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.)

Gay people aren't necessarily "non-members" of the church. There are plenty of gay people who are members of the CofE.

so what? if your church doesn't want to marry you, leave. find a better church. that's what everyone else (including CofE members) have to do.

priests in the CofE are legally obliged to marry anyone living in their parish

that's the issue. We have all these contortions going on. A separate CofE from the state can then go do what it wants. I won't have a say in the CofE and it won't have a say in my state.

so what? if your church doesn't want to marry you, leave. find a better church.

Why should they leave? It's just as much their church as anyone else's. They have every right to stay and fight prejudice there.

It's just as much their church as anyone else's. They have every right to stay and fight prejudice there.

no they don't. If it was a proper church, it should be allowed to include and exclude any members it wants.

it shouldn't be for you or me or gays to decide who belongs in the CofE. it should be the CofE and its members. Just like any other religion.

but all of this is messed up because of its status.

If it was a proper church, it should be allowed to include and exclude any members it wants.

It's a Christian church so should follow the Biblical principle of including all people. Every human being is seen as sinful, so under your suggestion they would have to exclude everyone! Jesus died inviting a criminal to join him in heaven and made friends with people that others avoided.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians)

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans)

"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." (Acts)

"“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke)

"“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John)

nobody should be forced to do something with they do not want to.

Can people please stop referring to 'gays'? Aside from sounding a bit neanderthal, it isn't accurate in the context of this debate. Bisexual people get married to people of the same sex, and many of them no doubt wish to argue in favour of same-sex CofE marriage too. Just a thought.

nobody should be forced to do something with they do not want to.

Like be forced to settle for a civil marriage because their church refuses to marry them?

red, do you really not get that 'gays' (I agree with catsize on that term) are 'the Church'?

There are plenty of people, including priests, within the Church who want change. Some of those people have a personal stake in seeing equal marriage happen; others do not.

Yes, Richard Coles is probably the most well known and regularly heard from.

He is on Chris Evans, HIGNFY etc. was in the House Martins, and is very outspoken on the issue. Last Friday his 'pause for thought' was very pointed, very heartfelt, hoping that the outcome of the current Anglican communion will allow same sex marriage.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35274944

Here's a link from earlier this week, what is going on now. We should know what they decide soon.

If you are going to quote bits of the bible you will find passages that don't support gay marriage. A chuch being inclusive does not mean that they have to condone (what fundermentalists see as) sin. They love the sinner even if they do not love the sin.

I hope that the anglican communion allows the issue of homosexual marriage to be decided on at a diocese/ parish level rather than the entire anglican communion. The present path of allowing priests to bless a same sex marriage, but not carry on a same sex marriage seems a little irrational now that same sex marriage is legal in the UK.

However the anglican communion is worldwide. In some countries like Uganda homosexuality carries the death penalty. I think it would be unreasonable to expect ugandan priests to carry out homosexual marriage cermonies. I hope that the entire church of england condems countries who execute someone because they are homosexual. I would expect the anglican church in uganda to campaign for an end to the death penalty for homosexuality.

As Jeanne says, there are many people in the Church of England (and come to that in other denominations) who don't want to leave and find a better church. We want the one we're part of, which many of us love deeply, to be better.

I hope that the anglican communion allows the issue of homosexual marriage to be decided on at a diocese/ parish level rather than the entire anglican communion.

It seems they are moving in the opposite direction, evidenced by formally punishing the US church. And there was some support for ousting the US church, as well as the Canadian church, which allows priests to marry same-sex couples, but has a less sweeping policy than the US church.

The Church of England has always been a broad church and I am sure they will find a way to avoid a schism. It does no favours to the right of homosexuals if the church of england does split over this.

There is no better church. We are part of one holy catholic apostolic chuch (with a little c). We are all sinners. The early christians had their disagreements as well. There were times when they agreed to disagree.

" Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and olet not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. " Romans 14

Some of the early christians wanting to keep a kosher diet are similar to christians today who are opposed to same sex marriage. We should not pass judgement of christians who are opposed to same sex marriage and they should not pass judgment on christians who are in favour of same sex marriage.

really, I'd find you a lot more plausible as a Christian if you'd knock off referring to 'homosexuals' and darkly hinting about sinfulness?

We should not pass judgement of christians who are opposed to same sex marriage

Yes we should. I certainly intend to.

"really, I'd find you a lot more plausible as a Christian if you'd knock off referring to 'homosexuals' and darkly hinting about sinfulness?"

What have I done to offend you? The teaching of the bible is that EVERYONE is a sinner whatever their sexual preference, colour, creed, level of wealth, social class or nationality. That is why we need Jesus.

I have never said that I think that homosexual relationships are sinful. It is a fact there are fundamentalists who believe homosexuality is sin. People have the right to religious beliefs that others don't like.

Intolerance and bigotry certainly is a sin.

The entire church is made up of sinners and I feel it is wrong to reject those who interpret scriptures differently. Dialogue with people who think differently is often more effective than casting them out.

The Lord's Prayer asks "to forgive our sins and help us to forgive those who sin against us". The developed world have sinned against people in west Africa on plenty of occasions in the past.

I really think that if the Church of England persists in refusing to marry same sex couples, it should be disestablished. I doubt that the next two men in line to be head of it would really care all that much. And as for the third in line, who knows, he may decide to marry a man.

really, you keep using 'the gays' as a phrase, despite people explaining it's pejorative and (in this case) not very accurate. In that context, talking about sinfulness comes across as quite offensive, because you're already using a rude, inaccurate term.

I've also commented repeatedly that the way you persistently dissociate 'the Church' and 'the gays' comes across badly, too.

It's a Christian church so should follow the Biblical principle of including all people. Every human being is seen as sinful, so under your suggestion they would have to exclude everyone! Jesus died inviting a criminal to join him in heaven and made friends with people that others avoided.

that's just silly. Given that many different christian sects disagree about what the bible says (more accurately, what ought to be emphasised) this is just a non-starter.

the church should do what it wants.

do you really not get that 'gays' (I agree with catsize on that term) are 'the Church'?

another silly statement. They clearly aren't the church. they are a rather small minority in the church.

As I said above, any church should be allowed to do whatever it and its members want (re: marriage) except the CofE. MPs should be allowed to vote on CofE matters because it is established. I want control over the CofE because it has control over me.

By the way, I am certainly not anti gay as being inferred by my referring to "the gays" (don't know why that is bad). I have been pro gay marriage well before it became fashionable. I am anti establishment. I am pointing out to members of the CofE why they ought to be anti establishment too, as they should expect non members to want some say in their church.

red, I don't think it is silly to say they are 'the Church'. I didn't say they are the whole membership of the Church.

But the C of E subscribes to the doctrine that we are all part of the Body of Christ. All of us, each person, is the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name', Jesus says, that is the Church. So the point is that we're a unit, not that there's 'the Church', which is some building somewhere, or some organisation of priests. There's just the people. All of us.

'The gays' is dodgy for the reasons catsize gave. It's not very accurate here (and reads oddly on MN, whose wider statistics make me suspect that bisexual and lesbian women make up a far greater proportion of readers of this thread, than gay men). But would you refer to 'the blacks' in this context? It's the same sort of speech, which sounds as if you're lumping together a load of people by one attribute they have, instead of treating them as people.

'Where two or three are gathered together in my name', Jesus says, that is the Church.

Has anyone told the church that ? They seem rather fixated on grand buildings ....

Well, as you recognise from your capitalisation, the Church and the church are different things.

But the C of E subscribes to the doctrine that we are all part of the Body of Christ. All of us, each person, is the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name', Jesus says, that is the Church. So the point is that we're a unit, not that there's 'the Church', which is some building somewhere, or some organisation of priests. There's just the people. All of us.

Certainly not me. They expressly push me to the back of the queue when they can.

But the one thing you can trust religious organizations to be is incoherent. They can make all the kumbaya noises they want (always being clear of course none of it includes non-members), but in the end it's an organization that will likely serve its loudest and most numerous members. That's just being an organization.

But frankly that shouldn't be for me to decide. I am not a member and pro gay marriage. What I am saying its for that organization to decide (it's members, gay and non-gay, to decide).

'The gays' is dodgy for the reasons catsize gave. It's not very accurate here (and reads oddly on MN, whose wider statistics make me suspect that bisexual and lesbian women make up a far greater proportion of readers of this thread, than gay men).

The reason he/she gave is "it sounds neanderthal" and isn't inclusive of bisexuals.

looking back, I never said "the gays". What I wrote, in haste, was "it shouldn't be for you or me or gays to decide who belongs in the CofE". My point wasn't to exclusive, but to quickly say, in a proper society, a church's business should be up to its own members. I think the church is utterly backwards for its positions in these matters and are always playing catch up with the rest of society. But that should be their choice (once they are disestablished).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400431/Church-England-leaders-condemn-sex-marriage-despite-100-senior-Anglicans-criticising-discrimination-against-lesbian-gay-Christians.html

Oh dear! I am still reading, but it seems that prejudice won!

red, I don't think we're managing to communicate here.

Who do you mean when you say 'their choice'? Why exclude 'gays' (still rude, definite article or not, isn't it?)? Plenty of people are both gay and members of the C of E. So why lump them together as the group who're outside?