to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Never thought of that, marthanne!

Maybe my post does sound a bit bigoted

You said it!

That was to Marthanne and the first bit was quoting her post

Coming back to the question of why vicars can decline to marry gay couples, but when B&B owners are deemed to have discriminated if they refuse to allow them a bed for the night, I think it is a matter of conscientious objection.
It's similar to doctors and nurses being allowed to opt out of being involved in abortions, it's a matter of conscience.
In all other matters hospital staff are not allowed to discriminate on any of the usual grounds.

I wonder why people are so sympathetic to gay couples who see a difference between civil partnership and marriage,which they will be able to choose between, when heterosexuals are only entitled to have a marriage, not a civil partnership.

I am proud of the members of Gransnet - I hope the young 'uns realise how we view bigotry.

Aga - the civil partnership was, I am sure, seen as a staging post for gay marriage . Hetrosexual couples did not need it, as they could already go straight to marriage. However, I am all in favour of couples who live together, but are not in a sexual relationship, such as friends or siblings, being able to have some form of legal contract which would entitle them to the same rights.

I feel proud too Greatnan . Proud that we can have a very sensible and civilised debate on such a " hot topic" on which we have such differing views.

Greatnan
Can you please define who you mean by "the young 'uns?" Polite?

Greatnan,yes perhaps it was seen as a stopgap for gay couples but there are couples who do not wish to enter into a marriage with its historical and religious implications on principle,but would like the legal safeguard of a civil partnership. If we are looking at equality then civil partnerships should be available to all.Perhaps they will be abolished if the gay marriage bill is finally made law?

I haven't posted on this before because I'm very confused in my own mind as to what I think!
Deep down I have nothing against civil partnerships.
But!
I have to admit I am not happy with the idea of the sacrament of marriage being administered in this way.
My understanding is that lack of fertility has been a grounds for divorce or 'setting aside' in most cultures.
If this is the case, then, surely, then the marriage of two people of the same sex is not productive!
On the other hand, I know that, if I, as a widow met another man, I would want to be married.
If I met a woman and if we felt attracted, I would not feel I wanted marriage!
I know I've never so far felt an attraction to another woman, but, I don't rule it out!
This post is very rambling and long! APOLOGIES but I am confused myself and trying to sort out my own reasoning

Feel free to pull me to pieces!

Young 'uns means anybody younger than me!
I have no objection to hetrosexual couples having civil partnerships, if that is what they want. I have no wish to control what other people do in their own lives, providing it is not harmful to others.
I still do not know what people are afraid of, if a few couples wish to be married in the eyes of the law. Why deny them happiness? I am not concerned with religious ceremonies - that is for the churches to sort out.
We have set out in some detail the way that marriage has changed over the centuries - I see no reason why it should not continue to evolve.
I believe nearly half of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce, so it is hardly being treated as something sacred by many who enter into it.

Ah! But it should be! We are seeing the degradation of the marriage vows.
I think that that is the problem.

But why should allowing gay people to marry make any difference to the behaviour of hetrosexual couples? They can hardly be held responsible for what other people do.

[confused{?

?

Greatnan

I don't think anything is sacred. And especially not contracts made between two fallible (as we all are) human beings, which is what a marriage is. At the time the contract is made, ideally both partners feel it will/should last forever, but it often doesn't. The reasons it doesn't last are many and multiple.

I think the stumbling block for people who don't like the idea of gay marriage is that they see it as somehow breaking a law that is not human (i.e. a law that was made by a god or gods), whereas really it's a human law/contract. Everything we humans make is open to adaptability and change.

Just because churches say marriage (by which they mean sex) is for procreation, that doesn't mean it is only for that. That is its main evolutionary purpose, but it has been shown that bonobos, to whom we are very closely related, use sex for keeping things calm in their society.

Sorry for the tautology.

Thanks, Bags - Galen, I think Bags has said exactly what I was going to say, but she gets up earlier than me!
I don't think marriage was sacred when it was used for political reasons, to unite warring factions or secure succession. Women were rarely consulted, but just used as the property of their husbands. We tend to think that it has always been based on love between the two partners, but that is comparatively recent. No point in looking at it through rose tinted spectacles.
Wasn't Princesse May of Tek cynically passed on to the next in line to the throne when the older brother died?

Galen So by that logic, "degrading marriage vows" would surely require a ban on divorced couples from remarrying in church? Or having sex and using contraception.

Please tell me more about the bonobos!!!

I think you need to watch Charlotte Uhlenbroek's series "Cousins", jings. I expect you can get them on DVD.

Meanwhile, here's an article called Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan.

Will read later. Am on Fire (in bed) Can't get links. Sex at dawn sounds pretty usual though (from memory)

Thanks, Bags, I enjoyed the link. I want to be a bonobo.