This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Church of England warning on gay marriage

Scroll to see replies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318

What does everyone think about this?

I for one am relieved that the Church of England is continuing to defend the traditional idea and sacred institution of marriage.

There are many radically different, traditional ideas of what consititutes "marriage" to many different cultures and religions. Marriage is not an institute that is exclusive to Christianity, and therefore the Church of England really has no right to appoint itself the arbiter of all marriage, nor impose its own idea of marriage onto everybody else, especially on those who are not even Christians.

And the thing is, the government has stated countless times that individual parishes will be allowed to decide whether or not they want to perform gay marriages. None of them are going to be forced to do it, so they can stop with their bitching and whining already.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 41

heyhey922

Original post by LurkerintheDark

If you want to be brainwashed by the radical gay agenda, be my guest. 95% of the human race agree that gay marriage is bad news, and that gays raising kids is filthy liberal child abuse. You're out of whack with mankind, brother.

You are out of touch with reality, bro.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984

Reply 42

turquoisesheep

Original post by Serano

I especially like the part on shellfish, what did shellfish to do deserve to be called abominable?! :frown:

It was to do with the fact that, in ye olde days when the bible was written, shell-fish often became contaminated due to the hot weather and the fact that they would be stored for weeks before they were eaten. As a result, shellfish tended to make people pretty sick, so they thought they were sinful.

In a way, it's a perfect example of how something in the bible is totally irrelevant in the 21st century!

Reply 43

gagaslilmonsteruk

I've seen this row brewing for a long time, I knew it wasn't going to be long before it turned into something massive. Whilst I respect the churches views, I am pro gay marriage, and I feel there would still always be the option of a ceremony in a registry office or town hall or something.

Reply 44

thunder_chunky

Original post by Ineluctable

You mean the traditional idea of marriage where straight people frequently marry for money, power and popularity? Yeah sounds really sacred. Wouldn't want those pesky gays messing it up now would we?

Reply 45

Mad Vlad

Original post by LurkerintheDark

Firstly, I'm not your brother. I'm not from da 'hood either.

Secondly, what are you on about? I've not been brainwashed by anyone - this is my opinion. As a gay man, why wouldn't I want equality? I'm not a subscriber to a radical gay agenda - I'm not a militant campaigner with pink camo body armour waving placards about. All I want is equality. Not special treatment. Not greater rights than the majority. Just equality.

As for gay couples raising children, you clearly have no idea about this - if anyone's been brainwashed, it's you, apparently.

Reply 46

Lord-Voldemort

Original post by Ineluctable

Oh yes - so sacred that divorce rates are at an all time high.

Reply 47

Lord-Voldemort

Original post by LurkerintheDark

Logically you cannot be in favour of this gay marriage rubbish and then deny polygamists or family members the right to come up with all sorts of different marital arrangements.

That's like saying, all those years ago, that woman should not be given the vote because it may lead to toddlers being given the vote too.

Reply 48

thunder_chunky

Original post by LurkerintheDark

95% of the human race agree that gay marriage is bad news, and that gays raising kids is filthy liberal child abuse.

Ok I'll bite, lets see some evidence. Think you can manage that?

Reply 49

LPK

Original post by Pangol

The trouble is, there are so many ways that books like the Bible can be interpreted. And there are several places where it is directly anti-gay. I don't see how you can say that it is down to misinterpretation, when an anti-gay reading of the Bible seems far more in keeping with what it actually says than a gay-friendly reading.

I don't agree with the church at all, and I think that religion is silly in general, but the idea that an anti-gay reading of the Bible is down to misinterpretation is not a view that I think is particularly easy to defend.

My understanding of alternative interpretations of the bible is that the actual definition of the word has been lost in translation, and has itself undergone numerous changes to its definition. There are some churches in America who interpret the anti-gay passages as being more of an 'unclean' act, as the term abomination was applied in later translation and they believe that the current definition as used by other churches isn't the correct context that the passages were written in. For example, I spoke to an Evangelical Christian last year, and her church interprets the passages in the bible to not refer as sexual practices as abominable in the sense that we know it, but as unclean within certain cultural and religious contexts. Her church believes that this is why the bible tends to focus so strongly on 'unclean' sexual acts such as sex during a period, rape, incest etc. Their interpretation of it is that it refers to homosexuality in a promiscuous and adulterous sense, and that the passages were not written by man with the current modern understanding of equal, loving relationships. As a result, they conclude that the passages within their intended context at that time do not apply so literally to modern relationships as we know them.

It's up to each individual person how they interpret it, but there is definetly a lot of diverse interpretations of it. Although the actual phrasing of it in today's society appears to be very clear, there's an extremely complicated back story that other churches investigate to make their own interpretations. I guess it all depends how literally you take the bible within a modern context.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 50

The Owl of Minerva

Original post by thunder_chunky

You mean the traditional idea of marriage where straight people frequently marry for money, power and popularity? Yeah sounds really sacred. Wouldn't want those pesky gays messing it up now would we?

Beautifully put. I applaud you sir. :congrats:

Reply 51

Kiss

I congratulate the Church's intergrity but I don't see why they are afraid of homosexual marriage so much - as long as churches aren't forced to marry people then they shouldn't be worried.

Reply 52

cardine92

I love it how a church that was founded to allow a man to divorce because he wanted a hotter wife thinks that it's gay people undermining the idea of marriage. Apart from that I'm not surprised and I don't particularly care, I just do not understand why gay people would want anything to do with a religion that is pretty clear on what it thinks of homosexuality.

Reply 53

squeakypop

I'm a Christian, and this is my view (feel free to ignore it!) :

Homosexual relations are explicitly banned in the first testament of the Bible. However, the new testament makes no direct reference to them.
I believe that the condemnation of homosexuality - as well as other things banned in the Old Testament like over-eating, women speaking or showing their face in Church, and the mixing of fabrics - was part of their society/culture, and is not applicable to modern day religion or politics.
When (or if) Jesus came to Earth, he 'washed away' our sins. Important rules, like not stealing or killing, are reiterated throughout the New Testament, unlike homosexuality.

Either way, remember : Hate the sin, love the sinner. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, you should display love towards them in allowing them to live their life freely and in a way that they enjoy.

Reply 54

Dr. Bassman

Religion huh, that's getting us places.

Reply 55

adsyrah

Original post by squeakypop

...Hate the sin, love the sinner...

Oh you crazy gal, you're so full of love and non-judgment

/sarcasm

How about you just mind your own business :rolleyes:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 56

thunder_chunky

Original post by squeakypop

You see that first part was reasonable, however that second part where you say "hate the sin, love the sinner" still implies that their life style is a sin, which is absurd.

Reply 57

madders94

Original post by squeakypop

I wish more Christians - and more religious people in general, AND non-religious people too for that matter - were more like you. Regardless of our beliefs or opinions, showing love and acceptance towards others is more important :smile:

Reply 58

madders94

Original post by adsyrah

Oh you crazy gal, you're so full of love and non-judgment

/sarcasm

How about you just mind your own business :rolleyes:

Original post by thunder_chunky

You see that first part was reasonable, however that second part where you say "hate the sin, love the sinner" still implies that their life style is a sin, which is absurd.

I think they're pointing out the fact that although they personally don't, many people still do consider homosexuality to be a sin, and although we'll never change the beliefs of those people, we should encourage them to accept and love the people.

The phrase might seem absurd out of context, but in context - when being used in reference to the people who do consider being gay a sin and gay people to be sinners - it makes perfect sense.

Reply 59

Kabanza

Original post by Miracle Day

First of all I'm Christian.

Who cares what the damn Church of England says? Religion should not interfere with politics, especially not in a secular country.

Its not a secular country? Our national anthem has 'GOD save the queen' and the queen herself is called defender of the faith? And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who attend the Church care what they say?