to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Maries I for one am sorry you have had this experience.

There are many people on Gransnet and not many of them have been commenting on this thread.

Maries if you thought it was me who was castigating you, I'm sorry. There isn't a hierarchy of posters on Gransnet. There are some people who post more frequently on political and religious issues than others but it's equal opportunities all round.

Have a laugh about that too. But I still think what I think l about homosexual marriage and I think it more now.

btw, to you all as you join in the laughter. I do feel bvery hurt by the nasty comments here. Hence I will go and I wont come back and I will make sure I tell everyone I know on other forums how you are all so snide and nasty to newcomers.

Very hurt.

If I say anything I am being personal but if Bags says it he is being funny and I am a source of fun and entertainment.
Well entertain yourselves.

I got the message.' Gransnet is not a [place for people to come and discuss. its for regulars only.

BTW, I just googled for those numbers. Apparently from the Beeb, but it could all be liese, damned lies!

whoops: is not it

<wanders off chuckling and thinking what fun gransnet it>

Concept of lateral-number-thinking now entering my head. It's a difficult concept. May have to think for a while before I understand it.

You really are quite entertaining, maries . Which bit of a vote of 400 in favour and 175 against is not a majority in favour of the so-called gay marriage bill?

In other words, I think we have to be careful when bandying numbers and statistics around

This is another of those which cuts both ways. " The majority say " - well we arent at all sure what they say are we? It depends on what they get asked.

The majority of the house of commons ( with a not very free vote despite everything said) voted one way but it has been acknowledged it may not be the way the population feel.

The same goes for how we are apparently now not C of E - or are we?

Another off topic. In my village a new ioncumbent tried to close the village church down. He said there was no congregation and therefore no support and that the church could not make its keep. He locked the doors and told the local population to go to his,more favoured building in another village. A year later the church was re opened by the Bishop because the locals refused to be told that there was no congregation and thus no one wanted the church and they paid for it, opened it and reparied it - and five years later it is still being supported. The congregation is still small compared to its "supporters".

So, the congregation of anti homosexual marriage may seem small but those who support the church in its ant marriage position may well be significantly larger.

Dont think that just because your statistics say the majority are in favour of same sex marriage, they are. They may not be.

Disestablish the CofE as soon as we can! Its role in the state is anachronistic. It is absolutely ridiculous that one Christian sect has such a privileged position.

BTW - do Christian gay people have no right to consideration?

Maries What you have to say is interesting and thought-provoking and clearly intensely felt. To make comments about "hallowed posters" is neither interesting nor thought-provoking; it is certainly discourteous and is actually offensive to all Gransnetters, suggesting that we are a bunch of mindless, easily led sheep.

I think counting oneself as C of E has become a sort of tick-box exercise in many ways. Huge numbers of people are not church goers and probably give little or no thought to religion, but when asked, shrug and say C of E as the default position. At one time – although it may be different now – the C of E box was more or less automatically ticked by whoever was filling in the admission form in hospitals. Both my mother and I – baptised Catholics – have been classed as C of E on a number of occasions when in hospital. In other words, I think we have to be careful when bandying numbers and statistics around.

I think that a separation of church and state would be a good way forward too, jura.

maries, I'm not trying to impose anything; I just agree with the argument (and the majority view in the House of Commons) that gay people should be allowed to get married. And I hope the law will be changed to allow it. The church has a problem with such a change of law apparently.

Maries, please let me assure you that there are no privileged posters on Gransnet - we all have the same right to express our views and we are all bound by the same rules of forum etiquette.

You are so welcome to being passionate Maries- I respect that. But you also need to see that others are passionate in the 'opposite way' and not see their 'passion' as an attack. Goes both ways, does it not?

Lilygran. I value what you say but I do not see why one poster particularly found it necessary to chastise me for disagreeing with another completley different poster.

Funnily enough the poster I was in disagreement with didnt seem to deem it worth comment.

What it amounted to was an attack on me for daring to take on a hallowed poster from this forum.

We surely all have the right to say what we think here? Or is it you can only be passionate if you are one poster and a poster such as myself has to be defferent to that?

If that is the case , then I will tug me forelock and clear off. Just let me know.

Maries I do wonder what would happen to statistics re CofE in the UK if, like here, being a member of said Church would incur a compulsory fairly hefty Church tax? Here people who would happily say they are Christian, in a cultural almost secular way- left in droves when said Church tax was made optional.

I actually totally agree with you that if gay couples want to marry - it is a secular matter, in a registry office- and that no Church, nor Vicar/Priest should have to marry them in Church. However, the problem comes when a Church, in this case CofE, is THE official Church, with all the privileges it entails - and therefore should abide by State Law. So a separation of State and Church, as in France or my own country, Switzerland, makes sense in the 21st C.

By the way, I wasn't describing the experience in Denmark but a discussion about the implications of changing the law. The Danish pastor who was speaking said over 80% of Danes describe themselves as members of the Danish Lutheran Church and pay taxes towards it.

We're allowed to go off topic, Maries. Happens all the time. But the original post was quite emotional and you'll have seen that strong views have been expressed. If you really 'haven't raised a pulse beat' that isn't how it comes across. And most of us try not to criticise other posters, including the relevance or otherwise of their contributions.

The civil change in the law imposing itself on the CofE only happens because that church is enshrined in our law as the established church of the state. If that were to end (i.e. disestablishment) then the whole problem would be solved. Gay marriage would be legal, and any church or vicar could accept or reject that in relation to their particular church

I am not at all sure that would be the case. I suspect it far more likely the situation would be the same. A previous poster mentioned the experience in Denmark and I think we would be mirroring that.

Even if a Vicar were not a registrar the situation would still be open to challenge in the EU courts and the church would lose ( its already been said , despite the assurances of David Cameron himself saying no one will make that challenge - and he cannot say that anyway, as any induivdual can, and I know one organisation loking for an way to do so already) and so the civil definition of marriage would still be imposed .

You do seem to be getting rather heated about this thread – not just expressing passionately held views, which is fine, but heated about other posters, which is not

Then your impression is quite wrong. Going off topic, I would be interested to know how you identify the difference between "heated" and " expressing passionately held views" in this context?

I have not given any emoticons and you cannot know the intonation of my voice or my facial expression. So on what?

By the way I havent even raised a pulse beat on this thus far. Its just the way I write I suppose but I would nonetheless be interested to know what it is you have decided makes this heated and not passionate.

The civil change in the law imposing itself on the CofE only happens because that church is enshrined in our law as the established church of the state. If that were to end (i.e. disestablishment) then the whole problem would be solved. Gay marriage would be legal, and any church or vicar could accept or reject that in relation to their particular church.

Maries says: "What is actually going on here is an attempt to impose the views and practices of civil law on Church law."

But this works both ways - do not forget that church views and practices are imposed on our civil law via the bishops of the CofE having the right to sit in our legislature and alter/veto laws which affect us all whatever our beliefs or religious affiliation.

Maries Threads do go off topic on Gransnet. You do seem to be getting rather heated about this thread – not just expressing passionately held views, which is fine, but heated about other posters, which is not.

when such a minority is CofE. Even Charles agrees- which is probably why his mother won't abdicate in his favour

Off topic. I would be concerned about my first born son if I were the queen too. However , it is not true ( another of those polls which dont say what they actually are claimed to say) that the C of E are a minority. When put to the crunch far more people come out for the Church than against it.