Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

6 Feb 2013

Quote by northwest-cpl
If 'marriage' needs a religious element then surely no opposite sex couples who have a registry office ceremony with no religious blessing should be regarded as 'married'.

If getting married did not need a religious element, churches would not be full every Saturday ready to marry couples. For many people marrying in church, is the most important thing about the ceremony,and for many it is getting God's blessing.

6 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
But a gay couple at the moment saying they are married is not true in the eyes of the law. Yes they have the same rights as a married couple, but are not married.

So a civil partnership has the same legal status as a civil marriage but neither of them are able to call themselves married because it wasn't done in a draughty old stone building?

6 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

If 'marriage' needs a religious element then surely no opposite sex couples who have a registry office ceremony with no religious blessing should be regarded as 'married'.

If getting married did not need a religious element, churches would not be full every Saturday ready to marry couples. For many people marrying in church, is the most important thing about the ceremony,and for many it is getting God's blessing.
And for so many..its a nice photograph opportunity. Makes it a little more like a fairy tale .... I would hazard a guess that more than 50% of people that get married in church, actually visit regular. As stated before, the bible is quite explict about people never having the chance to marry in church twice. However it seems the church are ready to turn a blind eye to that.

6 Feb 2013

Quote by deancannock

If 'marriage' needs a religious element then surely no opposite sex couples who have a registry office ceremony with no religious blessing should be regarded as 'married'.

If getting married did not need a religious element, churches would not be full every Saturday ready to marry couples. For many people marrying in church, is the most important thing about the ceremony,and for many it is getting God's blessing.
And for so many..its a nice photograph opportunity. Makes it a little more like a fairy tale .... I would hazard a guess that more than 50% of people that get married in church, actually visit regular. As stated before, the bible is quite explict about people never having the chance to marry in church twice. However it seems the church are ready to turn a blind eye to that.
And Dean that leads straight in to minx's hypocrisy thread...when it suits the church...bums on seats etc = bigger collection box.

6 Feb 2013

The most recent year I have found reliable statistics for is 2010.
The number of people living in the UK was an estimated
The average weekly Church of England attendance (i.e the number of people that attended at least one service, of any type, during the week Mon-Sun) was
The number of Marriages in Church of England Church in 2010 was less than
The number of civil partnerships in 2010 was just over
Whilst these figures are, like any figures, open to interpretation it does put the issue into context for me at least.

6 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
The most recent year I have found reliable statistics for is 2010.
The number of people living in the UK was an estimated 62.3 million.
The average weekly Church of England attendance (i.e the number of people that attended at least one service, of any type, during the week Mon-Sun) was 1.1 million.

That is slightly warped Trev to be honest. Yes there are 62 million people in the UK and yes only 1.1 million go to church but that figure of 62 million is not a reflection of one religion. If the question was how many people attend a religious place, church, Mosque etc you would find the figures much higher.
That is an unfair assessment Trev.

6 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
The most recent year I have found reliable statistics for is 2010.
The number of people living in the UK was an estimated 62.3 million.
The average weekly Church of England attendance (i.e the number of people that attended at least one service, of any type, during the week Mon-Sun) was 1.1 million.

That is slightly warped Trev to be honest. Yes there are 62 million people in the UK and yes only 1.1 million go to church but that figure of 62 million is not a reflection of one religion. If the question was how many people attend a religious place, church, Mosque etc you would find the figures much higher.
That is an unfair assessment Trev.
I don't think the attending of church is a good measure of religion, so Star I will find the figures for you, these are taken from the 2011 census.
Population Total of England & Wales: 56,075,912
Christians: 33,243,175 (59.3%)
Other Religions: 4,697,476 (8.4%)
Non Religious: 18,135,261 (32.3%)
Surprising...maybe...but it explains a lot of why we can be so prejudiced in this country.

6 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
The most recent year I have found reliable statistics for is 2010.
The number of people living in the UK was an estimated 62.3 million.
The average weekly Church of England attendance (i.e the number of people that attended at least one service, of any type, during the week Mon-Sun) was 1.1 million.

That is slightly warped Trev to be honest. Yes there are 62 million people in the UK and yes only 1.1 million go to church but that figure of 62 million is not a reflection of one religion. If the question was how many people attend a religious place, church, Mosque etc you would find the figures much higher.
That is an unfair assessment Trev.
Oh come now star, you know me well enough through these forums to know that I believe in factual and reliable information. You also know I am happy to state my opinion when it is relevant, despite a lack of source evidence.
I never said it was a fair assessment mate. Lets face it, the Church of England would include you in this statistic if you attended one marriage, funeral of christening during the period. It is a record purely of attendance. However, given that the majority of people in the UK are Church of England by birth (although maybe not in later life), followed by Roman Catholic and then other religions I decided to look at the largest religious organisation rather than the smaller ones.
Even I am pushed to find out the number of same sex civil partnerships of 2 Methodist males!
But to check and balance the figures the number of recorded marriages, from all religious and legitimate sources was just over

7 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Oh come now star, you know me well enough through these forums to know that I believe in factual and reliable information. You also know I am happy to state my opinion when it is relevant, despite a lack of source evidence.

That's a fair enough comment Trev.

Quote by Trevaunance
I never said it was a fair assessment mate. Lets face it, the Church of England would include you in this statistic if you attended one marriage, funeral of christening during the period. It is a record purely of attendance. However, given that the majority of people in the UK are Church of England by birth (although maybe not in later life), followed by Roman Catholic and then other religions I decided to look at the largest religious organisation rather than the smaller ones.

No you did not say it was fair Trev, I said it was unfair.

Quote by Trevaunance
Even I am pushed to find out the number of same sex civil partnerships of 2 Methodist males!

Not bothered.

Quote by Trevaunance
But to check and balance the figures the number of recorded marriages, from all religious and legitimate sources was just over240,000 during 2010.

Proving I suppose that marriage as an institution is rising in it's numbers. Not relevant but thought I would mention it. What is relevant though in your link is the age of the people getting married. Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent '. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.
Is marriage actually that highly thought of now? I mean some silly figure like 1 in 4 ends in divorce anyway.

7 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
But to check and balance the figures the number of recorded marriages, from all religious and legitimate sources was just over 240,000 during 2010.

Proving I suppose that marriage as an institution is rising in it's numbers. Not relevant but thought I would mention it. What is relevant though in your link is the age of the people getting married. Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent '. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.
Is marriage actually that highly thought of now? I mean some silly figure like 1 in 4 ends in divorce anyway.
Marriage is rising, greater rise being in civil ceremonies.
I'm interested to hear why you think these stats can not be proved Star?

Quote by starlightcouple
Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent '

People enter their age, and the number of people are counted...where is the ambiguity in the statistics?

7 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent'. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.

Rogue, reread it. Without putting words in Stars mouth I believe you need to read the following sentence regarding people remarrying to understand the key context of why Star quoted the statistics.

7 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent'. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.

Rogue, reread it. Without putting words in Stars mouth I believe you need to read the following sentence regarding people remarrying to understand the key context of why Star quoted the statistics.
aaah you see Trev he had put a full stop. The sentence was finished. It should have been a comma.
Now I see. biggrin

7 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent'. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.

The figures for 2009 state:
MarriagesTotal = 232,443
1st for both parties = 151,392
1st for one party = 44,323
Remarriage for both parties = 36,728
Without going too far into statistical geek heaven:
10,700 divorced men remarried in 2009 out of 15,822 in the 45-49 age range.
6,279 divorced women remarried in 2009 out of 47,923 in the 30-34 age range.
In the same age ranges and time period less than 400 widowers and 160 widows remarried.
In summary roughly one third of marriages in 2009 involved the second marriage of at least one party. Two thirds of the male age range you identified were remarrying, and roughly one eighth of the women in the age range was remarrying.
I need to get out more loon

7 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Cannot prove this at all but ' The largest percentage increase in numbers from 2009 to 2010 were for men aged 45 to 49 and women aged 30 to 34, both rising by 6 per cent'. Which leads me to believe that a lot of these were second marriages.

Quote by Trevaunance
Rogue, reread it. Without putting words in Stars mouth I believe you need to read the following sentence regarding people remarrying to understand the key context of why Star quoted the statistics.

Quote by Rogue_Trader
aaah you see Trev he had put a full stop. The sentence was finished. It should have been a comma.
Now I see. :-D

If I had put a full stop FFS? Rogue this is not the first time that Trev has been able to understand what I have written, I may well not have put the full stop where it should have been blah blah blah, but next time before you write a reply to me, re read it again and maybe do that a third time, as you are making yourself look a tad silly.
How many times do you have to re read it Rogue? :notes:

7 Feb 2013

Maybe you would care to write with correct grammar...and structure your sentences correctly.

7 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Maybe you would care to write with correct grammar...and structure your sentences correctly.

Is that really the best you can do?? I shall be watching with great delight every time you write something on here, as I shall be playing teacher. :jagsatwork: I shall give you a week, best check before you post and that goes for the mis-reading of posts as well.
:doh:

7 Feb 2013

Yeah? Knock yourself out!

8 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Yeah? Knock yourself out!

Oh dear. Touched a nerve? :notes:
Hope that is grammatically correct for you Sir !
:rascal: silly

hwoar:

8 Feb 2013

You'll be soon running out of friends star....

8 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV

You'll be soon running out of friends star....

Friends GnV? What needed on a cyber space forum? Nah thank you kindly.....I have all the friends I need out here in the REAL world. :thumbup:
As an aside....are you bothered about friends on here then? :therethere: There there indeed.

8 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Yeah? Knock yourself out!

Oh dear. Touched a nerve? :notes:
Nope, but if you want to follow my posts around looking for typos etc. then fine. I have better things to do.

Quote by starlightcouple
Hope that is grammatically correct for you Sir !
:rascal:hwoar:

Depends, it looks as if you just asked a question, if you did then you missed one of these "?" off the end. But that would be churlish to score points that way.