General Chat

Pick & mix churchgoers often abide by the bits that appeal to them & pass over the less palatable doctrines. Same thing happens in many walks of life.

Elderly couples get married in church, well past child bearing age. Does the vicar use those words in such cases? Seems a bit daft if he/she does.

And if he/she does for elderly couples with no chance of procreating, why not gay couples?

Religious institutions are exempt from this current Bill. It therefore doesn't apply and it is up to Vicars and Priests and Imams and Rabbis to conduct marriages as they see fit.

But the current words (in all religions, I think) are "a man and a woman for procreation and nurturing". The first stage in marrying gay couples in a place of worship would be to alter that wording.

Edit. Personally, I doubt whether anyone in a gay relationship or a relationship where they don't want a child would want to go through a full Catholic hour and a half marriage Mass when they can pop down the registry office with little fuss.

"Would you want all churches and religions to agree to that change in their wording to accommodate couples who have no intention of having children and raising them to love God?"

John some gay couples do have children. Some heterosexual couple don't...some by choice. Not everybody raises their children to believe in much less love god.

HAYLEY
I AGREE EACH TO THEIR OWN
AND GOOD LUCK TO THEM

Hayley. Would you want to change the form of words in a church marriage ceremony ie betwen a man and woman for purpose of procreating and nurturing children in love of God? Would you want all churches and religions to agree to that change in their wording to accommodate couples who have no intention of having children and raising them to love God?

And if any churches or religions refused, would you control what they do by law?

This thread has and is been interesting and informative. I have learnt a lot about civil partnerships and also about what used to be known as common law marriages such as Piglets Pals, I didn’t know that she wouldn’t have the right to register her partners death and so on.

It wasn’t that long ago that divorcés couldn’t marry in church, bit of a bummer for the either the bride or groom that hasn’t been married before and wanted a Christian ceremony. I don’t know if you can or can’t still in catholic churches or if it depends on the priest or not? However it seems our society has moved on from such frowning and now it is allowed. People except that some make mistakes and didn’t find the perfect partner 1st time round. Same as in the 1960’s and 70’s some vicars and priests refused to baptise or christen (what’s the difference?) illegitimate children.

Why I was laughing at some of the post in the beginning of this thread about how people were trying to portray same sex love relationships as being very nice & fluffy and I am sure some are same as heterosexual ones but not all gay couples have matching carpets and curtains with stunning stand up lamps! I don’t know the exact stats on the matter but yes there is a divorce rate for civil partnerships there is domestic violence there is adultery there are vicious court cases for visitation rights and guardianship battles of children. Same as there are from heterosexual marriages. Society has learned to mind its own business about why a divorcees what to have another go at marriage and have their Christian ceremony in church or that some choose not to marry at all but still have a family and this includes baptising or christening their children. So isn’t it about time society minded its own business and allowed same sex couples to marry in church or even on the loading bay of Liverpool docks if that’s what they choose to do? So to answer to your opening question Ann Yes I do think they should be allowed to.

Somewhere in this thread, there must be sexual exploits of an elderly man.

I have missed that. Was it me saying how many girlfriends I had had when I was young, was it GeordiePride. :-S :-S Or have we missed something good????

Chris. Yes, I have 6 weeks leave. Take it all in winter if I can as I work outdoors most of day. :-)

As of my 14.31 post Muffy.

Muffy I have always felt sad for those (usually men) relating the numbers of their conquests in public.

I always have reckoned they have one heck of an imagination or relying on a vivid imagination.

John you have a heck of a long leave. Am not just relating to this week.

oh muffy where........ :-D :-D.........tales in the dark..... ;-)

You are not the only one Muffy .... now that is what I call sick that he felt the need to tell us that ...

OMG
THIS IS ANOTHER GOOD THREAD TRASHED
NOT NAMING NAMES BUT YOUR WORSE THAN
A LOAD OF SCHOOL KIDS,

SORRY SCHOOL KIDS GET OVER IT,AND MOVE ON,

CERTAIN PEOPLE JUST LOVE AGRO,
SEEING ONE SITE CLOSED ITS CHAT RESENTLY
PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE NOTE,

WE DONT OWN GR CHAT

I'm usually VERY open minded...but details of an elder man's sexploits on this board have actually made me feel slightly sick :-S

I have already told you John I do not post to your demands .

Chris. So do I :-D :-D :-D

Edit. Last week of annual leave ;-)

I have often wondered how John has the time to work as he appears to be here morning, noon and night not to mention religious activities etc.

Yes, aware. I do see it myself as bullying - but not by me. Let reviewer decide and all I have wanted to do is go back to thread. Some interesting legal stuff that may have been missed and am still hoping that aivlyS can make a contribution to AnnC's thread rather than having a snipe.

Having been to a civi commitment partnership *marriage* it was lovely and apart from a few differing words went just like a normal registery office marriage,,,,,,but the couple said after a few weeks they wished they had been able to do it in a church,because both had strong personal beliefs even though their partnership had caused them heartaches when going to services..they are commited christians,but not of the CoE faith.

oh well I come back from not being struck by lightning, and find the thread's been hit instead!