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?

[AMumInScotland]

jeanvaljean none of the current legal changes is about "these institutions" if by that you mean religions. It is about civic society naming officially-recognised same sex relationships with the same words "Marriage/Spouse/etc" as they do for hetero couples.

At the moment, same-sex couples do not have quite the same legal rights - they cannot have a wedding ceremony, and the "equivalent" civil partnership ceremony is not recognised in other coutries, whereas "marriage" would be (in some at least).

All the current debate is about is levelling the legal civic playing field.

There is a minor additional debate about whether religious organisations should be allowed (NB not forced) into conducting these same-sex weddings.

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

Hully thank you so much for your input but I don't think you understand the question - you just keep repeating the same thing. It's like this:

"I have now decided to include staples in the category of paperclips"
"But that stops my paperclip being a paperclip! you have changed the meaning!"
"how does it stop your paperclip from being a paperclip? You can say this staple is not a paperclip, but me calling it one doesn't stop your paperclip being a paperclip"

You are like the person who, thinking they are explaining, just keeps shouting "HE THINKS HIS PAPERCLIP WON'T BE A PAPERCLIP ANY MORE"

[HullyEastergully]

You have understood it perfectly. That is absolutely right.

If you want logic to the thinking, I suggest you look in places other than those of the religious.

[ClaireDeTamble]

we have civil partnerships. Gays have equal legal rights.

Yes, black people have equal legal rights to white people - does that mean that we should stop legislating against racist behaviour? Women have equal legal rights to men - perhaps we should forget all about feminism, I mean who cares about disproportionate domestic violence, sexual exploitation or unequal pay - the legal rights are all equal, the other stuff isn't important right?

It's not about equal legal rights, it's about social equality, which can't happen while gay unions have to have a different label to straight unions because it marks them out as 'other' for no good reason whatsoever other than fear and bigotry.

[PanickingIdiot]

+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.+

You may be interested to know that very few of the British royals are actually British. Queen Sofia of Spain is Greek, and former French President Sarkozy was (well, is) Hungarian. Cameron's wife is Spanish.

The female bishops thing is widely supported (though it was voted down, somewhat embarrassingly).

And let's not go into what the Pope actually is shudder.

YAB massively U.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Simples.

[StackOverflow]

I completely agree, jean, this egalitarian modernization craze is completely insane!

I mean, once upon a time, marriage meant that a husband rightfully owned a woman! If only those pesky commie Satan worshipping feminazi atheist puppy killer progressives hadn't forced this evil modernization crap we could still be living in such blissful times!

[Hobbitation]

I think religious folk worry it's the start of closing all of their legal loopholes by which they are allowed to unfairly discriminate against people. And they are right. Good.

[DoingitOnTheRoofTopWithSanta]

I find it more offensive to marriage when people lie cheat and abuse their partners. It still no has bearing on my marriage though.

YABU wtf do you care what two other people do? Why is your own marriage so weak you feel something is lost by two people getting hitched?

[AMumInScotland]

"if you're going to subscribe to religion it's a bit rich to pick and choose the bits you support"

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do people who don't follow a religion have this weird idea that there is one absolute set of rules which every Christian has to follow, or else they are doing some "Pick & Mix" which means they really aren't a Christian in the least?

I follow what Christ taught. I read the New testament, and think about which parts of it were intended to be followed "in all times and places" and which bits were culturally-conditioned and applied only to a certain world-view which was prevalent 2000 years ago.

I wear poly-cotton shirts while eating cheeseburgers. I think that if Jesus came back in person today he would approve of same-sex couples being given the same rights as everyone else.

This is not picking and choosing. This is Christianity. It is also what a lot of Christian denominations teach.

[PostBellumBugsy]

AMum, which Christian denominations teach that the marriage of gay people is ok?

[SomeTiggyPudding]

What would Jesus think? Or his Dad? If they hate poofs, why would you want to worship them?

Marriage equals equality.

Churches can do whatever they want to if it doesn't interfere with anybody else. What the church does is for the church to decide. So long as they don't have official state backing like, ooh... giving them unelected seats in parliament or something.

[lostconfusedwhatnext]

AMum, I was one of those "you can't pick and choose" people, but only because I thought that if enough people left the church and said why, things might change.
Now I have decided not to be so hard on people like me who need a church to go to but don't think that gaity is wrong.

My dc1 is three and a half and I have loved so much telling her the Christmas story this year, the first year I have made any attempt to flesh out who Jesus was and what it means that he came and why we celebrate his birthday so happily. I love it.

[PostBellumBugsy]

For most Christian faiths, it is a fairly fundamental aspect of their doctrine that marriage is about procreation and the mutual support between husband & wife shinyrobot.
I think this is part of the problem, that many modern Christians in liberal countries do pick & mix and are quite happy with that approach. It does often mean that they are at odds with the fundamental teachings of their own religion!

[Whatiswitnit]

My six year old twins ask me now and then if boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls. It is so nice to be able to say yes, you can marry whoever you fall in love with. Marriage is for everyone, and that makes me happy, not sad.

[AMumInScotland]

The Quakers specifically want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages.

[trockodile]

This letter was posted roosterza.blogspot.de/2012/12/why-i-believe-firmly-in-equal-marriage.html?spref=tw
By someone I follow on twitter-he addresses lots of the points raised better than I could, is an ordained C of E vicar and in a civil partnership.

I was asked by a contact at the Portsmouth News to respond to some comments made about the government's Equal Marriage proposals (article here). Here is the letter I sent. I don't know if it'll be used, but I wanted to include it in my blog, to keep the coversation going. Equality needs a voice.

Dear Sir / Madam

I am saddened by the response of many Christians and churches to the government?s consultation on Equal Marriage. As an ordained member of the Church of England clergy, I stand wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister?s stance on Equal Marriage.

My understanding of the proposal is that it will aim to allow loving same-sex couples to enter into loving, long-term, committed marriages, with the full legal protection that marriage offers. No more of the strange terminology of attempting to say that someone is ?civilly partnered? to someone else, and no more of the differentiation in society where a Civil Partnership is somehow less than a marriage.

If I could look at some of the arguments against Equal Marriage:

Those who argue against Equal Marriage, stating that Civil Partnership is the legal equivalent of marriage, but with a different name, don?t understand the legal complexities and the differences between the two. The fact is that Civil Partners don?t enjoy the same legal protection and provision as married couples.
Those who state that Equal Marriage is against their faith, need to understand that it is against THEIR INTERPRETATION of their faith (or someone else?s interpretation passed along to them). There are other ways of reading Scripture, other ways of interpreting tradition, and other ways of being Christian. The existence of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, Accepting Evangelicals, Two:23, Courage UK, Inclusive Church and other groups in the UK ? not to mention International groups are evidence of that.
I also really struggle with people of faith, who state that they accept the LGBT community, but then label their loving relationships as a perversion of family values, with catastrophic consequences for the future. In statements like that, it won?t be the message of acceptance that the LGBT community hears, and it certainly won?t instill (& hasn?t instilled-) in them the desire to explore faith.
Those who try to panic people into believing that the proposed changes will result in churches being forced to conduct same-sex marriages have either not read ? or not understood ? the proposals, and haven?t looked at history.
There are churches the whole world over that won?t perform marriage ceremonies for people who are divorced, as a matter of conscience. They have the freedom to do so, and the divorced couples seek another church. This matter is no different. The consultation was simply looking at whether or not some faith communities should be allowed to opt in, if they wish, the same way some choose to remarry divorcees.
Finally, I struggle with those that play the numbers game; that state that the LGBT community should not be allowed Equal Marriage, because they are in the minority? I thought the purpose of Equality legislation was precisely to protect minority groups. The majority already have a voice, and already enjoy a privileged place in society by virtue of being the majority. We should be concerned with ensuring that minority groups are treated as equal, and allowed to be full, contributing, equal & fully human members of society.

It is because of my faith that I strongly believe in extending marriage to same sex couples, in order to affirm in them the possibility of knowing the fullness of love and expressing that to each other and their community. To me, that?s more in line with my faith and the love of God, than any message of exclusion could be.

I also firmly believe that Equal Marriage will strengthen our communities and our families, and make sure that those families that are currently viewed as inferior & hidden, are able to flourish.

With kind regards

[Hobbitation]

AMum, which Christian denominations teach that the marriage of gay people is ok?

Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, Presbyterians just from a quick Google.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Panicking
You may be interested to know that very few of the British royals are actually British. Queen Sofia of Spain is Greek, and former French President Sarkozy was (well, is) Hungarian. Cameron's wife is Spanish.

Sarkozy was born in France so surely he is French it is his father who is Hungarian. Would you argue that Ed Milliband is Polish not British? Arguably Elizabeth ii is British what with having been born here and her parents and her grandparents. (Prince Philip on the other hand!)

[CatWithKittens]

Since a marriage has to be consummated if it is to cease to be liable to being declared a nullity, presumably someone is going to have to define what constituted consummation for same sex unions of men and women. I don't envy the draftsman. And presumably the same sort of sexual union will have to be deemed to be consummation for heterosexual marriages too? Those who say that same-sex marriage will inevitably change its meaning may therefore have a point.

[HullyEastergully]

yy cat - did you see how all the civil servants are pulling their hair out trying to come up with a definition?

hahahaha

[PanickingIdiot]

Chaz, the point was that those things aren't set in stone either, people change nationalities and move around and born into mixed marriages etc. and it doesn't mean you can't be prime minister or queen or pope. It's not "nonsensical" as jeanvaljean claimed, quite the contrary.

[sudaname]

As far as l know the law calls it civil partnership and it's still only heterosexual 'unions' that are called marriage. So how have you lost anything ? Why would you even care if it was called the same thing and you lost your exclusiveness along with all the other millions of heterosexual people that have ever got married .

[PostBellumBugsy]

Hobbitation I thought episcopalians had agreed to same sex blessings? I think that is different to marriage.
I also thought the general assembly of presbyterians this year had rejected the proposal to recognise marriage between two people, rather than a man & woman.
Have to confess I don't know about lutherans.
With regard to Quakers, they themselves describe themselves as "post-Christian", so I'm not quite sure they subscribe to the same doctrines as most of the larger Christian churches.

[jeanvaljean]

AMum - the reason atheists/agnostics would like to hold the religious to the words in their holy books is because religious people use their "interpretations" of their texts to weasel their way out of rational argument. So all the miracles/mystic guff become just parables etc, and you even get some Christians saying they of course don't believe Christ really rose from the dead - thus missing the point entirely of their religion.

PanickingIdiot - all my examples stand. Sarkozy was born in France, Queen Sofia is a Consort, SamCam does not hold electoral office, being Monarch is a hereditary position. These things are and most likely will be ever thus.

Hully - marriage as practised in our Churches is a religious sacrament. So I see no reason why they can't be the final arbiters on who gets to "do" marriage. If heterosexuals and gays must have the same term applied to them in the name of equality then we ought to invent some new institution rather than forcing the Church to change. And in fact I think it would be much more suitable if the Civil Partnerships Act were extended to heterosexuals. Then we can leave marriage to the religious only.