to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

I am a Christian and I have no problem with gay marriage. If we accept that we are made by God and that being gay is something you were born as, then God made those people gay so why would He not accept them. Love is love whether it is between a man and a woman or two women or two men.

My only caveat would be that no member of the clergy could be forced to conduct a same sex marriage if it went against his/her deeply held belief.

I agree, good post BAnanas. Indeed, we are all products of of our time, education and circumstances. And ideas and understanding change. I'm sure if your parents were alive today, their ideas would probably have developed too, as so many people's ideas have. And if you couldn't convince them after your considered explanation, just remind them of John 15:13. Love one another as I have loved you.

What a good post, BAnanas.

I sometimes have hypothetical conversations in my head with my dead parents who were stalwart Catholics and who are probably turning in their graves now this has been passed. I think I would have probably said something to them like, attitudes have changed since you were young and this is no big deal for the present generation and they are the ones that will take this new legislation forward, it's their time now. I know my children wouldn't bat an eyelid at a gay marriage. My parents' generation expected same sex relationships to be conducted covertly because possibly they thought it was some sort of affliction, and something that you could give up with a bit of self control, like smoking. Me, I don't believe anyone chooses their sexuality I think it's something you are born with and if my child was gay I would just want them to be happy. I don't have any hangups about this new law I just think it's part and parcel of a changing society. I understand some peoples' reticence about the matter due to their religion or they simply feel much of what they grew up with is being swept away. Ultimately we have to live and let live, as long as our behaviour does not affect anyone else in a negative way and I don't believe a marriage between two people of the same sex should do that. In my head if I couldn't convince my parents of the "times they are a changing" as someone once said, then I would revert to my favourite refrain of perhaps you should just focus a bit more on much of the wrong doing in your church that has been swept under the carpet. That usually shut them up!

Whoops Absent. You are right. How could I have confused Alice with Humpty? Senior moment obviously!

Absent - we are obviously telepathic - now we will have trouble convincing some of the conspiracy theorists that we are not the same person.

Good analogy, Bags.
As usual, Micelf is one of the most rational voices of Christianity and compassion.
It is a shame that mollie feels she cannot engage with people of differing views - it must really restrict her social life. I must admit that I would not become friends with someone who thought Hitler had the right idea, but I can say quite honestly that I number some devout Christians amongst my friends and I respect their right to hold their own views, without it compromising my own unwavering atheism.

Yes, I read that when you first posted it Bags and it's a helpful analogy, but there are lots of people who genuinely think that allowing gay marriage diminishes the concept of marriage. I want someone who believes that to explain to me how they think it would do this.

absent, re the diminishing idea, c/f Joanne Harris's comments about cookies. If you give a hetero couple a cookie (marry them) and then you give a gay couple a cookie (same ceremony), you haven't taken the heteros' 'cookie' away from them. Therefore, logically, no diminution. Simple.

It just seems silly to me to have two systems that do the same thing. A civil partnership ceremony is so close to a civil wedding that they might just as well be amalgamated.

I also find it hard to understand in what way allowing gay marriage diminishes marriage per se. Why would my marriage be any less valuable, important, meaningful, whatever if the couple next door were two men married to each other?

MiceElf I think it was Humpty Dumpty who said that in Through the Looking Glass.

You are correct Jess M, that is what Christian marriage is. Not what Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other traditions' definition of marriage is. And indeed Christians do not have a monopoly of defining what marriage is for any other tradition. Only for themselves.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?