General Chat

Pick & mix churchgoers often abide by the bits that appeal to them & pass over the less palatable doctrines. Same thing happens in many walks of life.

Are vows not changed all the time? Some brides object to honour and obey !

And for the record I am not a fan of writing your own, in my opinion its too sloppy but each to their own.

:-|

Edit....... I dont think its a case of popping down and having make do, my catholic family had the full mass when married and I would be shocked if they didnt have the full works when they have been buried.

Guinevere I agree
John why would a couple in a gay relationship or one in which they have chosen not to have children not want to go through a mass?
I find that somewhat blinkered. If people either cannot or choose not to have children why should they be excluded?

Gwynne. Don't know how they get around elderly people getting married. Never been to an elderly wedding. Might ask in church on Sunday. Perhaps their Union is being blessed, rather than a full Christian marriage. Someone might know.

But it is not just a sentence in the Book of Common Prayer about "a man and woman etc" Almost the whole of that Book would have to be re-written. And we might need to have a re-write of The Bible too.

Edit. And Roman Catholics, Muslims, Jews and other faiths all have similar set forms of words in marriage cermonies. It would not be a good thing for the Anglican Church or the Baptist Church to break ranks imho.

What happens if a couple have been told they cannot have children? Would the church refuse the "full works"?

Catholics have a get out - the same could be done for gay couples.

No. 24 of the Rite of Marriage reads that
“The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years.
“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Honestly, we keep bring religion into this thread. It is not part of Government proposals to do anything more than allow gays to marry in a civil ceremony in exactly the same ways that heterosexuals have been able to marry outside religion since 1836. It is intended to confer equal rights. OP and some others not happy with homosexual marriage, but I am.

However, as other countries have found, changing civil marriage laws is a minefield. There does appear to be a legal difference between a civil partnership and a civil Union or marriage. And I cannot help feeling the Con Dem coalition is rushing this through - so DC looks good and Cleggy can say what marvellous things he has achieved through the Coalition and would people please vote LibDem in the Eastleigh by-election.

There are alternative versions to the Anglican marriage service.

'...in which children are born and nurtured...'
'...in which children are nurtured...'
'...in which children may be born and nurtured...'

that was lifted from an ecclesiastical website which contains pdf files for all types of services.

Doesn't even mention 'procreation' :-D

And I have been to an 'elderly' wedding. In a church (non-conformist). And it was a 'full' wedding, not just a blessing. And the bride was my sister-in-law, and past child-bearing age, although she has a son from a previous marriage.

I am not sure that it actually says in the bible that a couple who wed must do so in order to have children.
The bible teaches that children are a blessing and not a necessity.
If you look at the original language of Genesis we are told to be "fruitful and multiply".
This is usually taken by theologians and scholars to be a blessing rather than a command.
For example, if you say to somebody "have a nice day" you are not ordering them to do so but instead are wishing that they go on to have a nice day.
Unfortunately, some christians love to take phrases out of context and distort. This has happened down the centuries.

Gwynne. Thanks for finding that. I doubt any church would not encourage an elderly couple (widowed or single) to marry in a church and omit those words 0 in same way that "obey" is often omitted.

And many VIcars would be willing to marry divorced people under certain preconditions. But a long way off before an Imam marries a gay couple. Or an RC Priest probably.

Divorcees cant not marry in a Catholic church.

Having watched Nick Campbell last sunday where it was one of the topics,a mix of faiths were giving their rights and wrongs.the favour wasnt good as Rabbis etc will not ever perform a gay marriage,i goes against all their religion........I wonder how the Jewish ,Muslim,couples will face that if they can have a full marriage in a Christian church,but not take the marriage in thei won faiths.......

Errol. There are many Bible references. Doubt anyone is much interested - and religious marriages are exempt from this Bill anyway.

One useful read is

1 Corinthians 7:1-16

You will find that the best marital state is to not be married and not engage in sex at all. That is what Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (see above)

Errol. Out of context? May be right, but most I know look at comparative verses and take every verse in its context. A lot of people want verses that suit them ie "an eye for an eye" is attractive if you are justifying cruel punishment of a criminal.

the vows can be changed according to the wishes of the couple marrying - and with those getting married beyond child bearing age the section about procreation is omitted

and if you report any more of Sylvia's postings John I shall have no alternative but to delete the whole thread

"The first stage in marrying gay couples in a place of worship would be to alter that wording."

So alter it...it's not that difficult. It's done all the time wrt textbooks, hence the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on editions.

The bible was wrote by men at a time when women were considered to be their property. Times have changed so maybe it's time to change the wording :-D

Probably just as well then John that people did not follow the advice of Paul!

Chaotic I couldn't agree more.
The bible is not the word of god. It is the interpretations of mere mortals - sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It is a collection of works written over a very long time and in many cases is purely opinion and interpretation rather than law, that applied at that particular time.

For example, look at Noah and the flood - the earth was NOT covered by water!

Going round in circles now. Religious marriages are NOT PART OF THE BILL. Not something that was raised by AnnC in OP.

A few want the Bill to be defeated and gays just allowed to have a civil partnership and not have the same as the civil union defined in 1836 Act for non religious marriages in registry offices.

Most like myself are happy with the Government's proposals.

Is it not time to remove this thread, AnnC?

Why should Ann delete it?????

:-S

unless she wants to of course :-)

I hope Ann leaves it, it's been an interesting thread. Why would you want it deleted, John?

The topic has moved on, as often happens, and now some of us are discussing the future possibilities of gays marrying in church. If you are uncomfortable with that then don't contribute.

No its not time to delete this thread, might be an idea to delete you though:)))))

jude:)

But John - you have posted on this thread more than once about religious marriages and surely it is part of the wider debate. Ann asked for people's thoughts and so it is an important sub part of that debate in general.

As for asking Ann to remove the thread - once again, you do not have the right to ask that and it is purely Ann's decision (even though you curiously claim to have had the right to dictate what people say on here since the beginning of December).