Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Church of England and same sex marriage...
#1
Your opinion please???

[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Archbishop urges state not to 'dictate' over marriage

Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu Dr Sentamu said the Bible said marriage could only be between a man and a woman Ministers should not overrule tradition on the issue of same-sex marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior Church of England cleric, told the Daily Telegraph that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
He supported civil partnerships, he said, but only "dictators" tried to overturn history and redefine marriage. Dr Sentamu also said the Church should do more to avoid its leadership being mainly white and middle class.

The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages in March. A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended last month.

'Tradition and history'
But the Archbishop told the Telegraph that it was not the role of government to "gift" the institution of marriage to anyone.
"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. "It is set in tradition and history and you can't just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are. "We've seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Dr Sentamu pointed out that bishops in the House of Lords did not seek to obstruct the introduction of civil partnerships between same-sex couples in 2004.
Heaven is not going to be full of just black people, just working-class people, just middle-class people.”

Dr John Sentamu "We supported civil partnerships because we believe that friendships are good for everybody."
He said the Church also had no opposition to plans to allow civil partnership ceremonies to take place in places of worship, if agreed by the religious denomination in question.
But Dr Sentamu said the Church would not stand idly by if the government sought to allow same-sex marriages to be on a par with heterosexual ones.

He said: "If you genuinely would like the registration of civil partnerships to happen in a more general way, most people will say they can see the drift. But if you begin to call those marriage, you're trying to change the English language.
"That does not mean you diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships because that is not what the debate is about," added Dr Sentamu.
The archbishop said: "The Church has always stood out - Jesus actually was the odd man out. I'd rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd."[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Green"]Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”

Oscar Wilde[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Respect
#2
The Bible also promotes slavery but that doesn't mean society has an obligation to respect it just because the Bible says it's ok.

For that matter, if you include the OT then you're allowing for all kinds of marriages (and rapes) that would be illegal today. And even sticking to the NT, women are supposed to cover their heads, and I believe even give all their money to the church and live communally (I'm too lazy to look that up), but the vast majority of churches conveniently overlook that. They can just as conveniently overlook any crap about "marriage is between a man and a woman."

And also I understand the UK problem is like the US one...it's a lie that the churches are fighting to remain free from being forced to marry gays against their will, but rather they're trying to make sure other churches beside their own aren't allowed to.

That aside, I don't care what you call a marriage as I believe a rose by any other name is still a rose. But there is a very common delusion that civil unions in the US are even close to being like a real marriage, and it's those differences that I'm opposed to in support of equality.
#3
It's very true that legalising it wont force churches to perform homosexual marriages.
I pointed it out to guy i often argue with on another forum around 10 times, every time getting the same comeback: "Well it IS forcing churches to accept homosexuality." I asked how, i got the response "How does it NOT?".
I explained that the government is considering legalising it with churches able to opt out of performing them AND it doesn't force them to change their minds on homosexuality and "accept" it. Then i got the "Well it IS forcing churches to accept homosexuality." response again...

The larger religious denominations are allowed to control what other denominations can legally do now, apparently.:mad:
Silly Sarcastic So-and-so
#4
The Church forgot its history.

Well the Roman Church forgot, and all denominations pretty much have splintered off the Roman church, including the Anglicans.

The Early, pre-romanized Christians had same gender marriage.

http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/wh...-rite.html

As for the sacred nature of marriage. Up until 50-60 years ago Divorce was a huge no-no. It just wasn't done. today we have a 50% divorce rate?

A woman who remarries is committing adultery. That is punished by Death.

Men who remarry also commit adultery, but they do not get the death sentence.

Traditional 'marriage' is NOT defined in the bible.There is no such beast as a 'traditional marriage'.

Unless you want to seriously consider that a rapist is 'forgiven' as long as he marries his victim, or consider that you have to marry your brother's wife when he dies, or consider how it is biblical to not only wipe out whole nations, rape the males, kill them, then marry all of the women and the female children (yes children). Traditional, biblically 100% stamp approved by God.

But these sorts of things no one wants to talk about, least ways not those who spout of 'traditional marriage' and 'marriage is defined as....... in the bible.'.
<---<< >>--->

[SIZE=4]I told you I had the body of a 25 year old....

[Image: 57929.jpg?v=1]
[/SIZE]
#5
I often wonder where the Bible actually uses the word MARRIAGE and defines it???
#6
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:The Church forgot its history.

Well the Roman Church forgot, and all denominations pretty much have splintered off the Roman church, including the Anglicans.

The Early, pre-romanized Christians had same gender marriage.

http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/wh...-rite.html

As for the sacred nature of marriage. Up until 50-60 years ago Divorce was a huge no-no. It just wasn't done. today we have a 50% divorce rate?

A woman who remarries is committing adultery. That is punished by Death.

Men who remarry also commit adultery, but they do not get the death sentence.

Traditional 'marriage' is NOT defined in the bible.There is no such beast as a 'traditional marriage'.

Unless you want to seriously consider that a rapist is 'forgiven' as long as he marries his victim, or consider that you have to marry your brother's wife when he dies, or consider how it is biblical to not only wipe out whole nations, rape the males, kill them, then marry all of the women and the female children (yes children). Traditional, biblically 100% stamp approved by God.

But these sorts of things no one wants to talk about, least ways not those who spout of 'traditional marriage' and 'marriage is defined as....... in the bible.'.
Despite being a No No for the church for many many years and centuries, King Henry VIII paved the way in the 16th century, didn't he? ... He could even expedite a wife he didn't want by just having her beheaded. Nasty business, all that. Other times, other mores.
#7
princealbertofb Wrote:I often wonder where the Bible actually uses the word MARRIAGE and defines it???

Actually the bible doesn't say.

It is inferred that that is what marriage means. Starting with Adam cleaving to Eve.

It is inferred.

However it can also be inferred that Naomi and Ruth were 'married' - two women, deeply in love.

Johnathan and David can be inferred to have been married, after all....

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Oh but no this doesn't mean they loved eachother - like that.

but then They hugged until David Exceeded. Exceeded in this particular passage means, to be blunt about it, got wood.

Doctrine, not the bible, has determined much on what the bible means. Doctrine is man's interpretation of the bible, which often has little to do with the bible and what it actually says.
<---<< >>--->

[SIZE=4]I told you I had the body of a 25 year old....

[Image: 57929.jpg?v=1]
[/SIZE]
#8
Genersis Wrote:It's very true that legalising it wont force churches to perform homosexual marriages.
I pointed it out to guy i often argue with on another forum around 10 times, every time getting the same comeback: "Well it IS forcing churches to accept homosexuality." I asked how, i got the response "How does it NOT?".
I explained that the government is considering legalising it with churches able to opt out of performing them AND it doesn't force them to change their minds on homosexuality and "accept" it. Then i got the "Well it IS forcing churches to accept homosexuality." response again...

The larger religious denominations are allowed to control what other denominations can legally do now, apparently.:mad:


Obviously some people still have a big problem with the secular nature of some acts we do in society... You can get married at the Registry Office IF and only IF there is no religious component to your wedding... If it's going to be religious, then it's got to be performed by a church. No church who disagrees or disapproves of homosexual marriage would have to perform it, but it means that those churches that would accept to do so would be performing a perfectly valid civil operation... ie taking the place of the Registry Office. Even I, who am not a British citizen understand this notion.. Tell your mate to get a life and check this out at his local Registry Office. He's obviously misinformed!
#9
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:Actually the bible doesn't say.

It is inferred that that is what marriage means. Starting with Adam cleaving to Eve.

It is inferred.

However it can also be inferred that Naomi and Ruth were 'married' - two women, deeply in love.

Johnathan and David can be inferred to have been married, after all....

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Oh but no this doesn't mean they loved eachother - like that.

but then They hugged until David Exceeded. Exceeded in this particular passage means, to be blunt about it, got wood.

Doctrine, not the bible, has determined much on what the bible means. Doctrine is man's interpretation of the bible, which often has little to do with the bible and what it actually says.


Even so, it was written by humans, sometimes a long time after the events it records... So the word of God??? Human are so fallible.
#10
princealbertofb Wrote:Obviously some people still have a big problem with the secular nature of some acts we do in society... You can get married at the Registry Office IF and only IF there is no religious component to your wedding... If it's going to be religious, then it's got to be performed by a church. No church who disagrees or disapproves of homosexual marriage would have to perform it, but it means that those churches that would accept to do so would be performing a perfectly valid civil operation... ie taking the place of the Registry Office. Even I, who am not a British citizen understand this notion.. Tell your mate to get a life and check this out at his local Registry Office. He's obviously misinformed!

I've been arguing with this guy sinice i joined(5 months roughly) on just about every topic i've posted in on homosexuality.
He's my arch nemisis so to speak.:tongue:

I don't like thinking of things as "Good VS. Bad" though. Some people on that site are more than obsessed with the idea that secular society is trying to wipe them out.Rolleyes

I also try to be polite, he's quite a vile man(at least in his views) but i don't name call or purposely offend him.(Like he does with me...or should i say our demographic?)

It's a shame i can't provide examples of some of his posts i despise, all the topics where he got especially vile have been removed.(Along with my posts.:frownSmile

Here's a few nice samples though.:tongue:
Quote:I would say what is commonly called liberal views are based on a good deal more than a lack of common sense but unreality and a hatred of the reality of God's word.
But this is just opinion, can we have examples? One example is two women as the parents on a birth certificate, that was championed by a liberal secularist in the UK. Two women cant produce a baby so its not reality.
Quote:There is no such thing as homosexuals in God’s word, that a human concept contrary to God’s word. But it is a good point as to why homosexuality and heterosexuality, sexuality in general is a nonsense concept.
Incidentally, those who usually defend evolution of the species seem to turn a blind eye to homosexuality. It should have died according to the theory of evolution.
Silly Sarcastic So-and-so


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Same sex marriage LONDONER 1 204 10-14-2020, 07:10 PM
Last Post: CellarDweller
  Australias same sex marriage vote in doubt LONDONER 8 804 10-13-2016, 12:15 AM
Last Post: Insertnamehere
  When did the Church start worrying about sex? LONDONER 8 554 12-12-2015, 06:49 PM
Last Post: LJay
  The Westboro Baptist Church - conversion by Twitter LONDONER 1 403 11-21-2015, 01:59 PM
Last Post: ceez
  A gay marriage proposal in China! LONDONER 6 834 10-04-2015, 01:14 AM
Last Post: Emiliano

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)