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!

I take that "Yes" means you do deny what I said.
So, do you therefore accept that a gay couple's love for each other is just as valid as that of a straight couple?

No it hasn't. All that has been pointed out to me is that you and a few others [ithink[/i it is bollox. Not the same thing at all.






I just love it when people know they are losing an argument and have to resort to personal insult.


I didn't imply the Old Testament was irrelevant to the discussion. What you infer is your own prerogative of course. That you have failed to understand the role of Jesus in being the fulfilment of the Jewish Law simply reveals your ignorance on this subject. So really I would stop now because to those who do have an understanding, you are looking silly.


I understand 'the Word of God' in relation to the Biblical texts as meaning 'God inspired'. In other words, people were inspired by their interaction with their God to write what they wrote. What Pope Francis believes is only relevant to Catholics since the rest of the Christian world doesn't believe popes are valid. So far as Catholics are concerned, you would need to ask them whether they thought 'the Word of God' was a literal copying of God's speech.

Instead of blowing insults out of your backside you may think first whether really you should be writing about something you patently don't comprehend. Had you comprehended, you would have first considered which form of Christianity was under discussion: protestant or Roman Catholic, for example, as a starting point. You might then have phrased your question appropriately to elicit the kind of response you wanted.

You were shown to be utterly and completely [ufactually[/u wrong on the simple matter of who could perform marriages without the aid of a registrar.






Oh, I how lurve the smell of büll in the evening.

I wasn't shown to be anything. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case. So once again, it's just you writing it on an internet message board, which means zip to me.

I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent.

[url=http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/relationships_ni/relationships_living_together_and_marriage_ni/getting_married.htmTry CAB[/url



It doesn't seem to preclude other denominations as long as the officiating person is registered, presumably in the same way that a CoE vicar would be automatically.

1753 is very recent?

As Mintball (and others) have pointed out, your claims are factually incorrect in a number of areas. And let me state again: your 'evidence' in no way shows that the church may legitimately claim to 'own' the concept of marriage. That it controlled marriage in this country up until a couple of hundred years ago no more gives it the right to claim ownership than the descendants of slave owners have the right to claim ownership of the descendants of slaves.



I hate to burst your bubble, dear, but posting a link that's totally irrelevant to your claims does not count as 'winning' an argument.



Again, you're trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant twaddle. Your claim that the biblical definition of marriage is 'one man and one woman' is demonstrably false. Unless you choose to ignore the OT. Jesus' fulfilment of Jewish Law is irrelevant. If God intended that marriage should only include 'one man and one woman', why would he sanction so many marriages that broke this rule? Did he just change his mind?

What makes you and your fellow God-botherers look silly is your selective reading of the Bible. As soon as the inconsistencies in your arguments are pointed out, you all immediately resort to the 'you don't get it' line. It's transparent and it's ridiculous.



No, no. It makes no difference whatsoever whether you believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, or that he 'inspired' the authors of the texts to write them on his behalf. There isn't a single Christian denomination that doesn't consider the Bible to be God's word, however the texts were produced. So if we accept that he as (at the very least) approved the contents of the Bible, what reason could we possibly offer for his sudden change of heart on what should constitute the nature of marriage?