johnfás wrote:

I've given my opinion on the merits of same sex unions within the context of the Church as best I can above.

However, I think it is irrelevant in the context of the debate on same sex unions as I don't necessarily believe that what the Church considers to be marriage need be in line with what the State permits. The Church does not allow its leaders to be adulterers, yet there is nothing illegal about it. The Church does not allow its leaders to be alcoholics or at least it should not, yet equally this is not illegal in the context of the State.

Oh don't mind me, I'm just in a mischievious mood at the moment. I was watching University Challenge so I had the great Paxo on the brain. In all seriousness you gave a full, thoughtful, balanced and altogether reasonable assessment of the situation and it's clear to me why they have a sensible person like yourself involved at a high level with the Methodist church.

Thank you johnfás, that was very clear and informative. It is a very interesting debate and I'm sorry if it appeared that I was trying to force you into taking a position. I imagine that you are a formidable debater!

I am just in from a meeting where these issues where discussed in a UK context amongst various churches. I was attending as an observer. Great to see such a diversity of opinion and a respect thereof.

My take on this issue, like the gay 'marriage' issue in California, is that it's all about the use of language. In my view the mistake was made when heterosexual legal, non-religious, unions were described by the same term, 'marriage', as the sacramental religious union. It was only a step, then, to demands that legal unions between homosexual couples, or the legal protections afforded to them, should be called 'marriage' as well, as a non-discriminatory measure. It is unsurprising that many would oppose the concept of an equivalence between a religious sacramental marriage and a gay civil union. If only different terms altogether were used at the outset to describe civil and religious unions, this could have been avoided...

What about religious gay couples? Different thing altogether?

cactus flower wrote:

What about religious gay couples? Different thing altogether?

Not a matter for the State.