General Chat

I've been married nearly 26 years. No children. That wasn't a choice. So, should I get a divorce????

We are friends with many couples, male & female, male & male, female & female! I don't know if they are "legally married" or not. It's none of my business, or anyone else's.

My partner and I consider ourselves married in the eyes of God, don't really care about the views of the state or organised religion (heterosexual couple, not gay, if it matters).

The clear answer is to require all marriages to be civil marriages, if people want to have a religious ceremony afterwards then fine but it has no legal position. I think that is effectively the position in a number of countries. Removes all religious interferance in who can or cannot get married.

The following countries have legalised marriage for same-sex couples:-

Argentina.
Belgium.
Canada.
Iceland.
The Netherlands.
Norway.
Portugal.
South Africa.
Spain.
Sweden.

My Gay friend says he doesn't believe in marriage of same sex.

I don't either, but wouldn't persecute anyone if they decided to marry....It is just not my cup of tea. if my friend decided to marry his partner I would expect to be invited but would take it as a one off.......Ok!...so shoot me!.......

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.

Yes, think of the turmoil that gay priests must suffer, knowing that they are disordered and sinful people according to their god. Think of the horrors that a gay man in Tehran must suffer knowing that if he gives in to his natural urges and is caught he will be executed becase his god says it must be so.

Not sure where the evidence is to suggest that people can be 'born spiritual', though. Religious spirituality is learnt.

The thing is, being sexually attracted to people of the same sex is not something you choose, like what colour you dye your hair or whether to have tattoos. It's just the way you are. You don't catch it; neither is it copycat behaviour or a fashion trend. If you are gay it's something even you have to accept about yourself but you can't change it. And to a similar extent if you are a spiritual person it is the way you are. I do feel sympathy for people who are both gay & spiritual & are denied the support of the church (or temple etc) for the most important relationship in their life.

The fuss is about the discrimination that is allowed to be perpetuated against a certain section of society just because of their sexuality.

The C of E, as the established church of the UK, is the only church that conducts wedding on behalf of the state.

None of the other denominations or religions are allowed to conduct weddings on behalf of the state - hence the debate and the "fuss".

Gwynne

The church of England (which seems to be a scape goat for this?) what about all the other religions who will not marry Gays in their church or Temple .or Mosques .etc. what about those that allow a man more wives. .no one seems to bring this to head, it is about the same type of thing. they are entittled to marry who they want.
So I dont know what all the fuss is about..

Let the churches make their own minds up. who they want to marry. in their church.. Not make it a law.

I remember when a devoiced person was not allowed to marry in a church. there use to be letters in newspapers from people trying to get this altered so they could marry in a church.

Rose has said what I was to lazy to type and worded it better too.

I have to admit the only time I'd ever get married in a church was if they paid me to, at a minimum of £1,000,000. I can be bought but I'm expensive ;-)

One of my relies (the groom) was getting married for the 3rd time, the bride for the 1st time, no church would marry them because he had been married more than once (widowed twice) they married in a registry office but the church blessed the rings, what is that if not double standards then?

You marry in church because ( imo ) you want to be married in 'God's house' in the 'sight of God'... a registry office, hotel etc is in the sight of God of course ( if you believe) , it is a marriage...but it is not in 'God's house'...

Why should a church wedding be denied to a couple who wish to commit in that way? If the vicar of a church feels that he cannot in good conscience perform the marriage I am sure another vicar can be found to do so,,,,

What difference would it make to hetrosexual couples to get married in a registry office instead of a church? It would still be a marriage.

I have just watched a debate on Gay marriages. strange as the Gay person said they should be allowed to marry in a church if they wanted to. ? my reply would be what different would it make to that person if they married in a registar office ? if they love each other as they say they do. it is still a marriage.Is it because they cannot in many cases be married in a church.?

MY thought is if a Vicar of a church would not like to marry gay people in his church why should he be made too ? surely he/ she is entittled to his view?

I noticed also these men and men and woman and woman marriages all rely on a woman or man for them to have a child. ? so they have in a way have to have one of the oposite sex.to obtain having children.

As Stray pointed out much earlier in this thread,
IF you believe in God and that God created man, then he also created homosexuals etc.,
WHY then should God not allow these people he created to marry in church.?

Must add that as an Athiest none of this is particularly relevant to me, for obvious reasons. It just seems that the basics here are not being taken into account. :-)

Sue

Eldrick :-D :-D

I suspect it'll be more fun in hell ;-)

I suspect that you will be behind me. I deny the holy spirit. There you go, that should do it :-)

I dont see how having children when you aren't married is a damnation issue. I mean, it's no worse than getting pregnant and saying 'It was like this, Dear. There was this angel...........' Unless, of course, you bring tattoos into in in which case it would seem that you are indeed a passenger in the handcart.

See you there! I'll keep your seat warm. We can compare tattoos. It will be worth getting one just in case :-)

The OED doesn't have to give a reason, if they do decide to change the definition.

Wrt going to hell, I'm not married, have two children and two tattoos. Does that make me first in line ;-) :-D