Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
And when it comes to civil marriage, it's not up to them to accept it or not. It's not their call.
|
It is because of that word "marriage"
Quote:
|
So they're free to refuse to marry divorcees. Just as they will be free to refuse Gays.
|
In principle yes ,but how could refusal to marry divorcees be justified when the top man married the future king and queen ,both divorcees
Quote:
And they're free to do that. They're not free to prescribe to others that don't subscribe to their doctrine what they can and can't do. Trust me. When I got married (which is pretty much a requirement if you want your spouse to be entitled to your pension should you die), there was no religious element. You know why? It's because it wasn't a religious ceremony. And there's no religion that can claim it. It was a secular thing.
|
That's what i disagree with about marriage ,having to do it even if you are not religious .Civil partnerships should be an alternative for non religious people and should be called that ,not a marriage
Quote:
But they're not. We've told you umpteen times... 
|
Yes they are ,ive told you umpteen times
that is what the argument between the government and the church is all about ,if they weren't there would be no argument .To clarify the government want to literally change the definition of marriage .
---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I am really confused now. We're not talking about a religious ceremony inside a church, that isn't on the table. We're talking about a civil ceremony which is called marriage.
|
Your confusion is understandable ,to a catholic a civil ceremony is not a marriage ,as was the case with the CofE untill earlier this century and is still the view of many religious people of any faith ,calling it marriage does not make it a marriage except in law of course