Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ShotgunGold

Could Britain ever legalise 2 women-1 man marriage?

142 posts in this topic

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. .

Completely untrue.  It has been a fundamental aspect of marriage for centuries.  Since the reformation alone reference to procreation has been part of the marriage service.  Clearly you didn't watch the BBC's famous adaptation of Pride and Prejudice!  Had you done so you would have heard the marriage service read out from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

      First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

      Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

      Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

 

See here: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly haven't read the article then if you think it has nothing specific about England in it, and clearly you have missed references to stuff like the reformation (which was a specifically Christian period) and how Christianity sought to change the Jewish traditions of marriage in place prior to Christianity (as you know, Christianity has its roots in Judaism).

Actually, I did miss a bit about England. The line which says that following the reformation Christians in England declared marriage to no longer be a sacrament and only a matter for the state.

Good stuff. Glad we don't need to consider them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

The civil partnership for straights will happen at some point. This bill includes the provision for that to be done in the future.

I don't think gays are necessarily going to be rushing to the church to get married, and no church, mosque or temple is going to be forced to marry gays. Some do actually want to - including some in the Church of England who are going to be prevented from even thinking about it.

I do agree it's a minor thing though. Just change the wording. Absolutely no reason to get het up about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. It isn't a precondition ( 'thou shalt procreate!' ), never has been, never will be. Lots of married people don't have kids, for a multitude of reasons, some biological, some not. It doesn't make their marriages any less valid that people who do have children. Let's be honest here, it's just being used as a weak argument by people who don't really like the thought of gay people being married to each other.

 

Spot on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't most of us moved on from believing in fairy tales? Women accused of witchcraft used to be burned at the stake because of religious doctrine. Times and attitudes change and marriage is no different. The argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is irrelevant, marriage as a definition is subject to change through more progressive cultural attitudes. If religious groups want to maintain the definition of marriage that they use then I am strongly support their right to do so. IMO religion should have no place in deciding the laws of the land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

presumably for the same reason that other couples want to get married in church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I did miss a bit about England. The line which says that following the reformation Christians in England declared marriage to no longer be a sacrament and only a matter for the state.

Good stuff. Glad we don't need to consider them.

That needs to be put in the context of the reformation, which was a break away from the all-encompassing power of the Roman Catholic church in which the priest was the ultimate authority on all things spiritual.  It resulted in Church of England vicars being the only faith representatives to be licensed to conduct weddings.  State, non-religious marriages in the UK were only introduced in 1836 through the Marriage Act.

 

See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't most of us moved on from believing in fairy tales? Women accused of witchcraft used to be burned at the stake because of religious doctrine. Times and attitudes change and marriage is no different. The argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is irrelevant, marriage as a definition is subject to change through more progressive cultural attitudes. If religious groups want to maintain the definition of marriage that they use then I am strongly support their right to do so. IMO religion should have no place in deciding the laws of the land. 

I think this is a much more honest approach to take for those who support gay marriage than the one which tries to rewrite history by stating that the Christian church had nothing to do with the current marriage construct. 

 

I doubt very much that people will stop viewing marriage as between a man and a woman just because the state declares that gender is no longer relevant.  People don't stop thinking in certain ways just because governments declare they should now start thinking in new ways.  As with all things, the change will take a generation or so to filter through and it is quite possible that in a few decades' time people will wonder why there was ever a distinction, unless something goes horribly wrong of course (I can't think what but you never know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why?

Because rather than legislating to redefine something that already has a centuries old established definition, creating a new entity resolves the need to redefine it

Pretty simple really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand about it really is why gays are so bothered about being married in a church? We never got married and couldn't give a monkeys if the church or anyone else disapproves or not.

 

To me it seems like protesting for the sake of it, are civil partnerships not valid now? Actually, seeing as we aren't married, can we have a civil partnership?

I was a bit bemused by the PM introducing the Bill in the first place as even Peter Tatchell at the time of the PM's original statement on this policy said that it wasn't an argument the gay community was having.  They had achieved what they wanted in securing civil partnerships, ie legal equality with straight couples.  Very few practising gay people go to church, or mosque or temple.  Only the liberal wings of these religious organisations will welcome openly gay practises (most if not all will welcome gay people, but would likely hope they were celebate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The civil partnership for straights will happen at some point. This bill includes the provision for that to be done in the future.

I don't think gays are necessarily going to be rushing to the church to get married, and no church, mosque or temple is going to be forced to marry gays. Some do actually want to - including some in the Church of England who are going to be prevented from even thinking about it.

If I was a vicar I think I might be inclined to only marry couples (gay or hetro, I wouldnt care) who turned up at church occasionally.

It shouldnt be a fancy dress parade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because rather than legislating to redefine something that already has a centuries old established definition, creating a new entity resolves the need to redefine it

Pretty simple really

Pretty simple but pretty pointless

Having the same 'institution' but allowing same sex couples to join it and for the same reasons as heterosexual couples is even simpler, has the sane meaning and doesn't discriminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

presumably for the same reason that other couples want to get married in church

Many people are refused a church wedding for various reasons, it happens.

If a body or organisation are against you, why do you care what they think?

Most gay people I know share my view - they feel someone is pushing it for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a vicar I think I might be inclined to only marry couples (gay or hetro, I wouldnt care) who turned up at church occasionally.

And not get the fees?

Are you mad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty simple but pretty pointless

Having the same 'institution' but allowing same sex couples to join it and for the same reasons as heterosexual couples is even simpler, has the sane meaning and doesn't discriminate.

Errm, if for example there are two games, fairly similar principles but one decides to play by slightly different rules should the law insist they both be called by the same name? or is it concieveably possible that they could be called something slightly different to differentiate?

I know an example of this...

Some people like one version, some people like the other but because they have different definitions and names no one can be offended at the others existance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not get the fees?

Are you mad?

The church of England is a massively wealthy organization (at least in terms of assets), the Catholic Church even more so

What they earn from weddings is pretty trivial

(Although our organist was worth his fee for comedy value)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people are refused a church wedding for various reasons, it happens.

If a body or organisation are against you, why do you care what they think?

Most gay people I know share my view - they feel someone is pushing it for whatever reason.

Absolutely john

In fact if I were in that position I'd be thinking if I'm part of something that wants to treat me and the people I love in this way, and has a negative view of people like me in general and there's nothing wrong with the way I am, then why should I want to be any part if it.

But the fact is that we are talking about people who are confirmed members of a church, rather than people who fancy a church wedding because it looks nice on the photos and that c if e weddings are legally binding does create an issue of principle: who's main challenge is the book of Leviticus for instance or 'tradition'

The church are inadvertently creating a strong case for weddings solemnised in their premises not being legally binding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errm, if for example there are two games, fairly similar principles but one decides to play by slightly different rules should the law insist they both be called by the same name? or is it concieveably possible that they could be called something slightly different to differentiate?

I know an example of this...

Some people like one version, some people like the other but because they have different definitions and names no one can be offended at the others existance

Marriage between same sex and different sex couples have exactly the same rules customs and principles: your analogy fails badly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

The church are inadvertently creating a strong case for weddings solemnised in their premises not being legally binding

In all but the Church of England that is the case anyway.  However, I would imagine you'd have to disestablish the Church of England before being in a legal position to stop an Anglican vicar legally registering a wedding, not least because prior to 1836 the only legal registrars of marriages were the ministers of the Christian church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all but the Church of England that is the case anyway. However, I would imagine you'd have to disestablish the Church of England before being in a legal position to stop an Anglican vicar legally registering a wedding, not least because prior to 1836 the only legal registrars of marriages were the ministers of the Christian church.

All through my post I was particularising the c of e ie 'the church' as opposed to 'a church' and I specified confirmed members of the Church of England

I'm a firm believer in desestablishing the church of england

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the fact is that we are talking about people who are confirmed members of a church, rather than people who fancy a church wedding because it looks nice on the photos and that c if e weddings are legally binding does create an issue of principle: who's main challenge is the book of Leviticus for instance or 'tradition'

That's fair enough then. But in my experience, not that many gay people are religious and don't go to church anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair enough then. But in my experience, not that many gay people are religious and don't go to church anyway.

But the ones who are are the ones affected by this discrimination. In my experience not many people of any sexuality are religious or go to church, but plenty of the hererosexual couples have been married in church .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All through my post I was particularising the c of e ie 'the church' as opposed to 'a church' and I specified confirmed members of the Church of England

I'm a firm believer in desestablishing the church of england

Sorry.  For those of us familiar with the Christian church, we tend to consider reference to 'the church' as to the whole Christian church rather than a particular denomination. 

 

It comes as no surprise to me that you are in favour of disestablishment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017