same sex marriage-in church

Well done dizzy!

You have displayed your ignorance and intolerance about human beings who are gay on this thread and cast slurs on my friends and family’s characters so I think we are probably even. I am very sad that you are happy to remain in such a state of mind.

Years ago divorcees were frowned upon and a cause of great shame to families. How times have changed! We need to treat people lovingly and with acceptance.

There are brothers and sisters in this country living together as man and wife, they love each other , do we accept this?

Working my way through this thread, I've come to anniebach's point that the church should respect the views of its members. That brought me up short because I wouldn't say The Church has traditionally respected the views of its members; it has told them what they should think and believe.

Back to where I was....

lollee's input is interesting.

I think there is a desire in some quarters for couples who are not married, but who have obviously committed to bringing their offspring up together as if they were married, to have legal recognition of their rights should the relationship break down that is equal to divorcing couples.

I think incest is still regarded as wrong, annieb. It is something other animals avoid too.

That's quite a jump Anniebach I would think those couples are a just a small minority.
I wouldn't think marriage is or should be possible in that case. However provided they don't have children I'm not sure we should interfere.

Actually animals don't avoid incest Baggs they would mate with any of their family given the opportunity.

Sodapop was it such a jump, it is against the law, so was homosexuality until 1967

Baggs animals no not avoid it

According to my zoologist husband, many animals do, annie.

It is most common in animals who associate in relatively small social groups, sich as chimpanzees and wolves. In both cases, as the young mature sexually, one sex, and only one (males in chimps) is driven out of the group and so forced to find sexual partners in other groups than their own.

In animals in large social groups, like wildebeest for example, it isn't necessary as the likelihood of sexual encounters with one's own kin is far less.

Anyway, the point is that incest among humans is known to be not a good idea (think Hapsburgs) and is therefore 'frowned upon'.

I don't think one can judge by domesticated animals and pets as their 'natural' behaviour has been interfered with for a very long time. Their opportunities are usually limited too, which probably makes a difference.

None of my AC or GC are gay or show any tendencies in that direction. That seems somewhat fortunate for you and them GabriellaG !!

Yes Baggs but you did say ‘it is something other animals avoid’ thank you for explaining you meant ‘some other animals avoid.

It is a bit of a jump to compare incest with homosexuality. Incest is rightly against the law to protect children who may be the victims of incest or the result of incest. Genetically, incest is not a good thing for the human race. Surely no one would want to see it made legal.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is now legal and rightly so. There is no need for it to be a guilty secret like illegitimacy once was. I find it incredible that anyone would say that he/she has no contact with any gay people. I would not blame their family members from keeping it very quiet indeed if they did have “tendencies in that direction”.

Incest was frowned upon because of a) the potential for abuse and b) the increased chances of ill health of offspring.
Cousins are able to legally marry but are advised to have genetic counselling I believe.

I suspect that incestuous relationships have been happening at similar rates for generations. If it is genuinely a mutually equal relationship then no harm.
No historic records so nobody will 'know' how common it is..

Illegitimacy has never been illegal, homosexuality was until 1967 which is why it was a secret,

annie, as you point out, what I said was "It is something other animals avoid too." The sentence does not include the word "all", therefore it refers to "some". It would be quite hard to formulate a statement about all animals that said anything more than that they are all animals.

Anyway, I'm glad you now understand what I meant ?

Were I to talk about "other people" it is very doubtful actually pretty much impossible that I would mean "all other people". In the same way I was not talking about all other animals.

I know very few gay or lesbian people but would have no problem being with either (why should i they are only people after all) My difficulty is with the wording husband and wife. Ii always strikes me as strange when a woman refers to her female partner as a wife and a male as to his male partner as a husband. I believe people of all genders can truly love another person whatever their sex but think the word husband and wife should only relate to a married man and woman and that different words should be used for men and women who are married to someone of the same sex.

Doodle Perhaps there is a case for using the old word "spouse" for any wife/husband in such a relationship?

((Warning - flippancy alert for the next bit) Someone I know suggested using "partner", but to differentiate spouses in gay relationships from those in lesbian ones, the gay ones could change the first letter, gay partners to a G and lesbian ones to an L, giving gartner or lartner. Then he suggested doing the same with the word "spouse", but I don't think he had foreseen the resulting words.

Elegran ?

I think I have a problem with same sex marriages, not for religious reasons or any problems with homosexuality, but because I am a traditionalist, at the Alter a man and a woman, I felt the same when Megan Markle walked down the aisle in her own, !

If a religious couple in a loving relationship want their union blessed and formalised by their place of worship it seems a poor reflection on that religion's god.