Cyclone Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I think technically as the queen owns all beaches in the UK and is also the head of the church, so then yes they do own the beaches. Like it or not, this state implements more or less Christian teaching in the realm of marriage and the state effectively decide whether you are allowed to do so based on the legal structure provided by Christian teaching - you can't marry your sister. Why would you want to get married if you are so opposed to the church or it's values which are transferred into the institution through the workings of our state? Are you saying that only Christian marriages should be recognised then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 The essence of marriage is a religious one, it's a religious idea. That's inherently false. The concept of a lifelong union predates any existing religion by many thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Yes, but as I understand it, this is because the Church didn't want the use of religious symbolism outside of a church, to prevent a kind of faux religious ceremony; as a sort of protection. It's not a state imposed secularization of civil ceremonies. It remains the case, that the legal institution of marriage exists in the from it does in this country, so far as I can see, solely as a result of, and to serve the purposes of our Christian heritage. So how does it serve the purposes of "our Christian heritage" to force our maid of honour, who is a practising Christian, not to make any reference to her faith in our wedding, or to have to remove her necklace? I'd disagree with your assertion that it's not state imposed, because as far as I could see it was the state who imposed upon me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 And on that shaky basis you say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to take part? No I don'tthink that. If you had read my posts you'd realise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 If we allow gays to marry, then at some point we will have to allow people to marry goats, hairbrushes and grapes - and that's immoral in the eyes of the Lord. [Please note that this post is not entirely serious] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Catholic priest. Homosexuality. Pot. Kettle. Black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Catholic priest. Homosexuality. Pot. Kettle. Black. Catholic priest. Homosexuality. Pot. Kettle. Of colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Are you saying that only Christian marriages should be recognised then? Having attended many non-religious weddings I just think they are meaningless, to me personally. I can't see the point in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Catholic priest. Homosexuality. Pot. Kettle. Of colour. Thank you for correcting my racist remark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 So how does it serve the purposes of "our Christian heritage" to force our maid of honour, who is a practising Christian, not to make any reference to her faith in our wedding, or to have to remove her necklace? I'd disagree with your assertion that it's not state imposed, because as far as I could see it was the state who imposed upon me. I suppose one could argue that you imposed it upon yourselves by choosing not to marry in a church. This, as I understand it was sort of a perverse reasoning that it would encourage more church weddings. I agree though, I too can't see the point in such strict insistence. I can't see many vicars allowing Robbie Williams angel in a church service. But why employ other religious paraphenalia or wording if you have no faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts