|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 'Gays will be faking it if they marry in church'
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
goperryrevs: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
That is exactly it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871
|
Posted
Yes, this Christina Ondine is an odd mixture of the liberal and conservative, I've often found - this can sometimes be a source of interest in her articles - but this piece seems to struggle to reconcile various positions, in quite an unsatisfactory way. Sometimes she gives the impression of someone torn between her conscience and her confession; what a complex, Iris-Murdoch-novel type of personality she appears!
However, whatever it is that she's trying to say here - that it's OK for gays to marry in registry offices but not in churches? That gays aren't being true to each other if they marry in churches? - it comes across fundamentally Dead Horsey - basically the "same-old, same-old" song familiar for so many years, but sprinkled with an unnerving patina of liberalism.
I thought her statement:
For the real thing, you have to be the real thing
was particularly Dead Horsey and really quite obnoxious. I wonder if she has lots of gay friends, though? Takes all sorts, you see! Bless!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Orfeo:
I am not sure of the HR law in this field, but I would assume a heterosexual bed and breakfast members club would indeed have been discriminatory if it tried to ban gay people from joining, since being gay does not affect the fundamental prerequisites of bed and breakfast: the ability to sleep and pay for it. Also as far as I am aware virtually all religious organisations 'allow as members' people who are homosexual in orientation.
I am not sure of the prerequisites for Catholic marriages- in CofE it is of course only live in the same parish. But even in Catholic, it could be (with no knowledge claimed) that if some liberal Catholic churches start having gay marriages, activists could say, since it is clearly not a necessary prerequisite of church marriage that you be heterosexual, therefore churches who do not are discriminatory.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I actually respect her position from the point of view of being a Catholic, and think that if a church or minister has an theological problem with marrying a same-sex couple, then they should be allowed to abstain from doing so.
The issue I have with her position as a Catholic on divorce is that, if she genuinely believes her marriage isn't real, then it follows she is guilty of adultery. I think she must have found some reason why it isn't adultery - but she isn't saying what that reason is, and instead is writing as though it was self-evident.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Orfeo:
I am not sure of the HR law in this field, but I would assume a heterosexual bed and breakfast members club would indeed have been discriminatory if it tried to ban gay people from joining, since being gay does not affect the fundamental prerequisites of bed and breakfast: the ability to sleep and pay for it. Also as far as I am aware virtually all religious organisations 'allow as members' people who are homosexual in orientation.
It's an interesting question. We don't have a comprehensive anti-discrimination law on sexuality here in Australia (yet), so I took a glance at the one on sex/gender.
There's a provision about clubs and how it's unlawful to refuse membership on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy. But then it has a pack of exceptions. And the first one is that it's fine if 'membership of the club is available to persons of the opposite sex [to the person you're discriminating against]'!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I actually respect her position from the point of view of being a Catholic, and think that if a church or minister has an theological problem with marrying a same-sex couple, then they should be allowed to abstain from doing so.
The issue I have with her position as a Catholic on divorce is that, if she genuinely believes her marriage isn't real, then it follows she is guilty of adultery. I think she must have found some reason why it isn't adultery - but she isn't saying what that reason is, and instead is writing as though it was self-evident.
That's true. What I meant was, if it is the case that the Catholic church is the only true and faithful church (which many Catholics do believe), then her argument regarding homosexual marriage has some merit; despite, as you say, her own hypocrisy. But the conclusion then is that everything non-Catholic Christians do is 'faking it' to an extent (again, which many Catholics believe), and the issue is much wider than homosexual marriage - so it's kind of a moot point.
It does highlight the ethical dilemmas that a lay Catholic can have, when they disagree with the official stance of a Church that they believe is the One True Church. And is why personally I'd struggle to be a member of the Catholic Church.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a provision about clubs and how it's unlawful to refuse membership on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy. But then it has a pack of exceptions. And the first one is that it's fine if 'membership of the club is available to persons of the opposite sex [to the person you're discriminating against]'!
How on earth can they tell someone's orientation on the door, unless they're making out or wearing T-shirts saying 'out and proud' or something?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a provision about clubs and how it's unlawful to refuse membership on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy. But then it has a pack of exceptions. And the first one is that it's fine if 'membership of the club is available to persons of the opposite sex [to the person you're discriminating against]'!
How on earth can they tell someone's orientation on the door, unless they're making out or wearing T-shirts saying 'out and proud' or something?
Obviously you don't believe in gaydar. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, though, you probably can't. You can, though, have club rules which provide for expulsion if you breach them.
Wait this DOES sound a heck of a lot like a church, doesn't it...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
[Tangent contd] I just had this vision of a clash of comedy sketches: Dafydd from Little Britain turning up at the club, saying "I am a gay", and the bouncers shouting "Rule 6: No Pooftahs!" [/tangent]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
In the first sentence of Odone's articles she says quote:
... I was married there, in 2004 ...
By her own argument, of course, she wasn't. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, the ceremony she took part in wasn't even a fake marriage: it was no marriage at all, because her pertner's wife is still alive.
I would have more respect for her opinion if she began with something like quote:
Since 2004, according to the Catholic Church, I have been a persistent, unrepentant adultress.
If she began with some honest language like this, it would be easier to judge both her opinion and the Catholic Church's teaching.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
You know, I must say I agree with Adeodatus on this one.
And I do think it would be hypocritical and be the cause of serious scandal to other Catholics for her to be receiving the Sacrament (if she were, which to be fair I have no reason to believe).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that you are either gay or a true Christian is a false dichotomy that I utterly reject.
End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, what the man said.
...have we read different articles, here?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How on earth can they tell someone's orientation on the door, unless they're making out or wearing T-shirts saying 'out and proud' or something?
There was a serious controversy in Perth (Western Australia, not Scotland) where a number of nightclubs have banned men wearing metrosexual attire. That could be a start.
Just to throw a hefty spanner in the works, they say they are fighting discrimination by taking other clubs' discriminatory dress codes and inverting them!
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
DH it is. Down you go...
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How on earth can they tell someone's orientation on the door, unless they're making out or wearing T-shirts saying 'out and proud' or something?
There was a serious controversy in Perth (Western Australia, not Scotland) where a number of nightclubs have banned men wearing metrosexual attire. That could be a start.
Just to throw a hefty spanner in the works, they say they are fighting discrimination by taking other clubs' discriminatory dress codes and inverting them!
Ah well, the gays who wear check shirts and singlets should be safe from harassment by the young heterosexual pretty boys in that club. Good to see.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Hurricane in a caffetiere.
Odorne, under deadline pressure to get a column in to her editor, went to press half-baked with her response to the proposed measure only half (a third?) thought-through.
From paragraph one:
quote:
We had no priest, and took no religious vows, but I feel totally married.
(Whatever "feeling totally married" means.)
So with regard to marriage, it would be fair to assume that civil = religious for her? Even though she also might quote:
. . . regret that, as a Catholic marrying a divorced man, I was banned from a church wedding?
But she wouldn't task her church to perform the deed because quote:
I have too much respect for my Church to do so.
So the split she's making is between her own willingness, to take on whatever alleged moral burdens come with marrying a divorced man, and asking the Church as an institution to take on those alleged burdens for or with her.
While at one level, that's a laudatory, perhaps even self-sacrificing, stance, I am having trouble reconciling her claimed respect for the institution with her willingness to ignore its rules. She needs to think this through and explain her stance further. It would also help if she could explain the difference she implies between "feeling" totally married and "being" totally married.
And then she loses me completely with quote:
The Government, it would seem, feels no such respect. The Coalition proposes a new law that would allow gays to wed in church and other places of worship.
When did "allow" become "compel?" If you've got sixteen Anglican churches in central London, say, with three (or eight, or even only one) of them happy to wed any two single adults who've posted banns, etc., with the rest insisting that the two adults be male / female, how can the refuseniks be charged with discrimination? They're all part of the same institution.
The same argument might not hold true for mosques (which I believe to organize independently, with no central authority -- happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) and independent non-centralized houses of worship, and even for Odorne's church-of-choice. However, wouldn't their very status as non-state religions protect them from government "compulsion?"
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
wouldn't their very status as non-state religions protect them from government "compulsion?"
I wouldn't imagine so. Not given what happened in the B&B case and with the Catholic adpotion agencies.
What will stop the government "compelling", for example, Catholics and Muslims to perform splicing ceremonies for same-sex couples is the impossibility of making them conform to the new law. Save perhaps for the odd dissident cleric (who would swiftly be "distanced"), they just wouldn't do it no matter what the penalty. The state has outlawed the practice of Catholicism before. I doubt it would be quick to do it again.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
You might be interested to know that, at present, the URC (which, due to its history, has a strange mixture of top-down Conciliar government and bottom-up Congregationalism) has taken the position with blessings of civil partnerships that each local church and minister can make up their own mind.
But a minister who wanted to perform same-sex blessings would be bound by a church that didn't want him or her to do them. (You could therefore get a situation where a minister serving two churches could bless civil partnerships in one but not the other). And a church which was happy to host such blessings can't compel their minister to do them if they don't wish to.
My guess is that the URC might well take a similar line when it comes to the new law - if it comes into force. In other words, I think it might be happy to live with inconsistency, or at least recognise that it can occur.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right some background. In the 1990s the URC tried to decide through its councils whether a cohabiting homosexual person could be ordained to the ministry. That was exactly the situation, I also know that the then General Secretary was advised by some that this should be a matter of conscience for minister and individual church meeting, but those voices were over ruled and it went through council.
It caused a lot of hurt and pain, and for the only time in the almost forty years we have been together we invoked the moratorium on talking about the issue. That moratorium is over and the denomination has held together but there is no stomach among anyone for going back to where we were prior to that.
Given that council method failed, at present the process is very much that of orderly process of allowing conscience to congregation and ministers. There is a coordinating body but it is coordinating frameworks in which differences can be held. This isn't a new procedure, Congregationalists used it in 1914 when they ordained women! It is a method for seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is messy, it takes time, but by testing the waters we find out what God wants.
What Baptist Train Fan is referring too is a resolution by the Human Sexuality Task force. The relevant bit reads as follows:
quote:
3. Questions of Conscience
It will be important for Church Meetings to take into consideration the views of the Ministers in their pastorate. No Minister should be asked to act contrary to his or her conscience and therefore where a minister feels unable to participate in a service of blessing this position should be respected.
Equally, Ministers must respect the conscience of their Church Meetings. Where a Church Meeting is not prepared to allow services of blessing a Minister should not agree to conduct such a service in another place without the knowledge and consent of the elders. Where a Church Meeting is prepared to allow a service of blessing but the Minister feels unable to participate, suitable arrangements may be made for a colleague Minister to do so. It is possible that in a Joint Pastorate or a Group of Churches the different Church Meetings will come to different decisions. This has occurred on other matters and should it happen here each Church Meeting should respect the integrity of the other and recognise that their Minister needs to work with both decisions.
Whatever decision a Church Meeting comes to on the question of allowing a service of blessing for a civil partnership, it is most important that every effort is made to make this decision in such a way that the whole meeting can feel that this was a proper decision. In an ideal world the Church Meeting would come to a common mind with every member in agreement with the final decision but particularly in matters that deal with emotions and sensitivities, this is asking a great deal.
The full advice is available online.
It is not quite the case, as congregation have to also respect minister. This differs substantially from the case of infant baptising, where a minister can refuse to do it, but all congregations must offer it.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
How does a congregation offer infant baptising, if the minister won't do it?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
How does a congregation offer infant baptising, if the minister won't do it?
An interesting question, because baptism has no legal effect whatsoever.
I rather suspect that with marriage we are again running into the issue that a marriage ceremony, in certain countries, simultaneously has religious and legal significance.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
How does a congregation offer infant baptising, if the minister won't do it?
Arrange for another minister to conduct the Baptism with agreement of the minister. Normally such minister would be retired or for other reason not in pastoral oversight.
Please also realise that in many non-conformist churches in England the legality of the marriage is not dependent on the minister being there but on the person who deals with the registry. My brain does not recall their title. Often the minister holds this role but I know of a fair few situations where someone else in the congregation does.
Jengie
[ 15. February 2011, 20:46: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Am I the only one to whose mind the thread title brings When Harry Met Sally?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Please also realise that in many non-conformist churches in England the legality of the marriage is not dependent on the minister being there but on the person who deals with the registry. My brain does not recall their title. Often the minister holds this role but I know of a fair few situations where someone else in the congregation does.
Such people are known as "Authorised Persons" and act on behalf of the Registrar (receiving the munificent sum of, I think, £2 for doing so!)
Some Ministers are APs - I have been - but it's more convenient if someone else does the job. In my church we have two: my wife and the Church Secretary. If I should drop dead during the marriage service someone else could theoretically pick up the book, read the words and the couple would be duly wed; but if the AP dropped dead everything would come to a grinding halt!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
You might be interested to know that, at present, the URC (which, due to its history, has a strange mixture of top-down Conciliar government and bottom-up Congregationalism) has taken the position with blessings of civil partnerships that each local church and minister can make up their own mind.
I have been present at one. I don't remember the riot squad bursting in to break up the illegal conventicle. So I wonder what law is to be changed?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Indeed. But if you went to the blessing of a Civil Partnership in a URC, you must remember this had no legal significance whatsoever - the couple will have had to have done that at an alternative venue, almost certainly the Register Office.
That is where the change in law would come into play - it could all be done in church, just like a wedding.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
wouldn't their very status as non-state religions protect them from government "compulsion?"
I wouldn't imagine so. Not given what happened in the B&B case and with the Catholic adpotion agencies.
I suspect the long precedent that Catholics and other religious groups are already allowed to discriminate in who they marry (e.g., divorced people in the Catholic Church now and in the CoE for many years [and even now I believe it is at the discretion of the minister], religiously mixed marriages for many, Cohens and 'mamzers' in many synagogues) is the most likely reason for no church to be forced by the state to marry two people of the same sex. I don't see this changing. Religious marriage ceremonies are not a service offered to the general public (unlike B&B) nor are they provided by charities as opposed to religions (Catholic adoption agencies were charities and I do not believe they discriminated against non-Catholics or on other religous grounds).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I have today written to my MP supporting this legislation (or what I know of it) but also asking what provision is being made for those religious groups who may be feeling that, should they not wish to perform gay "weddings", legal action might ultimately be brought against them.
IMHO the problem might be greater for "congregational" groups who make their decisions locally, than for those groups whose position will be determined nationally.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Given the title of this thread, I have to add that I understand that women have been "faking it" in marriage* for many years, so it seems only fair to give the other gender the right to do the same.
Whether having the church's blessing will make the activity more "real" or not remains up to the individuals inviolved.
*And, probably, in unmarriage, or whatever other form of relationship they take part in.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
[snip]
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the title of this thread, I have to add that I understand that women have been "faking it" in marriage* for many years, so it seems only fair to give the other gender the right to do the same.
'the other gender'? Perhaps I misunderstand you HB....
Um, not all people who choose to use the term 'gay' are chaps.
And there's trans folk as well....
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OK, we'll go with "everyone (gender unspecified)"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
And there's trans folk as well....
Who can themselves be of any sexual orientation.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
And there's trans folk as well....
Who can themselves be of any sexual orientation.
this is entirely true... my bad for not being specific
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Lesbian friends of mine truly wanted to get married. Lovely couple, totally dedicated to each other, been together a long time. They settled for a civil partnership ceremony but are still saddened that churches told them that they were unworthy of the real thing.
Difficult to know which way the CofE is going. Noticeable that a recent Bishop appointment in my patch was someone with clear written anti-homosexual-relationship views.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Until very recently that was the same for any divorced people as well. 'Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God.' So I suppose, like women bishops, it will be permissible one day, just not yet.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
And there's trans folk as well....
Who can themselves be of any sexual orientation.
this is entirely true... my bad for not being specific
Not bad at all, it's just something I've found can't be underscored often enough and I can have a bit of a reflex about it.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
@LQ - as was mine also a reflex... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the title of this thread, I have to add that I understand that women have been "faking it" in marriage* for many years, so it seems only fair to give the other gender the right to do the same.
I've always thought the way lesbians are typically erased from discussions about same-sex marriage was just more proof that the arguments against are mostly about anxious masculinity and maintaining rigidly-defined gender roles.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
Indeed. It's been an ongoing source of bemusement, and occasional irritation, that even on this topic, which concerns people who are marginalised/ excluded, women are marginalised/ or are basically just invisible.
With my anthropologist's hat on, I'd agree Croesos.
This is less about same-gender committed couples and more about gender identity - what it is to be a 'real man' - and power, or rather, loss of power, given that men have traditionally/ historically been 'on top' socially, economically, sexually, etc. in most societies.
[ 28. February 2011, 18:52: Message edited by: joan knox ]
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Lesbian friends of mine truly wanted to get married. Lovely couple, totally dedicated to each other, been together a long time. They settled for a civil partnership ceremony but are still saddened that churches told them that they were unworthy of the real thing.
Difficult to know which way the CofE is going.
A bit skeptical since it's the mail, but apparently not so unclear.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
From said article:
Canon Glyn Webster, a senior member of the General Synod, said: 'It's only possible for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'm not saying there can't be loving relationships between people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to marriage.
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
[ 28. February 2011, 19:22: Message edited by: joan knox ]
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
There was a rather more lovely article in the Grauniad today which made an interesting point...
Vide...
The general thrust is that in the past it was alleged that the Religious life was considered a threat to marriage in a similar way to modern gay marriages/partnerships. The author suggests that this comes down to the idea that there is only so much 'God to go round'. And it does remind me that some of the strongest defenders of gay rights in the Church from people who are otherwise very conservative have come from those in the Consecrated Religious life.
What do people think? I find it an interesting analogy and one that I had not previously thought of, myself.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Pansies, and clematis, and scarlet hips, And honey-suckle branches did I break, Upgather in my arms and bear away, Having the dream within my heart alway, That I should give them to you one sweet, near day, And you would take with dainty finger-tips The flowers I gave you, and for my poor sake, Even in your bridal hour, would still heart-ache In me for ever, with the touch of lips.
This was written and published in 1888 by a woman addressing the female love of her life, who was engaged to be married to a man.
If her love had "heart-ached" for her during her wedding night, who would have been faking? If bride and groom had a church wedding but the bride's thoughts were not on her husband, did the mere fact of church wedding between male and female make the whole thing real?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having attended the wedding to a woman of a guy who knew he was gay, but was pressured into "marrying properly", I think I know who was "faking it". The girl had her fancy dress and church wedding, but the whole relationship fell apart within the year. (He was in tears through the whole ceremony)
And he never did achieve a full relationship with anyone, to my knowledge.
I'm sure there are other gay guys who could say the same.
And then there are those who only came to acknowledge their true orientation later in the relationship (Ted Haggard and Bp. Robinson spring to mind, for different reasons). There may not have been "faking" at some point in the relationship, but, eventually, it did happen, until a process of developing understanding occurred, such as Bp. Robinson and his wife and family appear to have done.
But I also think that my somewhat silly comment about faking an orgasm was not meant to denigrate those women or men who are in difficulties about orientation. Quite a lot of straight women (and, probably, some men) have done this, for a variety of reasons.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Having attended the wedding to a woman of a guy who knew he was gay, but was pressured into "marrying properly", I think I know who was "faking it". The girl had her fancy dress and church wedding, but the whole relationship fell apart within the year. (He was in tears through the whole ceremony)
Which is exactly where all the "gay is wrong" arguments fall apart. Nobody ever answers the very reasonable question we ask at that point: "Well, then: exactly what are we supposed to do?"
Only a very, very few people are called to celibacy. Most people who argue that "gays are faking it" would never, never consider celibacy themselves. And they don't even feel the need to address this as an issue - because they don't feel the need to consider us as people at all.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Very true, TM - the "anti" stance is curiously apophatic in many ways. It's very clear about what gay people are not to do (at least assuming they wish to inherit the Kingdom) but falls conveniently silent about what precisely it does expect, apart from vague murmurings about celibacy, which is hardly help to those who already have partners, childrens, and households in tow. And of course as you note, celibacy is a vocation. But what do you expect from traditionalist doublespeak? "Respecting the dignified place of the celibate life in Christian discipleship" means treating it casually (Robertson Davies' line in The Manticore about not handing sex to someone like a tonic could hardly have been more aptly made with respect to celibacy!) and "promoting family stability" means rending other families (or expelling them from the church if they do not disband voluntarily) to promote the stability of the status-quo definition of a valid family - and not allow it to encompass anyone who isn't PLU.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
[QB] From said article:
Canon Glyn Webster, a senior member of the General Synod, said: 'It's only possible for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'm not saying there can't be loving relationships between people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to marriage.
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
Apparently Canon Glyn is channeling the pope. The real answer is: *stomp*, *stomp* "Because I said so!"
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
wouldn't their very status as non-state religions protect them from government "compulsion?"
I wouldn't imagine so. Not given what happened in the B&B case and with the Catholic adpotion agencies.
I suspect the long precedent that Catholics and other religious groups are already allowed to discriminate in who they marry (e.g., divorced people in the Catholic Church now and in the CoE for many years [and even now I believe it is at the discretion of the minister], religiously mixed marriages for many, Cohens and 'mamzers' in many synagogues) is the most likely reason for no church to be forced by the state to marry two people of the same sex. I don't see this changing.
Exactly -- that is what I found odd about the Odone article. Her church is not forced to married divorcees against its teaching so what grounds are there for saying it will be forced to marry gay people under this change of law?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
The Government of Canada entered precisely these arguments, and lost. Hence, equal marriage in Canada. I am of the opinion, however, that the government lawyers had pretty much been instructed to lose. But I am a bit of cynic.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
The Government of Canada entered precisely these arguments, and lost. Hence, equal marriage in Canada. I am of the opinion, however, that the government lawyers had pretty much been instructed to lose. But I am a bit of cynic.
After reading incredibly careful reasoning of the Californian decision on this issue, I'm of the opinion that the argument is not winnable without an appeal to religious or moral doctrine.
The interveners in that case had the money and the resources to come up with an argument, and unlike (possibly) the Canadian government, they had the clear motivation, but they still couldn't any kind of secular argument to justify their position.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
