With the same sex marriage vote due on Tuesday, I'm just wondering what people here think of the proposals. Are you strongly for or against - or maybe you're just not that bothered !.....

Interesting topic......
I think every person has the right to choose. Why should an mp make that decision?! I know gay and lesbian couples who have been together in longer happier and more faithful relationships than a lot of 'straight' couples. Why shouldnt they be allowed the right to bind their love legally thus making provisions for their other half in the event of death ??

>Why shouldnt they be allowed the right to bind their love legally thus making provisions for their other half in the event of death ??

They can, just as divorced couples can. A civil ceremony is every bit as legal as a church ceremony.

>Why should an mp make that decision?

I agree, the state should keep out of religious affairs. If any change in the rules only applies to Christians it's unjust. It must apply to hindus and Jews and Muslims and everyone else if it to be changed.

I might be a bit behind the times, but I don't see why they want to get 'married'. Aren't civil partnerships the same ? If not then I can see why.

It always reminds me of that scene in Life of Brian where the man wants to have the 'right' to have a baby, and the other man says, 'where's the foetus going to gestate ? In a box ?'

In law everyone should be treated equal therefore if I am allowed to marry with all that involves in law then everyone should be able to marry and call themselves that if they so wish. However if I remember correctly the C of E service says marriage is for the procreation of children - well that would have to be changed to the nurturer of children but that surely should be in the hands of the church as it has nothing to do with parliament.  

Strange when more and more heterosexuals are choosing not to marry that it is assumed that others will want to - the whole thing smacks of social engineering to me, providing people can make their relationship what they want it to be what does it have to do with anyone else and whilst I am at it why are single people and married ones treated differently when it comes to tax.

To sum up, everyone should be equal but 'clubs' including religious ones should be able to make their own rules.

A civil ceremony may be legal but if you are religious and gay you arent allowed to marry in church. Not really fair

In law everyone should be treated equal

...but equality doesn't mean uniformity.  Same sex couples already have the legal rights of marriage available through civil partnerships.  So there is no need to redefine marriage on equality grounds. It is perfectly possible to support traditional marriage whilst also recognising the rights of others.  Ironically the Government's plans to give marriage and civil partnerships to same sex couples but only marriage to heterosexuals creates even more inequality !

A civil ceremony may be legal but if you are religious and gay you arent allowed to marry in church. Not really fair
Quote selected text

The legal part of marriage is the same wherever it takes place it is a civil contract - the religious part depends on what you are going to promise before your God, if it is to produce children then you can't take part in that declaration in front of God and the Church any more than you can be a Godparent if you do not believe.

Against- If same sex couples wish to legalise a relationship the means to is already available. If they are keen on a spiritual acceptance, maybe a blessing would suffice as many divorcees choose. 

I do not think legislation is necessary and particularly in these difficult times, parliamentary time could be better used! Yes, I am old fashioned and have catholic beliefs but thats how I feel :)

If a woman knew she was infertile could she not marry in church then as she wouldnt be able to make that promise in front of god?

If they are allowed to Marry in Church, wouldn't they have to change the wording of the Bible????
Lea :)

> why are single people and married ones treated differently when it comes to tax.
>

To support and encourage marriage which in turn provides children, the future of our society, with better outcomes according to research.

>If a woman knew she was infertile could she not marry in church then as she wouldnt be able to make that promise in front of god?

There were some priests who wouldn't allow post-menopausal women to marry in church because they can't have children. However with the success of IVF the possibility (even if it wouldn't be allowed in law because the woman is too old!) is regained and so the marriages can go ahead.

Not that bothered, if I had to think about it concerning me then I would pay attention perhaps but have no reason.

If my assumptions are correct then there is no problem with civil partnerships being legal it is just church weddings and the religious side of things.

So if this is the case then should it have anything to do with politicians anyhow?
If people have a strong love of God then they dont really need to make a public proclamation of what is in their hearts, to satisfy political whims.

Karen :)

> > why are single people and married ones treated differently when it comes to tax.

>To support and encourage marriage which in turn provides children, the future of our society, with better outcomes according to research.

To get married couple's tax allowance, one of the partners has to have been born before 6th April 1935. I don't think they'll be having children ;-)

>There were some priests who wouldn't allow post-menopausal women to marry in church because they can't have children. However with the success of IVF the possibility (even if it wouldn't be allowed in law because the woman is too old!) is regained and so the marriages can go ahead.

So does that mean, as I have had a hysterectomy, technically I couldnt marry in church, even though, between us, we are bringing up 3 children. (Yes both divorced)
And if they make the church go against the bible to Marry Gay people (I know nothing about the bible but seem to remeber something in the bible that said a union should be between one man and one woman) then they would have to marry divorced people as well.
I have nothing against Gay people legally marrying in a civil partnership in a registry office, hall etc etc, as they have every right to, but making a religion change their beliefs is wrong and should not be badgered into it by a goverment.
Lea :)

>I have nothing against Gay people legally marrying in a civil partnership in a registry office, hall etc etc, as they have every right to, but making a religion change their beliefs is wrong and should not be badgered into it by a goverment.

I think exactly the same as you do.

>I know nothing about the bible but seem to remeber something in the bible that said a union should be between one man and one woman

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!

I think religious organisations  need to get their act together on equality for women before looking at marriage for gay people :-)

Tha is far on the top of the agenda affecting far more millions of people and will have a fundemental positive step for the way women are treated , can live and choose what job they want to do :-)

So does that mean, as I have had a hysterectomy, technically I couldnt marry in church

It does not mean you couldn't as it is up to you what the words of the service mean, if you are C of E and take the oath you are agreeing to seriously then I suppose it would. You would have a civil marriage and a blessing on your union in the Church if that were your belief. It just shows how personal the matter of marriage is and would prove I suppose that it should have nothing to do with the government in office at any particular time, it is the job of that body to produce laws that would allow things to happen not to insist they do.

I have absolutely no problem with same sex relationships, several of my friends are in them,as someone previously said a lot of them last longer than married couples. I personally think that a civil partnership should suffice. 29 years ago I had to marry in a registry office as my husband had one previous owner, I would have loved to got married in church but I couldn't.

It's not a case of sour grapes but I don't think that the church should be put in that position especially as they can't even get their heads round women in the church. I also don't think it is up to a bunch of MP's to decide. 

>29 years ago I had to marry in a registry office as my husband had one previous owner, I would have loved to got married in church but I couldn't.

And that's the point; register office marriages and civil ceremonies are just as legal as church marriages, so there's no legal discrimination. Homosexual people (of both genders - I still dislike using the word 'gay' but that's just me) are welcome to be full members of the church; but the Bible (the ultimate Christian law) forbids same-sex sexual activity, and as marriage is the only condition where any sexual activity is permitted (for a religious person) then it's clear that a same-sex union would be outside the rules. It's not personal, and it doesn't affect anybody's legal status.

(Love the phrase 'one previous owner'!! :-D )

> To get married couple's tax allowance, one of the partners has to have been born before 6th April 1935. I don't think they'll be having children

:-D 
Time they brought it back though :)

It's just a lottery whether you are wired up at birth to be attracted to either males or females.

I can't see why anybody should be disadvantaged by how this affects their life.

In law they're not.

If a church marriage is such a huge advantage why do so many people opt out of it?

"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love." ( The Church of England Marriage Service, "Common Worship".)
There has never been any "promise" to have children, this is just a statement asserting that marriage provides a good environment in which they can flourish. The words in square brackets can be omitted for older couples. I seem to remember that in the older "Book of Common Prayer" there was an amended service for "those of riper years".

I think if you are a believer in religion then I can see why it is important to be married in a church but like divorces I should imagine a blessing would be just as special as assume gay couple can have those ?

I opted for a wedding in a country house hotel the second time around as got persuaded a church wedding would be more suitable even though I am a non believer and feel really uncomfortable in churches .

I am gay, engaged, and would very much like to get married!

>like divorces I should imagine a blessing would be just as special as assume gay couple can have those ?

Absolutely right. No difference to a heterosexual couple at all.

I am getting married this year in a civil ceremony at a hotel.this is my choice as i am not religious. Our daughter will be our bridesmaid so we are definitely not the traditional virgin bride/groom :D  Partner was married before.had big church wedding despite neither of them being religious or going to church. I find this extremely hypocritical. I dont know much but my opinion on this matter is that if non church going straight couples can get married in church its a shame that true religious gay people cant. Who you sleep with has nothing to do with which god you worship imo.

>Who you sleep with has nothing to do with which god you worship imo.

In certain religions and under certain laws it can mean a death sentence.

Sorry, didnt put in the UK

IMO marriage today is often as throw away as everything else in our society,

I'd be more interested to know if Church weddings have much more longevity than weddings elsewhere, I kind of imagine that they do on the whole especially today, due to the beliefs that people have, making a binding in front of God/s for many is much more serious if religious..... just my opinion but it would be an interesting survey?

I also agree it has nothing to do with Parliament, religion is old it has its own roots along with its own morals for what it feels is right for society, religion was made to lead the masses to keep us all in order, it has always ostracised, caused wars and been cruel in the name of God. But on the whole it keeps people on the right track to be humane. (There is nothing we can do about the fanatics, I'm not talking of them :-) )

IMO society is not at its best at the moment morals, being unselfish, respect and the good in people stem from religion or good family roots, (preferably both) and that is missing today. Family in many places is breaking down, there is no real guidance, the more people walk from religion the worse it is getting IMO, (and I'm really not that religious) I see our selfish society every day and wonder if leaving religion behind for many has been a mistake when that strong family unit is no longer there.

The long and short of it is, anyone who wants to live a life pleasing their God should be allowed to do so, if they wish their marriage to be blessed and to live up to the standards of their religion why should anyone be stopped from doing that? Love is love and if it is serious enough for a Church ceremony so be it, you don't just walk into a Church and say I want to get married like you do elsewhere......you have to go to Church and have sit downs and talks about the seriousness of marriage.

It is down to that religion to also decide on what it thinks the best route today for its people is.......

Hopefully religions do not have their head in the sand and have noticed things need to change, as children are born without marriage and without a religious ceremony opting for registry offices, hotels etc, so many children and adults have no religion today, and that is fine as long as we are kept on the right track.

All religions need to stand up and take note, children are no longer the route and meaning of marriage, not in this society, love and wanting to be together is...... along with respect for that religion, the goal posts need to move and quite frankly I think religion needs to grab and keep hold of its partitioners before there are none left no matter whether straight, celibate, bi or gay.

The voice of gloom and doom is over......  :-D

Not replying to anyone in particular :

I am in favour of civil marriage for anyone. Church marriage (or similar religious ceremony) should only be for those who are adherents. Similarly, I object to people who have baptism for their children when they do not attend church (regularly). If you don't attend church, why do you need to marry/baptise in church ??? It is up to the individual religion whether they will marry anyone or not - but if you don't attend a church etc then you have no right to complain :)
Of course, there are problems with this, particularly where one partner is religious and the other not . I think that that has to be a decision between the people concerned and their 'priest'

> The voice of gloom and doom is over

LOL :) :) I totally agree with you tho' :)

I am amazed at how little regard some parents give to their role as role models to their children :( :( So many things are superficial these days - big expensive weddings, vast amounts of money spent on holidays, electrical items, entertaining, cars, alcohol etc etc etc. So little time spent on family time - talking to the children, finding out how they did at school each day, what's bothering them etc etc. Material things seem so much more important than just enjoying being a family :(

> IMO marriage today is often as throw away as everything else in our society

Definitely - nobody works at marriage anymore :(

It would be an interesting survey carrington. Would love to see the results.
I get sick to death of hearing friends and people i know say they have got married in church because 'thats what you do if you want a big wedding'. I actually cannot think of one couple I know who have got married in church because of their deep rooted belief.
Religion doesnt come onto the fairytale image they have in their head. A work colleague is married to a vicar. She said youd be surprised at the amount of girls who come to meet the vicar and plan the wedding with their mother, not partner. Its like its the womans day to show off to friends and family, not a couples day to cement their love for each other in a legally binding union in front of god

> I actually cannot think of one couple I know who have got married in church because of their deep rooted belief.
> A work colleague is married to a vicar.

Well, that's probably one you know! :)

> I might be a bit behind the times, but I don't see why they want to get 'married'. Aren't civil partnerships the same ? If not then I can see why.

We're not talking about the right to marry in church specifically, we're talking about the right to marry full stop. Straight couples can have civil partnerships or get married - either in a church or civil ceremony. Gay couples can only have a civil partnership ceremony. If you can't say you're married isn't it a bit like saying black people can travel on the bus but only if they sit at the back? It's not quite equality, and it's certainly not fair.

I am in the age group that remembers being (queer) gay was actually a crime.  I am also in the age group where it was frowned upon for straight people to live together without being legally married and their children being named bastards.  I am also in the age group where divorce was appalling.   I am in the age group where unmarried mothers brought shame on their family.
My view is just let everyone get on with what makes them happy and doesn't encourage others to do the same.  As long as it doesn't hurt you or yours.
Apart from what I have said, as a married person I cannot understand why anyone would want to be married, unless it benefitted me financially, which it doesn't.  Am I in favour - no, not because of same sex, only that marriage should be done away with altogether. 

> we're talking about the right to marry full stop. Straight couples can have civil partnerships or get married -

So what's the difference between the two then, seems daft really.????

must say I am a bit confused by it all. my daughter had her wedding at a hotel. so presumably a civil ceremony. but she (and I) consider her married. Does this mean she is actually NOT married because it wasn't in a church?

Registry office wedding for us as OH previously married, no problem with this. I'm baptised & confirmed but in recent years attend Church on high days & holidays as we call it, also haven't taken communion for decades as it's just not right as an agnostic. Never wanted a church wedding what ever my beliefs, as to me it's disrespectful to use it as a backdrop, in the same way as I don't expect to be able to marry in another religious 'house', synagogue or mosque. Call me old fashioned but civil weddings are available for all & don't believe it's right for government to legislate against the church to allow single sex weddings when it's against their centuries old beliefs. Never though of it as a disadvantage, got to a sad age when away from home I'll often have a look around the local church or cathedral as  drawn by their atmosphere & architecture but as Daisy said if you don't attend (as a believer) no one has the right to complain.

> must say I am a bit confused by it all. my daughter had her wedding at a hotel. so presumably a civil ceremony. but she (and I) consider her married. Does this mean she is actually NOT married because it wasn't in a church?

newyork    Civil partnership is a legal relationship exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.  It offers the same legal treatment as marriage across a range of matters, such as inheritance, pensions provision, life assurance, child maintenance, next of kin and immigration rights.

Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony, whereas a same-sex partnership is an exclusively civil procedure.

>must say I am a bit confused by it all. my daughter had her wedding at a hotel. so presumably a civil ceremony. but she (and I) consider her married. Does this mean she is actually NOT married because it wasn't in a church?

She is legally married, don't worry! If she was deeply religious she might consider herself not to be married 'in the eyes of God'. My grandmother was like that, had a civil ceremony as my grandad was an atheist, after 50 years they finally had a church blessing for the Golden wedding celebrations, which I know made her very happy. Interestingly I am now in the same position, had a civil ceremony as I'd had a previous marriage and my hubby is an atheist. Can't see him every agreeing to a church blessing though!

If gay people are religious I can't see why they shouldn't have a church blessing or a church wedding - the idea of gay marriage still startles me slightly as I am a stick-in-the-mud that resists change in general, but really I can't see that it harms anyone to have 2 people of any sex declare their love for each other!

We're not talking about the right to marry in church specifically, we're talking about the right to marry full stop. Straight couples can have civil partnerships or get married - either in a church or civil ceremony. Gay couples can only have a civil partnership ceremony. If you can't say you're married isn't it a bit like saying black people can travel on the bus but only if they sit at the back? It's not quite equality, and it's certainly not fair.

Chaumsong, this is getting confusing now as even Newyork thinks her daughter is not legally married now. :-D Newyork she is it is the signing of the marriage registry and marriage certificate which makes it legal and valid under the law don't worry, whether in a registry office, hotel, ship, church or your back garden. :-)

Chaumsong, is the difference between a civil wedding and a civil wedding ceremony like a blessing where the official paperwork is not signed so even after the ceremony gay people are not legally married, it just gives legal rights like a marriage and shows everyone that they are a couple?

If so then I agree it is not just the problem with Church weddings not giving a real wedding ceremony just a blessing, but with the whole none recognition of being married at all, it kind of seems defunct to even go through the civil marriage ceremony, apart from it being the best a gay couple can get.

Marriage to me is all about dedicating your life to someone and agreeing to honour and love that person and be faithful to them, if two people believe in those things then they should be called married.

(Don't get me started on how many couples do none of those things once married, but it should be the reason for marriage, otherwise don't marry, just live together)

> If you don't attend church, why do you need to marry/baptise in church ??? It is up to the individual religion whether they will marry anyone or not - but if you don't attend a church etc then you have no right to complain

Daisy, I don't believe that it's possible to judge the strength of a persons faith based on their attendance at church, or other religious building.

Faith too can be a vague and movable thing, depending on what is going on in a persons life at any time.  I know many people who have returned to a more obvious declaration of faith at the major events in their lives and who have returned to church as they've got older - and simply have more time OR who feel that they have something to offer.  I don't think it's fair to exclude them from a declaration of marriage just because they haven't been to church in a while and it doesn't sit well with my idea of 'christian values' (with a small c)

A lot of rural churches play a central role in village life and serve to unite a community - regardless of their religious fervour.  We have some people who simply work to support the fabric of the building, others who ring bells and cut grass and then there are those who attend regular services - not all the same people.  I was at a wedding last year of a couple who'd sung in the choir as children, have grandparents and great grandparents in the graveyard, who raised money to rebuild a section of floor (and Antony had helped) BUT who haven't been to church regularly for some time.  Should they be denied a wedding in 'their' Church?

If couples wish to commit to each other 'in the eyes of God' then I hope they are allowed to.  What surprises me more is that they wish to do so in religions that reject them...

>I don't believe that it's possible to judge the strength of a persons faith based on their attendance at church, or other religious building.

Attending church doesn't make a person a Christian any more than standingin a garage makes them a car. ;-) It's lifetime behaviour that matters.

>What surprises me more is that they wish to do so in religions that reject them...

No, the Church doesn't reject them as people; it is their actions that are forbidden by Church law. It's considered a case of "Love the sinner but hate the sin" - and yes, homosexual activity is considered a sin.

It's interesting that in register office marriages there can be no hymns or mention of God at all. Religion is forbidden to come into it.

JG, not replying to you- just tagging on.

I think it is a great pity that if one has a strong faith (in any religion) and are also gay, that the option of marriage is not open. For those who are strongly religious I would imagine it is extremely hurtful to have second class or even pariah status within the relevant faith.

I don't really buy the scriptural or doctrinal reasons, since many are of a historical nature and have little bearing today. I think that barring gays from marriage is as flawed as the problem the many christian churches have with allowing women equal status. It's all a bit of a nonsense really, especially when one considers the  close protection that has been given by a variety of christian organisations to paedophile priests and other types of child abuser, over the years.

Isn't Cameron looking at offering special tax breaks to those that are married in future?

Overall, one wonders why this is such headline news. Methinks tis a red herring being stoked up by the coalition to divert from much more pressing concerns, like a triple dip recession.

It's lifetime behaviour that matters.

...no, it's an acceptance of Christ as your personal Saviour that makes you a Christian.

As the parent of an openly gay son, i would find it extremely uncomfortable for him to be 'married' in a church, i cannot say i am happy about him being gay as i don't think any parent when they hold their new child says 'i hope he is gay'.but we accept this is who he is and hope he will find that life partner he so seeks in the future, I would attend a ' civil wedding' when the time comes if that is what he wants, but apart from that i think a church wedding would be a step too far.I am not a deeply religious person, but i see this whole debate as a 'do gooding' crusade. political correctness comes into it all the time.

I married in a register office because I was pregnant, and chose not to have a church wedding as that to me would have been very hypocritical, plus he is catholic and i am c of e.

If you are gay the why not just change the name of the civil partnership to marriage? would save a lot of government time and money, if they have they same rights as a married couple anyway. Many religious leaders are very uncomfortable about same sex weddings in a church as it is going against the bible, then when refusals came from the vicars we would then be getting church leaders being sued or worse being sacked for not wanting to carry out something that is ultimately against their deep rooted beliefs.
religious people follow the Bible as a set of rules as the foundation of the C of E religion and the Catholic church, surely if we start changing this after thousands of years past practices would be worth nothing.

this is just my opinion.

>...no, it's an acceptance of Christ as your personal Saviour that makes you a Christian.

Ah, but he who does a good deed in some other god's name does it for Jesus, according to the Bible. ;-) That bit always amuses me, because hubby, who as I said is a very strong atheist, is the most wonderful person, much nicer than I am, and I've often said that when he dies he's going to get an awful shock to find himself in heaven, assuming I'm right in my belief of course! :-D