Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Shaker]

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

There's nothing fundamental about it. Governments have changed it; in fact, more and more of them.

[wigginhall]

I see Chris Bryant has quit the C of E, probably not the last. 

[Rhiannon]

They haven't changed it that much. It's just become 1 person who loves someone + 1 person who loves them back.

[ProfessorDavey]

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)

The proposals to provide equal marriage were officially supported by the Tory party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid, the Greens etc etc - so by parties that won every single seat in Britain (note not Northern Ireland which is the one place that doesn't have equal marriage) in the 2010 election, i.e. the one prior to the introduction of the change to the law. And those parties won the support of over 95% of the vote in that election. So that's a pretty huge mandate I would have thought.

But our government doesn't work on the basis of a kind of referendum style mandate, but every way you look at it there is massive, massive legitimate mandate for equal marriage. Don't forget the every proper polling on the issue showed strong majority support.

But there is another point - governments have a mandate, under their human rights obligations, to extend human rights and support equality and eradicate discrimination even were that to be in support of a minority whose human rights are infringed, when a majority might oppose. If that majority didn't like the change they can kick out the government and reverse the law. Flat chance of that happening of course because without doubt the change to the law is overwhelmingly popular and supported.

[Gordon]

They haven't changed it that much. It's just become 1 person who loves someone + 1 person who loves them back.

Yep - it really is no more complicated than that

[Shaker]

... governments have a mandate, under their human rights obligations, to extend human rights and support equality and eradicate discrimination even were that to be in support of a minority whose human rights are infringed, when a majority might oppose. If that majority didn't like the change they can kick out the government and reverse the law. Flat chance of that happening of course because without doubt the change to the law is overwhelmingly popular and supported.

Beat me to it - that's just what I was going to say. The UK was one of the (many) countries which voted in favour of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shortly after the war.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

That isn't 'fundamental' merely conventional in many cases, but certainly not all. There are plenty of examples (indeed most are religiously justified) where marriage can be 1 man - many women, i.e. polygamy. To my mind that is much further from the 'fundamentals' of marriage than two people in a loving consensus relationship wishing to commit to each other publicly and legally.

All sorts of jurisdictions put restrictions on who can and cannot marry - changing those restrictions isn't a 'redefinition of marriage' merely just what it says - tightening or loosening the restrictions.

[Shaker]

That isn't 'fundamental' merely conventional in many cases, but certainly not all.

Hope seems to think that 'fundamental' is another word for merely 'old.' It isn't.

[Bubbles]

As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.

[Rhiannon]

As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.

Neither do most Anglicans.

[Shaker]

As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.

No. And for precisely and exactly that very reason, they don't get a say in how the government makes laws, right? And yet they try to influence it to their ends all the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's nothing fundamental about it. Governments have changed it; in fact, more and more of them.

The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.

[Shaker]

The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.

I'll run that through the VladBullshitAutomatron and see if it can extract any sense out of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

As most of us are not Anglicans we don't get a say in how they run themselves.

But the religious lobbies thought that they should be able to veto government changes to who could get married in civil ceremonies, by claiming (completely erroneously) that married was somehow 'owned' by religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll run that through the VladBullshitAutomatron and see if it can extract any sense out of it.

Not even technology can help your depth of ignorance.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.

The change to the law was passed by parliament (both houses) who last time I looked were far more likely to be religious and less likely to be secular humanists that the wider population.

There was no deputation of 'secular humanists'. Is is really beyond your comprehension that most people in the UK think that extending married to include gay couples is a good and moral thing to do and that includes all sorts of people who wouldn't describe themselves as secular humanists.

[Shaker]

Not even technology can help your depth of ignorance.

Says the man who is to clear English what Churchill was to Woodbines.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The change to the law was passed by parliament (both houses) who last time I looked were far more likely to be religious and less likely to be secular humanists that the wider population.

There was no deputation of 'secular humanists'. Is is really beyond your comprehension that most people in the UK think that extending married to include gay couples is a good and moral thing to do and that includes all sorts of people who wouldn't describe themselves as secular humanists.

I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect  motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.

[ippy]

The idea of a deputation of secular humanist inadequates serving notice on the Almighty is frankly laughable.
I guess the eternal Stalin is in a recursive cycle of outlining a 5 year plan for God.

Whenever will you spend a little time to study what secularism's all about Vlad?   

You still haven't got it, why do you think secularists want to stop anyone having and practicing their chosen religion? When you find out why, could you let me know how and why we want to do this only I know a lot of secularists and I don't know any Stalinists.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

I'm sorry but as many here are a forum antitheist I have to suspect  motives.
A recently created moral issue/concern such as should the definition of marriage be changed has no obvious right to be considered a moral claim does it....Antitheists have yet to demonstrate it is more than a disingenuous antitheist ruse to knock the church and to demonstrate that their new found ''gay Anglican friends'' are not in fact imaginary.

Non- imaginary gay Anglicans.

http://changingattitude.org.uk

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says the man who is to clear English what Churchill was to Woodbines.

Can I help it if your only exposure to the English language is Philosophical materialist Monthly Incorporating The Onanist Gazette?

[Bubbles]

Neither do most Anglicans.

This is their POV.
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx


You could all write to them but I'm not sure that's going to have much impact, but you never know.

Being " of the world" most of us would just be ignored.

I'm more interested in what we could practically do?

Probably most of us don't even go, even to be a voice in the background.

I'm inclined to think as long as the law of the land is fair and doesn't discriminate the battles won.

But I suppose it doesn't take into account gay Christians who get hurt by it.

Part of me thinks you won't change them ( the people in the church making the decision)  by disapproving because the bible says the world morally will go to pot.......and people will fall away from the church. ( scoffers and all that)

So provided the law stays fair towards gay people, I'm inclined to leave be.

You can't really dictate to a followers of a religion what to think, from outside, they have to get there on their own.

The most we can do is to protect common law so it protects gay people regardless of what a religious group thinks.

Obviously if we have freedom of thought it opens it up to thoughts we don't like.

[Aruntraveller]

Zzzz!

That's the sum total of your thoughts for people murdered because they are gay - or even because they are suspected of being gay.

As I say, decent and humane.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non- imaginary gay Anglicans.

http://changingattitude.org.uk

I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.

[Rhiannon]

I know there are gay Anglicans....The question is can axe grinding antitheists and antichristian pagans be friends with Anglicans? After all they can hardly be said to extend the hand of friendship around here.

Well, yes. One of my closest friend's an Anglican. But then I'm not anti- Christian, just anti bigotry.