marriages; I'm not sure that it got to actual proposed law but certainly some groups were talking about it and it seemed a possibility).
So yes, as well as the subset of any population who are xenophobic, hating anything of "the other", there are some genuine reasons why people will think some things are wrong, and if they feel attacked they'll defend them. Ofen they'll go over the top in a "pre-emptive defense" (which looks rather like an attack), but there's also a possibility that some of it may be a response to something most of the rest of us can't see (the article in question here may have been in response to some criticism elsewhere).