To thjink that MPs should not legistate on whether the church of england should hold same sex marriages

[ReallyTired]

I feel its right that religious organisations are not forced to hold gay marriage cermonies. Freedom of religion is as important as equality for homosexuals. I feel that the matter of same sex marriages should be a matter of conscience for a religious leader. No synagogue, mosque or church should be forced to support gay marriage.

However I am unhappy that the church of england has been banned by MPs who may not even be christian from holding gay marriage cermonies. I feel that the matter of gay marriage should be decided by the general synod of the church of england. Our local priest offers to bless civil partnerships and I am sure she would be very happy to conduct a same sex wedding.

I would like homosexuals to be offered a list of churches where the priest would be happy to bless a gay marriage. I do not like homosexuals being shut out of our churches. (Assuming that the homosexual couple has a connection with a church or that its their nearest church which is prepared to carry out a blessing. As far as possible homosexual couples should meet the same criteria rules as hetrosexual couples.)

Sorry, Jeanne you're right - sexual behaviour between men was still criminalised, was what I meant.

I'm just not sure how much influence can be exerted without the Communion, and I think maybe that need outweighs, at the moment, the need for a definitive statement. I do agree with you, though, about the importance of acknowledging what's "right and true" - but in this case, I'm not sure whether it's best to do that, and end all options for church influence in the future, or go for the wet approach, and hope to continue to work on them in the years ahead.

(Disclaimer: I realise I am being very culturally imperialist about this, saying that the conservative churches should come round to our way of thinking - but I do!)

Catsize yes, a good point! A lot of cognitive dissonance must be necessary - but I get the impression HM takes her role as Defender of the Faith very seriously (unlike her role as Defender of the Constitution, apparently

The logic is not that they can openly discriminate, rather that they won't have to re-write the marriage contract.

You can be gay and married in the UK. Just not within the CofE as they don't have the relevant paperwork. Or some such semantic nonsense that only carries logic in legalese.

But yes, it is much the same thing. The Bible says a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, to become one flesh, to procreate.

The Queen is currently head of a parliament that allows same-sex marriage and head of a church that doesn't - a rather untenable position.

Interesting. So could this mean she doesn't actually force her views either way?

Funny, the church isn't concerned about asking the government for tax exemption but then doesn't want the government to interfere with their prejudice practice.

Yes, Blanche has it exactly - it's the Biblical definition of marriage: in fact, whilst my father has no issues with homosexuality whatsoever, he opposes the idea of "marriage" specifically for that reason - though he is fine with the idea of eg blessings for same sex unions within church etc

next yes - she doesn't really anyway: hence my snidey comment about the constitution

Didn't some of this situation start when heterosexual couples were explicitly prevented from civil partnerships ?

Op I in some ways agree with you. I don't think marriage in a church or place of worship should be a legal commitment and the church/ religious place of worship service should just be a religious ceremony only.

Anyone that marries has a legal service at a register office and then if the choose a religious ceremony that's what they do and every religion gets to choose whether they do gay pk whatever

A bit like France the state and legal is separated from the religion.

But we aren't France and there is a legal reason for it. Marriage has legal standing, Here it is linked to the church. All that they have said is that they will ratify what the church decides, in line with its legal position in England.

What you have suggested is re-writing the English constitution. It goes much further than the issue of marriage.

every religion gets to choose whether they do gay pk whatever which would lead to prosecutions under the sex discrimination act. So, to get what you think is right, this law must be passed!

hefzi - yes, that was what I was getting at (sorry, reading it over, I was being a bit snarky, but not aimed at you! ).

blanche - the Bible says many things. Unless you are advocating polygamy, and marriage to slave women, then no, you're not talking about what 'the Bible says'.

I am sure that the worldwide Anglican community will find a way around the issue of same sex marriages without breaking apart. The anglican community has not scismed inspite of ordination of women priests.

I hope that gay couples can continue to have their union blessed by a sympathetic C of E priest.

I want to share your hope, I really do. I am glad there hasn't been a schism, and that women can be bishops in some places.

But I can't help feeling that there's an implication that 'gay couples' are somehow inevitably part of the poor, hopeful congregations, and never an integral part of the Church.

What about C of E priests who are gay (or bisexual) and who want to be married? There are quite a lot of people to whom this applies. Are we really saying these people should not be priests?

If we're just saying that 'gay couples' should bow their heads humbly and hope for a 'blessing' from a sympathetic priest, then surely, nothing is changing?

The law was passed the way it is so that the C of E and other religious bodies are fee to say No to celebrating same sex marriage if that is their choice without fear of being sued (at least, not sued successfully) - which is as it should be. Just like it was the C of E's choice to ordain women - and before then it was not illegal not to - and it is still the choice of many religious bodies not to. Nobody makes you stay in the organisation.

Changing your legal gender is relatively straightforward. If one of a gay couple fancies filing some paperwork, the couple legally becomes "straight" and can be married in church.

This open letter from senior Anglicans to the Archbishops is a very interesting and timely read.

"What about C of E priests who are gay (or bisexual) and who want to be married? There are quite a lot of people to whom this applies. Are we really saying these people should not be priests?"

With the Bible you play pick and mix to support whatever someone's view is. My personal view is that gay people should be allowed to assume leadership roles in the church of england and marry if they choose to. However the old testament is very anti gay relationships. Gay relationships are not mentioned in the new testament, but there is evidence that Jesus spent time with Gay people and valued them.

"If we're just saying that 'gay couples' should bow their heads humbly and hope for a 'blessing' from a sympathetic priest, then surely, nothing is changing?"

Given that our elected government has made it impossible for C of E vicars to carry out gay weddings there is little else that can be done in the short term. how do you feel if a sympathetic vicar (called Sharon) said to you that I am sorry that the law of the land prevents me from marrying Fred and Joe, but I will happily best their marriage. Is Sharon homophobic or is she just trying to do her best to support Fred and Joe?

It is inevitable that in a big church like the Anglican communion with 80 million members people will not always agree.

Changing your legal gender is relatively straightforward.

Relatively to what? It's a long and tortuous process and it's anything but straightforward. I say that of professional knowledge - there may be some here who can bear me out of personal experience.

Yes, changing your gender would be an entirely just and proportionate thing to do.

I said legal gender. I've been lurking on certain trans threads where I've learned that the changes to physical characteristics including clothing, hormones and surgery aren't required for the paperwork. If I've got that wrong, I apologise.

In any case it was a thought experiment - was that not clear? The church can marry someone God made a man to someone else God made a man in other circumstances.

Nobody makes you stay in the organisation.

So should organisations be totally resistant to any change, ever? Surely things should, and do, evolve over time as people become wiser.

I doubt that traditional Christians recongise a sex change operation. They define a person's gender by their chromosomes rather than any legal definition.

Changing your legal gender is relatively straightforward. If one of a gay couple fancies filing some paperwork, the couple legally becomes "straight" and can be married in church.

Erm ... is there a nice way to say fuck off? No? Well, fuck off, then.

Minus the impatience: no, that's not what equal marriage is. And no, it's not 'relatively straightforward' to change legal gender. Though I'm not quite sure why you imagine gay Christians would be notably inclined to fraud anyway?

Jeanne, I'm assuming you haven't read my correction, nor my link.

The church is challenging itself to reassess what it understands by love, marriage, gender and inclusion. That's a really important and refreshing step.

Blanche thanks for pointing out this isn't France and laws would have to be passed to change the way we do things

Change and equality would be great steps forward

Okay MrsHathaway, what does changing you legal gender mean for you then? Signing a form, a bit like a credit card agreement?