-
Posts
-
I’m not sure if the Church is legally obliged to marry divorcees or whether it is at their discretion. I know they banned it.
Whatever happens, there is going to be a battle between Church and State.
I don’t understand the Church. It has all these mantras such as “do unto others as you would have done unto you” but only when it suits it seems.
If you have two religious ppl one gay and one straight and the straight one opposes gay marriage, why do they have the right to say who can marry in front of God? Goes against the aforementioned mantra.
gay people have won equality, and my guess is that civil marriage will soon be legal.
It’s a question of religion, which is still very important for many people, in this country and the world.The question is caused by the Church of England’s decision to oppose gay marriage on relgious grounds, and as the Church of England is officially tied in with the State, it obviously has a knock-on effect.
There is disagreement among Christians about gay marriage. Many Anglicans support the idea, and quite strong arguments rage on both sides.
Opposition to homosexuality is deep-rooted in the Christian religion (Islam too). Paul found sexual relations betweeen people of the same gender abhorrent (mind you, he had much the same attitude to sexual relations between men and women, but at least you could go forth and multiply – usually). Much of the early Church seems to have been rampant wiht sexuality, if you take the denunciations whihc figure in the New Testament seriously (one woman who seems to have been quite a Christian trollop was given a promise of a special roasting in Hell by the Elder John who wrote Revelation, the scary book at the Bible’s end which inspired The Omen part 2 etc)
The fact is that, Paul notwithstanding, Jesus didn’t actually mention homosexuality. He wasn’t for or agin. It’s a traditon grown from Paul in particular (the same Paul who called for slaves to show thier love for their owners by working harder without complaint, and for women to accept their God-given inferiority).
The Anglican church is also a funny church. Its decisons are usually taken politically, and theology is dragged in as an excuse. If they had supported gay marriage, they would have lost all their African bigots who want the death penalty for being gay in their own countries. The Church is in great danger of disintegration over the question of women bishops, and allowing the gays equality would really set the cat among the pigeons.
But a gay couple who are religious – who love each other – are like heterosexuals who are also religious and love one another. Being one in the sight of God is very important to them. Being denied that by a Church which preaches love yet denies their love is a cause of genuine pain.
I don’t want change for the sake of change, but change here seems important.
@sceptical guy wrote:
But a gay couple who are religious – who love each other – are like heterosexuals who are also religious and love one another. Being one in the sight of God is very important to them. Being denied that by a Church which preaches love yet denies their love is a cause of genuine pain.
I don’t want change for the sake of change, but change here seems important.
I agree sceptical… on a human level to deny two people the right before god to declare thier love and have that accepted by the church and the rest of us seems inhuman to me….
@sceptical guy wrote:
gay people have won equality, and my guess is that civil marriage will soon be legal.
It’s a question of religion, which is still very important for many people, in this country and the world.The question is caused by the Church of England’s decision to oppose gay marriage on relgious grounds, and as the Church of England is officially tied in with the State, it obviously has a knock-on effect.
There is disagreement among Christians about gay marriage. Many Anglicans support the idea, and quite strong arguments rage on both sides.
Opposition to homosexuality is deep-rooted in the Christian religion (Islam too). Paul found sexual relations betweeen people of the same gender abhorrent (mind you, he had much the same attitude to sexual relations between men and women, but at least you could go forth and multiply – usually). Much of the early Church seems to have been rampant wiht sexuality, if you take the denunciations whihc figure in the New Testament seriously (one woman who seems to have been quite a Christian trollop was given a promise of a special roasting in Hell by the Elder John who wrote Revelation, the scary book at the Bible’s end which inspired The Omen part 2 etc)
The fact is that, Paul notwithstanding, Jesus didn’t actually mention homosexuality. He wasn’t for or agin. It’s a traditon grown from Paul in particular (the same Paul who called for slaves to show thier love for their owners by working harder without complaint, and for women to accept their God-given inferiority).
The Anglican church is also a funny church. Its decisons are usually taken politically, and theology is dragged in as an excuse. If they had supported gay marriage, they would have lost all their African bigots who want the death penalty for being gay in their own countries. The Church is in great danger of disintegration over the question of women bishops, and allowing the gays equality would really set the cat among the pigeons.
But a gay couple who are religious – who love each other – are like heterosexuals who are also religious and love one another. Being one in the sight of God is very important to them. Being denied that by a Church which preaches love yet denies their love is a cause of genuine pain.
I don’t want change for the sake of change, but change here seems important.
I don’t much about the bible but isn’t it full of incest? I seem to remember if Adam and Eve were the first, then surely their sons and daughters commited incest to carry on the population? Forgive me if I’m wrong but that’s how it seems to me.
Thanks, Mrs T. Whatever differences we have, I think we agree on trying to avoid hurting and humiliating people.
Panda, the Old Testament is full of that stuff. In Genesis, when some guys come round to rape and murder a man’s guest, the host is so ashamed of the disgrace that male rape brings on his household that he offers up his young virgin daughter for a vicious gangbang as a peace offering. The offer is gratefully accepted. I can get chapter and verse if required.
The Old Testament is a very cruel story, though, based on the Covenant the Jewish people claimed was made between themselves and a vengeful, jealous God. God was particularly pi ssed at Eve’s liking for curling serpents and for apples, and how she tempted poor old Adam with her wily ways. O Woman, for shame!!
The New Testament is supposed to be different. A lot of argument about why, though you wouldn’t think that given the belief of so many that they know exactly what the New Testament is about.
But Jesus has been rewritten a lot when it comes to the naughties. There was a story about a married woman caught in the nasty act with another guy, who is dragged before Jesus. He just looks at all the grinning hypocrites and asks that anyone without sin should cast the first stone. When he looks up, they’ve all gone. The story belonged to no gospel, but was felt to be true so was stuck in John’s gospel. But them church puritans couldn’t leave well alone. As it stood, the story seemed to be condoning adultery – omg Jesus ended by telling the wicked woman “Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way” (what a lvoely man!).
As everyone in JC knows adultery is wrong wrong wrong and anyone found out is shamed as a nasty cheat. This was the view of the Church Fathers, so they added the following to Jesus’ lips -“Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more”. Phew!! the Jermey Kyle audience can breathe a sigh of relief.
Thanks Sceptical. Churches are free to decide for themselves what they want. It’s the Church of England’s political position in this country which makes its policies important.
Should a church attended by a minority be able to impose a ban on gay marriage on a majority who either agree or are indifferent to it?
If that church’s position is to appease bishops in Africa and other regions then it shows the usual cynically ironic link between apparent political correctness and bigotry.
I don’t like Nick Cohen’s pro-war attitudes, but here is an interesting account of why Rowan Williams changed his attitude to gay and lesbian marriage.
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/jun/17/nick-cohen-rowan-williams-hypocrisy
I agree. See? I always knew the Reformation was bad news lol.
But seriously, it’s only in recent years that my own country has taken steps to modify or indeed eliminate the more stringent Catholic stipulations that have been present in its constitution. It is, and always has been a difficult relationship, and not without it’s fair share of tragedy and wasted opportunity historically.
Constitutional questions put to the Irish people in recent years have had more than their fair share of church v state dilemmas. Massive moral issues such as divorce and abortion have all had the referendum treatment. Personally, balancing fidelity to ones faith with ones civil duty and obligations as a citizen have been difficult at times. Not always in fairness, but enough to register deep reflection , soul searching and difficult decision making.
Words is perfectly right. In registering my approval for people to at the very least have the right to choose what I may personally have a problem with, I am in many ways asking others to grant me the same courtesy. This is the very essence of democracy.The Catholic Church on the other hand, is not a democracy. And if it maintains a stance of zero tolerance on what it perceives to be forms of a la carte Christianity then so be it. I’m afraid trust in the Holy Fathers judgement seems to apply here.
Balancing this or sometimes attempting compromise can be murder I tell you. As you can imagine, it’s not always a walk in the park.
I got told by a nun once, that there is no need to go to church to pray, and, that god watches over you all the time anyway – so even if churches don’t allow gay marriages, I think the partners in civil services should think of that.
I am atheist, and think each to their own, and really don’t have a strong view either way.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
But a gay couple who are religious – who love each other – are like heterosexuals who are also religious and love one another. Being one in the sight of God is very important to them. Being denied that by a Church which preaches love yet denies their love is a cause of genuine pain.
I don’t want change for the sake of change, but change here seems important.
I agree sceptical… on a human level to deny two people the right before god to declare thier love and have that accepted by the church and the rest of us seems inhuman to me….
i hear you sceptical, but when did a church become the place that you were in sight of god?
That rankles me, god is all around, he is each and every one of us that chose to open are hearts and souls to him and accept him, he is not only inside the numerous churches in Britain, so i stick by what i say, whats to be gained from pushing a church into feeling pressured to accepting this, cos no matter what whether they agree to it or not it will still be against what they are wanting and feeling, which makes a mockery of going there to have the wedding in my opinion, concentrate on your faith from within and loving the person, not for the sake of unfeeling words from a priest who is doing so out of sufferance.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!