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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by danielf

Except that the latest suggestions are for exactly what the poll is about. Opening up civil marriage to gay couples. It's not about forcing religious institutions to open up their marriage to same sex couples (though they be free to do so if they wanted).

So to recap.

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

So it's semantics, just call it a marriage then. It's really a non-debate.

Those that object that a "marriage" can only be between a man and a women need to worry about more important things.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

So to recap.

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

So it's semantics, just call it a marriage then. It's really a non-debate.

Those that object that a "marriage" can only be between a man and a women need to worry about more important things.

Spot on. It's all about making a statement for the sake of making a statement.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

So to recap.

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

So it's semantics, just call it a marriage then. It's really a non-debate.

Those that object that a "marriage" can only be between a man and a women need to worry about more important things.

Yes, basically it is just semantics. The only thing that needs to be made sure is that religious institutions get the right, in law, to refuse to marry same sex couples, and that is exactly what is being proposed.

Originally Posted by danielf

Except that the latest suggestions are for exactly what the poll is about. Opening up civil marriage to gay couples. It's not about forcing religious institutions to open up their marriage to same sex couples (though they be free to do so if they wanted).

but it is about getting it recognised as a marriage ,which is ultimately a religious thing and something the church is against because it changes the definition of marriage which as far as the church is concerned was defined by god not acts of parliament.There are no major legal changes between civil partnerships or civil marriages, but there is a massive religious one .If this goes through then C of E churches will ultimately be forced to allow same sex marriages in churches simply because they already allow civil partnerships to be blessed in church .Cameron is treading a very thin tight rope with this one and imo it will all boil down to the definition of marriage

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Spot on. It's all about making a statement for the sake of making a statement.

For some maybe but there are plenty of religious gay people who want a marriage ,whether or not they can actually have a marriage as defined by God is debatable and a whole topic on it's own

Originally Posted by martyh

but it is about getting it recognised as a marriage ,which is ultimately a religious thing and something the church is against because it changes the definition of marriage which as far as the church is concerned was defined by god not acts of parliament.There are no major legal changes between civil partnerships or civil marriages, but there is a massive religious one .If this goes through then C of E churches will ultimately be forced to allow same sex marriages in churches simply because they already allow civil partnerships to be blessed in church .Cameron is treading a very thin tight rope with this one and imo it will all boil down to the definition of marriage

Again. The Government has said the bill will not force them to marry people. This will be a civil marriage recognised by the state not the church.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

but it is about getting it recognised as a marriage ,which is ultimately a religious thing and something the church is against because it changes the definition of marriage which as far as the church is concerned was defined by god not acts of parliament.There are no major legal changes between civil partnerships or civil marriages, but there is a massive religious one .If this goes through then C of E churches will ultimately be forced to allow same sex marriages in churches simply because they already allow civil partnerships to be blessed in church .Cameron is treading a very thin tight rope with this one and imo it will all boil down to the definition of marriage

No we're talking about civil marriage which is not a religious thing. The church (any church) has no claim on civil marriage, and it's not up to them to decide who can enter into civil marriage. What they can claim is their own marriage, and they are free to offer that to whoever they wish. They will not be forced to marry anyone. Incidentally, I was watching C4 News earlier, where someone was pointing out that it's no different to current laws regarding marrying divorcees. Civil marriage is open to divorcees, but churches are free to deny them their marriage. The same will apply to gay couples.

Originally Posted by danielf

No we're talking about civil marriage which is not a religious thing. The church (any church) has no claim on civil marriage, and it's not up to them to decide who can enter into civil marriage. What they can claim is their own marriage, and they are free to offer that to whoever they wish. They will not be forced to marry anyone. Incidentally, I was watching C4 News earlier, where someone was pointing out that it's no different to current laws regarding marrying divorcees. Civil marriage is open to divorcees, but churches are free to deny them their marriage. The same will apply to gay couples.

It is irrelevant whether we are talking about civil or religious marriage ,they are marriages ,as far as the church is concerned there is only one definition and no such thing as a civil marriage it is impossible .Religion has ultimate claim on marriage ,the government are seeking to redefine the word and remove the religious meaning

but churches are free to deny them their marriage. The same will apply to gay couples

I think you will be hard pushed to find a C of E church that will refuse divorcees since the Synod made it 100% clear in a statement at the time of charles and camillas wedding that divorcees are allowed to be married in church

The C of E's main argument is that over the last few centuries they have allowed the religious importance and definition of marriage to be diluted to such an extent that many people do not even see it as having any religious meaning Now that Cameron wants to allow same sex marriage (being "civil" is irrelevant) it removes the religious meaning for all those who got married for religious reasons

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by martyh

It is irrelevant whether we are talking about civil or religious marriage ,they are marriages ,as far as the church is concerned there is only one definition and no such thing as a civil marriage it is impossible .Religion has ultimate claim on marriage ,the government are seeking to redefine the word and remove the religious meaning



I think you will be hard pushed to find a C of E church that will refuse divorcees since the Synod made it 100% clear in a statement at the time of charles and camillas wedding that divorcees are allowed to be married in church

The C of E's main argument is that over the last few centuries they have allowed the religious importance and definition of marriage to be diluted to such an extent that many people do not even see it as having any religious meaning Now that Cameron wants to allow same sex marriage (being "civil" is irrelevant) it removes the religious meaning for all those who got married for religious reasons

i wonder what percentage of married people did it for religious reasons ?

Originally Posted by martyh

It is irrelevant whether we are talking about civil or religious marriage ,they are marriages ,as far as the church is concerned there is only one definition and no such thing as a civil marriage it is impossible .Religion has ultimate claim on marriage ,the government are seeking to redefine the word and remove the religious meaning



I think you will be hard pushed to find a C of E church that will refuse divorcees since the Synod made it 100% clear in a statement at the time of charles and camillas wedding that divorcees are allowed to be married in church

The C of E's main argument is that over the last few centuries they have allowed the religious importance and definition of marriage to be diluted to such an extent that many people do not even see it as having any religious meaning Now that Cameron wants to allow same sex marriage (being "civil" is irrelevant) it removes the religious meaning for all those who got married for religious reasons

Funnily enough, my current wife and I couldn't get married in a CofE church in the 80's, because we were both previously divorced....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

It is irrelevant whether we are talking about civil or religious marriage ,they are marriages ,as far as the church is concerned there is only one definition and no such thing as a civil marriage it is impossible .Religion has ultimate claim on marriage ,the government are seeking to redefine the word and remove the religious meaning

I think it is very relevant. The time that the church can tell the rest of us what we can and can't do is past us. We have a civil marriage for a reason, which is that it's not tied to a religion.

I think you will be hard pushed to find a C of E church that will refuse divorcees since the Synod made it 100% clear in a statement at the time of charles and camillas wedding that divorcees are allowed to be married in church

As far as I know, the whole raison d'etre of the CoE is to allow divorce and remarrying, but that's not the point. Individual churches are free to refuse to marry divorcees. Presumably, the Catholic Church does.

The C of E's main argument is that over the last few centuries they have allowed the religious importance and definition of marriage to be diluted to such an extent that many people do not even see it as having any religious meaning Now that Cameron wants to allow same sex marriage (being "civil" is irrelevant) it removes the religious meaning for all those who got married for religious reasons

Marriage existed before the CoE. The CoE exists because the monarch wanted to change the rules on marriage. Now the rest of us are telling the CoE that we are changing the rule by which we are playing, because we think their rules are outdated. They can join, or not, it's up to them. What they can't do is tell us that we can't change our rules.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think it is very relevant. The time that the church can tell the rest of us what we can and can't do is past us. We have a civil marriage for a reason, which is that it's not tied to a religion.



As far as I know, the whole raison d'etre of the CoE is to allow divorce and remarrying, but that's not the point. Individual churches are free to refuse to marry divorcees. Presumably, the Catholic Church does.



Marriage existed before the CoE. The CoE exists because the monarch wanted to change the rules on marriage. Now the rest of us are telling the CoE that we are changing the rule by which we are playing, because we think their rules are outdated. They can join, or not, it's up to them. What they can't do is tell us that we can't change our rules.

yay you take your church back Christian soldier

Originally Posted by Hugh

Funnily enough, my current wife and I couldn't get married in a CofE church in the 80's, because we were both previously divorced....

I'd put a years wage that you wouldn't get refused now though.

Originally Posted by martyh

It is irrelevant whether we are talking about civil or religious marriage ,they are marriages ,as far as the church is concerned there is only one definition and no such thing as a civil marriage it is impossible .Religion has ultimate claim on marriage ,the government are seeking to redefine the word and remove the religious meaning

The church is free to that view and to enforce it within their church. Why should they impose it on people who don't even share their religion? This is where I feel the crux of the issue lies. The Church of England and the wider Catholic Church view marriage as a religion insituation, which it was/is, and view it as the Government is taking it away from them. Others view marriage as something which had it's beginnings in religion but has become part of society and encompasses everyone regardless of their faith or lack of it. So we want marriage to apply to gay people too, because who does it harm? There isn't a good enough justification to withhold this right from people.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

I'd put a years wage that you wouldn't get refused now though.

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

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.

Originally Posted by danielf

I think it is very relevant. The time that the church can tell the rest of us what we can and can't do is past us. We have a civil marriage for a reason, which is that it's not tied to a religion.
.

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

and to some it cannot be a marriage unless it is tied to religion in some way

As far as I know, the whole raison d'etre of the CoE is to allow divorce and remarrying, but that's not the point. Individual churches are free to refuse to marry divorcees. Presumably, the Catholic Church does.

Henry's "act of supremacy"(which separated the catholic and CofE) was booted out and replaced twice, in the end we have a mix of catholic and reformist doctrines.

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

Marriage existed before the CoE. The CoE exists because the monarch wanted to change the rules on marriage. Now the rest of us are telling the CoE that we are changing the rule by which we are playing, because we think their rules are outdated. They can join, or not, it's up to them. What they can't do is tell us that we can't change our rules.

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

The Church‟s understanding of marriage
1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of
doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not
just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one
woman.
2. The Church of England's understanding of marriage as a lifelong union between one man
and one woman is derived from the Scriptures and enshrined within its authorised liturgy.
According to the Common Worship marriage service (derived from the Book of Common
Prayer of 1662):