> Attending church doesn't make a person a Christian

No, I agree - but if you choose not to attend church why would you feel strongly about marrying in one ??

> 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

Nothing to do with strength of belief - just why the need to have a religious ceremony in a church if other ceremonies (ie worship in a church etc) are rejected ??

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.


I think you have put this very well diddles. I personally do not think it is in the gift of any government to dictate on this matter to any church, of whatever denomination. A marriage ceremony in church,  is for sacred vows between a man and a woman as the bible teaches us.

David Cameron is wrong to persue this course in my opinion. I have found this debate interesting but still maintain my original stance :)

> 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. :-)

I do know that she is married really but am still pretty unclear what the difference would be for homosexual people if they can already have a civil partnership and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples? is it just the WORD marriage that is important or is there something I am missing.

Or to put it another way, why the objection if there is no difference?

There is a difference, those in the churches that object have a fundamental objection to homosexuality, this may not be expressed generally or ever and such people may well have friends who are gay and so on, nonetheless there is a need to create some kind of distance between themselves and those who are gay. Whatever the reasons that are give for this, it is, in my view, a need to keep the institution of a church marriage for those who are on the 'right' side of the fence, so to speak. They want to make and keep clear water between themselves and those who are gay...thus homosexuals are afforded a second rate status.

> Or to put it another way, why the objection if there is no difference?

For me it is simply the word, being able to say you are married rather than in a civil partnership, introducing someone as your husband or wife instead of your civil partner.

If black people were allowed to travel on the bus, and got the same out of the journey - conveyed to where they wanted to go then why did people complain? Because it's not equality, it's a concession to people deemed lower than others. For me that's what a civil partnership is :-)

Isn't it more a case of trying to change long-standing rules because we've decided that they don't suit us?

Schools have rules that need to be obeyed; if you don't agree with the rules of that school you don't send your child there. The KC has rules that need to be obeyed; if you don't agree with them you don't register your dogs with them. You don't try to force them to register your Bratislavan Tripehound. The Church has rules that need to be obeyed. If you don't agree with them, go to another church. All of these things are optional.

I don't disagree with anything you've said JG apart from the idea that it is optional for a gay person to marry - its not, under current law a gay person can't marry. I agree you shouldn't force any religious body or individual to do something they are uncomfortable with, but there are many gay and lesbian ministers that would happily marry other gay people. The whole religious issue aside though a gay person can't even get married in a registry office like most straight couples do. They can do something similar but they can't get married which is discrimination.

General reply not specific,

My opinion on marriage vs civil unions and equality is that it ought to be any couple can have a civil union where they are legally bound together as a couple.  Anyone wanting religious affirmation of their status can apply to church to get "married".  If a gay couple are attending church and want to get marries then they can approach the vicar in the same way as anyone else but they could be turned down in the same way as anyone else can be. 

On a side note, my ex husband was a lapsed catholic and we got married in catholic church (mainly to please his mother)  He had to provide all sorts of proof he had not been married before.  As a none catholic I was not asked for amything.  Non catholic marriage does not count in their view as marriage.

> The Church has rules that need to be obeyed

There are gay vicars in the C of E. The condition is that they are celibate - they have obviously accepted that condition. There are other Christian communities that accept gay people without condition.

My BIL's nephew is gay and in a civil partnership - they refer to each other as 'my husband'.

> The Church has rules that need to be obeyed. If you don't agree with them, go to another church

I was just wondering how many marriages there would be in church if anyone who didn't follow the 'rules' wasn't allowed to marry .... murder, adultery they're quite easy to avoid... but if anyone that had engaged in 'acts of self sexual stimulation' were banned from marrying I wonder how many weddings there would be :-D 

> they refer to each other as 'my husband'.

they might call each other that but legally they can't, it's nothing more than a pet name. The legal term would be civil partner.

> I wonder how many weddings there would be  

:) Unfortunately, one of the reasons that I fell out with organised religion many years ago was the total hypocrisy of many of the people I encountered - and I'm not excluding myself from those numbers either :( :( :(

> it's nothing more than a pet name. The legal term would be civil partner

I don't think it bothers them at all - the main purpose of the civil ceremony was, for them I believe, legal reasons and commitment :) :)

Yep, and of course I forgot the other obvious rule breaker - working on a Sunday :-)

But really just to reiterate again, the vote isn't about church marriages per se, it's about allowing gay people to marry. Once they have the right to marry they can choose themselves, like any straight couple, what form that marriage would take and if they want a religious service then the individual minister, vicar or priest has the right to refuse them if he/she doesn't think they are worthy, doesn't want to marry them, just like any other couple.

Oh dear, oh dear, they do say never discuss religion or politics :)    I don't truly believe what you are saying is the case.  The basic facts remain, Holy matrimony is for a man and a woman, who all things being equal will play their part in perpetuating the human race! Yes, I know that is not always so, however, that's what my Bible indicates! :) (This is in response to Freelancer)

> the individual minister, vicar or priest has the right to refuse them

And the Church of England and Church in Wales is not allowed to offer gay marriage anyway in this bill, so that's out from the start :(

> Holy matrimony is for a man and a woman, who all things being equal will play their part in perpetuating the human race! Yes, I know that is not always so, however, that's what my Bible indicates!

Doesn't your bible also indicate that you should not work on a Sunday and have you ever done so?

Doesn't your bible also indicate that neither man nor woman should have ever masturbated, and have either done so?

Is it not time to realise that perhaps everything in the bible isn't actually meant to be taken literally or it simply doesn't apply to real life?

Who are we to decide what rules are more important and should be followed to the letter and what shouldn't :-)

But anyway as I say that's actually complete besides the point.

Chaumsong, yes you do make some good points.  The debate is whether the government should be bringing in legislation on the issue. I strongly believe any changes should be for the churches themselves to decide, not governments! :)

>I strongly believe any changes should be for the churches themselves to decide, not governments!

But why should churches decide if a same sex couples should be allowed to get married in a registry office? Surely the Goverment makes the law, decides yes they can get married then it's up to individual churches to decide what they want to do.

The Civil Partnership is already an option as we know. The issue is the State shouldn't  be impacting on religious matters.

The woman married to a vicar is approaching retirement age. The post I was replying to was talking about younger couples getting married nowadays not decades ago fyi

I think that "religion" as a whole needs some change.  People are against old fashioned rulings in other walks of life so why is the church still not able to update their views when they have the oldest views going?  I'm not saying that I'm for or against but it is not surprising that very few people go to church these days.  I do find the church after all that's coming out these days as being quite hypocritical. 

I've told my mum that if I ever got married, doubt that will ever happen, that I do not want to get married in a church, she was quite devastated by this!  I am not one bit religious but the way I live my life I suppose that people would think I am, but for me it's self respect not Christianity.

bestdogs,

Chaumsong beat me to it. I think when one uses the Bible to validate an argument/stance like this one, there is a danger of opening a veritable Pandora's box of contradictions- that goes for other religions too, just look at the different ways the Koran is interpreted to justify anything from the more secular Islam of somewhere like Morroco to the excesses of the Taliban.

The other point is that in regard to christianity within the UK, the Head of State is also the head of the C of E. This makes the separation of politics and private morality a little harder to unpick.

Isn't the reality that those who object simply have some kind of a problem with homosexuality- a kind of sexual nimbyism? It's fine so long as it is over there and preferably out of sight but not in a place I strongly identify with?

I don't want to offend anyone but when you boil it down I do believe that it is simply a case of conditioning and internalised homophobia- it just doesn't feel right or comfortable. It does seem also that this is a generational thing and younger people generally do not give a stuff- different conditioning I guess.

The whole thing is just really simple isn't it?

Using people I know of - Why shouldn't Sir Elton John and David, be able to say this is my husband instead of this is my partner? They have children and it is only right that they should be able to say they are married in the legal sense of the word.

I know I'm probably going to put a lot of people's noses out of joint here as many people today live together without marriage (so sorry) but for me even if people just living together are 100% committed to each other with legal papers signed for protection incase of death etc, in love and happy together for 15+ years (for them they don't need that piece of paper :-) ) but I can never look at such couples and feel that they are 100% committed without marriage, just the way that I feel and the way I guess a lot of people feel especially some gay people.

That word 'marriage' means so much to many people 'my partner' does not carry the same meaning or weight as much as some don't mind.

Agree totally with you Carrington. I am not religious at all and neither is my partner, and we do not want to get married in a church. But we want to get married! I want to be able to tell people I'm married, and to be able to call my partner my wife.

Within the past two years I have been to two weddings - one for a man and woman, and one for two men. Neither in churches, and neither religious in any way. The civil partnership ceremony just sounded so wrong. The absense of the word "marriage" and "husband" was extremely conspicuous. It felt like they were just there to sign the "gay register"!

I don't feel like I am any different to any of my family and friends, so why should I be denied the right to marry the person I love? It feels awful to think that I don't have the same rights as them, just because I love someone of the same sex.

Yes civil partnerships were a huge step forward, but it's just segregation, and it's about time we made the next step towards true equality. I hope with all my heart that this passes, so that I can marry my partner and make her my wife.

"There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership except that the former is intended only for heterosexual couples and the latter for homosexual couples.

The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally permitted to perform civil partnerships."
Found the above quote from a law website. Does this clear up the difference ??
And yes I believe that both straight and gay people should be able to be married however it will still be down to teh individual church if they are prepared to conduct the marriage ceremony
I can also see why cutewolf says it would be better and nicer to say she is married and this my wife just like straight couples.

As for longevity of civil v church marriages both my husband and I have had previous marriages and in church on all occasions. Our marriage was in a registry office and has lasted almost 25 years !! so far. The others were substantially shorter
lol

The other point is that in regard to christianity within the UK, the Head of State is also the head of the C of E. This makes the separation of politics and private morality a little harder to  unpick 

Isn't the reality that those who object simply have some kind of a problem with homosexuality- a kind of sexual nimbyism? It's fine so long as it is over there and preferably out of sight but not in a place I strongly identify with?  


The Head of State in this country is above politics   :)

I don't think it is sexual nimbyism to feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman.   As far as discrimination in all other aspects of a gay couples life, I think it is totally abhorent. Incidentally, I find the terminology 'gay and straight' rather strange as straight implies normality!  Gay people are not abnormal.

I expect you are right about age affecting opinions on this isssue - but then people of all ages have differing views on many things. I am open minded and have a modern outlook on most things, however on this I'll stay 'old fashioned'  :)

>The Head of State in this country is above politics

The Head of State doesn't even have the right to vote!

True!

> but I can never look at such couples and feel that they are 100% committed without marriage, just the way that I feel and the way I guess a lot of people feel especially some gay people.
>
> That word 'marriage' means so much to many people 'my partner' does not carry the same meaning or weight as much as some don't mind.

Ditto, it is why I married for the second time, would have been perfectly easy to just live together. 

We didn't have a big do, well no do actually, married in registry office, no 'invited' guests or Reception, though 20 of us did go to a restaurant for a meal, as they had turned up for the ceremony.

We married for us and went away on honeymoon the next day.

Oh Carrington, Elton John is a whole other story.......I cant stand that people buy babies and I believe that is what he and is partner have done.

Karen.

:-D :-D I don't know the in's and out's Dogz, when you have money you can generally get things other people can't, but that's what happens when you have a talent or job that pays well...... I can't blame them for that.

Whatever the story......... they appear to be very good and loving parents IMO and more importantly they have wanted the children because they desperately wanted children......... not just to look good for the papers and use as an accessory, jumping on the bandwagon with others. I agree, a lot of these celebrities who adopt make me cringe, but in this case I just feel the calling to be a dad is what spurned this couple to look at surrogacy and want children. :-) And I feel the love when I look at any photo's of them with their little ones.

They probably make you cringe.... but they make me smile. :-)

bd/JG But, technically the Head of State must give his/her assent for any bill to be made law, it's a small point but rather undermines the argument that church and state are completely separate in our little kingdom.

On the issue of Elton John and his children, I thought that one of the two men was the biological parent, so payment refers to the surrogate? I understand this feels uncomfortable for some but by the same logic perhaps IVF should too?

bd/JG But, technically the Head of State must give his/her assent for any bill to be made law, it's a small point but rather undermines the argument that church and state are completely separate in our little kingdom.



It is a small point, particularly as no monarch has refused assent in 300 years :)  You are of course technically correct!   We are like dogs with bones- we won't give up,  lol   :) :)

Good debate.

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Gay-marriage-Kent-s-MPs-vote-tomorrow/story-18049704-detail/story.html

Just found this- interesting piece- addresses many of the concerns expressed in our CD debate.

bd,

Yes it's a good summary of points made on CD.

Allegedly, though it's a bit of an open secret, a proportion of hardline antis in the Tory party are known to be in the closet.

>Allegedly, though it's a bit of an open secret, a proportion of hardline antis in the Tory party are known to be in the closet.

Even if true that's their right.

I suspect all parties have a busy closet not just the Tories :-)

It is a shame as the more high profile people do come out the easier life will be for gay people and there will be less resistance to prejudices.

JG,

Everyone has the right to privacy and self determination. However, if a couple of those voting today to determine the rights of others, also happen to be closet homosexuals who are married and carrying on affairs with men behind their wives' backs, it somewhat undermines the sanctity of the institution they defend.

Of course they may live in marriages of convenience where their wives know everything they get up to, and that too is their right, but it does not sit well with all the usual arguments about reserving the territory of marriage for the holy union of man and woman.

LJS, Oh quite. Hyprocrisy and self interest never was party political:)

Being pressured into 'coming out' is a form of mental abuse. If people want to that's fine; if they don't want to that's equally fine. Other people's sexuality is none of my business, as long as they don't break the law. :-)

JG,
I agree with that completely. The point I make is not that these people deserve to be outed but that their staunch opposition to homosexual marriage is possibly as much bound up with self disgust, internalised homophobia, and rank careerism, as any high-minded moral scruples. It's a pretty poor basis to be voting on. That's politics for you.

It isn't just about sexuality it is more about relationships and being able you live your life without hiding behind something because some parts of society / religion dictate what is normal

LJS, You are right, but the terms in which opposition is couched often boils it down to a sexual act and its relative moral worth. After all, it's fine to be a gay Anglican bishop, so long as you are celibate- you see my point?

I think those that are gay and seek the status of marriage do so because they want recognition for the quality and depth of their relationship, as you say.

So if Civil Partnerships and Marriage have the same legal standing, all this debate is about renaming civil Partnerships to marriage, so that it is the same NAME for everyone?????

Brainless, Yes, more or less, but I think the C of E has some fear that if this is done then someone (gay) in future may try to take the church to European Court of Human Rights if they are then refused a church marriage.

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!

Anyway, we'll find out today. Interesting. Let's hope we can then get back to more important things like the state of the economy.

> So if Civil Partnerships and Marriage have the same legal standing, all this debate is about renaming civil Partnerships to marriage, so that it is the same NAME for everyone?????

That is how it seems to me. A huge and expensive waste of time and money just about a word!!!

> That's politics for you.

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

Hypocrite? Moi? Noooooo! :)