same sex marriage-in church

Religion and place of worship is the choice of the individual l

There has to be compassion. To call homosexuality an "aberration" and "disgusting" can't be right. I don't believe it is a lifestyle that anyone chooses. If it's there, it's there. Probably no-one's business but the people concerned.

As for marriage in church, I think that should be decided in individual cases by the vicar/priest/minister. They know the people concerned. Decision should be theirs.

I think the earlier post comparing incest to homosexuality is repugnant. Incest is a horrible, both moral and legal crime. Homosexuality is a natural state of being, is neither morally reprehensible or illegal. It is a ridiculous and offensive comparison

Incest is always wrong imo. I have never come across a situation where it could be called a loving, equal relationship. It take a simple view, it's wrong because it poses huge threats to children and because of the risk of birth defects. Families where incest is part of family tradition have even more emotional/psychological difficulties than those where incest isn't present.

I mentioned incest, it is against the law and homosexuality was against the law, this is all I meant.

I understand that Annie, you made the point the law about homosexuality has changed.
Another poster mentioned that providing an incestuous relationship was consensual, it harmed no one else. That created an image of the brother and sister type relationship you'd mentioned, one that seems loving and kind. It may have been wiser to say nothing but my experience of incestuous relationships (via work) has never been positive.

If you believe in a God then he / she created homosexuals so why would they be created if they were to be denied a right to a normal life It may not be normal to us but it is normal to how their bodies were made

God didn’t creat homosexuals, didn’t creat saints or sinners,

If one believes in a deity the deity will have created human beings; people! Those people subsequently set the rules and interpreted and 'spun' 'holy' words to suit their own opinions! In Christianity I feel Paul was the absolute worst for that!

And created all involved in brexit, the leavers and remainders ?

When I think of the lives of homosexuals before the law changed, for many it was a miserable existence, living in fear of their sexuality becoming known. Living a lie, often in a marriage, afraid of being disowned by family, of losing a job, and the strain frequently driving people to suicide. Surely whatever ones views about homosexuality, it is better to live in a society where gay people are not discriminated against but afforded similar rights as others. As to church weddings, I can't understand why gay people would want to marry in a church that rejected them purely on the grounds of sexual orientation, but if the church agrees to marry gay couples surely ministers who don't wish to carry out the ceremony can't be forced to do this with a gun to their heads?

I so agree *Lazigirl” q

I have no problem with homosexuals and if homosexuals want to marry they should be able to. If a church will marry them that is fine and I wish them all the luck in the world. Love and harmony are to be treasured.

I think the clergy have to be lead by their leaders. In time I am sure gay people will be able to marry in church. It will take time. We live in times where social norms are changing at a rapid pace.

The Methodist convention has just decided that they do not support gay marriage or homosexual acts ( note the emphasis on behaviour and act).

By definition marriage isn't about any love, it is about love which includes a sexual act, that is the act of consummation of a marriage. It is part of the process of procreation which is also impostant in marriage.

It was said that they believed that when they have to choose between cultural Christianity and the Biblical Christianity they have to stand by the Bible. The Bible is clear on the definition of marriage - it is between one man and one woman and it is lifelong in commitment.
The Bible condemns homosexual acts in several places.

You either believe or you don't - don't shoot the messenger.

It's that bit where the vicar says "Marriage is firstly for the procreation of children". You see, I have always believed that. But now I think it is probably wrong.

The bible says "an eye for an eye", but we realised some time ago that there is more to justice than that. So we can't really give the bible that much credence. Perhaps the Church needs to do some more thinking.

Sorry but what has ‘an eye for an eye’ to do with this?

Just an example of how we can't necessarily give credence to all that is in the bible.

That is in the bible isn't it? Didn't Jesus say it? I dunno. [shrug]

Sorry but I still don’t understand Gonegirl

Oh shoot! Jesus was actually against it!

" Matthew (5:38-42) in the New Testament, Jesus repudiates even that notion. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The bible says "an eye for an eye", but we realised some time ago that there is more to justice than that. So we can't really give the bible that much credence. Perhaps the Church needs to do some more thinking.

The Biblical view of an eye for an eye is actually a recognition that punishment should be equal to the crime. It is a law of limitation. It means that no one should be allowed to take more than they have had taken.

However, it has nothing to do with marriage at all.

Oh scrub that! I'll get back to me book.

I know it's got nothing to do with marriage!!! I tried to explain what I meant.