To find myself suddenly struggling to welcome gay marriage?

[grovel]

My initial reaction was "fine". As I think about it, I become rather sad that we are losing a distinctive quality in the meaning of marriage - namely that it celebrates how men and women complement each other (not only for purposes of procreation).

In every way I want equal recognition of partnerships be they straight or gay. Why then am I sad about changing the meaning of a word?

[Labootin]

Arf at kick in minge

OP you could stand Nekkid in the middle of Trafalgar square with a microphone bellowing I've changed my mind I was a complete utter twat and I'll wager 90% of MN would still post you were DISCUSTING.

[HullyEastergully]

yy I did like gay driving etc

I must say I have noticed that the gays do drive a bit funny

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

Hully, was that supposed to help me? but how? How does an "invalid" marriage (not what I believe) damage a "valid" one?
On that basis marriage would be fucked already by abuse by bigamists, for instance.

[SnesibleCnut]

Look at my beautiful new NN. I am the snesible cnut.

[HullyEastergully]

How pretty you look!

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Cause it's not speshul anymore, i.e. exclusive. Which means it will be now inclusive.

[PostBellumBugsy]

Arf at SnesibleCnut - inspired name. But please don't take up Labootin on her suggestion!!!!!
Hully don't most laydies drive a bit funny too? I've heard blondes are even worse.

[HullyEastergully]

That's not the point lost. If you are a Christian you believe (see above)

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

Actually Hully they are saying that is the point.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbp3x/Newsnight_07_12_2012/

See "anglican mainstream" bishop on newsnight, segment starts about 17 mins in

the whole point is that they believe the whole institution is damaged if it is opened

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

Clearly you don't understand it, I don't know why I am bothering with you

[AmberSocks]

I think they should just abolish marriage tbh,for men and women,its all a load of rubbish.

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Good for the OP to come back many many pages earlier.

[AMumInScotland]

The thing is, not all Christians believe that. Me for one . But there will always be Christians who are more interested in excluding than including, and who don't think there is any room for saying "That was a cultural attitude. Times change and hopefully our attitudes improve" about stuff like same-sex relationships.

[PostBellumBugsy]

lost, I think most of us understand that religious groups don't want gay people to be able to celebrate marriage in a relgious setting - but we disagree with that view.
The Catholic Church is never going to be able to formally agree with the marriage of gay people, under its current doctrine, because it absolutely decrees that marriage is about the procreation of children. Lots of people disagree with that view though and don't think that marriage, as an institution will be damaged by that - because they don't think that marriage is about procreation!

[OwlLady]

and those relationships between goats must surely be equal too
and badgers

[jeanvaljean]

I'm not in the least bit homophobic and have been raised a very right-on liberal person, but I can't help feeling a bit rolly-eyed about gay marriage. The way in which traditional institutions are forced to "get with the times" is very wearing. I feel gay marriage is like demanding a Buddhist Pope, or female Imans, or an elected Queen, or a Spanish British Prime Minister. While we're on the equality warpath why don't we demand these things too? It's nonsensical.

I cannot understand the driver behind this. Now that gay people have the same legal rights via civil partnerships there is no requirement for marriage, other than a crazed modernising imperative. Why can't these institutions be left to exercise their own rules? I feel saddened that we have to bow to this ridiculousness in the name of being liberal.

This is before you even address the fact that as religions are stridently heterosexual (in order to conceive the next generation of believing supporters) it begs the question why it's so important to gay people to be part of this religious tradition. In a way I suspect that many don't, but rather see it as another blow against "tradition" and the apparent homophobia they see within it.

All rather tiresome. And I say all this as an atheist.

[ClaireDeTamble]

Feeling that allowing people who are gay to marry is wrong is just a subconscious reaction to change - for years being gay has been 'wrong', 'different', 'unnatural'. It may be 45 years since homosexuality was legalised but it has only been 12 years since the age of consent was brought into line with heterosexual age of consent.

It's probably only been 15 years or so since the tipping point from the majority of people thinking it was wrong and shameful to the majority being OK with it and the debate around marriage shows that being gay is still not fully accepted by society. It is therefore not really a surprise that on a subconscious level you are not totally at ease with the idea and that is where the sadness comes from.

What is important is that you agree with it on a conscious level and are not able to form conscious arguments against it.

It did make me smile that a number of the people laying into you continually referred to 'gay marriage' and in one case said 'gays can marry and normal people can't' - which kind of proves my point - that poster was utterly indignant at you yet managed to suggest that being gay was somehow 'abnormal'.

At least you had the guts to face your feelings on the subject and explore them so that they could be overcome - I fear others who are so vociferously right-on in their support of people who are gay marrying may continue to make tjose same people appear as 'other' for some time to come, because they are too busy trying to be politically correct to actually reconcile their conscious agreement with their subconscious societal conditioning.

Gets off soap box

[PostBellumBugsy]

jean do you not think there might be religious gay people who'd like to have a marriage ceremony in the church that they belong to?
To be honest, I don't get it myself. Why would you want to celebrate your union in an institution that generally condemns gays as unnatural? However, I think that the fact they legally can't at the moment, is discriminatory.

[HullyEastergully]

lost you are very rude (as usual), and I really can't imagine why I am bothering with YOU, but the fact is that "marriage" is regarded as a religious sacrament between a man and a woman and therefore cannot be conducted between two people of the same sex. The institution is "damaged" because it changes the meaning.

[HullyEastergully]

The way in which traditional institutions are forced to "get with the times" is very wearing.

I AGREE. Bring back female subservience like the good old days. And slavery.

All this tiresome modernising nonsense. Oh and the cane in schools.

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

I am Christian btw, I support marriage for all who want it, ex-Catholic, understand doctrinally all the stuff about sacraments etc, (but am not a very sacramental person - for me the whole business of a priest bestowing magic is a minor part of the whole thing, hence I suppose not being Catholic)

Jean I used to think "why do they even bother trying to fit in within an institution that actively hates them? good on them for trying but.... why?" about activists for female or gay equality in the church. Now I don't because when I thought that I wasn't in a church and (subconsiously) hated it, now I am less "pure" and am a member of a church that is wrong on a lot of things, but I can see completley why people would rather try to change it than be pushed out by bigots.

[ClaireDeTamble]

It's more than a religious argument.

Take religion out of the equation for a moment why is it that when a heterosexual couple go to the registry office they can get 'married' but when a gay couple go to the registry office they can only have a civil partnership when registry office ceremonies have nothing to do with religion.

Equally, why can't a heterosexual couple who have issues with the religious and ownership connotations of marriage have a civil partnership instead - giving them all of the same rights as a married couple but without the baggage that is attached to the idea of marriage?

As people quite rightly point out, after a ceremony in a registry office, gay couples with a civil partnership certificate have exactly the same rights as a straight couple with a marriage certificate - what then was the reason for calling it something different in the first place? Presumably so that legal necessities could be met, while ensuring that those pesky gay people were still labelled as 'other'.

'Gay Marriage' is just fixing what wasn't done right the first time round.

[Paiviaso]

YABU

And it doesn't mean a change in the word for everyone. I have never thought of marriage as being a religious ceremony (I know you didn't mention that OP, but others did) nor as being a celebration of men and women complimenting each other.

[jeanvaljean]

Hully - we have civil partnerships. Gays have equal legal rights. You cannot compare demanding to be married in a Church with votes for women, or slavery. Why can't I get married in Buckingham Palace or your house? Isn't it discriminatory? I should be able to get married where I like surely? I demand an inquiry, a European court ruling, a Royal Commission!

This is an extension of people thinking they have a right to whatever they like, and has NOTHING to do with human emancipation.

PostBellumBugsy - yes I suppose there are religious gays who want the validation of their Church, but I'd rather think they ought to read the book on which their religion is founded on and realise that there is no basis for it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, as I feel if you're going to subscribe to religion it's a bit rich to pick and choose the bits you support.

[HullyEastergully]

jean Why don't they call it "marriage" then? If it's the same thing?