to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Could we ask where you derive your 'facts' that most people are opposed to this change in the law. I think you are wrong.

The poll I refer to was a ComRes poll which said that the majority are in favour of marriage remaining as it is ( man and woman).

However, the YouGOV poll so of cited as suggesting people are in favour of gay marriage in fact shows a substantial number against (around 40%) and just over 50% for, with the rest in the "dont know " camp.

So, in neither case the "majority" didnt seem to be so pro as has been said.

j08 Of course you can. It' perfectly possible to respect someone for their kindness and generosity or their creativity, for example, but regard their belief in the psychic phenomena or reincarnation or whatever as ridiculous.

No, your beliefs are part of your personality. Your body and how it should be treated with respect is separate. I agree it's a tricky one when the beliefs are fundamental to the person's perception of themselves though.

But I don't hold exactly the same beliefs now as I did twenty years ago, so clearly I am not my beliefs and they are not me.

I think you will find, maries, that personal attacks against individual posters are not acceptable on most forums. It has nothing to do with who makes the attack, or on whom it is made.
You are perfectly entitled to state your beliefs, and some of us are perfectly entitled to disagree with them.

That last was a reply to jings (jo + number).

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.

The marriage I e3ntered into is not the same as that which has now been re defined as marriage.

I entered into a relationship ( in church a sacrement) and legal contract with a man. I entered in the understanding that it was sexual ( penis and virgina and not b*ggery because that was iligal too in my day) and it was a loving relationship in which we hoped for children via natuarl procreation ( God willing). It was also for life.

Of course all that has been eroded now in the eyes of society. My marriage is no different for me. It has been redefined by society.

If I had wanted a civil partnership under another name I would have stayed in a cohabitive relationship and got a will written.

Before anyone sounds off, Cohabitation is a form of church law and is a recognised relationship model in the Church Cannon.

There was no personal attack. I know the difference. I guess you do not. I attacked the post comments not the person.

Some of us don't care about church laws. They are not relevant unless you're member of the church (whichever church). I don't regard Hindu laws or Islamic laws or Jewish laws or Christian laws as anything to do with me, since I am none of those things. I'm British and as such I accept that the laws of the land may be changed in a democratic way.

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

Thats not stictly speaking tre. In church law there has always been an understanding of the relationship value of marriage. In civil law it has always been a legal contract. The two have been separate and the legal contract did not change the marriage contract as understood by the church which was based on Cannon Law ( or Common Law).

The civil changes did not change the church understanding in the way the latest rules do.

Maries You are still married in your loving relationship and not indulging in anal sex (which was only illegal for two men, not for a man and a woman in the UK). Nothing has changed in your marriage. And just for the record, without going into details, not all gay men have penetrative sex in these days of AIDS awareness.

Has the church understanding changed? I thought the whole point was that it was refusing to change.

I thought anal sex was illegal between a man and a woman - and still was!

No - got that wrong. As you were.

Surely, if one [male or female] willingly commits to another [possibly of the same sex] then I cannot understand why others [who do not necessarily need to agree] feel so put-out and bloody-minded about the commitment. After all, a loving/caring/sharing relationship, regardless of gender mix, should be regarded as "the norm". Live, and let live. Not very well put. Just wanted to say...

Ana It was quite a popular (with men) form of contraception in the murky past. It is illegal in some states of America but not in the UK. Incidentally there are nine states in America and, I think, 11 countries that have already introduced same sex marriage.

Actually, it is very well put, soop. Well said.

Well, I reckon it's ok in a registry office. But if the top brass of any religion feel they cannot allow it in their place of worship, then it's not up to government to interfere.

There was a discussion on Radio 4 this morning about the Danish decision to introduce same-sex marriage. They were talking about the same problem many people are concerned about here, that as soon as a minister of religion agrees to marry a same-sex couple, any other minister of the same denomination who refuses is likely to end up in court and lose the case. It's no use saying, as they did in Denmark, that a minister may refuse and pass the couple on to another minister. Because counsellors and hospital staff have tried that and have lost their cases. BTW I don't care what they call the pact, civil partnership, marriage or Godzilla. We were married in a civil ceremony nearly 50 years ago and one DS and DDiL ditto. I don't think we are any less married than our other DS and DDiL who had a nuptial Mass. The sacrament (unless it's a nuptial mass) is between the two parties in the consummation of the wedding.

Just for the record, a registry office was a kind of employment bureau for servants. The place where marriages take place is a register office or a Registrar's office. Sorry, I have tried to bite my tongue, but once a pedant, always a pedant. with shame emoticon

Thanks, absent - I am always happy to be informed when I am wrong.

Yes. I know that absent. But everyone says registry office.

#keepbiting

I thought anal sex was illegal between a man and a woman - and still was!

Not any more. After all you cant have a sodomy act when you are allowing consensual anal sexual intercourse in married same sex couples can you? It would not be equal rights.

Not illegal but very unwise. #ifyoudontwantyourpootodropout