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.)

What do you call 'gays'? I fail to see what's wrong with that. They are the 'g' in lgbt = lesbians, gays, bisexuals, trans.

I didn't exclude them. if you read, I said that the members of the CofE, both gay and not ('not' of course includes everyone not gay), should decide the fate of the CofE. I never said they should be excluded, unless of course the other members of the CofE want them to be excluded (we all, of course, know that religious organizations are exempt from discrimination laws). The people who shouldn't decide are non-members (like me). It only makes sense for me to have a say if the church is established.

Oooch!

gays is a bit stark, red. Like 'aneamics' or 'dyslexics'

LGBT is singular, by the way probably for that very reason.

The use of any of those as a collective noun lacks social graces, at the least!

It's an adjective, right? When you make it into a noun, it sounds, as catsize says, a bit dated, because it implies that sexuality is all that defines that group. To me, it sounds similar to when people talk about 'the blacks' instead of 'black people'.

Why not say gay people?

And actually, you did exclude. You said 'it shouldn't be for ... gays to decide'. You put all 'gays' into the group who, like you, are non-members and not entitled to have a voice.

The Anglican communion includes a lot of a west African Christians who are very conservative. The whole point of a synod is that everyone gets a vote on controversial matters. What has happened is that the American Anglican Church has decided to set their own doctrine and bypass difficult African bishops. They have made their own laws and this has caused the separation from the rest of the Anglican community. It's a bit like if Bradford decided that they were going to allow same sex marriage before the Houses of Parliament had voted on then issue.

We need a change in canon law to allow a little bit of devolution in the Anglican community. I hope th rift can be reconciled.

Why not say gay people?

I was typing quickly. Perhaps I am a bit dated, and I would be the first to say that gay people (correct?) have properties far beyond their sexuality.

So, fine. Gay people.

You said 'it shouldn't be for ... gays to decide'

You misread then. I mean that me, gay people, white people, black people should not decide. Members should decide (and that may include some of those people).

But, while we are here, when is it wrong to nounify group adjectives? If 'gays' and 'blacks' are wrong, is 'indians' as well? I have certainly never heard "indian people", nor "christian people".

No, I didn't misread. I quoted you. Your words are right there. You - and really both acknowledge (grudgingly, it seems) that gay members of the C of E exist, but then you slip back into implying that they're part of the group who shouldn't get to decide things.

If you don't intend to sound like that, maybe you should think about communicating differently?

As to when it's wrong to nounify adjectives - simple: it's wrong to do it when there's a good long history of it being pejorative, and when it treats a group of people as if they're solely represented by one stigmatized aspect of who they are.

'The blacks don't get to decide about immigration.'
'The Indians shouldn't get to weigh in on arranged marriage legislation.'
'The gays shouldn't decide about equal marriage.'
'The disabled should stop campaigning for benefits.'

All of those are statements where the attribute you're singling out - being black, gay or Indian - is also the reason why you'd deny these people a right to speak. It's taking one aspect of people's lives, and using it to define them. That's why it's offensive.

Sorry for being a pedant, but it's the US Episcopal Church that has approved same-sex marriage and been punished for it. It's the breakaway churches in the US that have Anglican in the name.

I know it gets confusing because "Anglican" is a somewhat generic adjective as well.

I have to say that, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I am very proud of what we have done. The suspension is a badge of honor really.

By the way, the Presbyterian Church USA has also approved same-sex marriage.

"No, I didn't misread. I quoted you. Your words are right there. You - and really both acknowledge (grudgingly, it seems) that gay members of the C of E exist, but then you slip back into implying that they're part of the group who shouldn't get to decide things. "

Certainly LGBT should have some say, but they are part of a larger group of people. The church government gives a say to EVERYONE whatever their background is. African bishops have rights as well in the Church of England as its a world wide church. No one minority group of people trumps the majority in a semi democratic organisation. To allow same sex marriage there has to be a vote from the general synod, the house of bishops and the house of the laity (non clergy). Votes from poor black people in
West Africa are as important as rich Americans.

Until recently civil same sex marriage was illegal because the MPs who represent everyone I the uk did not agree. Up until the 1960s homosexuality was a jailable offence because of the views of the electorate. In any democracy there will be groups who lobby for change, but a minority of people can not inflict change on the rest of us however passionately they feel.

Well, currently those ^poor black people in West Africa" are the absolute majority, with the loudest voices, trumping a European towards a more liberal, modern approach (and you Episcopals, of course, Seneca). The reasons are obvious, many outlined in some of the links I, and others, have posted. But the graph here shows the most obvious reason quite well.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35318392

gay members of the C of E exist, but then you slip back into implying that they're part of the group who shouldn't get to decide things.

What I said is very clear. I said that gay people shouldn't be able to decide what the CofE does. That is, being gay doesn't qualify you to decide on CofE matters. Being a member does (or ought to). there is absolutely nothing there that says gay people can't be members.

While it is perhaps the case I was unclear (I accept that), I am absolutely not grudgingly admitting members of the CofE are gay. Of course they are. And I think they should have a say. But what I think and what other non-members think shouldn't matter.

'The Indians shouldn't get to weigh in on arranged marriage legislation.'

so, what's the correct way to say that?

All of those are statements where the attribute you're singling out - being black, gay or Indian - is also the reason why you'd deny these people a right to speak.

That's not how I used 'gays' then. I wasn't saying that by being gay you should be automatically excluded from the decision process. I meant that being gay doesn't automatically qualify you. I will concede that I was unclear, and I will attempt to be as clear as crystal.

The CofE, if it were disestablished, should be fully free to decide who it marries. "The CofE" probably means the structure, hierarchy and its members, but I don't exactly know. I don't know how democratic an organization it is. But it (whatever group of people that picks out) should decide, not non-members.

but a minority of people can not inflict change on the rest of us however passionately they feel.

How about slaves ??????

Again, using "gays" as a collective noun is the objectionable bit.

And, again as I posted earlier, it is gay member of the CofE who are calling for same sex marriage to be allowed.

They are members, some are very well known members, Others are high ranking members. There are also some high ranking CofE members who are not gay calling for same sex marriage to be allowed. But all, gay or not, are members of the CofE, from vicar to Archbishop!

Erm ... I think the point, red, is that you shouldn't say those things. Seeing as how they're discriminatory. Not that you should dress them up in better language.

And no, what you're saying isn't clear. You may understand your own views, but you're not managing to get them across. Maybe this is because, as you admit, you don't really know what this group is that you're talking about?

really - yes, I know. I was taking issue with the language, which does bother me.

I think the point, red, is that you shouldn't say those things.

I said that I don't understand when "indians" (or similar) is appropriate. You described this, but haven't explained how to properly express the one concerning "the indians".

In any case, I am well understanding of gay people. I have gay family members, friends and colleagues, all of whom I get along with fabulously. I don't understand the CofE nor its internal workings. I am not a member and only engage with it when I am forced to (which isn't never, unfortunately).

My poor use of language aside (which was mainly done for speed), it's the CofE that's the problem re: gay marriage, not me.

Actually the views of west African Christians are under represented. How is it right that there is only one archbishop for the whole of west Africa, yet countries like England have two archbishops. There are more Anglicans in Kenya and Uganda than England. Women are another under represented group.

The Church of England is not particularly democratic. It's a patrichical model where mostly bishops and arch bishops hold power. It's supposed to be similar to the model of government adopted by the early church.

To allow same sex marriage 60% of the archbishops would have to approve, 60% of bishops would have to prove and 60% of the house of the laity would have to approve. Each church votes for a lay person to be on the local diocesan council and then I think the diocesan council pick representatives to be in the house of the laity. It all gets very remote from the average church goer. LGBT can serve on the diocesan council if they are elected.

yet countries like England have two archbishops.

accident of history actually. One is the Archbishop of England, the other the Archbishop of all England.

You'd never know I failed history ....

I think you missed another underlying point!

Most Anglicans are African. They are extremely vociferous in their viewpoint and are more likely to cause a schism.

We, in Europe, are less vocal, less numerous and far less likely to cause a schism. With America as a case in point, European Anglicans are more likely to agree to more talk, more persuasion, less action and a greater sense of avoiding further separations.

In order to keep the church together the squeaky wheel is being appeased.

And, as Lurking said, it is hardly surprising that England has a greater representation, given the origins of the church! In history is all!

big, I don't really think this is ad hominem. She decided my points were 'silly' long before I suggested her terminology might be offensive, and I have (I think?) kept to criticising the terminology, rather than the person, pretty well.

Sorry Dorrit, but there was a point to be made. That using the term the gays is, at the very least, lacking in social skills and, at worst, in itself indicative of discriminatory bias.

If Red does not have that bias then her posting style is misrepresenting her opinions and, on highly emotive issues such as this, it is probably wise to avoid such errors.

I too had trouble deciphering some of Red's posts because of that use of terminology. I don't think Jeanne or myself, were overly snide in trying to say why we thought it odd!

Yes, I could have let it go, but I figured she was still talking to me about it.

You could also have taken your own advice, of course?

You suggested I was posting merely in order to have a go, and should desist. I didn't feel I was, but I feel fairly sure you are.