Same sex marriage bill

Yes.

I'd go even further and say it's up to them how much commitment they make to each other, and nobody else's business. Which is not to say there isn't a use for a law that protects people's (individuals' or couples') property rights.

The thought that "marriage" should be exclusive to a couple of young male and female virgins in order to procreate is nothing short of ridiculous.

I have been married three times (yes I know?????)

The first time I was pregnant (and 18). The "marriage" lasted 3 months before I was literally left holding the baby.

The second lasted a little bit longer and resulted in the birth of my DD. Sadly my husband died very suddenly.

When I entered into my third marriage to the "love of my life" we both agreed that neither of us felt the need to have children between us although we were both still quite young.

The point I am trying to make is who decided which marriage is more valid than the next? Surely two people who love each other and wish to make the commitment of marriage is the only rule there should be. Whether they be 18 or 80 , gay or straight, religious or non religious.

It's interesting that historically marriage was to 'protect' the man, in the sense of trying to make sure that the children who inherited his wealth were his own. Nowadays, there are other ways of ascertaining who is a child's father (or, at least, who isn't) so the property protection clause part of marriage is no longer necessary.

There were many thousands of widows after both World Wars - many brought up their children alone as there were few spare single men around. I don't recall that they were ever labelled as 'single mothers' and demonised.

Margaret - I do hope that your juxtaposition of gay marriage and embarrassing bodies does not mean what it suggests!
May I ask if you have done any research on the history of marriage in Britain?
I think you will find it had much more to do with male ownership of property , which included wives and children, and their wives' property, than it had to do with the safety of children.
Marriage, or bonding, customs vary widely over time and place. What is seen as normal in one culture would be seen as bizarre in another. There is nothing 'natural' about the legal contract of marriage. Many animals pair bond for life (although the female often makes sure she has a 'spare' sperm donor to help bring up the young). There are some 86 species of animals that have been shown to enjoy homosexual relationships, sometimes as a way of preventing aggression, sometimes as a form of birth control.
Who has the right to lay down for everybody else what is 'normal'?

Successful single parents, anyone?

Just living together can create a safe environment for children. Marriage is irrelevant to that. Plenty of couple who successfully raise children are not married and have not entered into a civil partnership either. Marriage is not necessary to bring up children.

Gay couples have children.

AT this moment of writing the 'Same sex marriage Bill' and 'Embarrassing bodies - Irritating habits' are next to each other on GN.

Sums it up for me actually. I am for civil partnership and this thing by David Cameron does not ring true. Marriage is to create a safe environment for children.

merlot I totally agree with you grandaughters very sensible point. It is one I would have made as well.

Yes, you do, Phoenix I think it's 14 but it seems to be a right of passage to go on facebook when you start yr. 7.

late reply #Bluebell, the main thing is that children hate to be different and will even in these different times be different from their friends who have a Mumand Dad and lets face it they are both special relationships and the best start for a child. Of course there are so many single parent families now and that is not an improvement imo.

Merlot a commendable comment from your GD! (I thought you had to be older than that to be on FB?)

The arguments I have seen put forward by some religous groups seem to be based on the Old Testament rather than the teachings of Jesus. And I think the letter I posted shows how ridiculous it is to cherry pick the bits of the OT that suit your purpose.

lily, are there particular teaching of Jesus which other moral systems and religions don't also encompass? I ask because the ones I remember from eighteen years of Catholic upbringing don't seem hard to follow. If anything, it's hard not to follow them.

Again well said Greatnan (19:37:08)
Much better than my clumsy attempt anyway.... I was trying to say that our perceptions of what is 'normal' have changed over the centuries as we have recognised the freedom of the individual and his/her right to make choices to live the life he/she chooses without doing harm to anyone..... oh dear,
I'm getting even more 'convoluted', why not just agree with Bags as above!

petallus it isn't the good news that gets the headlines. The media (and gossip) thrive on conflict. The teachings of Jesus are completely central to Christianity. But they're hard to follow.

The teachings of Jesus don't have an awful lot to do with the Church these days, in my opinion.

(Sorry Christians)

Well said, ariadne.

One can put it another way too. For me, it's not so much being in favour of gay marriage, as not being against it. If it's what people want and it does no harm (which it doesn't), why not?

Oddly enough, I believe that Jesus, a forward thinking, liberal person, would have been able to deal with all this by encompassing all involved with love and understanding. Or have I not understood the teachings? This is basically a political issue, so how about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's?

It's probably fairly easy to be in favour of Gay marriage if one is not a Christian.

This is what my twelve year old grandaughter wrote on facebook yesterday. She was chatting to a couple of schoolfriends.

'Seriously I don't understand why the Government and the church can't just let gay people get married. Its not going to hurt anyone, and if the church is saying that gay people are unnatural, why did 'God' make them in the first place?'

I'm very proud of her attitude.

Some gransnetters may find a book by John Boswell, mediaeval professor of history at Yale, called Same sex unions in Mediaeval Europe, of interest. It is is highly academic but gives some beautiful examples of liturgies for same sex unions which were used in the mediaeval church.

It is sad that they are no longer in use - but if the Spirit is alive in the church they may well be revived.

As other posters have said, we are starting from the wrong place. If every partnership had to be made in a civil setting, then everyone would be free to conduct marriage ceremonies in churches of all persuasions in whichever way they chose.

And to old fashioned me, the crucial element is a vow of faithfulness and deep commitment. Not to be enterered into lightly or carelessly or thoughtlessly.

The Bill's just got through:-)

I really doubt that any minister or registrar has been asked to conduct a threesome - just scare mongering. The law will still state that marriage is between two persons - it just won't specify that they have to be different sexes.