Hammerstein Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Why are they making it explicit that the Church of England and the Church of Wales are getting different treatment? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Why are they making it explicit that the Church of England and the Church of Wales are getting different treatment? I don't get it. The article in the OP says this - Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples". Also, are they being treated differently because they are the official churches of state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerstein Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 The article in the OP says this - Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples". Also, are they being treated differently because they are the official churches of state? It's still their choice though - I don't understand why the government can't just let them choose in the same way as the other churches. I imagine, as you've put forward, it might be to do with them being official churches of state??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm not sure what your argument is here, it seems a little confused, would you like to clarify it for me? According to some believers the sin is having sex with someone of the same sex and not just being attracted to someone of the same sex; some clergymen are gay but remain celibate to avoid sin. Church of England has imposed compulsory celibacy on gay clergy. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman and is consummated by having sex. Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated. It would be the act of consummating a gay marriage that would be defined as the sin therefore the church can’t be seen to be condoning a gay marriage. ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 19:50 ---------- Who do you mean by 'they'? Whoever is of the opinion that same sex sex is a sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Okay but my post (and the thread topic) you responded to, is specifically about the 4th lock where does it say "canon law" ? I may have missed that Read your own posts then . The first one says: The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply why do you think that? It has always been the case. If you marry in the Catholic church you still have to promise that you will welcome any children that you are given and that you will try to have children. It was the same case in the C of E within living memory too. Re people who can't have kids or are too old, it's still the same act as the one that procreates children. I think the church could have something else which recognises gay relationships without being a marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 Anyone that attempts to stifle debate by calling those people that oppose gay marriage, homophobic. Had anyone attempted to stifle debate by calling people homophobic, prior to your comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Had anyone attempted to stifle debate by calling people homophobic, prior to your comment? Yep the dude on question time that I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 Increasingly evasive Max. How about some straight answers to straight questions? You must be havin' a laaaaarf, this is Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus we're talking about. "Straight forward" means avoid, ignore, wriggle and squirm in his dictionary ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 21:22 ---------- No I don't oppose gay marriage, but I also don't see marriage as having any significant meaning, marriage these days isn’t much of a commitment, a couple can live a very happy life together without being married. Have you told your wife that? Or are you no longer married? ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 21:23 ---------- Are other faiths being compelled to accept gay marriage too? will mosques, and whatever Jewish places of worship called, have to accept same sex marriages? Eh ? ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 21:28 ---------- Yep the dude on question time that I was talking about. Had anyone on this thread attempted to stifle debate by calling people homophobic, prior to your comment? ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 21:33 ---------- Read your own posts then . The first one says: HAH! Hi5 I should read my own links more thoroughly, does this mean that they aren't talking about common law of the land then? It has always been the case. If you marry in the Catholic church you still have to promise that you will welcome any children that you are given and that you will try to have children. It was the same case in the C of E within living memory too. Hmm, I've been to a few C of E weddings and never heard this promise made, under what wordplay is it guised? Re people who can't have kids or are too old, it's still the same act as the one that procreates children. so what about people who just don't want to have children, are they refused a wedding? I think the church could have something else which recognises gay relationships without being a marriage. Maybe they should have something different for couples who don't want kids too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 According to some believers the sin is having sex with someone of the same sex and not just being attracted to someone of the same sex; some clergymen are gay but remain celibate to avoid sin. Church of England has imposed compulsory celibacy on gay clergy. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman and is consummated by having sex. Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated. It would be the act of consummating a gay marriage that would be defined as the sin therefore the church can’t be seen to be condoning a gay marriage. ---------- Post added 14-12-2012 at 19:50 ---------- Whoever is of the opinion that same sex sex is a sin. I'm still a little confused as to what this has to do with a) my saying that non religious and people of other faiths are allowed to get married in CofE Churches but not gay people seeming to be hypocritical and b) your statement that people didn't 'used' to have sex before marriage. Also while we're on the subject do you have any idea how the consumation of marriage ideal came about in the Church? Is it scripturally based or post scriptural doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm still a little confused as to what this has to do with a) my saying that non religious and people of other faiths are allowed to get married in CofE Churches but not gay people seeming to be hypocritical and b) your statement that people didn't 'used' to have sex before marriage. Also while we're on the subject do you have any idea how the consumation of marriage ideal came about in the Church? Is it scripturally based or post scriptural doctrine? Actually after reading that I've just been on the C of E website and seen that you are correct and you can get married in the C of E even if you don't believe in God and you haven't been baptised. Which makes a mockery of the whole thing to be honest. Didn't know till you posted that and I looked into it. I happen to think it is better to marry a gay person who believes in God in a church than just marrying people who have absolutely no belief whatsoever. This is why I'm becoming a Catholic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.