Reply to: Protecting the true meaning of marriage.

[shaunbhoy]

Vicars always look so much happier at weddings where the people have paid up front, and there is a free bar at the Reception

ftfy

[d000hg]

Another problem in the UK is that heterosexual couples even if they are non-religious have to say religious things in the marriage ceremony by law.

As others have said, only if it's a religious ceremony... in which case non-believers are essentially starting their marriage by saying a bunch of stuff they don't agree with and making promises to someone they don't believe exists. Which seems a bit of a shaky way to enter into a life-long commitment to me.

Vicars always look so much happier at weddings where the people are actually believers

[TheFaQQer]

Another problem in the UK is that heterosexual couples even if they are non-religious have to say religious things in the marriage ceremony by law.

Only if they get married in a religious place. If you have a civil ceremony, then you are expressly prohibited from having anything religious in the service - we had to have our readings checked by the registrar first before she would allow them.

[Goatfell]

So why can't we call that civil partnership a marriage? I don't think the Christian Church has a monopoly on the concept.

I've always assumed that "marriage" was a religious term?

Everything else was just shacking up together with varying degrees of legal protection when it went pear shaped .

[Pondlife]

Common law marriages don't exist in England. It's a common myth that it exists which is why people get shafted if someone they have lived with for decades dies without making a will or they split up.

Oh and not all Christian denominations believe exactly the same thing. Some have more modern liberal views then others and have no problem with homosexuality.

True (IIRC)

Another problem in the UK is that heterosexual couples even if they are non-religious have to say religious things in the marriage ceremony by law.

Not True

Ideally civil partnerships should exist for all, and those who want a religious aspect can get married in the Church of the Christian denomination that accepts them.

Should be true.

[xoggoth]

heterosexual couples even if they are non-religious have to say religious things in the marriage ceremony by law

I don't recall that but it was a long time ago, also I got the giggles and didn't remember much anyway.

[mudskipper]

So why can't we call that civil partnership a marriage? I don't think the Christian Church has a monopoly on the concept.

[shaunbhoy]

Ideally civil partnerships should exist for all, and those who want a religious aspect can get married in the Church of the Christian denomination that accepts them.

Good point well made.

[SueEllen]

We still have common law marriages don't we, though how they work I can't be bothered to look up.

Common law marriages don't exist in England. It's a common myth that it exists which is why people get shafted if someone they have lived with for decades dies without making a will or they split up.

Oh and not all Christian denominations believe exactly the same thing. Some have more modern liberal views then others and have no problem with homosexuality.

Another problem in the UK is that heterosexual couples even if they are non-religious have to say religious things in the marriage ceremony by law.

Ideally civil partnerships should exist for all, and those who want a religious aspect can get married in the Church of the Christian denomination that accepts them.

[d000hg]

Why not leave gay marriage as a civil matter and religious marriages for those who comply with whatever rules the religion concerned lays down.

That sounds a better idea to me.

Ideas about marriage evolve with time. Under Roman law, a couple were married if they considered themselves to be married. There was also a strict form of marriage that did not permit divorce.

We still have common law marriages don't we, though how they work I can't be bothered to look up. Divorce is much less easy to obtain in other countries... how easily you can get divorced appears to be part of how we judge how enlightened/modern/civilised a country is

[PorkPie]

Maybe my wife is more like a child than I realized. Despite her assertion that I am a child ("The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys").

Bought one of these bad boys today:

Big Green Egg - The Ultimate Cooking Experience

COME ON!!!

[Old Greg]

Ideas about marriage evolve with time. Under Roman law, a couple were married if they considered themselves to be married. There was also a strict form of marriage that did not permit divorce.

Maybe the answer is to ban marriage between straight couples for a year and allow it between gay couples and then see how that looks.

[TheFaQQer]

Surly marriage was around before the Christian church so why do they have a monopoly on its meaning?

In my experience, most marriages are pretty surly.

[xoggoth]

Actually, it would make more rational sense to insist on marriage for heterosexual couples because they make up the overwhelming majority and (can't be arsed to look for the link) they are statistically more likely to raise well behaved kids.

Ah!

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5632

[xoggoth]

Why not leave gay marriage as a civil matter and religious marriages for those who comply with whatever rules the religion concerned lays down. In fact there is a business opportunity to set up a "functional religion" whereby one can hire a church and have whatever ceremony one wants

I think that's the proposal anyway, a while back some had concerns that equality laws would force churches to hold gay weddings but according to the DT the Scottish secretary Michael Moore has ruled that out, so it's only about the legal undertaking made in registry offices. In other words all this fuss appears to be about use of the word "marriage", absolutely nothing in other words.

Ah well, since when were the religious ever rational?