to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

The bottom line is that gay people are not asking for change, but inclusion. All it needs is for eligibility to be expanded.

Grounds for divorce have been meddled with plenty of times, so non-consummation of marriage does not give a good enough reason to deny marriage for gay people.

Maries When taking about opinion polls, what do you mean by "when the question is asked properly"? Why isn't a straightforward "are you in favour of changing the law to allow same sex marriage"?

The bottom line is that gay people are not asking for change, but inclusion. All it needs is for eligibility to be expanded

No, I disagree. They are asking for change. They had inclusion with the Civil Partnerships act.

Many of our laws have been medled with because of homosexual relationships. First off - the definition of rape was changed ( and it actually lessened the offence) to include homosexual rape. Same now with adultery which will have to disappear too.

You misunderstood me, maries. I do respect people's right to believe whatever they want to believe and I respect people. That's different, and quite separate, from whether I respect the beliefs people hold. I respect your right to argue your case in favour of not changing marriage law, just as I expect you to respect my right to argue in favour of changing it to accommodate homosexuality.

For me, the logical bottom liner on this issue is how ironic it is for the Church of England, set up because Henry VIII wanted to change the "concept of marriage" to suit himself – no till death us do part for him if he couldn't get a viable male heir out of his 'proper' wife – is now squawking about other people wanting to change what marriage means.

When the question was asked " are you in favour of marriage being changed to include same sex relationships" the answer was No.

When the question was asked are you in favour of homosexuals being allowed to have their partnerships recongised legally, the answer was yes

Ergo, people do not want marriage changed. They want something different but equal ( not the same ) for homosexuals.

I think I understand you loud and clear Bags. I doubt you understnad much about the Church though or its basic beliefs ( let alone be able to respect them beyond the point of respecting some people hold themand I am not sure about that from your posts).

However, I said I would not wade in. I have. I have said more or less what the position is . I hope some will understand more for that intervention on my part. I truse many more may be able to make their own decisions about whether they want their marriages viewed as the same as civil partnerships as they now all are ( despite we are still calling it marriage).

I got married. Now I am it seems in a civil partnership under that name - at least by law - and so is everone one else. Its not up for negotiation anymore.

So all one can do is dispair.

Maries - I am afraid that you lose your whole platform once you descend to personal insults. Bags is well aware of the differences in the various sects.
Could we ask where you derive your 'facts' that most people are opposed to this change in the law. I think you are wrong.

As long as two people love each other and wish to make a long term commitment that they will take seriously to the benefit of society as a whole then that's OK as far as I am concerned. All the rest is semantics.

Same sex marriage hasn't been passed into British law yet, although it almost certainly will be. Maries You sound quite distraught but I don't understand why you should feel any different about your marriage today than you felt a month or a year ago.

They changed marriage when they introduced civil ceremony marriage. Before that it was church only.

Maries does not sound distraught

J08 I thought Maries sounded very upset (distraught) about how she feels the nature of her own marriage is changed by the planned introduction of same sex marriage. My comment was concern, not criticism.

The ironic thing is....when marriage for gay people becomes common-place, there will still be curmudgeonly gay men and lesbians complaining about something or other that doesn't quite fit with THEIR concept of marriage. We're never going to agree, but as long as the law treats us equally, that's what matters.

I don't know why the church is coming into this discussion so much. So far it's registry office marriage that's proposed.

Hey Jings
I'm agreeing with you

I am not sure what you mean, jingle, as there have been registry office marriages for decades.

Just a point; Henry didn't change the concept of marriage and he didn't change the Church. Henry was the last of a long line of monarchs in a struggle over legal and political supremacy with the Papacy. What H did was break with Rome and seize a lot of ecclesiastical assets. I'll get my coat and go to Pedants' Corner.

No! Back in history it was only vicars married people. In church.

*Maries - I am afraid that you lose your whole platform once you descend to personal insults. Bags is well aware of the differences in the various sects.
Could we ask where you derive your 'facts' that most people are opposed to this change in the law. I think you are wrong*

I only answered what Bags said in the post made. I didnt make any personal comment as such. However, seeing you have spoken I realise I have gone up against the " great gransnet poster" reputation.

Clearly Bags did not know the distinction or was making a pontless and silly comment whn she/he asked me which church I was talking about ..... I pointed out the distinction between church and denomination.

Enough said. Not allowed to say anything against great posters here then.

I guess that ends any kind of debate.

I'm sorry you feel despair, maries. But, since you don't appear to make the distinction between respecting a person and respecting a person's beliefs, I must continue to suppose that you at least appear to have misunderstood me. I am refraining from thinking that it is wilful misunderstanding, since it seems to be a concept a lot of people have trouble with, sadly.

Now, to be honest, I'm not sure you can separate a person and their beliefs.

I don,t mind if my marriage is called a civil partnership. What it's called by other people does not change its meaning for me and my husband.

My beliefs are me is what I mean.

To be honest, jings, I think you can. I can despise a (real or imaginary) belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (for instance) while still caring very much about the person holding that belief, and trying my utmost to support that person's right to equal treatment before the law.

maries Calling someone a 'great Gransnet poster' is undermining your credibility. We were having a healthy exchange of views and, whilst I don't share your views, I was interested in the argument you put forward. Bags is too courteous to use such terms. Gransnet is inclusive of all posters who put their views without resorting to jibes.

I'm off this thread now