General Chat

I posted earlier

"I do not know why marriage in a church should be of concern to a government.

If a government should pass legislation concerning marriages in a religious building, whichever denomination of Christianity, or other religion, it should, in my opinion, be up to individual clergy to decide whether or not to conduct a ceremony, as is the custom at present within Christianity: a couple wishing to marry is seen by a religious minister who decides whether or not to conduct the marriage."

but just deleted it having read the news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220 as the legislation is about the institution of marriage:

"The Commons voted in favour of the The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill."

I would suppose, and it is just that, that because it is only relatively recently that being gay has been 'accepted' ( and legal) that there is still a need to say "I'm gay and I'm proud of it"...much as emancipation and civil rights let Black Americans say " I'm a free black person and proud of it " ?

If you've been a persecuted minority, being able to express that publicly ( even stridently) must be wonderful, it also helps others who are still struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality see it as normal. That said, few of the people I have met have been 'strident' about their sexuality whatever it is, ( other than some heterosexual men ;-) ) it's a private thing mostly unless you really need to state it to someone.

At some point tradition has to change. That doesnt nessassarly mean abolish altogether. It means it can always been improved upon. Somethings are outdated and progression is needed.

It seems to be in society that the default position is you're heterosexual unless you actually tell people you're gay.

Maybe those who do declare their sexuality don't want to be mistaken for hetersexual.

Edit to say that is speculation btw.

I often wonder why seemingly the majority of gay people go around proclaiming they are gay - I don't go round proclaiming I am heterosexual - and before anyone jumps on me, I have no problem whatsoever with gay relationships, have many gay friends, none of whom bang on about it

Yes, John, I've read your previous posts...well I have now. They were just questions that hopefully may make people think about arguements such as church weddings/marriages are meant for people who can procreate.

I believe that all humans should have the right to marry where they wish to and not be told they can't purely because of their sexuality.

"The Church of England is committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman."

Tradition isn't always all it's cracked up to be.

My "old" church says No I say YES! why should they not if they choose to do so. who are we to judge x

This has nothing at all to do with modernizing the Tory party or equality etc etc., it is just for the benefit of Nick Herbert, a handful of Lib Dems and possibly Chris Hune's girlfriend. You have to go back to the Great Reform Act to find parliament so misused for private purposes while needful changes lie undone.

Given her past speeches and commitments going all the way back to s.8 it is interesting to see just what a weather vane Theresa May is.

Half the country does not bother to get married or does so, divorces and than shacks up with another partner hoping for for a better ( unmarried ) relationship. It is difficult to see anything in this change of legal semantics ( nothing of substance has changed ) except a lawyers beanfeast.

As with the Dawkins persuasion on theology a tiny but vociferous part of the population, egged on by Strasbourg, are determined to turn ordinary life upside down. They should remember that in the end the biter was bit.

Given the withdrawal of legal aid for divorce and the well known tendency of same sex relationships to fracture it will be interesting to see how the many and inevitable divorce cases are handled. Note that unlike for heterosexuals adultery will not be grounds for divorce. Hey ho.

May I just point out, as I've been asked, that it was NOT GP's post re "Eve and Steve" that I reported.

Those pesky heterosexuals, who do they think they are? How dare those heterosexuals expect equal rights to all the rest, how presumptious of them.

Just in case anyone missed the sarcasm alert...I agree with Gwynne.

I post on another site. It's a parenting site but has a wide mix of people. Some of them are gay and have children they have given birth to themselves. Other's are heterosexual and cannot have children. Yet other's have made the decision NOT to have children.

Does that mean that the latter two groups cannot get married in church? Do we deny the right to marry in church to those who choose not to have children? Do we insist that everybody who wants to get married in church have a fertility test to determine if they can have children and determine by the results whether or not they have the right to marry in church?

I'm not going to get drawn into this debate, but thought the following may be helpful......... :)


Taken from the Church of England website....


Background on the position of the Church:


The Church of England is committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.


The Church of England supports the way civil partnerships offer same-sex couples equal rights and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples.


Opening marriage to same-sex couples would confer few if any new legal rights on the part of those already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple changes to law, with the definition of marriage having to change for everyone.


The issue of whether marriage should be redefined to include those of the same-sex is a more complicated picture than has been painted.


Arguments that suggest 'religious marriage' is separate and different from 'civil marriage', and will not be affected by the proposed redefinition, misunderstand the legal nature of marriage in this country. They mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself.


Currently, the legal institution of marriage into which people enter is the same whether they marry using a civil or a religious form of ceremony.


And arguments that seek to treat 'religious marriage' as being a different institution fail to recognise the enduring place of the established church in providing marriages that have full state recognition.


The Church of England will continue to argue against changing the definition of marriage, which has supported society for so long.



Cx

I saw your post GP, although I find the phrase a bit of a tired old cliche I thought it only worthy of a slight eye roll not a report :-(

John apology accepted but please note my avatar. I didn't choose it at random!

Right, Sue. Did presume, so sorry. But it does not alter what I put, except that I presumed wrongly you had got married in white.

GP. I would put your post back on if I were you, as it might be days before Genes review it. Am still waiting for a review of a post of mine that was reported last Friday!!!

Just look carefully at what you put and make sure you are not being homophobic in any way. I remember thinking it was a sound point you made.

lolol John I didn't accept any such thing. As old members on here know I refused to get married, a green piece of paper means absolutely nothing IMO. I gave in to OH's nagging after a few years and two children, relented and got married wearing BLACK.

So please don't presume to know anything about me, I have extreme views re marriage and the worth of it and have the back bone to stick with them as far as I can.

I'm not telling you what you can and can't post GP, I have simply told GR that I found what you posted offensive, which T & C's allow me to do via the 'report' facility.

if GR reinstate the post that is entirely up to them.

RR - I will not retype what I said in my thread. I will not be told what to do. The damage has been done by your hastiness. I am waiting for a response from GR about what I said then I will get back to you.

GP

I don't care whether you're gay or not GeordiePride, but you made what I considered to be an offensive generalisation. IF you feel strongly, retype it as it was put and I will not report it. (edit: and others can decide for themselves)

I very very rarely report anything.To be honest I would normally have asked the poster if they would kindly remove or amend the offending (imo) comments...but due to your jumping down my throat when I accidentally typed your name wrongly once, I didn't feel I wanted to ask.

RR - I stated facts ( one of them was that I was definitely not gay) which I personally didn't find offensive and If you had waited to allow others to read the rest of it to give their opinions I would have felt much better about it.

GP

John we have to 'muddy the waters' with Christian issues as they as are the hub of the discussion and some dissent.

As for the outdated statement that marriage is for the proceation of children - that is utterly insulting in 2013. I'll address that to whoever holds that view on this thread.

Couples may choose NOT to have children but wish to marry, as you mentioned they may not be able to have children (exactly the same as gays) but they can adopt hopefully (same as gays).

Marriage is not the preserve of the good and fertile as you know. It's an option which should be equally available to all human kind. Any reverend who states that it's a prerequisite that the couple are expeced to have children should be strangled with their own dog collar!