You are wrong. Religion doesn't hold the rights to the word or the concept of marriage, and even a cursory reading of the Bible would show the whole 'one man one woman' thing to be nonsense.

Untrue. Jesus was big on faithfulness. See his chat with the woman at the well. He also spoke of the church being the bride, so the concept of marriage was there from the outset.

[url=http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.htmlHere is a very useful summary of the history of marriage.[/url

Ignoring the Old Testament, are we? Regardless of Jesus' views on marriage, there are plenty of examples in the Bible where marriage takes place other than between one man and one woman.

The Bible aside, modern man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. There were plenty of marriages before Yahweh was even invented, yet Christians seem to think they own the word.

Mankind and variations of marriage existed long before 0 AD, so Christianity has no patent on it and has no right to define it for everyone else.
Also, faithfulness is not gender-specific.

The Old Testament refers to the time before Jesus. Without Jesus there is no Christianity. Jesus initiated a change in emphasis where relationships were concerned and not just romantic relationships. However, it has been some while since Jews were involved in polygamy either.


Christians do own the word, as it has been understood for centuries in this country, because it was the Christian church which devised the modern marriage construct. I don't see what the big problem is with that. It is just part of this country's heritage.

Oh, you see, I was under the impression that The Bible was supposed to be the 'word of God'. Are you telling me that it's not? Or was God wrong to condone the marriages that didn't consist of one man and one woman? This is a typical attitude where Christians are concerned - take the bits of The Bible that suit your agenda and ignore the rest.



Christians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept.

Either way, marriage has been around for a long time and was largely accepted to mean the union of a man and a woman,



Seems to be exactly what is happening at the moment. People are attempting to redefine marriage.

Or a man and several women. Or a man and a 9 year old girl.



No. What is happening is that people are attempting to have equal rights. There is no single universally accepted definition of what a marriage should be, despite what certain religious groups might have us believe. Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by several centuries and many religious groups (the Quakers, for example) already recognise and perform same-sex marriage.

Concepts evolve as society changes. Marriages used to be arranged/forced. This is no longer the case (in many cultures, our own included). Marriages used to be polygamous. This is no longer the case. Grown men used to be allowed to marry children. This is no longer the case. Inter-faith marriages weren't allowed. This is no longer the case. Divorcees were not allowed to remarry. This is no longer the case. The notion that marriage has been an unchanging, Christian-owned concept since the dawn of time and that only they may authorise changes to its meaning is totally ridiculous.

If gay people are allowed to get married, the only people this will affect are gay people. They're not trying to force their will on anyone - unlike the religious groups.

People are confusing equality with identicality.

Equal rights happened, it was called a Civil Partnership, and was a marriage in all but name.

Out of interest, how far do we go in the name of 'equality'? Do we, say, allow polygamous marriages in the name of extending the equality agenda?

I have no idea!

So what's the issue about changing the name? Plenty of things change their names.

Should we refer to white people as 'people' and black people as 'apes'? Both are accurate, so what's the big deal, right? To state that gay people may only refer to themselves as being 'in a civil partnership' whilst straight people are able to say they are 'married', automatically confers a lower status on their union. There's also the issue of religious recognition. There are actually quite a few gay people who are religious (though I can't for the life of me work out why). If they want to have religious texts read out at their ceremony, or sing hymns, they should be allowed to do so.



Not allowing polygamous marriage doesn't affect an entire demographic in the same way as not allowing same sex marriage. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it if all parties were entering into the union willingly. The problem is that all too often in the past, polygamous marriages were anything other than consensual.

The Bible is a revelationary book. It serialises the evolution of a people and the pinnacle of that evolution is the arrival of the Christ. Obviously, Jews (unless they are Messianic Jews) do not believe Jesus was the Christ and so we continue to have Judaism (of the OT) operating alongside Christianity (of the NT). Jesus pronounced himself as the fulfilment of the Law (represented by the first 5 books of the Christian Bible), not a continuation of it. Therefore, the cultural differences between the OT and NT have to be closely studied for relevance to Christian life. The Bible is a guide book, not a rule book and there are contradictions galore, which have kept ordinary Christians and theologians engaged in spirited arguments for centuries.

On your other point, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133have a read.[/url

Is The Bible the word of God or not? If it is, why does God contradict himself. If not, how does it form the basis of your religion?



That is totally irrelevant to my point.

Well, sort of, sort of not.

It's a big puzzle really, and so you've got to be in proper tune with the big dude in the sky, so that he can help you understand which bits to pay heed to and which not.

You'd think that a god could have actually managed to make it all easier, but apparently not. So it's just those 'in the know' who, err, know.

First of all, I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. Secondly, 'the word of God' can be interpreted in two ways: God-inspired (but not dictated by a big man in the sky down a microphone) and Jesus, who was referred to in Genesis as 'the Word'.


Here is your point:

[iChristians most assuredly do not own the word. Marriage was around long before the invention of the Christian religion, and is a feature of many other religions besides Christianity. Hijacking a word/concept and attempting to define it for everyone does not give you ownership of that word/concept[/i

And once again [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133here is the link.[/url

From the link:

[iHowever, for the Benedictine monk Gratian the consent of the couple mattered more than their family's approval. Gratian brought consent into the fold of formalised marriage in 1140 with his canon law textbook, Decretum Gratiani.

The Decretum required couples to give their verbal consent and consummate the marriage to forge a marital bond. No longer was a bride or groom's presence at a ceremony enough to signify their assent.

The book formed the foundation for the Church's marriage policies in the 12th Century and "set out the rules for marriage and sexuality in a changing social environment", says historian Joanne Bailey of Oxford Brookes University. [/i

1140 is a long time for marriage as we know it today to have been in place and it must have existed prior to this date as the monk was simply formalising what was already being practised.

I have not denied that other coupling ceremonies were around prior to the arrival of Christianity to England almost 2000 years ago. However, so far as today's understanding of marriage is concerned, its current construct which is what is under discussion, that belongs to the Christian church.

Of course you are.



No. The Bible itself is said by believers to be the word of God. Trying to muddy the waters won't alter that.



All your link shows is the history of the Church's view of marriage. I pointed to a whole list of ways in which marriage has changed in a previous post, all of which have happened since the 12th Century. That marriage was first formalised by the Church in this country does not mean that they own the word or the concept, merely that they have used it to suit their own purposes.

Does the Christian church 'own' Muslim marriages in this country? Or Hindu marriages? Does it 'own' civil marriages between two atheists? You're talking absolute rubbish.

The governments of these islands have been making legal changes to marriage since the 15th century.

In other words, change to the 'nature' of marriage is hardly new, even in the UK and even since that Middle Eastern sandal cult got imported here.

Indeed I am. However, my Dad was a vicar, so I know a goodly amount about churchy stuff.


I'd stop now as you are showing your ignorance.


It was the BBC's history of marriage in this country, actually, which coincidentally is also the church's history of marriage in this country because, whether you want to accept it or not (and clearly you do not) the only legal way to get married in this country until 1836 was in the Christian church and that has been the case since 1120.


Nope, it is you who is doing that. Civil marriages were introduced into this country in 1836. Before then, civil marriage did not exist in this country.

You want all that to change? That's fine. However, don't try to rewrite history to suit your point of view. Be more honest.

Indeed. Mainly to provide equality for women within marriage. However, one thing has remained constant throughout: marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is going beyond simple (if sometimes profound) legal adaptations.

But since so much else has changed in the 'nature' of marriage – even just in this country, even just since the Christianisation of this country, then there is no logical argument that further changes should not occur.

Many of those changes to improve matters for women were objected to at the time. Some thought that changing the divorce laws would see the end of civilisation.

Most change provokes some opposition, but rarely rational arguments against.

You've never done anything other than defend the Church and its teachings. You're no more 'agnostic' than Kirkstaller.



Are you seriously trying to suggest that Christians don't believe that The Bible is the 'word of God'? Seriously?

[url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/april/documents/papa-francesco_20130412_commissione-biblica_en.htmlPope Francis[/url disagrees with you. Perhaps he's just 'showing his ignorance', eh?

[i"As we know, the Sacred Scriptures are the written testimony of the divine word..."[/i

[i"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."[/i



I have never 'not accepted' that. What I've said is that that fact doesn't give them ownership of marriage per se. Human beings have been around for 200,000 years or so, so the fact that a particular religion controlled marriage in this country for 700 years or so does not mean they 'own' it.



I'm not rewriting anything, you clown. Civil marriage, by your own admission, has existed since 1836, so the church has had no 'ownership' of those marriages for nearly 200 years. Neither do they have ownership of Muslim marriages, Hindu marriages or any other type of marriage. That something was the case between 1120 and 1836 does not make it the case in 2013.

Total and utter bollox. I got married in a Register office. No trace of religion was involved nor indeed, under the law of the land, is it even allowed in a Register Office. I even have a Marriage Certificate.

In what way does marriage therefore "belong to" the Christian Church"?

I got married by a Humanist celebrant, even less state intervention in the ancient rites of marriage that a registry office. Wedding have been conducted this way since the depths of time never mind the 2000 years Christians have hijacked the rites.

Is it not a fact though that the only church that may register a marriage in England is The Church of England?

I listened to a debate on Radio 4 last night regarding civil ceremonies, civil marriages and church marriages. It turns out that there may be many members of other religious orders (mainly Muslim it was claimed), who think they are married and in the eyes of their faith and communties, they may seem to be. In law, they are not.