Gay Marriage - The Vote

[nwgull]

I can never see the point of marriage anyway unless it's for your religious beliefs. Anyone give me a reason?

 

[T soprano]

Try this one.

If you believe in God, you will believe that he made man and woman. You will further believe that the reason for marriage is to create a holy union to be blessed with children.

Whilst I can understand the need for some pairs of blokes or women to show their devotion for one another in a civil
partnership, surely what they do has nothing to do with the intentions of a Christian marriage?

Im with this guy

 

[Frutos]

Try this one.

If you believe in God, you will believe that he made man and woman. You will further believe that the reason for marriage is to create a holy union to be blessed with children.

Whilst I can understand the need for some pairs of blokes or women to show their devotion for one another in a civil partnership, surely what they do has nothing to do with the intentions of a Christian marriage?

Marriage isn't a religious thing though.

A heterosexual couple can have a registry office wedding, by that name, free of any religious context whatsoever, and enjoy the legal benefits and standing of marriage, yet a homosexual couple cannot. That is wrong.

I totally agree with the right of religious groups not to conduct gay marriages on their premises if it goes against their belief systems, however it is not their right or business to interfere with or influence anything which goes on beyond the aforesaid premises.

 

[pork pie]

The problem is that "civil partnership" is not marriage, it is set aside as being something special for gay people because they can't have marriage. It creates, for lack of a better term, a class system. Gay couples aren't married like straight people, just "civil partners". Allowing prejudices to persist because "their union isn't like a proper marriage".

Marriage is older than record. It isn't intrinsically linked to any religion, and each religion has their own rules and rituals. Legalising gay marriage is not interfering with religion, refusing to legalise it on religious grounds is religion interfering with law.

What the f*** are you banging on about. It is about the state (law) trying to impose something on the Church. If the state wish to let gays get married, then they should only be able to allow a civil wedding to be legislated for.

Call me Dave has no mandate to push this through, and he is out of order trying.

 

[The Large One]

Try this one.

If you believe in God, you will believe that he made man and woman. You will further believe that the reason for marriage is to create a holy union to be blessed with children.

Whilst I can understand the need for some pairs of blokes or women to show their devotion for one another in a civil partnership, surely what they do has nothing to do with the intentions of a Christian marriage?

Are all marriages (in this country - and I use that for the purposes of this argument) Christian? No.

 

[terryberry1]

I can never see the point of marriage anyway unless it's for your religious beliefs. Anyone give me a reason?

To have a nice honeymoon innit

 

[T soprano]

Im with this guy

No I'm not now , he's getting a bit of stick
I'm gonna jump back on the fence instead

 

[pork pie]

Marriage isn't a religious thing though.

A heterosexual couple can have a registry office wedding, by that name, free of any religious context whatsoever, and enjoy the legal benefits and standing thereof, yet a homosexual couple cannot. That is wrong.

I totally agree with the right of religious groups not to conduct gay marriages on their premises if it goes against their belief systems, however it is not their right or business to interfere with or influence anything which goes on beyond the aforesaid premises.

I agree, my comments are only intended to be about church weddings.

 

[The Large One]

What the f*** are you banging on about. It is about the state (law) trying to impose something on the Church. If the state wish to let gays get married, then they should only be able to allow a civil wedding to be legislated for.

Then the same should be for heterosexual couples too.

Marriage isn't exclusive to the Church, you know.

 

[pork pie]

Are all marriages (in this country - and I use that for the purposes of this argument) Christian? No.

If they wish to change the name from Civil Partnership, then fine. But it must not have anything to do with the Church.

 

[topbanana36]

The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.

So I guess this would have to be rewritten. Somebody will be busy.

 

[Buck]

So what happens when the priest/vicar/clergy says 'you may kiss the bride'?

 

[The Large One]

Would a vote against make you homophobic?

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuality.

If you can come up with a rational argument without prejudice, I'd say 'no'.

 

[pork pie]

So what happens when the priest/vicar/clergy says 'you may kiss the bride'?

Everyone feels sick?

 

[piersa]

Very clearly more about you if you vote no. Gay people wanting to get married is not detrimental in any way to anyone else. You would have to be an arse hole of grand proportions to vote no, or a homophobe.

 

[Napper]

Voted against due to christian beliefs

 

[Acker79]

What the f*** are you banging on about. It is about the state (law) trying to impose something on the Church. If the state wish to let gays get married, then they should only be able to allow a civil wedding to be legislated for.

Call me Dave has no mandate to push this through, and he is out of order trying.

No. It is about the state legalising gay marriage, not forcing churches to conduct them.

What assurances have been provided for religious organisations?

Mrs Miller has promised a "quadruple lock" for religious groups who oppose gay marriage, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples

BBC News - QA: Gay marriage

 

[Bozza]

What the f*** are you banging on about. It is about the state (law) trying to impose something on the Church. If the state wish to let gays get married, then they should only be able to allow a civil wedding to be legislated for.

Call me Dave has no mandate to push this through, and he is out of order trying.

I've not followed it that closely - I've generally been too busy laughing at the 'no' bigots trying to justify their position.

However, my limited understanding, is that no church will be forced to host same-sex marriages if they want to, so this has absolutely nothing to do with making impositions upon the church as every church in the land could say 'no thanks'. However, the change in law would allow same-sex couples to get married at any of the thousands of other places that can are permitted to host weddings nowadays. Like the Amex, for example.

 

[pork pie]

Very clearly more about you if you vote no. Gay people wanting to get married is not detrimental in any way to anyone else. You would have to be an arse hole of grand proportions to vote no, or a homophobe.

Really? Why is that then?

 

[piersa]

Voted against due to christian beliefs

you forgot to put antiquated