Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Gordon]

I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.

You are using a fallacious argument from authority again, Hope, which is quite ironic really when you consider that at least here in the UK the recent SSM legislation confirms that, and despite all the noise you guys made, your church has no authority any more.

We have moved on, and you guys are now excess baggage that we don't actually need (and never did) - but you've yet to understand this. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure that the church will ever rue grasping the moral high ground and standing strong on this particular issue.

I agree - which is why it is a shame that they are so clearly failing to grasp the moral high ground, but siding with those on the absolute wrong side of the moral argument.

The church currently is the equivalent of those in the 1830s who failed to come out unequivocally in favour of the abolition of slavery, and sided with those who wanted to support its retention.

And that's how they will be seen by history.

[Shaker]

I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside

Is. Not 'may be.' Is.

but then, it could shift its location at any time.

There's about as much likelihood of that as of your learning what a logical fallacy is and ceasing to deploy them. The traffic here is one way only.

[ProfessorDavey]

No more arrogant than the likes of PD, yourself and several others here who believe that the moral high ground is where you reside, Rhi.  I'll accept that the situational moral high ground may be where you reside, but then, it could shift its location at any time.  Will you shift your moral stance to match any such a shift, or will you have the guts to hold out for what you believe to be right?

Hope - simply try to change the object of your discrimination and ask the question again as to who has the moral high ground.

Do you think it is correct that black people should be discriminated against, not be allowed to marry, should be treated as second class citizens, not allowed to benefit from equal access to societal norms and structures.

I'm sure (or at least I hope) that you'd find that notion abhorrent, totally unacceptable and immoral.

Why then do you fail to recognise that it is just as abhorrent, unacceptable and immoral to discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

[Hope]

Government hasn't redefined 'the meaning of the word marriage' it has simply extended the scope of couples who are able to get married.

The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD.  It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.

And even if it had done (which it hasn't) it is perfectly entitled so to do as marriage is, and always has been, a legal concept and in a civil context it is government who are custodians of changes to the law, and legal definitions.

Marriage has been a religious ceremony far longer than it has been a civil one insofar as most socoeties used to be religious as much as civil.  As a result, a secular government can only change definitions to a degree.

And it's not just for civil marriage that is fundamentally a legal concept, it is to in religious marriage too. Even had an 'official' chat with a canon lawyer about the canon law that defines marriage within a christian church - nope, well I have.

Likewise; I've also discussed the matter with theologians.  Canon law is dependent on theology, rather than the other way round.

[Shaker]

The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD.  It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.

Yup. It's done and dusted, kippers and custard now so suck it up and move on to something important. Your ilk just come across as a tiny clique of sore losers.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Davey,
Wow, being for traditional marriage is like supporting slavery back in the days of yore? You are really grasping and too bad, so sad, there's nothing there for you to grasp. Is being pro life like those who were against women having the right to vote?

[Owlswing]

What sarcasm, Matt?  As for the guilty feelings, why don't others who are told that what they are doing is unscriptural make the same fuss?

Because they are not refused the services of the church because they have tattoos, wear leather, mixed fabrics etc etc etc?

It is the Church making such a public fuss that has brought approbation upon themwselves

[ProfessorDavey]

The meaning of marriage has been in relation to realtionships between men and women for centuries, PD.  It is only within the last 40 or so years that any society has allowed marriage between 2 people of the same sex.

For centuries there were other restrictions on the nature of the couples who were allowed to marry (in this and other countries) - e.g. not married before, even if divorced, restrictions on class or race of people allowed to marry.

There have been many cases before where government has chosen to extend the scope of those who can benefit from marriage - did you think all of those were redefinitions?

Marriage has been a religious ceremony far longer than it has been a civil one insofar as most socoeties used to be religious as much as civil.

No it hasn't - we've been through this at length before. Most of the ancient civilisations that we have good information about (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) saw marriage as fundamentally a civil legal contract - sure they might have been ritualistic religious elements in the ceremony but the key was the civil contract between those getting married. Indeed the early christian church wasn't really interested in the concept of marriage at all and left it to the prevailing legacy Roman civil structure.

As a result, a secular government can only change definitions to a degree.

It can change married as it sees fit, within its democratic mandate, and indeed is the only organisation that can do so in the UK. Don't forget that there is no valid marriage unless that marriage is conducted in accordance with the civil law. If you 'marry' in some religious ceremony that doesn't align with the civil law you aren't married.

[ad_orientem]

As I said previously - either get on the moral train or get out of the way because it has a momentum that you can't stop.

Don't forget that back in the day there were people who opposed abolition of slavery - often on religious grounds - history sees their views as abhorrent and offensive. And history will see your views in exactly the same way. You are defending the indefensible.

The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).

[Owlswing]

The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing.

Proving you right on this subject is way way beyond your deity!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?   

Exactly, in my efforts to understand homosexuality, to try and understand why I have homophobic feelings, I see something quite amazing, they have fought their corner in the most peaceful way imaginable.

If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.

Christians can be very stupid sometimes.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

The day of the Lord will prove us right.

Oh dear. The "wait till your father gets home" strategy, and from somebody of your age too.

[ProfessorDavey]

Davey,
Wow, being for traditional marriage is like supporting slavery back in the days of yore? You are really grasping and too bad, so sad, there's nothing there for you to grasp. Is being pro life like those who were against women having the right to vote?

Being in favour of denying some people the basic human right of being allowed to get married simply because those people are homosexual and want to marry someone of the same gender is indeed an affront to basic human rights and to morality.

And don't forget that the key point about slavery isn't the maltreatment - it was the affront to basic human rights in being owned as property. So a slave who was treated exceptionally well, never physically harmed etc still had their basic human rights denied.

There are many things we will look back on shamefully (and some we already do) - so we look back with shame on our past treatment of black people (whether through slavery or otherwise discrimination), we look back shamefully on our treatment of woman (denial of the vote, not being paid the same as men etc). We will look back with similar shame on who we treated gay people in due course.

[ProfessorDavey]

The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).

Well until that day comes - not holding my breath - we will get along with pushing forward basic morality associated with equality and fairness thank you very much.

Your attitude is a bit like the playground bully when the other kids tell him to stop being horrible to the kid who is different. His response being - I want to be horrible to him, I have the right to be horrible to him and just you wait till my even more horrible big imaginary friend turns up.

Grow up AO.

[Hope]

If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.

Christians can be very stupid sometimes.

Gonnagle.

Not sure that what I've seen and heard from some gay rights campaigners can be described as tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc, Gonners.  Nor would I describe what I have seen and heard from some opposed to them as anything other than tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc.  Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.

I call that blackmail.

[Hope]

The day of the Lord will prove us right. Secular "morals" mean absolutely nothing, the same morals which has no regard for life (abortion and euthanasia).

I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o.  There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards.  OK, often they have been informed by religious thinking in the past, or decide that such moral standards are the ones they want to adhere to - without suggesting that they are 'religious' morals.

[Hope]

Proving you right on this subject is way way beyond your deity!

Only if ad-o's deity isn't God, Matt.

[Rhiannon]

Not sure that what I've seen and heard from some gay rights campaigners can be described as tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc, Gonners.  Nor would I describe what I have seen and heard from some opposed to them as anything other than tolerant, non-judgemental, peaceful, etc.  Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.

I call that blackmail.

I call that yet more bullshit.

[Shaker]

Well until that day comes - not holding my breath - we will get along with pushing forward basic morality associated with equality and fairness thank you very much.

Your attitude is a bit like the playground bully when the other kids tell him to stop being horrible to the kid who is different. His response being - I want to be horrible to him, I have the right to be horrible to him and just you wait till my even more horrible big imaginary friend turns up.

Grow up AO.

Spot on, as usual.

[Gordon]

Furthermore, I can think of many congregations who have tried to welcome such folk with open arms only to be told that that can only occur by the congregations publically acknowledging that gay relationships are no different to monogamous heterosexual ones.

I call that blackmail.

I call that civilised tolerance and respect for others in a society that isn't wedded to the social attitudes of antiquity as interpreted by theological so-called authorities: and until some of you guys understand this you will continue to behave like the intolerant homophobes it seems that some of you are.

You could learn a lot from the likes of Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o.  There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards.

Which are what, according to you?

[Hope]

For centuries there were other restrictions on the nature of the couples who were allowed to marry (in this and other countries) - e.g. not married before, even if divorced, restrictions on class or race of people allowed to marry.

There have been many cases before where government has chosen to extend the scope of those who can benefit from marriage - did you think all of those were redefinitions?

Of course not, because none of them changed the fundamental equation that is marriage: 1 man - 1 woman.

No it hasn't - we've been through this at length before. Most of the ancient civilisations that we have good information about (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) saw marriage as fundamentally a civil legal contract - sure they might have been ritualistic religious elements in the ceremony but the key was the civil contract between those getting married. Indeed the early christian church wasn't really interested in the concept of marriage at all and left it to the prevailing legacy Roman civil structure.

I've read and heard many of the posts/debates/etc. that have covered ths issue over the last few decades, yet have rarely seen any evidence that even remotely suggested that the civil came before the religious.

It can change married as it sees fit, within its democratic mandate, and indeed is the only organisation that can do so in the UK.

OK, I'll accept that it can change civil marriage as it sees fit, but as it had no democratic mandate to so in the first place, that becomes a moot argument.  (Remember that the foundations for the change were laid under the Coalition which had no such mandate)

[Gordon]

I wouldn't go as far as that, ad_o.  There are, of course, many secular people who hold to perfectly good moral standards.  OK, often they have been informed by religious thinking in the past, or decide that such moral standards are the ones they want to adhere to - without suggesting that they are 'religious' morals.

You're kidding: right - its 1st April already: right?

Don't be silly.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Wigs,

Exactly, in my efforts to understand homosexuality, to try and understand why I have homophobic feelings, I see something quite amazing, they have fought their corner in the most peaceful way imaginable.

If I was a member of this Anglican Church I would be welcoming them with open arms, they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.

Christians can be very stupid sometimes.

Gonnagle.

'they epitomise everything Our Lord stood for, Love, tolerance, non judgemental, peace, do unto others.'

So does this post from you, Gonners.