Same sex marriage bill

I would love to know your thoughts, Lilygran, on how it might lead to trouble. I don't really understand the apparent fudge they have reached with the C of E. Of course, if it were to be disestablished, there would be a level playing field for all religions (and none).
I do wonder what could be done to stop people thinking that same sex relations are not normal, when they clearly are for the people involved. How do we turn around such thinking? Do some people hide their homophobia under a pretence of protecting marriage? As jingle would say, just asking!

I hope mollie comes back and tells us her thoughts on all the posts made so far.

Greatnan great post (16:48:44 today)
I've just looked up the chapter about the Warren Cup in 'A history of the World in 100 Objects'.
In Classical Greece... 'it was normal for older men to teach younger boys about life in general, in a mentoring relationship that include sex.'
Only a snippet I know, but it does show that society's view of what is normal has changed and evolved over time. Come to think of it, what exactly is normal?

In the days when racism was 'normal' the US Airforce had a very good training programme, adopted here by a number of public bodies. The premise was that you can't change how people think in the short term, so you concentrate on what they say and do. You can stop them from behaving in a discriminatory way or making offensive comments by applying sanctions strong enough to make people conform. It takes a long time to win hearts and minds. Sometimes it can't be done in one lifetime.

Well,OGM, I think it declines like this: I am normal, you are eccentric, he is barking mad! The rich and powerful have always been able to persuade people that whatever suits them is normal. So it was normal to keep slaves, and normal to send eight year old boys up chimneys. It is quite hard to stand back when we have been indoctrinated and think for ourselves.
It appears that many people believe that normal is still what suits the establishment.

Lilygran - I agree completely - I think our posts crossed. We are getting there with anti-discrimination laws and I am hopeful that most young people will think it strange that we ever sorted people into sheep and goats according to their skin colour or sexuality.

lilygran, that approach reminds me of something my mum used to say – that no, one might not be able to change one's feelings, but one can change one's behaviour.

There was an interesting piece earlier this afternoon on Radio 4, not sure which programme as I had just come in and missed the start. The interviewer was asking a gay Tory voter who had entered into a civil partnership if he was in favour of this bill, and got a resounding "NO" in response.

Did the gay Tory say why? That would be the interesting bit.

Just to add, another person interviewd in the same programme stated that in the countries that have already moved in this direction, that there were now requests for (as she put it) "threesomes" i.e. 3 people involved in a relationship with each other wanting that relationship to be formally recognised too.

(Sorry to be a bit vague about this, as I say I had just come back from looking after a friend and was listening to the radio whilst trying to sort out answerphone messages etc. If anyone would like to try to find the programme it was on sometime between 2.30 and 4pm.)

If an individual church agrees (I think they all should!) to marry a same sex, Christian (or whatever) couple, where is the problem? "Let him who is without sin...". Personally, I cannot see the problem

Obviously, we are never all going to agree on whether homosexuality is "normal" (whatever that is) but surely we can accept differences and try to accommodate them.

Jesus was always ready to accept those considered outcasts, wasn't he? And he had some pretty good ideas in which people seem to believe.

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.

The Bill's just got through:-)

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

(Sorry Christians)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.