Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 1:30 pm  

The governments of these islands have been making legal changes to marriage since the 15th century.

In other words, change to the 'nature' of marriage is hardly new, even in the UK and even since that Middle Eastern sandal cult got imported here.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 2:27 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Of course you are.

Indeed I am. However, my Dad was a vicar, so I know a goodly amount about churchy stuff.

No. The Bible itself is said by believers to be the word of God. Trying to muddy the waters won't alter that.

I'd stop now as you are showing your ignorance.

All your link shows is the history of the Church's view of marriage.

It was the BBC's history of marriage in this country, actually, which coincidentally is also the church's history of marriage in this country because, whether you want to accept it or not (and clearly you do not) the only legal way to get married in this country until 1836 was in the Christian church and that has been the case since 1120.

Does the Christian church 'own' Muslim marriages in this country? Or Hindu marriages? Does it 'own' civil marriages between two atheists? You're talking absolute rubbish.

Nope, it is you who is doing that. Civil marriages were introduced into this country in 1836. Before then, civil marriage did not exist in this country.

You want all that to change? That's fine. However, don't try to rewrite history to suit your point of view. Be more honest.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 2:31 pm  

Mintball wrote:

The governments of these islands have been making legal changes to marriage since the 15th century.

Indeed. Mainly to provide equality for women within marriage. However, one thing has remained constant throughout: marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is going beyond simple (if sometimes profound) legal adaptations.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 2:41 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Indeed. Mainly to provide equality for women within marriage. However, one thing has remained constant throughout: marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is going beyond simple (if sometimes profound) legal adaptations.

But since so much else has changed in the 'nature' of marriage – even just in this country, even just since the Christianisation of this country, then there is no logical argument that further changes should not occur.

Many of those changes to improve matters for women were objected to at the time. Some thought that changing the divorce laws would see the end of civilisation.

Most change provokes some opposition, but rarely rational arguments against.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 3:05 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: Indeed I am. However, my Dad was a vicar, so I know a goodly amount about churchy stuff. You've never done anything other than defend the Church and its teachings. You're no more 'agnostic' than Kirkstaller. SaintsFan wrote: I'd stop now as you are showing your ignorance. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Christians don't believe that The Bible is the 'word of God'? Seriously? Pope Francis disagrees with you. Perhaps he's just 'showing his ignorance', eh? "As we know, the Sacred Scriptures are the written testimony of the divine word..." "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." SaintsFan wrote: It was the BBC's history of marriage in this country, actually, which coincidentally is also the church's history of marriage in this country because, whether you want to accept it or not (and clearly you do not) the only legal way to get married in this country until 1836 was in the Christian church and that has been the case since 1120. I have never 'not accepted' that. What I've said is that that fact doesn't give them ownership of marriage per se. Human beings have been around for 200,000 years or so, so the fact that a particular religion controlled marriage in this country for 700 years or so does not mean they 'own' it. SaintsFan wrote: Nope, it is you who is doing that. Civil marriages were introduced into this country in 1836. Before then, civil marriage did not exist in this country. You want all that to change? That's fine. However, don't try to rewrite history to suit your point of view. Be more honest. I'm not rewriting anything, you clown. Civil marriage, by your own admission, has existed since 1836, so the church has had no 'ownership' of those marriages for nearly 200 years. Neither do they have ownership of Muslim marriages, Hindu marriages or any other type of marriage. That something was the case between 1120 and 1836 does not make it the case in 2013.

SaintsFan wrote: Indeed I am. However, my Dad was a vicar, so I know a goodly amount about churchy stuff. You've never done anything other than defend the Church and its teachings. You're no more 'agnostic' than Kirkstaller. SaintsFan wrote: I'd stop now as you are showing your ignorance. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Christians don't believe that The Bible is the 'word of God'? Seriously? Pope Francis disagrees with you. Perhaps he's just 'showing his ignorance', eh? "As we know, the Sacred Scriptures are the written testimony of the divine word..." "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." SaintsFan wrote: It was the BBC's history of marriage in this country, actually, which coincidentally is also the church's history of marriage in this country because, whether you want to accept it or not (and clearly you do not) the only legal way to get married in this country until 1836 was in the Christian church and that has been the case since 1120. I have never 'not accepted' that. What I've said is that that fact doesn't give them ownership of marriage per se. Human beings have been around for 200,000 years or so, so the fact that a particular religion controlled marriage in this country for 700 years or so does not mean they 'own' it. SaintsFan wrote: Nope, it is you who is doing that. Civil marriages were introduced into this country in 1836. Before then, civil marriage did not exist in this country. You want all that to change? That's fine. However, don't try to rewrite history to suit your point of view. Be more honest. I'm not rewriting anything, you clown. Civil marriage, by your own admission, has existed since 1836, so the church has had no 'ownership' of those marriages for nearly 200 years. Neither do they have ownership of Muslim marriages, Hindu marriages or any other type of marriage. That something was the case between 1120 and 1836 does not make it the case in 2013.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 3:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

... However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church.

Total and utter bollox. I got married in a Register office. No trace of religion was involved nor indeed, under the law of the land, is it even allowed in a Register Office. I even have a Marriage Certificate.

In what way does marriage therefore "belong to" the Christian Church"?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 7:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Total and utter bollox. I got married in a Register office. No trace of religion was involved nor indeed, under the law of the land, is it even allowed in a Register Office. I even have a Marriage Certificate.

In what way does marriage therefore "belong to" the Christian Church"?

I got married by a Humanist celebrant, even less state intervention in the ancient rites of marriage that a registry office. Wedding have been conducted this way since the depths of time never mind the 2000 years Christians have hijacked the rites.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 7:27 pm  

Is it not a fact though that the only church that may register a marriage in England is The Church of England?

I listened to a debate on Radio 4 last night regarding civil ceremonies, civil marriages and church marriages. It turns out that there may be many members of other religious orders (mainly Muslim it was claimed), who think they are married and in the eyes of their faith and communties, they may seem to be. In law, they are not.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 7:51 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Is it not a fact though that the only church that may register a marriage in England is The Church of England?

I listened to a debate on Radio 4 last night regarding civil ceremonies, civil marriages and church marriages. It turns out that there may be many members of other religious orders (mainly Muslim it was claimed), who think they are married and in the eyes of their faith and communties, they may seem to be. In law, they are not.

No, all flavours of Christianity can as can Judaism (there maybe a few more), anyone else need a certificate from the registry office but they do not need to have the civil ceremony. Pretty much the same as up here with Humanist weddings.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Thu May 23, 2013 8:05 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: No, all flavours of Christianity can as can Judaism (there maybe a few more), anyone else need a certificate from the registry office but they do not need to have the civil ceremony. Pretty much the same as up here with Humanist weddings. Getting Married

Big Graeme wrote: No, all flavours of Christianity can as can Judaism (there maybe a few more), anyone else need a certificate from the registry office but they do not need to have the civil ceremony. Pretty much the same as up here with Humanist weddings. Getting Married