same sex marriage-in church

Gonegirl if this or any discussion is for the super intelligent it counts me out ?

I have been a witness for a Civil Partnership and for a same sex marriage but not in a church

Well I’ve attended many weddings both civil and religious and have found that the relevant factors are the attitude and approach of the two people and the celebrant that honour the ceremony

I'm off to be fabulous now too.

Perhaps the church wedding honours the marriage ceremony. I think it does.

Well, anyway. It gives it more beauty. And something beautiful is always going to be a good starting point.

As a committed atheist, I have no issues with any ‘what if’. But I really take issue with the idea that getting married in church gives the occasion ‘more weight’. What gives a marriage ceremony weight is the thought, commitment, maturity, affection, love, friendship, respect and care that each brings to the act - not whether it’s a parish church, cathedral, castle, hotel , whatever - in fact if a marriage needs ‘weight’ from the place where it takes place, I would suggest that marriage is off to a dodgy start.

abbey

I think you are baitposting, honey, and trying to get someone to take the bait over "gays is rong ohhh noeee".

I think that's a futile endeavour, but if you want to talk about your feelings about gay people, you go right ahead and keep busy. I really don't think anyone will take offence. Honestly, we really have heard it all before.

Off to be fabulous

I'm not sure you even need to have been christened these days. The churches need the money a wedding brings in.

A lot of people like to marry in a church. It gives the occasion more weight, and in many people's minds there is the uncertainty. The 'What If?'

AB are you saying, "sign up or shut up"?

Oh! So this "debate" is only for the ones who see themselves as super-intelligent? Well. That's new.

abbey my comment about leaving the discussion did not concern the content of the debate (to which I 've contributed often in the past).
I was/am far more concerned about the poor level of debate from a few posters, which I think renders the whole discussion useless and a waste of my time.
Off out now.

All I am saying is - if a member of a church you can speak out as we did over women priests in the Anglican Church , if not a member why should it be of concern.

And I'm sure you are now going to say they are already thinking about it. Right.

No! Of course not! Just saying they might start a bit of a think tank on the subject. Perhaps even open up their minds a bit.

So force Churches to carry out a marriage ceremony?

hasn't. Not has

What, and all, I'm saying is that maybe the Church should be allowing gay couples to marry in church because "God" might NOT be the dyed-in-the-wool narrow minded old geezer that current church leaders seem to think he is.

How does anyone know that this God of the bible (Old Testament) has been written up quite wrongly by the priests of the time. Just made into a god of their liking.

abbey

Do you realise that it maybe Pauline Christianity you have to thank for the origins of the feminist movement and all that freedom and equality you have now?

So I just imagined centuries of the Church controlling women’s bodies and thus their health, lives, opportunities, freedom, equality? Silly me

I would like to tell Paul where to stick his rules.

This is wide of the point of this thread, but I will throw it in because you might just want to consider what you say and inform yourself first.

Do you realise that it maybe Pauline Christianity you have to thank for the origins of the feminist movement and all that freedom and equality you have now?

Paul was amongst the first to allow women into teaching in the Church - yes he gave rules but he did not bar them. This followed from Jesus who also allowed women a place in his follower ship. Something pretty unique at the time.

If religions had not condemned the many diversities of sex in the first place, we would now be accepting of those shades of sexuality.

Maybe religions took their stance because they could see in their communities that such diversities of sex caused considerable harm and hurt to many people? As you say diversity has existed always. It has also had its share of problems.

Maybe they devised a set of rules which they believed protected themselves and others who might accept their rules from that pain, hurt and harm?

Are their ideas really so awful?

Now if I start going into detail I may offend..... besides its nearly six o clock and I have to leave for work. By the way, I will not be back to this probably before tomorrow ( or late tonight). I am working all day and wont be anywhere near a computer that I can use for this during the day.

Moving with the times just means accepting what should have been seen as normal and natural in the first place.

This of course is the other sixty four thousand dollar question - is it?

"I'll leave you your 'discussion'"

That is the problem - too many people leave the discussion when someone throws their red herring views in - so the real debate is never allowed. What is happening here at this moment ( since I went to bed last night) is the equivalent of
"No platforming" in universities.

The reality is, we do not all share one view. I am happy to hear both sides but I am also happy to present the case that others are afraid to do.

As long as the civil and criminal law of this country does not discriminate against people for being gay, or deprive gay people of the same rights to form families as straight people have always enjoyed, the position of religious communities is not relevant to the lives of gay people.

And it does not, so what is your problem ( I said this previously). In reality, same sex marriage in churches is something for Christian believers to sort out and for those who do not have such a commitment to stay out of.

The fact is that the Christian tradition has a set of beliefs about behaviour, anyone ( anyone) who trangresses those is breaking the faith. This was recognised by the state when they set the quadrupple lock that meant the marriage act in law did not have to apply to Churches ( or any faith). Homosexuals can be married. No one is discriminating or making their behaviour criminal.

But surely everyone is allowed an opinion - or are we back to that position that no one is allowed an opinion or a belief that does not accord with what you ( or in the case of the church the progressives) think? The kid of attitude and intolerance to views of others has not gone away has it? It has just shifted focus it seems in this thread now.

If religions had not condemned the many diversities of sex in the first place, we would now be accepting of those shades of sexuality.

Moving with the times just means accepting what should have been seen as normal and natural in the first place.

abbey Yes. That's what I thought you meant about the eunuchs.