same sex marriage-in church

To use the words of the Bible, or any religious text, to back up any argument is always flawed. Everything was written by men who thought they were interpreting the Word of God.

I believe that Homosexuality is part of God’s creation.

I promise to stay with you until I get bored or someone better comes along is an insulting comment to those couples fighting for the right to a civil partnership. I’m still waiting for a logical reason why civil partnerships should not be extended to those who do not buy in to the concept of marriage with its patriarchal history

New Testement - St Paul speaks against homosexuality in Corinthians, Romans and Timothy ..

Marriage between man an woman comes from the Old Testament and the New Testament, what is in the prayer book in the Anglican Church are words from the New Testament

Jesus does speak of marriage , Matthew 19.

In view of the royal family whose Queen is the head of the COE and who allowed a member of her own family to marry a divorced person in church a rule that over the years saw many couples denied a church marriage ceremony, my own family included, then there should not be any discrimination against same sex couples wanting a church ceremony.
Maybe her strong willed new granddaughter in law can put in her opinion .

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Well said Leggs55

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Well stated Lollee

And Knickas

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

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.