to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Maries does not sound distraught

They changed marriage when they introduced civil ceremony marriage. Before that it was church only.

Same sex marriage hasn't been passed into British law yet, although it almost certainly will be. 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.

As long as two people love each other and wish to make a long term commitment that they will take seriously to the benefit of society as a whole then that's OK as far as I am concerned. All the rest is semantics.

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 think I understand you loud and clear Bags. I doubt you understnad much about the Church though or its basic beliefs ( let alone be able to respect them beyond the point of respecting some people hold themand I am not sure about that from your posts).

However, I said I would not wade in. I have. I have said more or less what the position is . I hope some will understand more for that intervention on my part. I truse many more may be able to make their own decisions about whether they want their marriages viewed as the same as civil partnerships as they now all are ( despite we are still calling it marriage).

I got married. Now I am it seems in a civil partnership under that name - at least by law - and so is everone one else. Its not up for negotiation anymore.

So all one can do is dispair.

When the question was asked " are you in favour of marriage being changed to include same sex relationships" the answer was No.

When the question was asked are you in favour of homosexuals being allowed to have their partnerships recongised legally, the answer was yes

Ergo, people do not want marriage changed. They want something different but equal ( not the same ) for homosexuals.

You misunderstood me, maries. I do respect people's right to believe whatever they want to believe and I respect people. That's different, and quite separate, from whether I respect the beliefs people hold. I respect your right to argue your case in favour of not changing marriage law, just as I expect you to respect my right to argue in favour of changing it to accommodate homosexuality.

For me, the logical bottom liner on this issue is how ironic it is for the Church of England, set up because Henry VIII wanted to change the "concept of marriage" to suit himself – no till death us do part for him if he couldn't get a viable male heir out of his 'proper' wife – is now squawking about other people wanting to change what marriage means.

The bottom line is that gay people are not asking for change, but inclusion. All it needs is for eligibility to be expanded

No, I disagree. They are asking for change. They had inclusion with the Civil Partnerships act.

Many of our laws have been medled with because of homosexual relationships. First off - the definition of rape was changed ( and it actually lessened the offence) to include homosexual rape. Same now with adultery which will have to disappear too.

Maries When taking about opinion polls, what do you mean by "when the question is asked properly"? Why isn't a straightforward "are you in favour of changing the law to allow same sex marriage"?

The bottom line is that gay people are not asking for change, but inclusion. All it needs is for eligibility to be expanded.

Grounds for divorce have been meddled with plenty of times, so non-consummation of marriage does not give a good enough reason to deny marriage for gay people.

Sorry, Absent your post slipped in there before mine. It is addressed to Maries

Could we keep this conversation free of personal attacks, please?

It's been very interesting so far.

The Old Testament includes stories of men with more than one wife but polygamy is not a recognised or legal form of marriage in modern Britain.

Bags - and it is clear you have no understanding of the difference between the " Church" and the different denominations thereof. I guess that ignorance goes along with your lack of respect.

Equal rights are a social construct and nothing more and has nothing to do with marriage. Those who want their equality recognised need to find another service for that.

You do not respect those of religious faith but you expect them to respect you I am sure. Cuts both ways Bags.

Bags - despite what you want to say, in fact in most opinion polls when the question is asked properly thereis no evidence at all that the majority of people want the concept of marriage to change. The evidence to the question about marriage showed most people do not want it changed (and probably didnt expect it changed).

Many, when asked a different question will accept that all groups should have the opportunity to have their relationship legally recogised and celebrated - and I have no objection to thateither. But it is not the same thing and put to the crunch most people will not like it.

It is not without cause that the Attorney General recommended to the government that all ceremonies in civil registries should be reclassified as
"civil partnerships" ( hetrosexual and homosexual) but the government chose to ignore his advice because they saw it as a vote catcher to re lable the civil partnership marriage, even though it is fraught with legal issues as well as religious ones.

Of course I suspect they also realised that if you told hetrosexuals who wanted to marry that they were now reclassified to " civil partnership" to be equal with all other relationship forms, there would have been almightly hell let loose! It wouldnt be tolerated.

They have instead used the confusion so evident here to bring about an change that is really not wanted by most people when they become appraised of the reality. In the same way as you are doing Bags. You want it chaged ( I guess from your commentsd) so we all have to agree dont we?

Well I dont. Calling people like me homophobes and bigots and such creates fear and most people are scared to speak out - which is exaclty what is happening and has happened. The silent majority are silenced.

If the C of E, or any other religious group, which discriminates against people is forced to change, or simply to have its marriage licences revoked, that's fine by me. I don't believe in religions having special privileges just because of their beliefs. I do not respect all beliefs, nor think they are equal. People, however, have equal rights. If we need marriage for legal purposes (which, let's face it, is what it's really about), then everyone has a right to be married.

The French system, as described on this thread or another, sounds sensible to me – everyone being entitled to be legally married in a civic procedure, and people who also want a religious ceremony having that option as well. This system also suggests that the "concept of marriage" has been changed already so the churches are flogging a dead horse.

That's sort of what I was trying to say earlier.

Maries, because people want it to change is my answer. You think the church (which one, by the way? C of E, which was started by someone who wanted to change the rules about marriage? Or RC? Or another?) owns marriage and that the interpretation that they put on it is the only correct one. Most people disagree. I know churches aren't hot on democracy or progressive improvements to human rules, but that's the churches' problem.

*Many heterosexual people marry with no intention or desire to have sex.
And what about those who marry in later life when there's no possibility of the woman conceiving?*

As far as conception is concerned , with God there is never a never.

However, that is not the point - its about the sex act. Its about the jopining of a man and a woman as someone elseput it more clearly than I, it is about having a penis and a virgina and , more than that, its about putting the penis in the virgina. Thats marriage.

Anything else remains unconsumated ( and grounds for annulment in church law)

Yup. An interesting preamble.
So marriage is a special (sometimes holy) contract that must involve a penis and a vagina. Got it.

Yes, that sums it up as far as the Church is concerned.

I think the question has to be to you Bags - why should marriage have to change?

Those who want things to change can have all they want without marriage.

It isnt just a Christian view btw. Its essentially one shared by all the judeo based ones.

The big issue for the CHurch of England particularly is that a Vicar is also a registrar and whist it can be written into British law that a Vicar may not be forced to act outside their conscience, this is open to challenge in the European courts and British law thereforee cannot give any protection to anyone of a religious faith who wishes to refuse to marry a homosexual couple.

It is likely that some homosexuals will challange this ruling in the European court ( as they have done with other things - the B&B comes to mind here) and the C of E will be forced.

Of course so could Islamic Immans and Jewish Rabbi's but it not likely they will be challenged by those who wish to challenge the concept of marriage.

Many heterosexual people marry with no intention or desire to have sex.
And what about those who marry in later life when there's no possibility of the woman conceiving?

I know of plenty of people with the necessary genitalia who will fit that criteria, can perform a penetrative act, but not able to produce children. Is it ok if they are transgendered?