to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Ignore it then granjura. Simple.

Greatnan, they do not address the original topic. They seem to be aimed at making person comments to me or off topic comments about privacy and sex. Might I remind you we are discussing the issue of the change in law allowing same sex marriage, consensual relationships and not whether or not you like my disagreeing with another poster.

I'd be very much in favour of separating the civil and Church service. Where I live (Switzerland) - every couple has to be married in a Registry office - and then add a Church service if they wish. Usually the registry office short ceremony and signing of the register takes place on the Friday afternoon, followed by a Church service on the Saturday for those who wish.

It really is time we have separate Church and State in the UK - it makes no sense anymore to be joined at the hip - when such a minority is CofE. Even Charles agrees- which is probably why his mother won't abdicate in his favour.

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

Whatever their sexual activities ( or none for that matter) they do not consitute that which would be defined as marriage in Church Law. Thats the point. In order for them to be married as per the definition, the definition of marriage has to change. It is that I am not happy about. In fact I would go further. I damn well object to it.

It has been said we have enough Bishops in the upper house ( plus others ) to shove this bill back to parliament for proper amendment. I hope its true.
I suspect many may agree quietly but are afraid to say. I know I am wary in real life. I have been asked to write a Church article on it and I have been batting thoughts around for a while now as a result. These are just the Sunday musings from that. I will tighten it up when I get to write the real thing.

Maries - could you explain in what sense my contributions have not been relevant?

maries and jO8 - are your latest comment relevant to the debate? I can't see it myself I have to say?

Have you anything relevent to add to this actual debate greatnan?

I'm only advising.

Some of us don't care about church laws. They are not relevant unless you're member of the church (whichever church)

So why are you trying to impose your change in the definition of marriage on the church then?

What consenting adults do in private is nobody else's business.

Its not my own marriage that concerns me. What concerns me is how this new legislation i will be played out with regard to any religious understanding of what marriage is.

I am not condoning or condemning or preventing anyone from making their committment legal and sharing those legal contractual rights ( its civil law and was an addition to the religious law of Cannon law which is essentially recognition of a form of relationship which is seen as ideal).

The problem will come ( and it will because there are those wanting to push this) when a same sex couple demand marriage in a church. It will be a C of E church because there and only there the state registration and religious service are joined. As things stand ( even with new legislation) a Vicar should be able to refuse but this can ( and will unfortunately) be challenged by those who want the law extended to make the church adhere to their requirements.

In effect at that point the views of those who have no concern for the beliefs of religion will be forced onto those who do have such beliefs in the interests of " equality"

If these people were to leave the church alone and just conduct their marriages in civil areans , no issue. Its the fact they will not do that which concerns me.

As Bags said he/ she doesnt care about the religious beliefs of others but apprantly if his/her posts are any evidence , that poster would impose his/ her views on the church even though he /she doesnt care.

But I do care, and at the end of the day it is my belief and my church adherence you impose on.

What is actiually going on here is an attempt to impose the views and practices of civil law on Church law.

I cannot see why civil marriage or partnership is not enough and why they have to come changing the Churches concept of marriage. I and those like me am not trying to change yours.

Not illegal but very unwise. #ifyoudontwantyourpootodropout

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.

#keepbiting

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

No - got that wrong. As you were.

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

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