Thread: 'Gays will be faking it if they marry in church' Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028571
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
I haven't seen any discussion here about the latest UK government proposals about allowing same sex marriages to be performed in churches.
Comment article in today's Telegraph
Comments anyone?
I don't like the implications in the article that churches that might be willing to offer such a ceremony cannot by definition be 'real' churches, hence the accusation of 'faking it'.
(Not sure if this ought to go straight to Dead Horses! Apologies if I posted in wrong place)
[ 15. February 2011, 07:50: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
At least she is consistent, I suppose, bieng willing to swallow the harsh medicine she wishes in turn to dish out to others.
For me, the issue is "when does (will) 'permit' churches to marry" become "force churches to marry"; an issue the article assumes to be implicit.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Gah. Why did I read that thing? Now I'm going to be annoyed for the rest of the day.
a. The author seems to think that banning (say) Quakers from celebrating gay marriages is OK, but permitting (not forcing) churches to offer gay marriages is some gross violation of religious freedom. Words cannot express how deeply stupid that is, but it seems to be the line the Torygraph is pushing.
b. To cope with her own marriage to a divorcee, she seems to have convinced herself that, as she didn't claim it was a religious marriage, therefore it was OK. I can't see this form of sophistry going down well with any student of traditional Catholic morality. And if she doesn't care about traditional Catholic morality, she's got no business criticising anyone else for their deviation from traditional norms.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
And presumably she is barred (or bars herself) from receiving Holy Communion?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
If she does, then I would temper my criticism a bit.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At least she is consistent, I suppose, bieng willing to swallow the harsh medicine she wishes in turn to dish out to others.
For me, the issue is "when does (will) 'permit' churches to marry" become "force churches to marry"; an issue the article assumes to be implicit.
Someone may have to help me here on whether the fact that there is a state religion in (parts of) the UK makes any difference to this.
Of course, the absence of an official state religion elsewhere hasn't stopped the cries about how churches will be forced at legislative gunpoint to carry out marriages, but it has occurred to me that in a country with an officially endorsed religion there is at least SOME real chance of State interference with the official religion.
Wouldn't have any impact on UK catholics, though.
EDIT: Also, even if such a concern were legitimate, the headline of the article is still totally outrageous and wrong. What has the personal conscience of the people getting married (or civilly unionised ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) got to do with the legal position anyway?
[ 15. February 2011, 09:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
If she essentially agrees with the Catholic Church on remarriage, but chooses to partially disregard it in practice, she is being hypocritical (as to be fair are we all, on many things).
However it might be that whilst she is a believing Catholic, she fundamentally disagrees with the Church on this one issue, but chooses not to force her disagreement on them. That seems more reasonable.
I do not support gay marriage in church. There are some who do support it: they are Christians and have the right to disagree; I would be very happy if all this proposal did was to allow those churches who wish to to celebrate gay marriages.
Clearly the fear amongst traditionalists is that it is a slippery slope- just as bed and breakfasts firstly had to be persuaded to accept gay couples, then it became normal to, now you can be prosecuted if you don't. Once some churches accept gay marriage, the call may become 'These churches marry gay people, why should some other churches be allowed to discriminate?'
The hope I have is that to force religious organisations would be such a momentous step, and would offend so many people- particularly foreign origin religious, such as Muslims, that the Government would not wish to be seen to discriminate against- that the Government would not consider it worth moving from normalising church gay marriages to forcing them.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
No church is being obliged to offer religious services for civil partnerships. Places of worship which wish to do so are being permitted to do so. So the Roman Catholics and the Church of England can breathe easy--apart from those Catholics and Anglicans who would like to be able to bless such unions, of course. They're still stuck.
Meanwhile, dear Ms Odone, The Society of Friends is not an inferior, liberal division of Protestantism. Reform Judaism is not Orthodox Judaism Lite. (In fact, as the sociologist of religion Adam Seligman once said, 'Orthodox Judaism was founded on the Tuesday after Reform Judaism was created). And, if you're an Orthodox Jew, FWIW, a marriage between a person named Cohen and a person born out of wedlock is as much forbidden as a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Clearly the fear amongst traditionalists is that it is a slippery slope- just as bed and breakfasts firstly had to be persuaded to accept gay couples, then it became normal to, now you can be prosecuted if you don't. Once some churches accept gay marriage, the call may become 'These churches marry gay people, why should some other churches be allowed to discriminate?'
I suspect a bed and breakfast is in trouble because it claims to be open to the public in general. If there were a members-only bed and breakfast, with some kind of sign-up process in order to become a member, the bed and breakfast might be free to decide who is acceptable as a member and who isn't.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
...there are, for instance, still plenty of clubs in London which accept only men as members.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I think that Communion is a good equivalent issue. Where her argument falls down is in her assumption that there is a universal Church teaching regarding marriage. There isn't, just as there isn't with the Eucharist.
For most Catholic or Orthodox friends here on the ship, the acts I go through in my Baptist church when we have communion isn't the The Real Thing(TM) - we're faking it, we don't have a proper priest or ecclesiastical authority. But from my own theological point of view, what we do in our Baptist church is as valid as what traditional churches do.
From their point of view, we're faking it. From my point of view we're not.
It's exactly the same issue here. When she says
quote:
A couple, even if their union passes the civil test, cannot automatically assume they will pass the religious test. If they don’t – and, as I know from personal experience, this is as true of divorcees getting married as of gays – they cannot hijack the sacrament.
She assumes there is a global definition of the sacrament that applies to all Christians. There isn't one.
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.
However, if you have a minister who has no theological problem, and a couple who believe the same, then a marriage that takes place might be a radical redefinition of marriage for some (and might be seen as pretence or faking it by objectors). But for the people involved themselves, it's not fake, it's a genuine outworking of the sacrament, and that's where her assertion that they 'know' it's not the real thing fails.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Meanwhile, dear Ms Odone, The Society of Friends is not an inferior, liberal division of Protestantism. Reform Judaism is not Orthodox Judaism Lite.
Yes, that was the other thing that annoyed me in the article: quote:
For the real thing, you have to be the real thing: for a real church wedding or a real synagogue or mosque wedding, you have to be a good practising Catholic, Jew or Muslim.
I'm hoping that was a slip of the sub-editor's pen, and she didn't really write that Protestants and Orthodox don't have real churches ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
goperryrevs: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
That is exactly it.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
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)
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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]'!
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[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]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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).
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
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?
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
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!
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
DH it is. Down you go...
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
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?"
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
How does a congregation offer infant baptising, if the minister won't do it?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Am I the only one to whose mind the thread title brings When Harry Met Sally?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
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).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
[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....
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
OK, we'll go with "everyone (gender unspecified)"
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
And there's trans folk as well....
Who can themselves be of any sexual orientation.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
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
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
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.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
@LQ - as was mine also a reflex... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
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 ]
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
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.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
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 ]
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
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?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
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.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
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.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
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!"
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0