For bd, just to add a slightly pedantic point about church and state- we must not forget the some 26 (I think) unelected bishops that sit in the House of Lords and therefore determine the laws of the land!

True, our system does have flaws, but at least we are able to enjoy our freedom of speech :)

Only politics ?? Why should politicians have a monopoly of hypocracy ?? Every day, just on here, we see the full spectrum of our own inadequacies         Nice one!  :) :)

Hypocrite? Moi? Noooooo!   lol  :)     Nor me- Ever!!   :)

> lol       Nor me- Ever!!  

Ditto :)

Just tagging on.

I have to say that I am still a bit confused as to what is being requested.  Is it the word marriage or is it getting married in a church?  If it's the word, what is the big deal to getting it changed?  If it's wanting nice pictures taken outside the church, how is that any different from almost every other couple that gets married in church.

My SIL was desperate to have a church wedding even though she had never attended a service in her life, she moaned about the 3 times the vicar requested she attend and hasn't been back since. It was all about the photo's. Now surely the vicar was fully aware that he married a couple that didn't follow God's word. How is it any different with a gay couple?

The only difference I can see is that these types of straight couples pretend to believe in God and the vicar pretends to believe them. The gay couples are obvious so the vicar can't look the other way.  Is the Church fighting for the right to pretend they are marrying people for religious reasons? It's not about the money is it?

(Just throwing some thoughts out, not wanting to offend any true believers :))

It seems to be both; redefining the word 'marriage' from it's original Christian (and pre-Christian) meaning, which therefore means that the Bible would need to be re-written, and also for same-sex couples to marry in church which, currently can't happen (although I believe it could if one partner had a sex-change). Currently same-sex couples often call themselves husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife) anyway.

>It's not about the money is it?

No; by allowing more couples the opportunity to marry in church there would be more money paid to the church. It's about principles and belief. Sadly Christianity is the one religion that nobody's afraid to take pot-shots at; if it's truly about equality the government would insist that it applied to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and any other religion. But they're far too afraid of the repercussions of what would be seen as a terrible insult.

My understanding is that it is to have complete parity so that any type of couple will be married in terms of civil law, rather than some couples being married and others being civilly partnered (which is a horrendous mouthful, if nothing else), it is simply to make everyone the same rather than, this is for you if you are in this category and this is for you if you are in that category.

Of course you can say what's in a name, but if it matters so little then why such high profile objections?

It is the church that has waded in and is objecting to this change in civil law- one rationale is that they fear this might leave them open to measures by the European Court which technically supersedes our courts, in that if a gay person also wanted to be married in church they could go to Europe to try to insist on it.

I think this article gets to the nub of it http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/12/marriage-church-state-gay-disestablish

> Yes, the biblical definition of marriage (and the Bible is the only 'rules' of the Christian church) is that it is the union of one man and one woman. Polygamy and polyandry are as forbidden as same-sex unions.
>
> And don't worry Lea; it was only extremist priests who took the childbearing age and medical history into account!

So it would only be extremists priests who took same sex into account too? Why would the wording of the bible have to be changed if the first two points are routinely ignored anyway?

As we've already said the bible isn't taken literally in many other points so using this as an excuse is, well, just an excuse :-)

Just adding on the end here - but really isn't this just about the word marriage, the meaning of words change all the time as society changes so I have absolutely no objection to anyone of any gender being married to anyone else of any gender. Not so long ago, a woman gave up all rights as soon as she married - she was effectively a possession of her husband ( having previously been a possession of her father if she was under the age of majority). How many of us would stand for that now? Or being 'beaten with a stick no thicker than a man's thumb'? Laws change thank goodness!

I don't understand why a civil partnership was ever termed such - it's the same as a civil marriage so why not call it the same? A religious ceremony is simply a blessing - you still need the civil bit to make it legal, hence the signing of the register etc.

One thing I do think though is that Christianity is going to become obsolete in this country if the churches don't start moving with the times. We don't follow many of the 'rules' in the bible because they are seen as obsolete laws that have no place in the modern world - how many Christians truly observe the Sabbath? How many of them nip into the supermarket or pub on their way home from church? How many commit adultery?  Given that the Anglican church was founded so that Henry Viii could make up his own rules about divorce and marriage (committing lots of adultery and theft in the process) I would think that the Anglicans should be the most open to change :-D

Interesting that opposite-sex couples can't have a civil partnership ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

They seriously do make me cringe. :(

I fully accept that they can and do provide, both love and financially, however it is just ethically wrong that money should be able to buy babies paricularly when you are in effect an oap.
Probably another thread really.

Just saying.

Karen

Let's hope we can then get back to more important things like the state of the economy.

From a moral and ethical standpoint I think the issue of same-gender marriage is far more important than the economy.

I also think there are probably two gay people waiting in the wings ready to challenge the Church of England and take their case to the European Court of Human Rights......just a matter of time....

so I have absolutely no objection to anyone of any gender being married to anyone else of any gender.

So it should be OK for a sister and brother to marry ?  There are many cases of siblings being reunited and falling in love after being seperated at a young age.  Provided  they take measures to prevent pregnancies, why shouldn't they also have equality ?

> why shouldn't they also have equality ?

Very different issue

> Provided  they take measures to prevent pregnancies

Hmmm - how would you enforce that - sterilisation ??

> I also think there are probably two gay people waiting in the wings

There are already heterosexual couples preparing to challenge the Civil Partnership rules ........ :)

> however it is just ethically wrong that money should be able to buy babies

Where do you draw the line tho' ?? Should other heterosexual celebrity couples be denied IVF ??

Certainly IVF should be cut off at a certain age.

Gender is no issue.

Karen :)

Lois_vp. I was waiting for the moral relativism approach. So, just to be clear, for you homosexuality is no different really to incest?

Daisy, well that's as it should be, either option available to all :)

> So it should be OK for a sister and brother to marry ? 

I don't personally believe that incest should be allowed but that is a very different issue and a different law I believe. However, given the number of DNA tests being requested on Jeremy Kyle show and the like, sperm donation, egg donation etc I do wonder how many people may end married to a half brother or sister and never know :-o :-o

As those who know me will know, I don't often agree with any Conservative :-D but ...

Nick Herbert, Conservative

"If marriage hadn't been re-defined in 1836, there wouldn't be any civil marriages; if it hadn't been re-defined in 1949, under 16-year-olds would still be able to get married; if it hadn't been re-defined in 1969, we wouldn't have today's divorce laws - and all of these changes were opposed. I know that the signal we send today about whether the law fully recognises the place of gay people in our society will really matter. Above all, I think of two people, faithful and loving, who simply want their commitment to be recognised, as it is for straight couples, and that in the end is what this bill is about."

Somebody has also mentioned on the radio on the way home that adultery is grounds for divorce but isn't admissible if using it in displacing a civil partnership . Not sure how truthful that is of really what difference it makes ?

Not replying to anyone in particular...

First of all, a civil partnership is NOT the same as getting married in a register office! Some people appear to be confusing the two things. ONLY homosexual couples can have a civil partnership.

I am an atheist, I am currently in an heterosexual relationship and don't see that changing (but thats not to say it wouldn't, I don't actually label myself as 'straight' or 'gay' or 'bi'.. I go with 'human' and I like other humans, their gender is infinitely less important to me!).

I would NOT want a marriage - marriage is a religious word and concept, and regardless of who I choose to formally partner myself with, I do not want religion of any kind involved, and by definition, marriage must, as it is a religious word and concept.

Furthermore, I have absolutely no intention of bringing a child into this world, nor of adopting and raising one - again, one of the main points of marriage, and of course of arguing that gay people shouldn't be permitted to get married.

I think we should all be able to have whatever kind of legally binding partnership we want - I would prefer a civil partnership but because my partner is male, I can't have one. I am FORCED therefore to have a marriage if I want my relationship legally recognised.

I see no reason why those who want to get married, should not get married. There is no reason that gay couples cannot be responsible for, and raise, children. My gay sister has a 16 year old and an 18 year old - ok so she is their foster mum, but she could choose to adopt in future... or she could have a baby herself (not likely!) - so the argument that gay couples won't be producing, raising or responsible for children is totally empty.

This whole issue is just one of the many reasons I am not only an atheist, but have a deep dislike and distrust for organised religion.

Why do (in this case) Christians (I appreciate in other arguments, other religions would be involved and relevant) take some elements of the bible literally, and others not?

For example:

Corinthians 14 34 " Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Hmm.. can see that one causing a few issues for female clergy..

Leviticus 19:27-28 we are commanded:

"(27) You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard..."

I quote those two because Leviticus and Corinthians are also oft quoted on the subject of homosexuality, for those without beards and unlikely to want to speak in Church, do note that Leviticus also forbids you to wear cloth woven of two kinds of material. Better ditch those cotton/polyester blends then!

Soooooo you'll excuse me if I don't take the contents of the Bible (or any other religious text) all that seriously!

>If marriage hadn't been re-defined in 1836

So, is he saying that before 1836 (and all the other dates) marriage wasn't defined in the Bible and the prayer book as being between one man and one woman? Or does he mean that the technical details regarding age of that male and that female were changed?

Very different issue

The same could have been said about same sex marriage a few years back.....

As has already been said (by JG I think), the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. 

My comparison to incest was to challenge those who believe that it's OK for any gender to marry any gender.

> The same could have been said about same sex marriage a few years back

Maybe - but gay marriage is a very different thing to allowing brother/sister to marry and it is not being debated at this time, nor do I recall anybody campaigning for it.

I doubt Dakkobear meant that it was OK for closely related people to marry, but hopefully she will state her view - I don't want to speak for her :) :) :)

The vote was Ayes 400 Noes 175 :) Presume it now has to go to the House of Lords ??

>Presume it now has to go to the House of Lords ??

Yes.

>I doubt Dakkobear meant that it was OK for closely related people to marry

That's something that was defined by the Church as well, so if one ban can be overturned so can another.

I believe that one day scientists will discover that all animals including humans come in a whole spectrum of genders and those who preach that everything except heterosexuality is wrong and sinful will become as irrelevant and ridiculous as those who preached that the earth was flat!

Jan, the quote said that marriage was redefined in 1836 implying that there was a previous definition. That definition changes according to which religion you adhered to, in many polygamy was the norm. If you go back to the old testament they had dozens of wives, were they only married to one of them?

The bible is a story book that gives us guidance on how we should live our lives as Christians but it's contents were decided by the Catholic church centuries ago and they picked the stories that fitted best with their views and buried the rest. Everything evolves, if it didn't we would still be apes somewhere in Africa or bugs in the primordial soup ;-)

> so if one ban can be overturned so can another

Of course, but I'm not so sure there is as much/any support for it ???

The bible teaches a lot of stuff that people don't believe any more because they have become outdated or irrelevant or some person high up in the church said it didn't matter anymore! The church of England was founded by a man who wanted to pick and choose what teachings he believed in, so for them to say nothing should change because of what is written in their interpretation of Christ's message hypocritical at best. Good old Henry was off committing adultery all over the place - keeping himself to one woman obviously didn't apply to kings:-)

I must stress, this is not addressed to any one person  :)

Some of the views expressed here lead me to think the Bible could be torn up, everyone could have sex with anybody and the entire population could do exactly as they pleased- PROVIDING- it all applied to everybody equally, it would be alright!! :) :)

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Some of the views expressed here lead me to think the Bible could be torn up, everyone could have sex with anybody and the entire population could do exactly as they pleased- PROVIDING- it all applied to everybody equally, it would be alright!!

As long as they are consenting adults, I er, can't see the problem?

everyone could have sex with anybody

No thanks! The man I married is plenty for me. ;-)

I know what you mean :-)

But, nooooo..... it is not about s*x this is why it takes so long for things to change, everyone is so hung up on the s*x part, and the 'I'm ok about it, I mind or I don't give a flying fig' it's first and foremost about LOVE about finding your soulmate and wishing to be with them, those no matter what gender when they fall in love want to be together and many want to be married to show the world - this is my husband/wife and to feel connected in a way that marriage does connect.

There are plenty of married people who don't even have s*x much after consummation straight and gay, I even know a couple who married (in their 60's) and never have, they are soulmates in every other way.

Maybe if people just stop thinking about s*x and think about love even the Churches wouldn't be slamming their doors in horror.

bd,

there is much in the Bible that is relevant to the modern context and much that is not. After all, how many churchgoers also refuse to eat shellfish and pork- both verboten according to the Bible, and then there is the fulsome list supplied by Chaumsong and Theemx, and much more besides.

Interpretation of the Bible has always changed according to the times. In my view, one can only cite it as an absolute authority if every tenet is heeded, not just the bits selected to underpin a chosen moral position, while other elements are simply ignored or forgotten.

I understand that it might feel like a slippery slope but the desire for same sex marriage is not about encouraging sexual degeneracy, quite the opposite really.

> everyone could have sex with anybody

Mostly that can already happen :) :) :) There are few laws which legislate against that at the moment anyway, but some, I am sure, you would agree with ie sex with a minor :( The new proposed legislation isn't really anything to do with sex :)

Carrington,

Well said. It isn't about the sexual act it is primarily about love and respect, and (I hate this word) inclusion.

I do think that churches of all religions get totally obsessed with the sexual act in a way that is not useful and that fans all kinds of flames.

To take a really extreme example, there is this Saudi Cleric who is currently calling for female toddlers to be given the veil to protect them from the sexual advances of men? Good grief, how do you get to that sort of position?

Good grief! That is horrendous freelancerukuk.

I wasn't just thinking about the slippery slope purely in the sexual context- It was a partly tongue in cheek reference to the changing attitudes in society and the apparent necessity for equality in all things. For example, the the heterosexual couples going to court to obtain the right to have a Civil Partnership. :) :)

I suspect people have cherry picked from the Bible before modern times! Of course very few people observe everything the Bible teaches- I must say I do still eat fish on Fridays :)

Things don't have to be identical to be equal; we can be equal and different, in race, gender, sexuality ... if there are to be identical options then civil partnerships must be available to opposite sex couples.

This has been a really interesting, good humoured debate. I am still against the proposed legislation :)

Just came upon this quote from the Arch Bishop of Southwark  ""The definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman pre-dates both the state and the church and as such neither has the right to change it."

Good enough for me! :)  

By the way as a point of interest (or not) I am not a member of the C of E but a 'lapsed' Catholic believer and a staunch supporter of the party whose leader is so committed to this proposed legislation, against the wishes of many of his MPs and party members.

That's democracy in action  :)

Ok, so I've bitten my tongue through this topic (debate) over the last couple of days, in the main because I wanted to see the outcome of the vote first.

The institution of marriage should be available to all.  Why should only a straight person have the luxury of a union that is recognised in society as a legal and moral bond between two people?

Much is said of gay and most is based on stereotypes.  Being gay isn't about being promiscuous as alot of stereotypes would infer, but I see how this situation can arise and this particular stereotype has come about.

Relationships go through stages.  At each stage we lay foundations and increase commitment to one another.  If we fast forward through the courting stage the next and only real show of commitment (for both straight and gay relationships) would come when two people decide to cohabitate.  For a gay relationship that was it, end of the road until civil partnerships became available.  It's obvious from this discussion/debate alone that marriage and civil partnerships are not viewed and respected in the same way in society so that does suggest to me that civil partnerships are almost a second rate option for gay people.  Straight people can go on to increase their level of commitment and anchor their relationship further by marriage and having children, an option not available to gay couples at present.

I'm sure those of us that are married and have children or have children out of wedlock would be ALOT less likely to walk away from a relationship and put in the work for the sake of "our marriage" or "our children".  This is what the gay population needs.

Marriage to me, is a life long commitment, taken seriously and made to each other in the presence of God (for religious people) and family.  I have had the good fortune to grow up in a family where my parents are still married so have experience of their marriage to draw upon.  Their marriage didn't teach me that marriage is between a man and a woman, it taught me the value of love, understanding, family and cherishing those things...along with giving another reason to really fight for those things and that union at those times when the road gets a little bumpy.

>It's obvious from this discussion/debate alone that marriage and civil partnerships and not viewed and respected in the same way in society so that does suggest to me that civil partnerships are almost a second rate option for gay people.

From this thread (though it's not necessarily representative of the view of the population in general) I see that those who think that 'marriage' should not be redefined have no problem recognising same-sex civil partnerships as being as formal and legal a union as that available to opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples can also have children within their relationship; it's obviously (physically impossible!) more difficult for male/male partnerships but many male/female partnerships cannot have their own biological children either. Their adopted/surrogate children aren't treated any differently.

It's a disgrace, as people have also pointed out on here, that many opposite-sex couples abuse the institution of marriage, not treating it as seriously as they should.

> Marriage to me, is a life long commitment, taken seriously and made to each other in the presence of God (for religious people) and family.  I have had the good fortune to grow up in a family where my parents are still married so have experience of their marriage to draw upon.  Their marriage didn't teach me that marriage is between a man and a woman, it taught me the value of love, understanding, family and cherishing those things...along with giving another reason to really fight for those things and that union at those times when the road gets a little bumpy.

absolutely agree.

I saw a good facebook post last night from gay rights uk which summed things up really well. Gay couples deserve a chance the same as hetrosexual couples get to be 'married'

> that many opposite-sex couples abuse the institution of marriage, not treating it as seriously as they should.

Agree - but what is even worse, IMO, is that some people view having a child as LESS of a commitment than getting married :(

> IMO, is that some people view having a child as LESS of a commitment than getting married

from experience i know that having a child together is a MUCH BIGGER commitment than getting married. Even after divorce you still have to have contact with and try to remain civil to an ex if children are involved. Whena  marrige dissolves without children the two parties can walk away and have nothing more to do with each other.

Not sure how many people are aware that gay and straight marriages will be treated differently when it comes to adultery. This is because, under the Bill, a party to a same sex marriage can only commit adultery with a person of the opposite sex.  Also there are no provisions relating to consummation of a gay marriage.  This will create an inherent instability in the law and will be open to challenge. It will surely pave the way for the future complete abolition of consummation and adultery from the law of marriage.

I think the last precedent for defining consummation was in the 1960's. The conditions are male performance and emission, however my guess is that these would only be proven by loss of virginity and/or pregnancy. I'm not sure that today, with pervasive premarital sexual experience and the advent of external fertilisation procedures like IVF, that even the definition of heterosexual consummation would be that easy to prove one way or another. If it cannot be proven it rather makes the definition meaningless.

Historically, wasn't consummation really about proving virginity or paternity

> wasn't consummation really about proving virginity or paternity

Could also be about a man not being able to consummate - physical problem or being gay - therefore no children could be produced

Ah yes, of course, performance would also be an element- but I am trying to weed out the key points that distinguish it as a heterosexual definition.

Sadly Christianity is the one religion that nobody's afraid to take pot-shots at; if it's truly about equality the government would insist that it applied to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and any other religion. But they're far too afraid of the repercussions of what would be seen as a terrible insult

Hear,hear, so true