to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

maries Calling someone a 'great Gransnet poster' is undermining your credibility. We were having a healthy exchange of views and, whilst I don't share your views, I was interested in the argument you put forward. Bags is too courteous to use such terms. Gransnet is inclusive of all posters who put their views without resorting to jibes.

I'm off this thread now

To be honest, jings, I think you can. I can despise a (real or imaginary) belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (for instance) while still caring very much about the person holding that belief, and trying my utmost to support that person's right to equal treatment before the law.

My beliefs are me is what I mean.

I don,t mind if my marriage is called a civil partnership. What it's called by other people does not change its meaning for me and my husband.

Now, to be honest, I'm not sure you can separate a person and their beliefs.

I'm sorry you feel despair, maries. But, since you don't appear to make the distinction between respecting a person and respecting a person's beliefs, I must continue to suppose that you at least appear to have misunderstood me. I am refraining from thinking that it is wilful misunderstanding, since it seems to be a concept a lot of people have trouble with, sadly.

*Maries - I am afraid that you lose your whole platform once you descend to personal insults. Bags is well aware of the differences in the various sects.
Could we ask where you derive your 'facts' that most people are opposed to this change in the law. I think you are wrong*

I only answered what Bags said in the post made. I didnt make any personal comment as such. However, seeing you have spoken I realise I have gone up against the " great gransnet poster" reputation.

Clearly Bags did not know the distinction or was making a pontless and silly comment whn she/he asked me which church I was talking about ..... I pointed out the distinction between church and denomination.

Enough said. Not allowed to say anything against great posters here then.

I guess that ends any kind of debate.

No! Back in history it was only vicars married people. In church.

Just a point; Henry didn't change the concept of marriage and he didn't change the Church. Henry was the last of a long line of monarchs in a struggle over legal and political supremacy with the Papacy. What H did was break with Rome and seize a lot of ecclesiastical assets. I'll get my coat and go to Pedants' Corner.

I am not sure what you mean, jingle, as there have been registry office marriages for decades.

Hey Jings
I'm agreeing with you

I don't know why the church is coming into this discussion so much. So far it's registry office marriage that's proposed.

The ironic thing is....when marriage for gay people becomes common-place, there will still be curmudgeonly gay men and lesbians complaining about something or other that doesn't quite fit with THEIR concept of marriage. We're never going to agree, but as long as the law treats us equally, that's what matters.

J08 I thought Maries sounded very upset (distraught) about how she feels the nature of her own marriage is changed by the planned introduction of same sex marriage. My comment was concern, not criticism.