[MERGED] Poll: Same Sex civil marriages, yes or no.

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes it did and that is precisely why the CofE or any other religion balks at changing the definition or method of marriage The CofE is still and always will be a Christian religion and to remain such must abide by Christian principles and doctrine and that says only men and women can be married

Marty, I think we're arguing from two different points here. We all accept the CofE is allowed to define marriage within it's own faith however it wants and can refuse to perform gay marriages in it's churches.

Do you think however that it should apply to society as a whole, including those who are not members of the CofE or have no faith at all? That's the bit I have a problem with.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

So to recap.

Gay civil marriage wont give you anything different....legally, that you already get under gay civil partnership.

Not true. Civil partnerships in this country are only recognisable in some other countries (even some British overseas territories they would not be counted as partners,) where as marriages would give a gay couple a lot more protection outside of the UK...

So in simple terms under a CP if a partner fell ill whilst on holiday on most countries they would have no rights to decide medical treatment, repatriation and in some countries even simple things such as visiting rights. Where as if they were married (even a same sex marriage) they would be recognised as the spouse in most countries..

It's not just about the UK...

Originally Posted by Damien

The church is free to that view and to enforce it within their church. .

So why should non religious people demand that a religious ceremony be changed ?

.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

and the only reason the C of E accept it is because it is between a man and a woman

[COLOR=Red]and to some it cannot be a marriage unless it is tied to religion in some way

And when it comes to civil marriage, it's not up to them to accept it or not. It's not their call.

The Catholic church does not allow divorce so cannot marry divorcees .

So they're free to refuse to marry divorcees. Just as they will be free to refuse Gays.

Yes it did and that is precisely why the CofE or any other religion balks at changing the definition or method of marriage The CofE is still and always will be a Christian religion and to remain such must abide by Christian principles and doctrine and that says only men and women can be married

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.

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

So why should non religious people demand that a religious ceremony be changed ?

.

But they're not. We've told you umpteen times...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by martyh

So why should non religious people demand that a religious ceremony be changed ?

.

They're not. They're just asking that more options be available.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Don't be so hasty, a member here had a few problems getting married not so long ago...
.

There is a provision for refusal but generally what the bishops say goes

My own view is the should abolish civil marriage for all and make it purely a religious ceremony and call everything else a civil partnership.

My view also ,the hypocrasy of people who go mad for a big church wedding and then never set foot in church again annoys me

Originally Posted by martyh

So why should non religious people demand that a religious ceremony be changed ?

.

Because it's not exclusively a religious ceremony any more, it's a one which is used by people regardless of faith or lack of it. Hence why there is such thing as a civil marriage.

Religious people can still have their own marriage, why should they stop gay people from having their own?

Originally Posted by Damien

Marty, I think we're arguing from two different points here. We all accept the CofE is allowed to define marriage within it's own faith however it wants and can refuse to perform gay marriages in it's churches.

Do you think however that it should apply to society as a whole, including those who are not members of the CofE or have no faith at all? That's the bit I have a problem with.

That's just it though ,strictly speaking they aren't allowed to "define marriage" it is an absolute defined by god .I know that changes have happened but the basic principle has always remained the same ,a union between man and woman .

Do you think however that it should apply to society as a whole, including those who are not members of the CofE or have no faith at all? That's the bit I have a problem with.

Yes it should ,those that are not religious should have no interest in a ceremony held in the presence of a god they don't believe in .As far as civil partnerships are concerned i think they should carry the same right in legal terms as a religious marriage ,which i believe they do ,in this country anyway but should not be referred to as marriages

Originally Posted by martyh

That's just it though ,strictly speaking they aren't allowed to "define marriage" it is an absolute defined by god .I know that changes have happened but the basic principle has always remained the same ,a union between man and woman .

But there are quite a few people that don't believe in a god. The term marriage has entered a general use now that is still applicable for everyone and so we want everyone to have that right. Yes, the term has come from religion and most people don't want to force the change on a religious organisation.

Yes it should ,those that are not religious should have no interest in a ceremony held in the presence of a god they don't believe in .As far as civil partnerships are concerned i think they should carry the same right in legal terms as a religious marriage ,which i believe they do ,in this country anyway but should not be referred to as marriages

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's just it though ,strictly speaking they aren't allowed to "define marriage" it is an absolute defined by god .I know that changes have happened but the basic principle has always remained the same ,a union between man and woman .

They're not redefining marriage. The rest of us are. Redefining civil marriage.

Yes it should ,those that are not religious should have no interest in a ceremony held in the presence of a god they don't believe in .As far as civil partnerships are concerned i think they should carry the same right in legal terms as a religious marriage ,which i believe they do ,in this country anyway but should not be referred to as marriages

But marriage can't be claimed by one religion. What about Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs. Are their marriages not marriages, or are they hypocrites for performing a Christian ritual.

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"

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

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

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 ----------

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

Yes. The Church is not the authoritative voice on what we, as a society, choose to allow. I don't see any reason why their beliefs should be imposed upon everyone, marriage has transcended them alone and we now have civil marriages and people from other faiths who marry. Marriage is for everyone. Their ownership of the term can no longer apply when atheists or people from other faiths can get married without any religious ceremony. Marriage is a state institution as well as a religious one.

However we equally don't want the state telling religious people what to do or what they should believe so as long as it doesn't harm anyone they should be free to do and say as they wish. They can refuse to conduct the ceremonies, they can instruct their clergy that true marriage in the eyes of god is between a man and a woman.

What they cannot do is prevent two gay men or women who don't practise their, or any, religion from having their marriage recognised by the state. Their input into that is the same as everyone else, via the ballot box.

Originally Posted by danielf

But marriage can't be claimed by one religion. What about Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs. Are their marriages not marriages, or are they hypocrites for performing a Christian ritual.

No it can't and isn't .each one has it's own ritual/ceremony which carries it's own meaning but all have one thing in common ,a union between man and woman .

Hardly think a Sikh would perform a Christian ceremony anyway

---------- Post added at 22:50 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes. The Church is not the authoritative voice on what we, as a society, choose to allow. I don't see any reason why their beliefs should be imposed upon everyone, marriage has transcended them alone and we now have civil marriages and people from other faiths who marry. Marriage is for everyone. Their ownership of the term can no longer apply when atheists or people from other faiths can get married without any religious ceremony. Marriage is a state institution as well as a religious one.

However we equally don't want the state telling religious people what to do or what they should believe so as long as it doesn't harm anyone they should be free to do and say as they wish. They can refuse to conduct the ceremonies, they can instruct their clergy that true marriage in the eyes of god is between a man and a woman.

What they cannot do is prevent two gay men or women who don't practise their, or any, religion from having their marriage recognised by the state. Their input into that is the same as everyone else, via the ballot box.

I think we will have agree to disagree on this one .My idea of marriage is between man and woman in the eyes of (insert deity) and is the reason why i am not married ,not an atheist but not a christian ....bit of an inbetweenie me

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it can't and isn't .each one has it's own ritual/ceremony which carries it's own meaning but all have one thing in common ,a union between man and woman .

Hardly think a Sikh would perform a Christian ceremony anyway

And they're all called marriage, just as the secular thing called civil marriage.

Either way: we don't accept that any religion (or religion in general) can claim the term marriage, or its definition. The reality it that there is a secular thing called marriage as well, and secular marriage is set to change. Religious institutions may decide to upgrade their definitions if they want to. If they don't that's fine, but they can't tell us what to do.

Right.Can someone please explain to me the difference between the civil partnership that my daughter went through with my new daughter-in-law in September and the one being proposed by David Cameron?