This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Church of England warning on gay marriage

ONS:

509 Civil partnerships dissolutions
113,000 Divorces

now what?

What a stupid statistic to cite. Obviously the divorce # will be higher because there are significantly more heterosexual unions than homosexual.

This is a no brainer. I really hope this wasn't your pièce de résistance argument.

Reply 221

.eXe

11

Original post by bkeevin

Since you happen to come from/live in Canada can you enlighten us what happened there since they legalised same sex marriage? Has society collapsed? Did they change the definition of the word marriage or created another word or language? What about the heterosexual couples did they have to flee from the country since the altered definition posed a threat to their marriage? I am right to expect the churches have also ceased performing marriage ceremonies for the same reasons? You must have lots of evidence to demonstrate the existence of all those issues there.

At what point have I argued that homosexual marriages will lead to a collapse of society?

Reply 222

Labqueen

Original post by mmmpie

I know all this, which is why I didn't attempt to derive any statistics from the ONS figures that heyhey992 quoted. I asked for the formation rate to compare with the dissolution rate purely to give a sense of scale - the bare figures for divorce/dissolution aren't terribly informative on their own. You can however get a rough sense that, notwithstanding deaths, the number of civil partnerships is increasing relatively rapidly, while the number of marriages is barely crawling up.

Don't forget Kim Kardashian

The comment on statistics is more for anyone who decides to work out percentages and start saying that it shows a higher percent of CP dissolving compared to divorce etc. The comparison just can't be made yet on that score.

There are endless marriages which have been short lived and done "for the fun of it" Katie Price, Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor to name a few notable ones.

Now some may try to claim that a reduction in the number of marriages occuring must be proof of CP's breaking down the sanctity of marriage. What they need to take into account is the global economy as well. The cost of a church wedding has increased dramatically, you are now looking at over £500 (a lot more) just for the use of the church, then with all of the additional expenses it can and often does escalate. The average wedding as been estimated to be in excess of £20,000. While it is cheaper to marry in a registry office, this can still cost several thousand once all expenses are taken into acocunt. Many couples simply do not have that much disposable income to spend on a single day and so more and more people are choosing to live together as common law husband and wife.

The biggest thing to have an impact on marriage isn't legalising civil partnerships, it is the vast expense of getting married. If the church was so concerned with the sanctity of marriage why doesn't it offer it's services for free for the ceremony.

Reply 223

KCosmo

14

I don't see the problem. Churches won't need to marry homosexuals, but homosexuals won't be banned from marrying. Churches still have the same rights as before, and homosexuals will get to have civil marriages, just like everyone else.

Basically, people can continue with their religious practices, but it won't infringe on other's freedoms.

Reply 224

heyhey922

12

Original post by .eXe

What a stupid statistic to cite. Obviously the divorce # will be higher because there are significantly more heterosexual unions than homosexual.

This is a no brainer. I really hope this wasn't your pièce de résistance argument.

look at the numbers again

6000 civil parterships a year, under 600 break up (about 10:1)

232K Marriges, 112K Break up (about 1:2)

I was simply refuting a claim earlier that same sex couples in CPs where more likely to break up, while its still early days, i think making the claim that Sephiroth did, is not justified.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 225

mmmpie

12

Original post by heyhey922

look at the numbers again

6000 civil parterships a year, 600 break up

232K Marriges, 112K Break up

I was simply refuting a claim earlier that same sex couples in CPs where more likely to break up, while its still early days, i think making the claim that Sephiroth did, is not justified.

Sephirioth's claims are, shall we say, emotionally tainted.

Reply 226

Labqueen

Original post by heyhey922

look at the numbers again

6000 civil parterships a year, under 600 break up (about 10:1)

232K Marriges, 112K Break up (about 1:2)

I was simply refuting a claim earlier that same sex couples in CPs where more likely to break up, while its still early days, i think making the claim that Sephiroth did, is not justified.

As you quoted the ONS and in reality it's still very early days so the figures can't be taken in full comparison over time. You omitted this from the ONS;
Data from the Office of National Statistics shows that after five years, 5.5 per cent of marriages had ended in divorce and 2.5 per cent of civil partnerships had been dissolved.

The ONS report says: “Early figures suggest that marriages are more likely to end in divorce than civil partnerships are to end in dissolution.”

Since they were legalised in 2005, 42,778 civil partnerships have taken place

Reply 227

bkeevin

7

Original post by .eXe

At what point have I argued that homosexual marriages will lead to a collapse of society?

I understand you never argued that. You happen to be the most vocal defender of CofE's position. I assume that the Church would not make such a serious thread as divorcing itself from marriage altogether unless the proposed legislation somehow led to societal collapse or worse so I asked the question.

What about the other issues I asked about can you enlighten us with the Canadian experience? Do heterosexual couples feel their marriage has been irrevocably demeaned and they have to make a stand against it? Since Canada share share so much with Britain(eg our language, laws,Queen etc) I really believe we can learn quite alot from your experience.

Reply 228

madders94

18

I see refusing to marry gays on the same basis as refusing to marry people because they're black or because they're disabled - none of these things are a choice, so why are the latter two allowed to call it marriage but the former isn't?

Reply 229

.eXe

11

Original post by bkeevin

I understand you never argued that. You happen to be the most vocal defender of CofE's position. I assume that the Church would not make such a serious thread as divorcing itself from marriage altogether unless the proposed legislation somehow led to societal collapse or worse so I asked the question.

What about the other issues I asked about can you enlighten us with the Canadian experience? Do heterosexual couples feel their marriage has been irrevocably demeaned and they have to make a stand against it? Since Canada share share so much with Britain(eg our language, laws,Queen etc) I really believe we can learn quite alot from your experience.

Wow this is sad. I am actually against the church on this one. Go read my posts again. I have never defended the church on this thread. Reason being, i dont like it when churches involve themselves politically. You have literally read nothing ive typed if all you understood was that i was defending the church. What a baseless accusation.

Posted via TSR iPhone App

Reply 230

Mm_Minty

17

Original post by .eXe

That's not necessarily true. The Church doesn't operate on your definition of what a marriage should be. Sure, love and commitment are important but the list of requirements in a marriage is not defined as such by any means. The church is at full authority to decide who should get married within its walls. What is doesn't have authority over however, is to whom and how it dictates its message. The issue here is that the church is trying to involve itself politically, and to make a statement on society; and that is where it has gone wrong.

No, the church just operates on its own definition of what it thinks marriage should be. The church of England didn't invent marriage, so I have no idea where it gets such a sense of entitlement.

If the church really doesn't want religious same-sex marriage then that's fine, but it has no reason to oppose civil marriages and should't be advising on the issue at all.

I was responding to a quote in the article. I suppose we all have our own ideas on what devalues marriage. If for the church it is indeed all about gender then I'm astounded that people even bother getting married by the church any more at all.

Reply 231

.eXe

11

Original post by Mm_Minty

No, the church just operates on its own definition of what it thinks marriage should be. The church of England didn't invent marriage, so I have no idea where it gets such a sense of entitlement.

If the church really doesn't want religious same-sex marriage then that's fine, but it has no reason to oppose civil marriages and should't be advising on the issue at all.

I was responding to a quote in the article. I suppose we all have our own ideas on what devalues marriage. If for the church it is indeed all about gender then I'm astounded that people even bother getting married by the church any more at all.

Theres nothing to be astounded about really. The church is a Christian entity. Christianity forbids homosexual marriages (it doesn't forbid homosexuality though) and thus, the church cares very much about the gender of the couple.

What is so astounding about that? Not everything has to be PC.

Also, yes i agree with your first point. I don't believe the church should be speaking on these matters but that doesn't mean that it cant haves rules and regulations on who can get married on its premises. The church is at full authority to deny someone who does not share its beliefs. I see nothing wrong with that. I just don't agree with the church unanimously denouncing something, rather than just on its premises.

Posted via TSR iPhone App

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 232

Ineluctable

OP

3

Original post by mmmpie

Persecution complex much? Homosexuals want to get married because they want to marry each other, not because they want to upset you or undermine your 'sacred tradition'.

The church has the right to refuse to marry gay couples - in fact the church will not be allowed to marry gay couples. However, I do not live in a church but rather in a 21st century liberal democracy, so I expect equal treatment before the (secular) law.

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

Reply 233

adsyrah

10

Original post by Ineluctable

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

Civil marriage has sweet FA to do with religion.

God didn't create marriage to start with.

Marriage predates your religion.

In fact homosexuality predates your religion (the ancient greeks were into a bit of man-on-man love!)

So basically, you just don't like gays and want to deny them a right heterosexual couples enjoy - i.e. you're a bigot.

Reply 234

Greenley

Original post by madders94

I see refusing to marry gays on the same basis as refusing to marry people because they're black or because they're disabled - none of these things are a choice, so why are the latter two allowed to call it marriage but the former isn't?

So so true. Marriage is the event of two people joining together, making their love official, permanent, and all the more meaningful. Noone should be denied this right, it's pure cruelty. 'You can't marry the person you love because you were born differently to us.'

Reply 235

Labqueen

Original post by Ineluctable

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

God made man in his image and homosexuality is part of that.

Marriage is sacred, it is a commitment between two people to show their love for each other and to be with only each other. Those feelings of commitment are not reserved solely for man and woman.

If you look properly at homosexual relationships, they tend to be more faithful than heterosexual relationships. Adultery in marriage is one of the main reasons for divorce. So if homosexuals tend to be remain faithful to their partner, would that mean they understand the concept of how sacred the commitment is between two people? Likely more so than heterosexual couples in many cases.

I fail to see how it's hijacking marriage and not meaning something. That's very much the same as homosexuals eating pizza and then pizza never being the same for you or it never really being pizza for homosexuals.

It appears to be more a problem for people to accept that homosexuals exist and giving them the right to marry would mean they did exist and were in fact equal to heterosexuals.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 236

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Ineluctable

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

Only because the Church has taken a simple set-up that out-dates religion and claimed it as their own, then imposed their ideals onto it.

Despite the church's insistence, marriage is not a religious thing, and their hang-ups on certain people (great job with following that "do unto others that you would have them do unto you" bit by the way :rolleyes:

) should not have any bearing on who is allowed to marry.

Reply 237

Smerdyakov

Original post by Alofleicester

Only because the Church has taken a simple set-up that out-dates religion and claimed it as their own, then imposed their ideals onto it.

Despite the church's insistence, marriage is not a religious thing, and their hang-ups on certain people (great job with following that "do unto others that you would have them do unto you" bit by the way :rolleyes:

) should not have any bearing on who is allowed to marry.

I agree.

The fundamental problem with the whole argument is that they think that they have the right to tell someone else how to live their personal lives. It's just ridiculous that so many people think its their business to pass judgement on others.

Reply 238

mmmpie

12

Original post by Ineluctable

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

I think you're confusing your particular marriage ritual with marriage the legal institution. I would explain, but you wouldn't grasp it.

Reply 239

Psyk

16

Original post by Ineluctable

Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

So is marriage completely meaningless for people who don't believe in god? If its meaning is completely derived from "god's word", then surely it would be totally meaningless to someone who doesn't believe in that. So presumably your opinion also applies to anyone who doesn't have a religious wedding, not just gay couples.

Church of England warning on gay marriage

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you