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.

[url=https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/overviewGetting Married[/url

Well you learn something every day.

Incorrect. The Church of England is the established church in England and only its ministers are registrars. In the case of all other faiths as well as other Christian denominations, a couple have to legally register their marriage with a registrar in addition to completing their religious ceremony.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0Here's a little song on the subject. Lovely stuff.[/url

I got married two weeks ago, it was the happiest day of my life. There should be no way that any two people could be denied the opportunity to experience it.

That's the one thing we lack up here is the Church of England...

I haven't defended anything. I simply know a lot about the church (in particular the Church of England) and know something of the other monotheistic religions also. I also happen to agree that by granting gay people marriage, it is changing the meaning of marriage in this country as has been understood and legally recognised for centuries. And I'm not backing that assertion up with evidence again as I have already presented evidence to back that up.


I didn't say that at all. I said there were two interpretations of 'the word of God': the Bible as an inspired text and Jesus. That is what I said before, that is what I have said now.


Beautiful. In what way does that contradict what I said?


It does if it is that version of the ceremony that is being changed, which it is.


Upon what do you think the civil marriage was based? For example, when did it become culturally acceptable for children to be born 'outside of wedlock' as the old-fashioned saying went?

Erm the same things religious marriages are based on, the pagan rites the Christians co-opted to make their faith attractive to followers of other belief systems.

Where do you think we get expressions like living over the brush or tying the knot come from.



You are better off trying to work out when it became culturally unacceptable.

You should be so lucky

Almost completely incorrect. Well done.

The CAB has a fairly succinct summary of the position:



If you want chapter and verse, then see (not the Bible, but) ss.53, 54 [iet al[/i Marriage Act 1949.

According to Tatchell on last night's QT, same-sex marriage was only specifically excluded from the Marriage Act after an amendment was passed in 1971

Thanks for that, I knew I had read something like that when we were looking into Humanist ceremonies but I was damned if I could find it.

Wrong.

My father, a Methodist, has always done it himself. No additional registrar is required for it.

In the fog of SaintsFan's equivocation about the bible and irrelevances about christianity, Dally may have missed the above request for clarification.

Dally, do you deny what I said or have you reverted to your tried and tested tactic of exiting the thread ... in this instance one that you created?

Your 'evidence', as has been pointed out to you by several posters, is bollox.



It's about context, you halfwit. When you were trying to make out like the Old Testament was somehow irrelevant to the discussion, I asked 'is the Bible the word of God'? Now, it's patently obvious to all but a halfwit what that question means, wouldn't you say? I wasn't asking whether Jesus was also known as 'The Word', but how the Old Testament could be so easily dismissed to suit the religious argument if it is indeed believed to be (as Pope Francis points out) 'the speech of God as it is put down in writing'.



Wrong. Again. That 'version' of the ceremony won't be changed one bit. Churches will still perform their traditional marriage ceremonies for opposite sex couples and no religious institution will be compelled to perform a same sex marriage if they choose not to. It won't affect God-botherers one bit, except for the fact that they won't be able to oppress others based on their book of demonstrable nonsense. All the new legislation will change is that gay people will be allowed to say they are 'married' and that they will be allowed to have religious readings/music at the ceremony if they so choose. The CoE and the Catholic Church do not have the monopoly of Sky Fairy worshipping, and if people wish to praise their God at a same sex wedding ceremony it's fook all to do with the Christian Churches.




Upon what do you think Christian weddings were based?

I guess the latter is the case.

[i(to the tune of "Bread of Heaven"icon_wink.gif[/i

Dally, Saints Fan,
Dally, Saints Fan,
We can see you sneaking out
We can see-ee you-oo snea-king out

Did you really expect any different? He'll be back in a few pages like nowt's happened.

I shouldn't have but, yes, I did.
He is prone to showing the tip of his extreme views but doesn't have the cojones to admit to his corrosive prejudices.

So let's take this "equality" and "equal rights" stuff to is logical conclusion. Why should hetersexual couples be "allowed" to procreate when homosexual ones cannot? What is the answer? Presumably, to segregate the genders at birth so they all have equal rights and enjoy homeosexual or no relationships (at their own "choice"!). Just one flaw there - the species dies out.

Is that taking equality too far?

You call that a "logical conclusion"?
I don't.

Now you have returned ... it is noted that you are still avoiding the straight answer to my earlier question.

My gob is still smacked.



Oh, I see what you did there.

Touche !
Hadn't seen that.

Yes. Just thought I ought to get some work done!