to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

I wouldn't do that. There are probably plenty of GNetters who agree with you who are not posting.

I'm certainly not ecstatic. But I'm not entering the debate.

Joanne Harris put it well.
I give a cookie to Mr and Mrs A. I give a cookie to Mr and Mr B. That cookie does not take the cookie away from Mr and Mrs A.

Something like that. Spot on.

But mollie we each have our own beliefs and ideas, and we will argue our corners, just as you do. We need different views and opinions if debates are not to become one sided. When we feel strongly about something, surely it is best to have voices from all sides? So stay and be a voice!

I like Joanne Harris but what happens if you run out of cookies?

I do not agree with it!

petallus, bake some more.

That's not as silly as it might sound. However, I am wondering what the running outnof cookies idea is about? What did you mean?

Nothing really, it just popped into my head.

Well, there's usually a finite supply of any commodity.

Also, maybe it's about something being valued more if it has rarity value.

Thinking it through, if a friend gave me a lovely gift, say a ring, and I was feeling all pleased and special, and then she told me she had bought up a job lot and distributed them amongst all her friends, well that would take something away from my initial pleasure.

Maybe Christians feel that something which to them is sacred and special and very particular in it's rules (the marriage service) is diminished if it is changed and broadened out into something else.

For them, something with strong traditional meaning may be lost.

I can understand that though I am not a Christian myself.

But the marriage within christinaity has changed already through history, so why shouldn't it continue to change as the people who use it want it changed?

I empathise with those who feel that marriage is being diminished by making it available to gay couples, but I guess that comes from not yet having observed the value and appreciation that many gay couples will bring to their marrages.

I personally felt no advantage or specialness about marrying in a church ceremony, although my ex-husband did. We treated it seriously and enjoyed our wedding day, but it faded into insignificance after a while.

I have known a few religious gay people who would dearly love to have a marriage ceremony like hetero couples. They are no less than anyone else.

mollie - if each of us left every time somebody disagreed with us the forum would soon be dead.
We are each entitled to our point of view and yours is no more or less valuable than mine or any other members.
I feel just as strongly about this as you do but I am prepared to put forward rational arguments to support my point of view.
You have not actually commented on any of the points that have been made, just reiterated your own views.
Please do not leave us - I have had many excellent debates with very committed Christians, such as Micelf and Lilygran, and we remain good friends.
Did you not expect that some members would support the bill? Gransnet is a broad church, it is not a forum just for Christians or any other single group.

Mollie - don't feel that you have to leave; or indeed that you have to strive to find common ground. Agreeing to differ is healthy - what is interesting is to hear the different points of view and why they are held. It is a step towards understanding others to appreciate their strongly-held views that do not accord with your own.

I am perfectly happy with the vote - not because I am a great campaigner in this debate but simply because it seems fair and reasonable to me. I would not descibe myself as particularly "ecstatic" about it.

I haven't even seen what the result is. But I must say to me civil partnership is ok, but marriage no!

mollie to resign just because you don't agree with some peoples point of view on ONE issue does seem rather drastic!

I think Greatnan has expressed this well.

I'm not 'ecstatic' either and I like to keep an open mind. It's interesting reading opinions from both sides. I can't understand people who surely expect their views to be challenged but don't stick around when they are.

My Daughter is a Civil Celebrant and was approached last year by a couple who had been refused marriage by each of their RC priests because they had both had very early disasterous marriages (no children) and been divorced for years. They had then tried to get married in the registrars but her paperwork (she was a foreign national) had not arrived in time and her visa was about to expire. So DD married them by handfasting, beside a monument, overlooking a deserted beach. One of the family pronounced a blessing and they all went off to a big reception.

It seems unbelievably cruel to me that their church refused to confer the married status on this deeply in love couple, who wanted to be married in front of their family and 'in the sight of God' so that they could start a family before they were too old. I also think it is cruel to refuse to marry same-sex couples who are deeply committed to each other.

That I can agree with.
It's same sex marriage rather than civil contracts, partnerships etc that I have problem with.

Why, Galen? I am trying to understand exactly what it is that people object to or fear. Several of us have set out our reasons for thinking that marriage is a man made construct which has changed over time but nobody has told us why that is unreasonable. Just saying you don't agree with it does not really add much to the debate, does it?
I am not trying to offend anybody - I am genuinely trying to understand the objections to putting gay couples in the same position as hetrosexual couples.
Many Christians do not seem to have any problems in accepting gay marriage.

I was married in church,a member of church choir and later a clergy wife for six years..
I've been divorced 25 years,now have no religious affiliation ..and have no problem with/objection to gay marriages.

I am reminded of Alice in Wonderland who declared that 'when I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean. Neither more nor less'.

The word and status of marriage has become so trivialised in some cases that it can simply mean a fancy party followed by a divorce a few months later. Or followed by serial unfaithfulness, or much worse, control, bullying or violence.

To me that is not marriage. In its ideal form it should be lifelong, faithful and loving. And to enter into that contract without those intentions, to my mind, invalidates that 'marriage' anyway.

So, gay or straight, marriage should mean just that. The rest is semantics.

Some great points. But still mystified. There is an argument that marriage is a Christian sacrament that has always been for a man and a woman who want to forsake all others and maybe have children together. But it is not just Christians that get married. So the Christians do not have a monopoly on what it means to get married.
The argument that it is for the procreation of children has so many exceptions that it must be set aside. Which leaves marriage as a promise/contract between a man and woman who want to engage in life long monogamy and mutual support. And christian marriage is when they form this contract with the blessing of the church. I just don't get why same sex couples can't do this too.

mollie65 please don't leave because some members of GNet hold different views to yours. Surely that just reflects society as a whole. Do you have no contact with people in real life who hold different or even opposing views to your own?

I can't understand why there should be any objections to gay marriage, people are people, are people. No more, no less. I believe that couples are 'married' in their hearts and minds anyway, but if they want to formalise that in a legal or religious ceremony why would any of us wish to deny them that right?