Marriage

[amateur51]

What a wonderful idea, Jayne!

If lesbians also open their hearts to all manwomankind maybe they could drop their sexism and heterophobia and allow a change of the definition of 'lesbian' to include heterosexual males as well?

Then we can all listen to the Te Deum together whilst thumbing-through our lesbian love-manuals ... ? :smooch:

In a world of his own, for which much thanks :erm:

[amateur51]

You are absolutely wrong, ahinton!

In the course of my working-life I had the pleasure of many friendships with colleagues whom I was told were homosexual (we never discussed our personal 'sexual orientation', that was considered a very private matter).

You are such a fibber scotty. I bet you mention the saintly and patient Mrs scotty every day, many times to your friends and colleagues and thus give a broad outline of your heterosexuality :smiley:

[amateur51]

Marriage has always been defined in terms of a union between a woman and a man. To be legitimate (in English law at least) it requires consummation. Forgive me, but I am not really sure how that can be defined in terms of a female/female union. Would anyone care to explain?

Well if you'ld care to outline your understanding of the term 'consummation' I'd be glad to essay an explanation, Flay :erm:

[Mr Pee]

The Church of England ceased to be relevant to the lives of most citizens of this country many years ago entirely as a result of its own actions.

There are plenty of unpleasant people in the theatre too, as in most walks of life, Mr Pee :winkeye:

I agree, the Church is completely irrelevant. I occasionally go to the Midnight Christmas Eve service, but that's about it. Believe me, I have as little time for the Church as I do for most other minority pressure groups. :whistle:

And I am not sure what you are inferring by your last remark, but I can assure you that the vast majority of my work colleagues do not find me unpleasant; and I have found it hard to think of anybody that I find unpleasant. Just because you and I have opposing views on certain issues does not make either of us unpleasant people. Just different.

And wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all agreed on everything?

[gingerjon]

The point about the C of E being exempt from this legislation

The odd thing about that is that nobody appears to have asked the CofE if they wanted to be exempt. The state church, unique amongst all religions in the UK from Jedi to Jehovah's Witness, has been told that it has no indiviudal conscience. Neither its individual ministers nor its leaders can think on this issue or ask the divine for guidance.

Maria Miller has told them that Anglicans in England cannot marry someone of the same sex in their church.

They'll need to go to Chepstow for that sort of thing.

[amateur51]

The odd thing about that is that nobody appears to have asked the CofE if they wanted to be exempt. The state church, unique amongst all religions in the UK from Jedi to Jehovah's Witness, has been told that it has no indiviudal conscience. Neither its individual ministers nor its leaders can think on this issue or ask the divine for guidance.

Maria Miller has told them that Anglicans in England cannot marry someone of the same sex in their church.

They'll need to go to Chepstow for that sort of thing.

I think the Church in Wales has been told the same thing as the CoE, gingerjon.

Unlike its more staid co-franchise-holder, the Church in Wales has kicked up rough about this impertinence :biggrin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20729354

[gingerjon]

I think the Church in Wales has been told the same thing as the CoE, gingerjon.

Unlike its more staid co-franchise-holder, the Church in Wales has kicked up rough about this impertinence :biggrin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20729354

My apologies. I'd thought that as the Church in Wales wasn't the state faith it would be allowed to make its own mind up.

Oh well. Poor Chepstow, missing out on the rainbow flags.

It looks like All Saints, Gretna then.

[scottycelt]

You are such a fibber scotty. I bet you mention the saintly and patient Mrs scotty every day, many times to your friends and colleagues and thus give a broad outline of your heterosexuality :smiley:

No, Mrs scotty doesn't like football, amsey ...

However, I could be in deep, deep trouble with the appropriate authorities (and Mrs scotty) if I ever tried to deny the very existence of the saintly and patient Mrs scotty ... one shocking criminal offence too far, I fear.

[ahinton]

You are absolutely wrong, ahinton!

In the course of my working-life I had the pleasure of many friendships with colleagues whom I was told were homosexual (we never discussed our personal 'sexual orientation', that was considered a very private matter). The ones I knew all had a rich sense of humour and we had some great laughs, believe me.

So no need to feel sad for me, quite the contrary, and I, in turn, wouldn't wish to appear patronising by expressing any particular sadness for you!

Much more importantly I'm not really that fussed which Bruckner symphony I hear. The wisest comment I ever heard from a music-critic was 'what you consider to be the best Bruckner symphony always seems to be the one you've just listened to ...'

That has been my own happy and wonderful experience, ahinton!

OK, that's fine - but then why refer to "sexist" and "heterophobic" homosexuals as though they have, bt implication, at least, some kind of monopoly on sexist behaviour and phobia of other sexual orientations to their own?

Perhaps you didn't mean to do that, but what you wrote could be taken to read that way...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i am over 65 and by definition have no further interest in such matters; this however had me in tears yesterday and still touches my rib today

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...b_2470899a.jpg

[amateur51]

i am over 65 and by definition have no further interest in such matters; this however had me in tears yesterday and still touches my rib today

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...b_2470899a.jpg

:laugh::laugh:

[ahinton]

I agree, the Church is completely irrelevant. I occasionally go to the Midnight Christmas Eve service, but that's about it. Believe me, I have as little time for the Church as I do for most other minority pressure groups. :whistle:

The Church is far from "irrelevant" per se (as I'm sure you know) but, strictly speaking, "the Church" means not just C of E but C of S, C of W, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and other Christian Churches once known as "non-conformist" as well as mosques, synagogues and the rest, the only difference between C of E and all the others being that it is still deemed to be the "established Church" in England and it is perhaps this if anything that lays it open to the charge of "irrelevance" today.

The point here, however, is that the new legislation on same-sex marriage rights is intended (at least as best I understand it) to be neither binding on any Church nor exonerating of any Church nor in any other way directly related to the practice of any Church; it is separate from the Church (by which I mean all Churches). I accept that the question of whether any Church will be prepared to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies inevitably follows from this new legislation, but that's only because the Church is one organisation that has long conducted wedding ceremonies and it has accordingly to make its own decision on how it will approach, respond to and act in the light of this legislation; I suspect that, in time, it will end up (at least in many if not all Christian Churches) as an agreement in principle to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies with the proviso that no individual bishop or other minister will be obliged by Church rules to do so if he/she raises a legitimate objection.

Although statistics that I have read show that, in countries where same-sex marriage is already legal, there has been a drop in opposite sex marriages, I have no idea, however, whether or not that is mere coincidence, but suspect that it is so because it's far from obvious why the one would or indeed could make any difference to the other except, perhaps, in the case of very small minority of bisexuals to whom such legislation has effectively provided the option of a same-sex or an opposite-sex marriage.

Do bear in mind that the new legislation in UK does merely enables same-sex marriage; it does not make it compulsory. Were it to be seen to undermine opposite-sex marriage over time, one might question the value of opposite-sex marriage in present-day society in that there is nothing in the new legislation to discourage opposite-sex marriage; I am, however, quite certain that it will have no such effect.

[MickyD]

:laugh::laugh:

Matt is by far my favourite cartoonist....his latest in the Telegraph today is well worth a look, too. I have tried in vain to post pictures before within these messages, but being a technophobe, am completely flummoxed as to how to do it.

[Stephen Whitaker]

http://adriansanders.org/why-i-will-be-defending-religious-freedom-and-belief

There has been a lot of ill-informed comment about what churches will be forced by this legislation to do, or not do; the above statement covers most points.

It also points out that pre-election, the Tories put out an equalities statement which was part of their manifesto and referred to consideration of gay marriage.

[Demetrius]

The point about the C of E being exempt from this legislation is that it means this is equality with a very small e, because the rights of gay couples to get married are not the same as heterosexual couples, who can choose a Church wedding if they so wish. So what is the point of this bill? If it's about equality, then it has failed. The difference between a Civil Partnership and a marriage carried out in a registry office or other licensed establishment is really nothing more than semantics.

Living in a place where gay marriage already is somewhat of a reality, there are plenty of aspects to marriage apart from white gowns and church aisles. There are tax benefits / inheritance taxes, adoption rights, alimony, pension benefits, social welfare aspects etc.

A partnership/consortship (love that one) between people of the same sex should involve the same rights and duties as heterosexual partnerships when recognised by the state. Can't see why it should matter whether and how one of the consorts/partners/loving beings penetrates the other in privat circumstances after the act of recognision. The churches should do what ever they want, independently from the state, it's their decision, just as its the decision of the people to be part of the church.

As a matter of fact, the public gets used to it fast. in Germany, 66 % of the people are for gay marriage (not just recognision), up from 52 in 2006. Full on gay marriage will come in Germany as soon as the next leftwing government is in place (say 2021, maybe), possibly earlier; they can enjoy most of the benefits and have to adhere to most of the duties already anyway, so they can afford the wait.

I doubt that the British public will have more difficulties getting used to it.

Although statistics that I have read show that, in countries where same-sex marriage is already legal, there has been a drop in opposite sex marriages; I have no idea, however, whether or not that is mere coincidence, but suspect that it is so because it's far from obvious why the one would or indeed could make any difference to the other except, perhaps, in the case of very small minority of bisexuals to whom such legislation has effectively provided the option of a same-sex or an opposite-sex marriage.

It's more about shrinking away from the duties of it. If you have a very annoying potential father in law who hates you and treats you like a rag, you might have problems regarding paying for his medical care once he needs it and your partner can't afford it.