to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Isn't 'organic' change what's always driven our constitutional reforms?

It wouldn,t have taken a lot of intelligence or imagination to anticipate the West Lothian problem. Some people did anticipate it and were ignored. [shrug]

Re the Bishop's Bench... the UK is the ONLY western democracy to allow clerics in the legislature - I understand that Iran does something similar.

I dont think the OP is being unreasonable and although I dont want to wade in on this argument ( because when anyone does they get called a hoomophobe or worse) I do not like it.

I am maried. I am a wife. My husband is my husband, be is not as far as I am concerned my "partner". he may be that as well but that is not why I married him. I could be ( and was for many years) his "partner" or " special other" or signigficant other" or whatevcer term you want to use when I shacked up with him.

I understand that the original ideaof Civil partnerships was to allow homosexual couples to be protected in law. Had I not wanted to marry I too could have taken steps to protect my situation in law - either through a will or after the original act, via a civil partnership. That act gave homosexuals equal rights under the law.

However, the problem is some of these people are not happy because they are not " married". To ensure they have this equality therefore we have to change the concept of marriage.

Now marriage ( despite what some think here) has NOT significantly changed since the year dot in the old testament.

Marriage is not just about a legal contract - although that is part of it. In most religious views it is a public declaration of more than that. It is also a signifier of far more than that.

This is where it gets complex and this is where the new law gets controversial ( and I get to be called unreasonable for not liking it).

Marriage is not between two people who love each other. I can do that with other people. I can my children, my parents even friends.

So it is a special relationship- I accept homosexual couples ( I refuse to use " gay" because this is another word like marriage is now becoming, thats been used and abused and taken over in the language of homosexuality) may have special feelings for a someone in their lives. They may want to celebrate that and make a public delaration- thats what a civil partnership can be for as well.

But it is not marriage because marriage is more than that.

Neither is marriage about bringing up children. You can do that in a co habitive relationship. You can bring up children in a homosexual relationship too. In a homosexual relationship they may or may not be children begat
(ye Gods there is an old word!) or they may not. same goes for cohabitive couples who are heterosexual - so marrigae is more than that.

It is there for the provcreation of children.

Wait, I hear you saying, but not all marriages beget children. No they dont! But the potentiality is there. But of course you could say, if a homosexual partner gets it togehter with a surogate / in a bottle with dirty mags ( depending on your inclination) and a turkey baster .... you can begat.....

So that isnt what marriage is about either.

So its about a physical expression of love and committment and a public show of same and children. Nut homosexuals can show a physical expression of their emotions but this is where we get the nitty gritty.

Marriage is not just about physical expression, public committment or bringing up children - or the ability to bring them into the world via sundry means ( although that is what it is now going to become.

Marriage is about one man and one woman, declaring their love, their committment and sharing a physical act of love ( used to be called " natural act" as opposed to "unnatural act") which has the potential to result , without other interference , in procreation of children.

That is marriage. Not one bit or another . That is why it is different to a civil partnership and that is why no homosexual pair can ever be married.

Its down to the dangler ladies and gentlemen.

Two men cannot do it. Two women cannot do it. Their sex act is different.

And this is why we cannot talk about it. We cannot mention that sex act can we?

But the new law changes everything. In the persuit of making homosexuals equal and the same my relationship has to be changed. They had equality , they will never be the same but they are having a good try and I am not being unreasonable in saying I do not like that.

I am not against anyone having their partnership recognised but why should marriage be hijacked for it? The proper way would have been to make all have civil partnerships and leave marriage for the religionns as something different. But they dont want that.

I have said my piece. I will say no more.

I like the way you changed the meaning of "not wading in" there, Maries

Sorry, 'concept'.

Why shouldn't marriage be hijacked? Why shouldn't the concept of marriage change? Not everyone understands, or accepts if they do understand, the old testament concept, which presumably only applies to christians anyway. The rest of the world (i.e. most people) have every right to have a different concept of marriage from that one.

Yup. An interesting preamble.
So marriage is a special (sometimes holy) contract that must involve a penis and a vagina. Got it.

We can't mention the sex act?! I think we can you know. And often do.

But maybe, with marriage, we should forget about the sex thing. Just think only about love and support. Perhaps we've got too hung up on sex. We do get bombarded by it.

A very good point, Jings...and now I really am going for a pootle...

I know of plenty of people with the necessary genitalia who will fit that criteria, can perform a penetrative act, but not able to produce children. Is it ok if they are transgendered?

Many heterosexual people marry with no intention or desire to have sex.
And what about those who marry in later life when there's no possibility of the woman conceiving?

I think the question has to be to you Bags - why should marriage have to change?

Those who want things to change can have all they want without marriage.

It isnt just a Christian view btw. Its essentially one shared by all the judeo based ones.

The big issue for the CHurch of England particularly is that a Vicar is also a registrar and whist it can be written into British law that a Vicar may not be forced to act outside their conscience, this is open to challenge in the European courts and British law thereforee cannot give any protection to anyone of a religious faith who wishes to refuse to marry a homosexual couple.

It is likely that some homosexuals will challange this ruling in the European court ( as they have done with other things - the B&B comes to mind here) and the C of E will be forced.

Of course so could Islamic Immans and Jewish Rabbi's but it not likely they will be challenged by those who wish to challenge the concept of marriage.

Yup. An interesting preamble.
So marriage is a special (sometimes holy) contract that must involve a penis and a vagina. Got it.

Yes, that sums it up as far as the Church is concerned.

*Many heterosexual people marry with no intention or desire to have sex.
And what about those who marry in later life when there's no possibility of the woman conceiving?*

As far as conception is concerned , with God there is never a never.

However, that is not the point - its about the sex act. Its about the jopining of a man and a woman as someone elseput it more clearly than I, it is about having a penis and a virgina and , more than that, its about putting the penis in the virgina. Thats marriage.

Anything else remains unconsumated ( and grounds for annulment in church law)

Maries, because people want it to change is my answer. You think the church (which one, by the way? C of E, which was started by someone who wanted to change the rules about marriage? Or RC? Or another?) owns marriage and that the interpretation that they put on it is the only correct one. Most people disagree. I know churches aren't hot on democracy or progressive improvements to human rules, but that's the churches' problem.

That's sort of what I was trying to say earlier.

If the C of E, or any other religious group, which discriminates against people is forced to change, or simply to have its marriage licences revoked, that's fine by me. I don't believe in religions having special privileges just because of their beliefs. I do not respect all beliefs, nor think they are equal. People, however, have equal rights. If we need marriage for legal purposes (which, let's face it, is what it's really about), then everyone has a right to be married.

The French system, as described on this thread or another, sounds sensible to me – everyone being entitled to be legally married in a civic procedure, and people who also want a religious ceremony having that option as well. This system also suggests that the "concept of marriage" has been changed already so the churches are flogging a dead horse.

Bags - despite what you want to say, in fact in most opinion polls when the question is asked properly thereis no evidence at all that the majority of people want the concept of marriage to change. The evidence to the question about marriage showed most people do not want it changed (and probably didnt expect it changed).

Many, when asked a different question will accept that all groups should have the opportunity to have their relationship legally recogised and celebrated - and I have no objection to thateither. But it is not the same thing and put to the crunch most people will not like it.

It is not without cause that the Attorney General recommended to the government that all ceremonies in civil registries should be reclassified as
"civil partnerships" ( hetrosexual and homosexual) but the government chose to ignore his advice because they saw it as a vote catcher to re lable the civil partnership marriage, even though it is fraught with legal issues as well as religious ones.

Of course I suspect they also realised that if you told hetrosexuals who wanted to marry that they were now reclassified to " civil partnership" to be equal with all other relationship forms, there would have been almightly hell let loose! It wouldnt be tolerated.

They have instead used the confusion so evident here to bring about an change that is really not wanted by most people when they become appraised of the reality. In the same way as you are doing Bags. You want it chaged ( I guess from your commentsd) so we all have to agree dont we?

Well I dont. Calling people like me homophobes and bigots and such creates fear and most people are scared to speak out - which is exaclty what is happening and has happened. The silent majority are silenced.

Equal rights are a social construct and nothing more and has nothing to do with marriage. Those who want their equality recognised need to find another service for that.

You do not respect those of religious faith but you expect them to respect you I am sure. Cuts both ways Bags.

Bags - and it is clear you have no understanding of the difference between the " Church" and the different denominations thereof. I guess that ignorance goes along with your lack of respect.

The Old Testament includes stories of men with more than one wife but polygamy is not a recognised or legal form of marriage in modern Britain.

Could we keep this conversation free of personal attacks, please?

It's been very interesting so far.

Sorry, Absent your post slipped in there before mine. It is addressed to Maries