JFKvsNixon Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 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. I didn't want to get married in a church because I'm not a Christian, I didn't think that it would be appropriate to start my marriage with a lie or as a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That's inherently false. The concept of a lifelong union predates any existing religion by many thousands of years. Perhaps, I only did 20th Century history in school, though I wasn't aware of evidence that such unions existed outside some sort of religious construct (though not necessarily modern religion). I maintain though, that marriage as we know it, and who can legally marry is essentially dictated by more recent Christian law, civil marriages diverging as they did from Anglican sanctioned marriages in 1837. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I don't think you're trying very hard. I'm marrying in a civil ceremony soon, I'll tell you why - - having met someone I love and adore and want to spend the rest of my life with I want to affirm and celebrate that intention and that commitment in front of our families and friends and the state. We want to shout about it, enshrine it in law and have a hell of a good party to celebrate it. Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to do likewise? Who would suffer as a consequence? I don't think anyone would necessarily suffer. If it were my prerogative to impose my views on all the world, anyone would be allowed to marry as they wish. But it's not, and far be it from me to impose such a position on others with a sincerely held belief. Who am I to judge? Personally I think civil ceremonies are a waste of time, I don't consider recognition in front of the state to be of any real value or meaning. My friends and family know how committed I am to my partner without the need to enshrine that in any sort of societal construct or shout how important I want to feel about it in front of them. I think if a gay Christian couple wish to marry in Church they should be allowed to do so provided that the priest is happy too. I simply wish to point out that this question is far more than one of people taking an easy pop at religion. It's fundamentally about the relationship between our state and state religion and far more people might be opposed to dis-establishment than they are to gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Personally, biotechpete, I don't really understand why anyone wants to get married at all, never mind what kind of ceremony it is. But the point is: denying homosexual people a right that the rest of the country enjoys is oppression; regardless of the presence of the Church of England this IS a secular society, in practice; I don't consider that the Bible has anything to teach us that moral philosophy doesn't with considerably more rigour, and don't consider it wisdom; and the fact that the Christian church has disregarded those aspects of the Bible that suits its purposes but persists in teaching that homosexuality is wrong is just...gross, really. And coming from the religion that supposedly advocates love for your fellow man, particularly galling. I think there are those in the church who would agree with you also. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/08/new-dean-of-st-pauls-says-church-should-welcome-gay-marriage/ I'm not sure, other than definition, there is a difference in the rights enjoyed by those in civil partnerships as opposed to marriages. Personally I don't agree with a distinction either though I see why it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Cardinal Keith O' Brien thinks so; he's also likened it to legalising slavery. I think he's talking nonsense. What do you think? Does anyone care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Christianity taught us that the world was knocked up formed in 7 days, there's been an undeniable forced shift in that thinking through science, philosophy and education...now evolution isn't blasphemous, on the contrary and in the eyes of the church, evolution is the construct of God (nice move). With such a fundamental shift you'd think that something like this would be easy peasy. Unless the church and its hierarchy are seen to be anything less than squeaky clean (paedophiles, bullies, rapists, adulterers, hypocrites) the church has no right to lecture. IMO they have no right to lecture anyway. His opinion is accepted, but equally rejected...personally. Edited March 10, 2012 by ronthenekred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Having attended many non-religious weddings I just think they are meaningless, to me personally. I can't see the point in them. How strange. Personally I feel more comfortable at a non religious marriage. Either way the event marks a public declaration that these people are intending to stay together for their lifetime, religion has nothing to do with that declaration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I maintain though, that marriage as we know it, and who can legally marry is essentially dictated by more recent Christian law, civil marriages diverging as they did from Anglican sanctioned marriages in 1837. Has been dictated by. And that should and has ended, the church does not have a monopoly on people deciding to spend their lives together and marriage has for a long time been a legal state as well a ceremonial declaration. Why should either the ceremony or the legal state be only available if 1 of several religions says it can be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muldoon Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 When was marriage invented and which insecure git invented it ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 far be it from me to impose such a position on others with a sincerely held belief. Who am I to judge? Who are they to judge? I don't really understand your position on this issue, you seem to be gifting the right to marry someone to the Christian church only, despite the fact that it's a legal civil state. When that is pointed out you declare that civil ceremonies are pointless, implying that religious ones have some point that civil ones don't... Personally I think civil ceremonies are a waste of time, I don't consider recognition in front of the state to be of any real value or meaning. Despite the fact that this is actually required to be legally married, which does confer certain benefits. Choose not to marry if you wish, but the state will not recognise your partnership. My friends and family know how committed I am to my partner without the need to enshrine that in any sort of societal construct or shout how important I want to feel about it in front of them. That won't help you if the state is involved for some reason. I think if a gay Christian couple wish to marry in Church they should be allowed to do so provided that the priest is happy too. I simply wish to point out that this question is far more than one of people taking an easy pop at religion. It's fundamentally about the relationship between our state and state religion and far more people might be opposed to dis-establishment than they are to gay marriage. Possibly, although I'm not sure why, religion has no place in the running of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts