same sex marriage-in church

Not a very religious person but very much a traditionalist, I think the Pope had it right in recent comments when speaking to a Gay Priest. LGBT is not a lifestyle I choose to follow but not something I will impose on others. We can't all think the same. After all, I like Marmite!

Justnoneed, I hear you and agree to certain extent. However, to ensure legality and the avoidance of sham marriages, forced marriages, misrepresentation and so forth there are preliminaries required by law. Initial visit to registrar is usually to prove identity and pay deposit etc. Once the formalities are dealt with the ceremony can be as short as you like, one part of it consisting of you merely answering 'I do' to the registrar but being legally obliged to quote an oath starting with 'I do solemnly declare blah blah blah'. You would be surprised how important it is that everything be done legally or not worth the paper you sign on. Actually the marriage ceremony in its shortest version is much quicker than registering a birth or death! It is the photos and chat that bulk it out and longer ceremony words if you choose them.

Yes jusnoneed I assumed that was more or less what a civil . partnership was but may well be wrong!

The Catholic Church does not support gay marriage and some priests strongly advocate not attending a gay wedding ceremony as marriage is seen as a sacrament and not possible between two people of the same sex. This has caused untold damage where one member is a Catholic and others are not ...

To my mind the whole marriage idea is outdated for many people. Certainly is for me. I did marry (Reg office) and divorce years ago, I have lived with my partner now for 38 years without that being officially recognised.
Why as it seems everything has to be 'official' can't people just go to a registrar with a couple witnesses and fill in the forms, sign them and off you go. Why do they insist on a ceremony? You register a birth with no pomp and similar with a death, why not a partnership? Lets bring things into the 21st Century.

Haha Lollee. I think you speak for a lot of us!

And Knickas

Well stated Lollee

Well said knickas63. At my age and being brought up in a different era of beliefs and ideas it is very difficult to easily adjust to new ways of thinking that were considered as mental illness or illegal back in the day. Just because I am tolerant and accepting of all people who do not hurt others does not mean I have to embrace lifestyle choices that were once considered abnormal. I have the right to live within normal parameters just as others have the right to live outside of them nowadays. I am afraid I cannot pretend to find it ok to identify as another species, or love an inanimate object that I wish to marry, or have a choice of 50 plus answers when asked my gender. Once all those over a certain age have gone the problem will cease to exist but i daresay there will be other issues olduns will have to deal with from the generations coming behind them.

I have absolutely no prejudices on a personal level, however, to my mind, if a Religion is catagorically against something, and you profess to be part of that Religion, then tough. Accept it or find another Religion! Unfortunately not so easy if 'your' Religion wont let people leave. We are very prone to trying to force out views on people today, and any one who disagrees is lambasted and ostracised. Live and let live - which should go both ways!

PS it is not interesting that an mp is supporting a change in the law. Mps will do anything, or jump on any band wagon to gain publicity or get their face and name known, often regardless of whether they are truly committed to the change or have fully thought it out. After all they can always do a u turn or change course.

MaryEliza is "still waiting for a logical reason why civil partnerships should not be extended to those who do not buy into the concept of marriage with its patriarchal history" - no reason at all except why add to the bureaucracy surrounding personal relationships when there already exist two models for the contract - the religious one and the secular - and the details can be varied to suit. Add to that the option to draw up a will stating financial wishes, signing a private agreement on other matters or not entering into any contract at all.

Anyone who doesn't like past aspects of marriage (such as? specifics would be interesting, and could widen the discussion) could be blazing a trail to display the best features of present and future unions.

And such is the problem with ‘interpretation ‘ hence wars still being fought in the name of ‘Religion ‘

Ooh I don't agree that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Virgin Birth!! That was suggested later to help people accept that Jesus was the 'son of God' and the same stories were common about otger 'prophets' at the time. I for one (as a Biologist) don't accept it.
Try reading one of Archbishop Spongs's books! To me they were like a light coming on. It suddenly all made sense!

Because there is no difference!!! If someone asks your marital status what answer would you give. 'A rose by any other name' springs to mind. If both things achieve the same end what difference does it make whether it is called civil partnership or marriage? Why should marriage mean patriarchal in this day and age, it is the joining of two people in a committed relationship, otherwise known as marriage. If you just want to shack up, do so, no one cares these days, mores the pity.

But surely marriage is a legal representation , why change an existing bond for another that would be exactly the same?

Well said Leggs55

But why not accommodate those who don’t want a marriage but want legal recognition of their partnership? What harm would it do? I still don’t understand why some people don’t want this right to exist when it wouldn’t harm or effect anyone else. Why?

I agree with you lollee and it is interesting that your view is based on your experience as a registrar.

There is absolutely no reason to retain civil partnerships now that marriage is an option for all.

Some may object to the "patriarchical history" of the institution of marriage but surely modern marriage is a union of equal partners, irrespective of gender?

lollee I knew all that. The issue is the CONCEPT of marriage that not everyone buys into - wanting a life long partnership does not necessarily have to mean marriage even if the ceremony is carried out in a register office. It’s interesting that a Tory MP is supporting a change in the law.

That’s the whole problem people cherrypicking from the bible as it suits
There was no Church of England until Henry V111 when he wanted to divorce & wasn’t allowed ,so he broke away from the RC church .
A Christian is only technically a Christian ‘ if they beleive in the Virgin Birth.
Other Dominations interpret as they see fit.
So really anything goes as long as you can find a suitable text for the bible to fit with ones views.
Tolerance, kindness, understanding & common sense also helps the battle against discrimination
Legislation helps, but far better we all live & let live through genuine compassion & understanding rather than legislation telling us what we can & cannot say . If we are only paying lip service because we have to we can’t really call that tolerant.

Sodapop, !aryeliza etc. Speaking as an ex registrar, civil partnerships began before gay marriage was legal. It was to enable gay couples to have same rights and legality as married ones. It conferred exactly the same entitlements as marriage and relatives became 'in laws' to the partner of their family member. To dissolve the partnership there had to be a divorce. So, basically it was exactly the same as a marriage without using the M word. Now that marriage is legal for gay couples there is no need for civil partnerships so therefore there is no need for hetero couples to have them, they are no different from a civil (non religious) ceremony. If you are willing to commit to a lifetime partnership it makes no difference to the legality and is just as binding (and easy/hard to get out of). Why make civil partnerships an issue for non gays? It would surely be easier now for civil partnerships to be made redundant and just stick to civil or religious marriage ceremonies for all.

The importance of a marriage in church IMO is the belief in God and wanting His blessing on the union and the importance of making promises not just to one another, but to God.

That's what's important, not the dress, bridesmaids, page boys etc. but the commitment to one another and the desire for God's blessing.

Well I really dont count St Paul, he was a preacher like many others ,and of his time. I dont count the OT either. Yes Jesus speaks of marriage in Matthew 19 but he is really discussing faithfulness and divorce which could apply to same sex marriages too. Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder comes from this passage. He doesn't mention homosexuality.
All the writings of the Bible were by people of their time and even the sayings of Jesus are being recalled many years after his death. What does shine through though is that he did not discriminate against people.

St Paul spoke against a lot of things - I believe he wasn’t too keen on women?