Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[umslopogaas]

Surely this is very simple? If you want to get married in church, you should a priori accept the teachings of that church. If you dont, get married in a registry office, which will give you all the benefits of civil marriage. If you want to get married in a church, but dont accept its teachings, I think you are confused.

I'm single, by the way, but not gay. I just need a lot of free space around me.

And I'm not religious, either.

Dont bother me for a bit, I need to sharpen my battle axe.

[scottycelt]

And you don't have an agenda? The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have an agenda? Who the hell are "the rest of us"?

Well, of course we all tend to have 'agendas', even including, heaven forbid, yourself, but a radical agenda is of quite a different order from that which simply wishes to retain the status-quo. Why should I or anyone else change the traditional definition of 'marriage' just because it fits in with your own radical agenda?

As for your last point, maybe it would be advisable to read all the posts on this thread before pointlessly asking why any word or phrase includes quotation marks ... ?

[rank_and_file]

The Telegraph leader addresses the thread rather more from the political dimension:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9145917/A-marriage-proposal-fraught-with-pitfalls.html

And all to stop voters witholding a vote from the "nasty" party. Still, what is one to expect from an out of touch ex PR man?

[jayne lee wilson]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the heterosexuals here can't see the hostility beneath what reads like a miniature pulpit rant; the very language of Magnificat's initial post is almost like a verse from a biblical text - except for the flippant conclusions to its two clauses. It's the language itself, the tone of it that makes it feel so prickly to anyone who has suffered from the physical or verbal expression of a prejudice. Perhaps a lifetime of such experiences does indeed make you over-sensitive, or thin-skinned; but those prejudices, whether sexual, racial or cultural, go on existing in the subtext of everyday life and conversation.

I would only remark further that Magnificat never replied to my question. So often, in my experience, it's the close, affecting encounter with the human object of your prejudice that can, and does change your feelings. It even changes the world sometimes, and usually for the better, which is why someone like Peter Tatchell is so heroic.

The public consultation has started so what does this forum think?

To me it is straightforward. Marriage can only ever be for heterosexuals not homosexuals it always has been and always should be and my wife is my wife and I am her husband not 'parties to our marriage' as the gays apparently want us to be known; and I am the father and she is the mother of our children not Progeniter1 and Progeniter 2 thank you very much.

[John Skelton]

Well, of course we all tend to have 'agendas', even including, heaven forbid, yourself, but a radical agenda is of quite a different order from that which simply wishes to retain the status-quo. Why should I or anyone else change the traditional definition of 'marriage' just because it fits in with your own radical agenda?

As for your last point, maybe it would be advisable to read all the posts on this thread before pointlessly asking why any word or phrase includes quotation marks ... ?

Exactly what agenda do I have? What does same-sex marriage have to do with a "radical agenda"?

By the "rest of us" you mean heterosexuals? Well I'm heterosexual, and whatever "us" you are is nothing to do with me.

The status quo? Like the abolition of slavery went against the status quo? Like the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 went against the status quo? The factory acts? Property rights for women in marriage? Votes for women? The 1967 Sexual Offences Act? Any of that lot OK? The second one, perhaps?

[Magnificat]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the heterosexuals here can't see the hostility beneath what reads like a miniature pulpit rant; the very language of Magnificat's initial post is almost like a verse from a biblical text - except for the flippant conclusions to its two clauses. It's the language itself, the tone of it that makes it feel so prickly to anyone who has suffered from the physical or verbal expression of a prejudice. Perhaps a lifetime of such experiences does indeed make you over-sensitive, or thin-skinned; but those prejudices, whether sexual, racial or cultural, go on existing in the subtext of everyday life and conversation.

I would only remark further that Magnificat never replied to my question. So often, in my experience, it's the close, affecting encounter with the human object of your prejudice that can, and does change your feelings. It even changes the world sometimes, and usually for the better, which is why someone like Peter Tatchell is so heroic.

jayne,

I am certainly not homophobic as anyone who reads my posts on The Choir board will tell you.

I worship at St Albans Abbey and have the greatest respect for Jeffrey John a brilliant theologian who has suffered greatly for his sexual orientation and whom I personally congratulated on his civil partnership a few years ago. The Cof E haven't been prepared to make him a Bishop but could redeem itself at a stroke by making him Archbishop of Canterbury!

But as Scotty -Celt said above why do the homosexual community want to hijack the institution of Marriage?. It is not meant for their relationships which is why I framed my original question as I did

I personally have no objection to homosexual couples having their loving relationships blessed in church and in the sight of God and hope churches will eventually see that this should be so.

On a wider note, the real problem, it seems to me, with this whole equality debate is that we have replaced one injustice with another in that we now,at least in the public sphere, have State imposed morality which is just as bad as any prejudice that the homosexual community has suffered. Will the religious State - school teacher who in conscience is not prepared to tell his/her pupils when the law is changed ( as it will be because this consultation is phoney - the decision has been made ) that it is right that two men or two women can be married be punished by losing their jobs as has happened in other situations concerning homosexual equality?

There are,of course, already inequalities existing regarding marriage and civil partnerships that will remain after the law is changed eg two heterosexuals will still not be able to have a civil partnership and what about the Table of Kindred and Affinities which governs marriage because of the effects on any children of the union - will this give rise to challenges?

This whole question of re - defining marriage will create a minefield of test cases.

You will note that I do not use the term 'gay' This is because I also object to the hijacking of this lovely old English word by the homosexual community. Nothing to do. I hasten to add, with the fact that I happen to have been born on The Sabbath Day!!

[jayne lee wilson]

Sorry, but I don't quite follow your paragraph beginning "on a wider note" where you say that teachers will lose their jobs for refusing to explain to pupils about the possible change to the law... and that something similar has already happened...?!

A for "hijacking this lovely old English word"... isn't it rather its current meaning that makes you uncomfortable? Aren't you (subtext again) setting off gay sexuality and identity as a threat against "lovely old" English things? Weren't heroes like Oscar Wilde or Quentin Crisp lovely and English, not to mention thousands of unsung, beaten-up heroes. Why not just use "gay" anyway for the bright feelings you wish to evoke, and tell people that many words have more than one meaning! You could try to embrace the world with it and be less exclusive...

It wasn't that long ago that BBC newsreaders would pronounce "hOmOsexual" with that emphasis on the "O"; it really did feel like an admonishment... there are plenty of worse terms, but rather few positive or neutral ones.

[Pabmusic]

...Weren't heroes like Oscar Wilde or Quentin Crisp lovely and English, not to mention thousands of unsung, beaten-up heroes...

Oscar Wilde, of course, was Irish. I don't see that he was a 'hero', either. A victim, certainly and tragically.

You will note that I do not use the term 'gay' This is because I also object to the hijacking of this lovely old English word by the homosexual community...

As for the "lovely old English word" that Magnificat speaks of, 'gay' had acquired sexual connotations by the mid-17th Century, when a 'gay woman', 'gay man" and 'gay house' were euphemisms for a prostitute, her dissolute client, and a brothel. No doubt this was a development of the 'carefree' meaning of gay. The present meaning is clearly an extension of this, and appears in print in the 1920s, though it was almost certainly in use colloquially before then. Noel Coward and Cole Porter both use it in songs in the usual 'modern' sense as does Cary Grant in Bringing up Baby (1938). So not exactly 'hijacking'.

[Vile Consort]

Can somebody please explain what the difference is between a marriage and a civil partnership?

The only difference my research has turned up is the that the civil partner of a knight doesn't get a title, whereas the wife of one does (but the husband of a dame doesn't, I believe).

[Op. XXXIX]

Can somebody please explain what the difference is between a marriage and a civil partnership?

Not really sure about that myself. Anyone?

[John Skelton]

which is just as bad as any prejudice that the homosexual community has suffered.

Do you seriously believe that, Magnificat? As bad as this http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2499249.stm, for instance?

You will note that I do not use the term 'gay' This is because I also object to the hijacking of this lovely old English word by the homosexual community. Nothing to do. I hasten to add, with the fact that I happen to have been born on The Sabbath Day!!

I think that's silly. Or perhaps I don't .

http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dic/oed/silly/silly.html

[scottycelt]

Not really sure about that myself. Anyone?

The main difference would appear to be that marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil partnership between homosexuals of either sex. Those terms make logical sense as 'marriage' indicates a union of separate identities whilst 'partnership' does suggest a degree of party similarity. Dave & Toffs (now eagerly supported by MrGG, Amsey, etc ) wish to change this so that homosexuals can 'marry' but heterosexuals are to be barred from having a 'civil partnership'. Reasonable? Equitable? Fair?

Maybe we'll now have to change the dictionary definition of those words as well ...

[John Skelton]

heterosexuals are to be barred from having a 'civil partnership'.Reasonable? Equitable? Fair?Maybe we'll now have to change the dictionary definition of those words as well ...

You've long been an advocate of civil partnerships in such a context, have you scottycelt? That's very progressive of you.

[David Underdown]

Legally, the major difference is that a marriage must be consummated in order to be valid. There is no such requirement on a civil partnership

[scottycelt]

You've long been an advocate of civil partnerships in such a context, have you scottycelt? That's very progressive of you.

No, as you well know, but I'm now looking at the matter through purely secular eyes, which I'd have thought you might have appreciated.

I also note that you obviously don't give one jot for equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals under the law, if these plans go ahead ...