Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says Church of England

[bluehillside Retd.]

In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

[Outrider]

In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

One of my continuing bugbears with the Guardian is the way it keeps feeling the need to give the oxygen of publicity to the Church of England - so it doesn't think Civil Partnerships constitute marriage within the Christian teaching, that was sort of the point.  They were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs, and here they are poking their beaks in as though they were in any way relevant to anything.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

One of my continuing bugbears with the Guardian is the way it keeps feeling the need to give the oxygen of publicity to the Church of England - so it doesn't think Civil Partnerships constitute marriage within the Christian teaching, that was sort of the point.  They were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs, and here they are poking their beaks in as though they were in any way relevant to anything.

I agree, and not just the Grauniad either of course - "Thought for the Day" on the Today programme is (in)famously a religious thought only zone. Across the media in fact I look askance when a difficult moral issue arises and they wheel out a cleric as if he (and it almost always is a he) has some special expertise in the area. Why not instead the head of a hospital ethics department, or a professor of moral philosophy perhaps who actual has some qualifications in the subject?

Anyways, the C of E's latest unpleasant nonsense must be difficult to process for, say, a married gay couple that also happen to be members.

[Aruntraveller]

Really? I mean fucking really?

They have nothing better to do than to witter on in a slightly harmful way about gay relationships.

With all the shit in the world, that they even consider this important shows a lack of any moral compass.

[Gordon]

Who cares, apart from its members, what the CofE thinks: their nauseating homophobic views aren't authoritative over society at large, hence marriage legislation was changed in spite of them, and it is about time the media recognised that the presumption that the CofE has any significant influence is false and they should stop giving them a public profile they don't merit - even in England, since they are utterly irrelevant here in Scotland.

A newsletter to their dwindling and increasingly aged regulars would surely suffice.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trent,

Really? I mean fucking really?

They have nothing better to do than to witter on in a slightly harmful way about gay relationships.

With all the shit in the world, that they even consider this important shows a lack of any moral compass.

Quite so. I'm less relaxed about the "slightly" though - I'm aware fo the slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me from institutionalised homophobia like this to gay men getting beaten up on the street, especially when the institution concerned arrogates to itself rights to access to much of the media. Fortunately it seems to me that much of society has moved on from listening to these fuckwits, but it's insidious stuff nonetheless.

[jeremyp]

Trent,

Quite so. I'm less relaxed about the "slightly" though - I'm aware fo the slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me from institutionalised homophobia like this to gay men getting beaten up on the street, especially when the institution concerned arrogates to itself rights to access to much of the media. Fortunately it seems to me that much of society has moved on from listening to these fuckwits, but it's insidious stuff nonetheless.

It's interesting that they've said that any kind of sex homosexual or heterosexual outside of a proper marriage is basically wrong, but we've all immediately focussed in on the homosexual side. The reason for this is, of course, that we all know straight people who have sex outside of marriage (does it have to be a Christian marriage?) will not suffer any kind of abuses for it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

It's interesting that they've said that any kind of sex homosexual or heterosexual outside of a proper marriage is basically wrong, but we've all immediately focussed in on the homosexual side. The reason for this is, of course, that we all know straight people who have sex outside of marriage (does it have to be a Christian marriage?) will not suffer any kind of abuses for it.

No, the reason (or at least my reason) is that it's a rigged game. They won't permit equal marriage, but then say it's wrong for the people they've excluded from marriage to have sex when they're not married.

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

No, the reason (or at least my reason) is that it's a rigged game. They won't permit equal marriage, but then say it's wrong for the people they've excluded from marriage to have sex when they're not married.

That's not the point I'm making (although it is also a very valid point). Plenty of heterosexuals have sex outside of marriage but they don't get the same abuse as homosexuals. We focus on the consequences for gay people because we all know there will be none for everybody else, regardless of the fact that some of them could get married (some couldn't because they already are married, but not to the people with whom they are having sex).

[SteveH]

[Civil partnerships] were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs...

No, they weren't - they were set up to give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero married couples. It has long been possible to have a civil marriage in a registry office.

[Robbie]

Register office or Registrar (me in pedant mode).
Yes it will be six years in March.

The CofE recognises register office weddings as 'proper' marriages for both homo and heterosexual couples. However they aren't supposed to do church weddings for homosexuals - some do anyway, discreetly, or blessings of civil weddings.

Anglicans churches vary so much in their interpretations of church rules. The evangelical wing hang on to old traditions more than middle of the road or high.

There are plenty of gay clergy in committed relationships.

[Harrowby Hall]

Register office or Registrar (me in pedant mode).

Registry Office - a place where registration occurs. Registration is performed by a registrar.

A register is the formal cumulative record of individual registrations.

[ippy]

It's about time these irrelevances were written out of all of our UK public places, starting with the House of Lords including the Bishops that are given titles on retirement that entitle them to remain sitting in the House of Lords.

ippy.

[Alan Burns]

In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians

Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.

It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.

[Outrider]

Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.  The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.

Surely the place to tell Christians things is in the Church, where the Christians are, rather than in the public forum of the media where everyone is?  Surely, if you're addressing this to Christians, you make a point of explaining that it only applies to Christians if you do choose to do it in a public forum.  Surely, if it's for Christians, what happens in a civil partnership is of no concern of theirs, because Christians will be having a Christian Marriage^TM[/quote]

It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.

You're still misrepresenting that burden of proof idea.  It's irrelevant to those who've heard the guidance of the Christian Bible and realised that it's insufficient evidence to base life choices on...

O.

[Sriram]

Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.

It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.

Social changes impose changes in behavior. This experiment with rats shows how behavior changes in line with population and environmental pressures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Humans probably are not exceptions...

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely the place to tell Christians things is in the Church, where the Christians are, rather than in the public forum of the media where everyone is?  Surely, if you're addressing this to Christians, you make a point of explaining that it only applies to Christians if you do choose to do it in a public forum.  Surely, if it's for Christians, what happens in a civil partnership is of no concern of theirs, because Christians will be having a Christian Marriage^TM

But the CofE (and RCC) are terrible confused over this - tying themselves up in knots. It would be one thing if they only accepted christian marriage as marriage, but they don't. If you are married in a civil ceremony then both the CofE and RCC has historically considered you to be married - hence you wouldn't be allowed to marry again in a christian marriage ceremony and you'd be considered to be divorced if your civil marriage ended in divorce.

Now that civil marriage has been extended to same sex couples the churches are in a bind - effectively they only accept civil marriage for certain couples (heterosexual ones) but reject it for other couples (same sex couples).

[Christine]

Perhaps the CofE is trying to distract attention from Bishop Peter Ball, subject of a horrifying TV documentary a couple of weeks ago.  Protected for 20 years by the Church and specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who withheld evidence from the police.  He continued grooming and abusing people during those 20 years. 

"At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993."

The member of the royal family was Prince Charles.  Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop)

[ippy]

Perhaps the CofE is trying to distract attention from Bishop Peter Ball, subject of a horrifying TV documentary a couple of weeks ago.  Protected for 20 years by the Church and specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who withheld evidence from the police.  He continued grooming and abusing people during those 20 years. 

"At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993."

The member of the royal family was Prince Charles.  Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop)

The member of the royal family was Prince Charles.  Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?

I've heard of a holy see Christine!

Love your post.

ippy.

[ippy]

Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.

It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.

There's no viable evidence that there is anything there like a god, gods, Unicorns or leprechauns in the first place to able to reject it or them, well anyway you've never managed to come up with anything remotely evidential to support your god idea.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible…

The irony will be lost on you, but the discussion right next to this one is titled “Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry”.

Funny that.

[Gordon]

Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.

I'd have thought the reaction from CofE members and officials, who are reported as saying it makes the CofE out to be a 'laughing stock', suggests that misguided and irrelevant is perhaps being kinder than the CofE deserves.   

The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.

Then surely a newsletter to their members, and perhaps an article on their website, would be sufficient reach their target audience. Instead all they have achieved is confirmation that they are indeed misguided and irrelevant - I reckon that score of 0 out of 10 on the 'how to encourage young people to join' scale would be excessive

It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.

Don't be silly - one can consider the position advanced by the CofE as being misguided and irrelevant without any reference to their club rules and manual. If the Institute of Telephone Sanitisers* pronounced that they considered the eating of chocolate on Tuesdays to be bad form we can dismiss their view as being misguided and irrelevant without reference to their 'How to Sanitise Telephones' pamphlet.

* borrowed from Douglas Adams. 

[Alan Burns]

I'd have thought the reaction from CofE members and officials, who are reported as saying it makes the CofE out to be a 'laughing stock', suggests that misguided and irrelevant is perhaps being kinder than the CofE deserves.   

Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.

[ProfessorDavey]

Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.

But they have already got into an awful pickle on this.

They used to claim that sex was only for married couples, and happily accepted that couples married in civil ceremonies were in fact married, even though the jurisdiction and definitions of who could me married in those civil ceremonies was entirely outside of their control and an entirely secular state matter.

Then all of a sudden the law is changed to allow same sex married couples and suddenly the CofE no longer believes (as it did) that sex between couples married in a civil ceremony is OK - only some couples.

[jeremyp]

Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.

That would be fine except that Christians often ignore the so called teachings from "divine revelations" from scripture. For example, I don't know any non vegetarian Christian who is averse to bacon. None of them seem to observe the Sabbath either or care about all that two fibre bollocks.