Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

I will happily get into this discussion too.

It is generally accepted that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle, as I'm sure you will agree. My question is why. Is it a decree from God, without any explanation or motive exhibited? Or do you believe God's objection to the homosexual lifestyle can be understood in the context of mental and physical well-being, just as we can understand why God opposes stealing, murdering and paedophilia.

Seems to be because it is a perversion of God's gift of sex. It was meant for one man and one woman, united forever. Not one man and one man, one woman and one woman, one woman and two or more men, one man and two or more women or any variations.

The perfect state at the beginning of Creation is the mark:
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”


There also seems to be a gradation in the offence: polygamy and divorce were tolerated by God for a long time, even though He did not approve of them. That never was the case with homosexuality. It was the offence that characterised Sodom & Gomorrah. It is specifically highlighted as a perversion by Paul in Romans 1.

I think the physical and social demerits of homosexuality are more an effect than a cause of its condemnation by God.

*******************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

Benny_Cake

wolfsbane wrote: »

The issue of homosexual marriage is contentious not because we object to homosexuals entering a life-long commitment similar to heterosexuals, but because the gay lobby wants to force their definition on the heterosexual term.

It they would like to call it 'homosexual marriage', that would be fine by me. Just not 'marriage'.

What the "gay lobby" is looking for is the right to civil marriage. Civil marriage is essentially a legal contract between two people - along with whatever meaning the couple themselves assign to their relationship. It seems to me that no one is attempting to force churches to perform marriages between partners of the same sex. So what exactly is your objection - because I find it hard to believe it's over the meaning of the word "marriage"?

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Would you care if he did?

I have to agree with the Christians on this one, I'm sort of at a loss why people are getting so offended.

For a start it is difficult to believe everyone here didn't already know that Christianity considered homosexual acts to be sinful. So the idea that someone would be offended by that commonly known fact simply being repeated seems silly.

Also a very simply solution to finding Christian doctrine illogical or repulsive is to not be a Christian.

It seems though that people not only don't want to believe this stuff, but they want Christians to stop believing it as well. That is also some what silly.

There are anti-homosexual movements within Christianity that attempt to impose Christian notions of sexual purity on others despite not having grounds within the standard modern notions of what justifies civil restrictions (ie is it harming anyone). These movements should be fought against.

But people seem to be taking offense at the very existence of Christianity and the beliefs. People don't need to respect them, but are people honestly offended by their existences? Why would anyone care that much?

That's a breath of fresh air! Just the sort of Tolerance our societies need!

tommy2bad

There also seems to be a gradation in the offence: polygamy and divorce were tolerated by God for a long time, even though He did not approve of them. That never was the case with homosexuality. It was the offence that characterised Sodom & Gomorrah. It is specifically highlighted as a perversion by Paul in Romans 1.

Buzz; wrong, try again.

JimiTime

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Morbert wrote: »

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is motive, and who our master is. There is nothing wrong with sending a person a card. Its the matter of the heart that could condmnn a person in Gods site though. For example, if I'm a married man desiring a relationship with someone other than my wife, and I send such an item as an indication of my sinful desire, then the motive makes it sinful. Its not simply sending a card. So if sending the card is borne out of something that is rebellious against God, i.e. something sinful, then its not just sending a card.

To illustrate the inequality, consider these two cases: An unmarried woman sending a card to an unmarried man, and an unmarried homosexual woman sending a card to an unmarried woman. Both cases are identical insofar as both gestures are not born from simple lusts, but from complex affections and deep emotions. In the first case, the woman's heart opens doors to blossoming relationships. In the second case, the woman's heart condemns her to hell.

How many others here would agree with this, that a lesbian who sends a valentines card is condemned to hell?

Yeah, thats wat I said. (contains sarcasm)
God give me patience!

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What the "gay lobby" is looking for is the right to civil marriage. Civil marriage is essentially a legal contract between two people - along with whatever meaning the couple themselves assign to their relationship. It seems to me that no one is attempting to force churches to perform marriages between partners of the same sex. So what exactly is your objection - because I find it hard to believe it's over the meaning of the word "marriage"?

But that is what the gay lobby are demanding - Christians and churches not being allowed to 'discriminate' against gay couples asking for a church wedding.

I object to changing the definition of marriage to include gay marriage. If it takes a formal definition of civil marriage as not identical to historical marriage, so that it can embrace gay couples, then fair enough. We would then all understand marriage in the historical sense is not meant when gay marriage is being spoken of. Then polygamy, polyandry, homosexual marriages can be introduced by the State. They will be just a further toleration of sinful activities, to add to the many already tolerated by the State.

Nothing for Christians to worry about - unless they try to make us say such relationships are not sinful!

*********************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Buzz; wrong, try again.

You seem to believe anything the liberals throw at you.

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

*************************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

Benny_Cake

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem to believe anything the liberals throw at you.

I'd be careful throwing remarks like that around, it's a two way street you know

Should a church be required to carry out a same sex marriage? No - in fact a church would be free to turn away any straight couple that didn't meet whatever requirements the church has, and so far no straight couple has brought a case against a church, not successfully anyway. So I don't see what there is to worry about there.

Similarly, you can think or say what you want about same-sex relationships, that you think they are sinful or whatever, as long as you aren't harassing someone or invading their privacy.

Civil marriage is simply a way for the state to provide legal recognition and certain rights to a couple, be they straight or gay. It is a civil rights issue and you can't expect the state to redefine that right simply because it offends the morality of some Christians. Similarly, the state should not interfere in the practise of church marriages. Seems simple enough really. As you say, nothing for Christians to worry about (and some of us were never worried about it at all).

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't see that anyone is suggesting solitary confinement.

The concept that there is such a thing as a 'gay person' has not existed for most of history.

Human beings have the capability, under certain circumstances, to be attracted to all kinds of people or objects. These can change depending on what is available or achievable (eg 'straight' men who engage in gay sex in prison). Those whom we would find the most attractive are not always accessible or willing.

Our choices of sexual partner are not made in isolation. They are determined by our beliefs and ideologies and environment. For example, even before I was a Christian I don't think I could have been involved in an intimate relationship with someone who was a racist. My beliefs would preclude me from doing so, even if the racist was the person I found more physically attractive than any other.

When we choose to follow Jesus, that involves discipleship. We do not fulfil whatever action might appear to be enjoyable. Instead we believe that the joy to be found in following Jesus is worth curtailing some of our choices in life.

Some people who would want to have an active sex life never do so because they don't find a suitable wife or husband. Some people who are attracted to children or animals choose not to indulge those desires. Some people who would feel more attracted to those of the same sex nevertheless find real joy and lasting happiness in being married to someone of the opposite sex. Some people who would be most atttracted to the actress Olivia Wilde find they can still live happy fulfilled lives by marrying Jane Smith from Balbriggan. Some people are attracted to multiple people, but choose instead to devote themselves to just one person. It all comes down to choices.

In a secular democratic society (which is the kind of society I choose to live in) people are free to make these choices (with the obvious proviso that we don't abuse the rights of others by actions such as rape or child abuse). I support fully their right to make those choices.

But that does not mean that every choice is compatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that God approves of every possible choice that people might make. Nor is it intolerant or unloving if you refuse to pretend that all those possible choices are approved by God.

Well said!

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Should a church be required to carry out a same sex marriage? No - in fact a church would be free to turn away any straight couple that didn't meet whatever requirements the church has, and so far no straight couple has brought a case against a church, not successfully anyway. So I don't see what there is to worry about there.

Similarly, you can think or say what you want about same-sex relationships, that you think they are sinful or whatever, as long as you aren't harassing someone or invading their privacy.

Civil marriage is simply a way for the state to provide legal recognition and certain rights to a couple, be they straight or gay. It is a civil rights issue and you can't expect the state to redefine that right simply because it offends the morality of some Christians. Similarly, the state should not interfere in the practise of church marriages. Seems simple enough really. As you say, nothing for Christians to worry about (and some of us were never worried about it at all).

I don't have a problem with that then. Now, if you can just get the gay lobby to agree...

*****************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

Benny_Cake

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that then. Now, if you can just get the gay lobby to agree...

The gay community is made up of all manner of people, and there are many groups representing it with differing agendas. It isn't a monolith. Have you come across any cases where gay couples have sought to force churches to marry them?

PDN

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd be careful throwing remarks like that around, it's a two way street you know

Should a church be required to carry out a same sex marriage? No - in fact a church would be free to turn away any straight couple that didn't meet whatever requirements the church has, and so far no straight couple has brought a case against a church, not successfully anyway. So I don't see what there is to worry about there.

Similarly, you can think or say what you want about same-sex relationships, that you think they are sinful or whatever, as long as you aren't harassing someone or invading their privacy.

Civil marriage is simply a way for the state to provide legal recognition and certain rights to a couple, be they straight or gay. It is a civil rights issue and you can't expect the state to redefine that right simply because it offends the morality of some Christians. Similarly, the state should not interfere in the practise of church marriages. Seems simple enough really. As you say, nothing for Christians to worry about (and some of us were never worried about it at all).

I think the problem is that we have three different things here:

a) A civil partnership. This can apply to homosexual or heterosexual couples and accords them equal rights as regards inheritance, visitation in hospital etc.

b) A church wedding. This is a lifetime covenant between one man and one woman that is seen as being made in the sight of God.

c) A civil wedding. This is an often temporary contract, made in a civil setting, which is currently between one man and one woman.

The relation between these is somewhat confused. At present State and Church recognise each others marriages, but maybe that will change.

I would be happy for the Church to stop using the word 'marriage' altogether (since it no longer refers to what it once did), and to replace it with another term ('covenant commitment'?) which refers to one man and woman entering into a lifelong commitment in the sight of God. In this scenario the State would no longer recognise Church weddings, they would have no more legal standing than a church baptism. And the Church would no longer recognise civil weddings.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well yes it is, I used monogamy as an example of something that God 'changed' on just to stay with apples and apples.
Lets take slavery then. God never said it was wrong, in fact scripture was used to justify slavery but we moved on. Or do you still think slavery is OK just not legal according to the world?
Is God going to condemn to Hell a loving committed homosexual couple while welcoming slave traders to heaven as long as they never engaged in homosexual acts?

God is going to punish in hell everyone who has fallen short of His standards for mankind. If they, in any way, have failed to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

The only way of escape is for Christ to have taken your punishment, and you the righteousness of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


Revelation 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

**********************************************************************
1 Corinthians6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I think the problem is that we have three different things here:

a) A civil partnership. This can apply to homosexual or heterosexual couples and accords them equal rights as regards inheritance, visitation in hospital etc.

b) A church wedding. This is a lifetime covenant between one man and one woman that is seen as being made in the sight of God.

c) A civil wedding. This is an often temporary contract, made in a civil setting, which is currently between one man and one woman.

The relation between these is somewhat confused. At present State and Church recognise each others marriages, but maybe that will change.

I would be happy for the Church to stop using the word 'marriage' altogether (since it no longer refers to what it once did), and to replace it with another term ('covenant commitment'?) which refers to one man and woman entering into a lifelong commitment in the sight of God. In this scenario the State would no longer recognise Church weddings, they would have no more legal standing than a church baptism. And the Church would no longer recognise civil weddings.

I agree with most of that - just one caveat: any heterosexual marriage (within Biblically lawful bounds) is recognised by God as a valid marriage, be it in church, Civic Hall or elsewhere.

********************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

I think the problem is that we have three different things here:

a) A civil partnership. This can apply to homosexual or heterosexual couples and accords them equal rights as regards inheritance, visitation in hospital etc.

b) A church wedding. This is a lifetime covenant between one man and one woman that is seen as being made in the sight of God.

c) A civil wedding. This is an often temporary contract, made in a civil setting, which is currently between one man and one woman.

The relation between these is somewhat confused. At present State and Church recognise each others marriages, but maybe that will change.

I would be happy for the Church to stop using the word 'marriage' altogether (since it no longer refers to what it once did), and to replace it with another term ('covenant commitment'?) which refers to one man and woman entering into a lifelong commitment in the sight of God. In this scenario the State would no longer recognise Church weddings, they would have no more legal standing than a church baptism. And the Church would no longer recognise civil weddings.

Hmm, I don't know if I think this could be a can of worms to be honest PDN. As it stands the Church recognises all marriages ( in the RCC - it's a sacrament ) - it would be pretty odd not to recognise a civil wedding, considering essentially the two have become one flesh?

Anyway, would this not create untold weirdness in relation to people possibly getting married in the Church and then to somebody else by the State?

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The gay community is made up of all manner of people, and there are many groups representing it with differing agendas. It isn't a monolith. Have you come across any cases where gay couples have sought to force churches to marry them?

It's the intolerant lobby I'm objecting to. For example:
Tory MP urges Cameron to crack down on churches that refuse to hold same-sex ceremonies
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/08/tory-mp-urges-cameron-to-crack-down-on-churches-that-refuse-to-hold-same-sex-ceremonies/

Judge: NJ Church Illegally Banned Gay Ceremony
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/January/Judge-NJ-Church-Illegally-Banned-Gay-Ceremony-/

*******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with most of that - just one caveat: any heterosexual marriage (within Biblically lawful bounds) is recognised by God as a valid marriage, be it in church, Civic Hall or elsewhere.

Even if neither partner sees it as being a lifelong commitment? We all know that some people get married with the idea of "Ah sure, if it doesn't work out we can always get a divorce."

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, would this not create untold weirdness in relation to people possibly getting married in the Church and then to somebody else by the State?

According to the teaching of the RC Church, would that not be how it is viewed now when someone gets divorced and then remarries in a civil ceremony? Just wondering.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Where though is romantic love between homosexuals described though in the Bible?



Well if you think that romantic love between two gay people is considered illegitimate according to the Bible, we go back to Morbert's original point.

Personally I don't even think the Bible recognizes that there is such a thing as romantic love between homosexuals, it seems to have no notion of such a concept, viewing romantic love purely in heterosexual terms, and homosexuality purely in terms of sexual lust. But that is just my opinion, I'm not a Christian (as I'm sure everyone is aware).



So it is not just the physical sexual act, but a gay man being in love (romantic love) with another man, is in itself sinful?

Is that actually specifically mentioned in the Bible, or is it an expansion on the commandments not to have physical sex with another man?

The general rule on desire covers all aspects:
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Romantic love involves sexual desire, the desire to be one with the other. To own one another's body. That can only lawfully be resolved in heterosexual marriage. All else is sin. Embracing the desire for unlawful fulfilment is a sin. Be it adultery, fornication or homosexuality.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Even if neither partner sees it as being a lifelong commitment? We all know that some people get married with the idea of "Ah sure, if it doesn't work out we can always get a divorce."

If they express that sentiment, then it is not a true marriage, just formal fornication. But if they vow to be man and wife forever, then that is God-ordained marriage, respected by Him - be they ever so godless.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Based on what?
Other than a biblical admonishment are their any reasons why its wrong. OK if it just that, thats your right to choose but so many religions want to base the law of the land on this idea that they should have to back up the claim or opt out of the discussion. What they chose to do is their decision like fasting or praying but once they campaign to have it legislated for or against they need reasons other than the circular logis of "its wrong because God said so aand God said it wrong because its wrong"

The Biblical command is the basis of all the Christian's morality. Whether or not secondary issues confirm the wisdom of that command, makes no difference.

Legislating on it is another matter. There are many sins the State should not legislate on, in my opinion. It has enough to do to maintain public order, without meddling in the bedroom.

*******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

According to the teaching of the RC Church, would that not be how it is viewed now when someone gets divorced and then remarries in a civil ceremony? Just wondering.

Yes, that's right. Essentially the person is still married to their first wife/husband and committing adultery. Unless a marriage is annulled - Divorce is not really the same thing, the state grants divorce for many reasons, irreconcileable differences etc. The RC doesn't quite see that marriage can be dissolved like this, or agree that it should be.

However, the Church recognise all Marriages not just Marriage within the Church itself between a man and woman as a 'Marriage' and a joining of two people.

I just think the idea could create problems tbh, legal problems too if marriage is not recognised by both as having taken place. Interesting proposition though, I'd have to think that one through properly....just my initial instinct -

tommy2bad

And their was a time when the church didn't do marriage at all it was the sacrament of matrimony. Mother making and could be refused to those who were past childbearing age.
Things change.

Wolfsbane, thanks for the hell fire and brimstone, I've missed it, all this love and forgiveness looses it flavor after a time, a bit of salt in the wounds dose no harm.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's the intolerant lobby I'm objecting to. For example:
Tory MP urges Cameron to crack down on churches that refuse to hold same-sex ceremonies
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/08/tory-mp-urges-cameron-to-crack-down-on-churches-that-refuse-to-hold-same-sex-ceremonies/

Judge: NJ Church Illegally Banned Gay Ceremony
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/January/Judge-NJ-Church-Illegally-Banned-Gay-Ceremony-/

*******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now this is an angle that needs sorting out.
If a priest acts as an official register for the state, can he then overrule the state definition of marriage. He is most certainly within his rights to refuse the use of the church, unless the church is part of the state. An established church could have trouble here. If anything it another good reason for the separation of church and state.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

And their was a time when the church didn't do marriage at all it was the sacrament of matrimony. Mother making and could be refused to those who were past childbearing age.
Things change.

Wolfsbane, thanks for the hell fire and brimstone, I've missed it, all this love and forgiveness looses it flavor after a time, a bit of salt in the wounds dose no harm.

The Church are not the ones joining the people together Tommy, it's God who does that iykwim. Yes, indeed a Priest can refuse to marry someone if he sees fit, or for a good reason. Imo if a woman is past childbearing age that's no good reason - so for shame if Priests did this at any time, for shame too that some children were buried outside Church grounds because some Priests thought this was proper - I understand all these things happened and some of them were because a Priest didn't possess the finest quality of 'Love' first -

Anyway, I think the topic is difficult, and I will openly say that there is no one approach that is best, some is very firm and hard handed or seems that way, and the other is too softy softy - no matter the approach of a Christian however, it doesn't change the fact that a sin is a sin however, every human being should be treated with respect and dignity, and if our 'words' ever seem to have the effect of creating 'hate groups' - which has happened than we should mind them and use them carefully and with love.

Benny_Cake

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, that's right. Essentially the person is still married to their first wife/husband and committing adultery. Unless a marriage is annulled - Divorce is not really the same thing, the state grants divorce for many reasons, irreconcileable differences etc. The RC doesn't quite see that marriage can be dissolved like this, or agree that it should be.

However, the Church recognise all Marriages not just Marriage within the Church itself between a man and woman as a 'Marriage' and a joining of two people.

I just think the idea could create problems tbh, legal problems too if marriage is not recognised by both as having taken place. Interesting proposition though, I'd have to think that one through properly....just my initial instinct -

It's already done this way in quite a few countries - the civil wedding takes place at a registry office or town hall, and if someone wants a church or religious wedding, they can do that seperately. As I understand it, in Ireland the priest or minister essentially becomes a civil registrar for the duration of the ceremony, so it's kind of half-and-half, like so much else in this country. My understanding was that only certain denominations were able to do this - PDN, does a Pentecostal wedding carry legal effect or do the couple have to register it separately.

As for the Catholic aspect, it's rapidly becoming a major issue, mainly due to the large number of Catholic marriages ending in divorce (at much the same rate as the general population). The problem for the people concerned is that if they remarry in a civil ceremony without getting an annulment from the Church, they cannot partake in the sacraments. Annulment is a seriously gruelling process from what I've heard. A relative of mine, who had a divorce from an abusive husband (they had 3 kids) will be remarrying in a civil ceremony simply because she dreaded the annulment process and he wouldn't have played ball anyway. Sad situation to be caught up in.

tommy2bad

lmaopml;
The Church are not the ones joining the people together Tommy, it's God who does that iykwim.

Technically you marry each other, the priest is only their to bless the union.
Your right about all the things done because of a lack of understanding but the marriage thing wasn't one of them. As I said the sacrament was matrimony and couldn't be given to people who could not have children. Marriage didn't come into it. They were free to marry as they pleased.
This was because the church drew a distinction between a church sacrament and what they considered a profane ceremonie. Historically marriage has been a contract between people with property not a church sacrament.
Ironical that now some people seek to use the historical understanding of marriage to support their claim for the religious version to hold sway.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Technically you marry each other, the priest is only their to bless the union.
Your right about all the things done because of a lack of understanding but the marriage thing wasn't one of them. As I said the sacrament was matrimony and couldn't be given to people who could not have children. Marriage didn't come into it. They were free to marry as they pleased.
This was because the church drew a distinction between a church sacrament and what they considered a profane ceremonie. Historically marriage has been a contract between people with property not a church sacrament.
Ironical that now some people seek to use the historical understanding of marriage to support their claim for the religious version to hold sway.

Where did you get that information Tommy? May I read it, just to get some clarity and context please.

PDN

Benny_Cake wrote: »

My understanding was that only certain denominations were able to do this - PDN, does a Pentecostal wedding carry legal effect or do the couple have to register it separately.

Our pastors are registered as solemnisers - so at present they conduct the wedding, sign the notification, and the couple then swap that bit of paper at the registrars office for a marriage cert.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

Our pastors are registered as solemnisers - so at present they conduct the wedding, sign the notification, and the couple then swap that bit of paper at the registrars office for a marriage cert.

How does it work PDN with the Pastor if a person who previously married represents themselves for marriage to somebody else?