Author Topic: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.  (Read 30938 times)

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #200 on: October 16, 2018, 02:42:48 PM »
Which isn't a problem - unless they want to have sex.

They are in relationships.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #201 on: October 16, 2018, 03:04:29 PM »
They are in relationships.

I'm sure they are, but are they having sex? They can be married; it's tabs and slots that the church objects to.

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #202 on: October 16, 2018, 03:05:13 PM »
They are in relationships.

But are they having gay sex?

If they are then they are breaking their own rules. It would be like joining the Temperance Society and downing Scotch on the quiet.

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #203 on: October 16, 2018, 03:12:46 PM »
But are they having gay sex?

If they are then they are breaking their own rules. It would be like joining the Temperance Society and downing Scotch on the quiet.


Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #204 on: October 16, 2018, 03:16:46 PM »

Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.

You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.

Humph Warden Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #205 on: October 16, 2018, 03:23:52 PM »
You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.

 :)

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #206 on: October 16, 2018, 03:36:24 PM »
I suspect your word order may cause confusion here, Spud, since I doubt there are few places where people who are 'at work' are asked to support the practice of any form of sexuality, aside obviously from those involved in the sex industry.

If you mean that while in the course of your job that you should be able to decline to deliver or sell newspapers and magazines you personally disapprove of then you are clearly in the wrong job: tell me Spud, would you decline to sell me my usual Saturday copy of The Racing Post?
Ashers bakery is an example. Or the B&B owners who are asked to provide a double room, the dating website asked to extend its service to same-sex-attracted people. I suspect most Christians in business could face this dilemma in some way.

Re: the Racing Post. To be honest I haven't thought about it - a friend of mine who bets on horses says the money is well spent as it keeps the horses fit (interesting logic). I do occasionally take money for a Racing Post at the till, but I have said that I won't do till work for this shop regularly because of the amount of cigarettes, alcohol, lottery and porn that is available. So I stick to paper delivery. I would recommend you don't bet large amounts or regularly.

The agreement was to deliver national newspapers and other magazines such as Radio Times; I had one that I think was called "Woman". If there was more of the trashy stuff I would definitely move on. I never thought I'd be asked to deliver something like the one in question.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'supporting the practice of homosexuality at work', unless you mean 'not discriminating against gay people'. But you don't seem to be aware that many Christians, if not most, don't care if someone is gay, don't care if they have a partner and view marriage equality as a chance to go to more parties. It's only a minority who can't accept it. But yes, if you can't not discriminate then you shouldn't be in a job that deals with customers or clients.

I would happily deliver a newspaper to a gay person.  But if a gay magazine's primary purpose is advising the reader about sexual relationships with someone of the same sex, then I would be condoning that by delivering it.

All paid work involves dealing with customers or clients. What you have suggested amounts to, don't work for money. How does one pay for food or clothes, then? What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?

No, I think Ashers bakery were within their rights to refuse this business. They took the decision not to take the customer's money. You, on the other hand, took the decision to accept your employer's money, so you should do the job you were contracted to.

I agree about Ashers.

When I accepted the job I was not told I might be asked to deliver gay magazines. When I was asked to deliver them I said no - they were then free to sack me; they decided to keep me on.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 03:38:58 PM by Spud »

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #207 on: October 16, 2018, 03:36:50 PM »
You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.

It is a good job then that many Christians, including some clergy, ignore those particular rules.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #208 on: October 16, 2018, 03:46:56 PM »
It is a good job then that many Christians, including some clergy, ignore those particular rules.

Until those clergy get sacked and lose their livelihoods and their communities lose and often much-loved parish priest.

You know back in the day I nearly became a priest? This is why I stopped the process and eventually left the church. I would have to make promises of obedience to my bishop and I knew I couldn't keep them (in my case it would have been that I would have openly wanted to bless same sex unions). One thing that clergy shouldn't be is hypocritical, and if you make a promise in that context you should keep it, not make it with your fingers crossed and hope that the Bish never finds out. The clergy isn't for everyone; very often it isn't for those who want to be able to live with their own consciences.

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #209 on: October 16, 2018, 03:51:38 PM »
Until those clergy get sacked and lose their livelihoods and their communities lose and often much-loved parish priest.

You know back in the day I nearly became a priest? This is why I stopped the process and eventually left the church. I would have to make promises of obedience to my bishop and I knew I couldn't keep them (in my case it would have been that I would have openly wanted to bless same sex unions). One thing that clergy shouldn't be is hypocritical, and if you make a promise in that context you should keep it, not make it with your fingers crossed and hope that the Bish never finds out. The clergy isn't for everyone; very often it isn't for those who want to be able to live with their own consciences.

The people concerned have been in the job for a good while, it isn't a secret, so presumably the powers that be are turning a blind eye.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #210 on: October 16, 2018, 04:01:29 PM »
The people concerned have been in the job for a good while, it isn't a secret, so presumably the powers that be are turning a blind eye.

Hypocrites. If they are then they are disobeying their bishop. That chain of command goes up to Welby.

Although I'm mildly alarmed by how interested the 'powers that be' are in the bedroom lives of others. Or maybe you are wrong, and their relationships are celibate. After all, it isn't really any of your business.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64339
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #211 on: October 16, 2018, 04:03:37 PM »
Hypocrites. If they are then they are disobeying their bishop. That chain of command goes up to Welby.

Although I'm mildly alarmed by how interested the 'powers that be' are in the bedroom lives of others. Or maybe you are wrong, and their relationships are celibate. After all, it isn't really any of your business.
I was presuming this was a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell approach. It is as you say hypocritical but is often a halfway house on the road.

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #212 on: October 16, 2018, 04:08:18 PM »
I was presuming this was a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell approach. It is as you say hypocritical but is often a halfway house on the road.

That's how the CofE used to operate. Since the rise of the Evangelical wing of the church and the Jeffrey John tragedy the Church was forced to state its position. You have to vow as a member of the clergy to obey your bishop and your bishop will instruct you not to have gay sex, as well as not blessing same sex unions, marriages and civil partnerships, even if you do it is someone's front room and not church. On this there are no grey areas. People will ask and they will tell.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10403
  • God? She's black.
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #213 on: October 16, 2018, 10:49:57 PM »

Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.
The point is that it's against church rules for the clergy. It shouldn't be, but it is. Your childish attempt to be shocking with your comment on Jesus impresses, much less shocks, no-one.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #214 on: October 17, 2018, 09:00:43 AM »
That's how the CofE used to operate. Since the rise of the Evangelical wing of the church and the Jeffrey John tragedy the Church was forced to state its position. You have to vow as a member of the clergy to obey your bishop and your bishop will instruct you not to have gay sex, as well as not blessing same sex unions, marriages and civil partnerships, even if you do it is someone's front room and not church. On this there are no grey areas. People will ask and they will tell.


Same situation (roughly) in the CofS.
A parish minister cannot conduct gay weddings (even if that minister is a registrar); they cannot, as a church minister, bless gay weddings either in private or in public, without being subject to the discipline of Presbytery, and ultimately, General Assembly.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #215 on: October 17, 2018, 09:23:01 AM »
Apparently there’s a move to allow the blessing of civil partnerships in the CofE. You don’t make things right by adding another layer of fudge.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10403
  • God? She's black.
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #216 on: October 17, 2018, 09:33:09 AM »
Apparently there’s a move to allow the blessing of civil partnerships in the CofE. You don’t make things right by adding another layer of fudge.
It's a step in the right direction.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #217 on: October 17, 2018, 09:51:51 AM »
It's a step in the right direction.

Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10403
  • God? She's black.
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #218 on: October 17, 2018, 11:31:16 AM »
Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #219 on: October 17, 2018, 11:40:27 AM »
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?


I agree.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #220 on: October 17, 2018, 11:48:21 AM »
Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.
   


Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book - and most do...it cannot sanctify a marriage which it cannot recognise.
I don't see any wriggle room in this.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #221 on: October 17, 2018, 12:07:08 PM »
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?

Please don't patronise me. I am disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you. I don't see it as a 'step in the right direction' at all; at best it is a sideways step because it still treats gay partnerships as second class and outside of 'God's plan' for what marriage is. At worst it is a 'but look, we've done something' get out clause for not taking proper action. 

I'm still not sure how you can see an insult as 'a step in the right direction' but I guess that if you are an Anglican that is often the best you can hope for.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 12:11:06 PM by Rhiannon »

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #222 on: October 17, 2018, 12:08:48 PM »
   


Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book - and most do...it cannot sanctify a marriage which it cannot recognise.
I don't see any wriggle room in this.

Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #223 on: October 17, 2018, 01:53:36 PM »
Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.
   




Would you prefer I drop some trinket at a clootie well and hope for the best?
Sorry, Rhi; we have been given the New Testament, and on it the basis of our faith is founded.
I cannot perceive a way to reconcile the teaching of both the Lord and Paul wityh the modernity of t of the prevailing society.
I'll stay anchored on the Rock, thanks.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Rhiannon

  • Guest
Re: Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.
« Reply #224 on: October 17, 2018, 02:21:05 PM »
   




Would you prefer I drop some trinket at a clootie well and hope for the best?
Sorry, Rhi; we have been given the New Testament, and on it the basis of our faith is founded.
I cannot perceive a way to reconcile the teaching of both the Lord and Paul wityh the modernity of t of the prevailing society.
I'll stay anchored on the Rock, thanks.

I really don't care what anyone does, so long as what they practice doesn't hurt others. What you practice does. It devastates. It takes lives. And if you are wrong about salvation - and I believe that you are - then people will have suffered at the hands of your church and your beliefs and there is no redemption and no relief from it. It is all for nothing. And all because your church prefers a book to love.