Same sex marriage bill

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I am all for every couple being allowed to decide the terms of their legal commitment. And certainly friends and siblings should have the same rights as couples in a sexual partnership. Why not? My first thought in all such discussions is 'Who benefits, and who might get hurt?'

JessM I think you've made a very valid point and I agree it would make much more sense to separate the legal registration of marriages from churches. Other religions have to have a civil marriage as well as the religious ceremony. The Churches don't want any change, however, and the complicated connections between the CoE and the state are a constitutional nightmare and would take too long to unravel. So they've gone for a quick fix and it will lead to trouble. One difficulty in having an in-depth discussion about all the implications of this legislation is that if anyone starts raising issues, they are likely to be accused of homophobia. I'm in favour of everyone, male/female, male/male or female/female who wants to celebrate their loving relationship marrying if that's what they want to do. I'm also a member of the CoE and I'm in favour of ministers of religion and other members of faith communities not being zapped if they refuse to carry out a religious ceremony. Don't say it wouldn't happen!

I don't have a problem with same sex partnerships, but for things to be equal,straight couples should, be allowed to have a civil partnership, as some people do not wish to be MARRIED either in a register office or in a church,but at the moment this is only open to gay couples.I was pleased to read in the Times that the lib dems are proposing this.

Good discussion. I am in favour of tolerance. I do not understand why those against want to ring fence the concept of "marriage" to mean "opposite sex lifelong partnership" . I understand that is the meaning they would like it to have. But it is just a word.
I think civil partnerships should be available to people who live together permanently in a non sexual relationship e.g. 2 siblings sharing a house, 2 celibate friends etc. This would give them some legal protection in certain circumstances.
And that a marriage is something more for those who want it.
A vow of sexual exclusivity. In France everyone has a civil ceremony and those who want it troop round to the church and have a religious one.
I do not agree with giving tax breaks to people who have gone through a ceremony.

"Faith-based values" have stood in the way of every single piece of equalities legislation. #elephantintheroom

Someone on Twitter mentioned this. So true.

Elegran Wise words, as always.

O.K By all means discuss the political aspects of same sex marriage - I am afraid I can't add anything to that debate.
I suppose we could always have another thread under Politics.

I would still like to hear what it is about same sex marriage that appears to frighten people. I know some loony in America said it would result in men sleeping with animals, etc. but I don't think anybody on Gransnet would suggest anything so daft. If a person does not want to have a same sex marriage, they won't be forced to do so. Why should anybody want to interfere with something that would harm nobody and make some people very happy?
The relgious aspect is irrelevant as we are not talking about religious ceremonies. (At least I am not!)

Bit cheeky to suggest posters shouldn't get off the point! This is a political as well as an equalities issue.

Good essay Bags. I'll be glad to see the back of the hypocrisy that makes judgements about two committed people - adults - marrying each other, whilst colluding with the sexual abuse of children by priests who are required to be celibate, and who hear confessions of 'sins' during mass, but don't confess their own sins.

If there's going to be a debate and change of practice, it seems strange that they would start with law-abiding, consenting adults. Why not start with the sex offending church hierarchy?

greatnan Re the biblical law post.

Good one, ruthjean

And here is a good essay on The Incoherent Case Against Gay Marriage

ruthjean

>
> Washington State just passed two new laws - gay marriage and legalised
> marijuana.
> The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalised on the same day
> makes perfect biblical sense because
> Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."
>
> We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before!

Oh, dear, my children, grandchildren and great gc are all illegitimate then - I don't think it will bother them!

My first - it wrked!