Anglican church against gay marriage

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

If it's a state of mind then someone could just get out of it.

Also if I sound ignorant to you on this topic, blame my evangelical upbringing, where almost everything was literal and therefore easy to understand.

It is okay. I spent five years in apostasy, so this allows me insight into atheism.

Yes, but what is seen in the state of mind of hell is an outright refusal to acknowledge Him, some would even say a hatred.

Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, a disbelief rather than hatred of him. After all, I am sure many people, however despicable they may think God, would love it if God exists because that would mean that there is a grand orderer (and hence, Order) in the universe, who provide us with purpose, rather than living in a rudderless life in an unordered universe.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Sorry; I was looking for the thread on the Anglican Church being against gay marriage and have seemed to walked in on an Atheism vs religion thread.

Threadjacks are the plague aren't they?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35318392
So basically, against a tide of shifting public opinion, the Anglican church dug in their heels and reinforced their stance against gay marriage.
And you know what? I'm glad. Because the more the Anglican church fights the uphill battle against everybody else, the more people will leave. The more people leave the Anglican church, the more will either join the Catholic church ...

I don't really see why anyone who leaves the Church of England because of that Church's opposition to equal marriage should join another Church that opposes it too.

Anyway, it's always lovely to see how backwards and hateful some religious leaders can get.

Perhaps the Episcopalian should split themselves from the rest of the Anglican Church, seeing as they refuse to march on with progress and continue in their rather exclusionary interpretation of the Bible.

[Alvecia]

Sorry; I was looking for the thread on the Anglican Church being against gay marriage and have seemed to walked in on an Atheism vs religion thread.

Threadjacks are the plague aren't they?

Eh, it's to be expected. Nobody can go on for 30+ pages about the same topic without treading on the same ground over and over again (see Abortion Thread), so some divergence is to be expected.
Then you have the NSG Factor.
*shudders*

[Caninope]

Yes, but He behaves more passively than you might expect. He will provide salvation, but we must be willing to humble ourselves to receive it.

if god is omniscient, then there's literally no way that he doesn't know who will go to heaven and not. We're presented with a false choice.

If God sees that I'm in heaven, I will be in heaven, it's not really up to me because I can't change that.

Because compatibilism isn't a thing anymore.

[Revolutious]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something with you.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

[United Marxist Nations]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something for a moment.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

The government can do what the government wants. What I am against is a Church sanctioning it.

[Constantinopolis]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something for a moment.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

I am not UMN, but I also oppose SSM for religious reasons, and I also want to answer your question, by quoting a post where I explained my preferred solution to this issue:

Basically, I say we should leave "marriage" up to churches and other religious institutions, and abolish it as a legal category, to be replaced with a much more open-ended "legal union" that can include any number of people (not just two) and does not come with any expectation of romantic or sexual involvement.

Then, the people who want to get married can do so in whatever way holds meaning to them (whether in a church, or in a secular ceremony with friends, etc.) and go sign a legal union contract afterwards (or before, or any time they want). And those who just want the legal union without the "marriage" label can get that, too. In any case, the state will no longer be involved in deciding who is or isn't "married". Problem solved.

Or, to summarize: Civil unions for everyone (straight, gay, bi, poly, asexual, whatever) - with the same benefits that legal marriage has today - and no more state-recognized "marriage" at all. Let "marriage" become a purely religious and cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a legal category. So it would become like engagement is today, for example. There are no laws about getting engaged. It's just a cultural phenomenon.

[The Flutterlands]

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something for a moment.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

I am not UMN, but I also oppose SSM for religious reasons, and I also want to answer your question, by quoting a post where I explained my preferred solution to this issue:

Basically, I say we should leave "marriage" up to churches and other religious institutions, and abolish it as a legal category, to be replaced with a much more open-ended "legal union" that can include any number of people (not just two) and does not come with any expectation of romantic or sexual involvement.

Then, the people who want to get married can do so in whatever way holds meaning to them (whether in a church, or in a secular ceremony with friends, etc.) and go sign a legal union contract afterwards (or before, or any time they want). And those who just want the legal union without the "marriage" label can get that, too. In any case, the state will no longer be involved in deciding who is or isn't "married". Problem solved.

Or, to summarize: Civil unions for everyone (straight, gay, bi, poly, asexual, whatever) - with the same benefits that legal marriage has today - and no more state-recognized "marriage" at all. Let "marriage" become a purely religious and cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a legal category. So it would become like engagement is today, for example. There are no laws about getting engaged. It's just a cultural phenomenon.

But the problem is, marriage comes with more benefits than civil unions, right? Or should all the legal benefits just be taken out of marriage and put into civil unions? Or Should both marriage and civil unions hold the same benefits? Not to mention all the red tape involved.

[Constantinopolis]

I am not UMN, but I also oppose SSM for religious reasons, and I also want to answer your question, by quoting a post where I explained my preferred solution to this issue:


Or, to summarize: Civil unions for everyone (straight, gay, bi, poly, asexual, whatever) - with the same benefits that legal marriage has today - and no more state-recognized "marriage" at all. Let "marriage" become a purely religious and cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a legal category. So it would become like engagement is today, for example. There are no laws about getting engaged. It's just a cultural phenomenon.

But the problem is, marriage comes with more benefits than civil unions, right? Or should all the legal benefits just be taken out of marriage and put into civil unions. Or Should both marriage and civil unions hold the same benefits?

What I am saying is that marriage should be abolished as a legal category, and all its benefits transferred over to civil unions. Also, civil unions should be available for any number of people (not just two), and for people of any sexuality (or no sexuality at all).

Then, people could still get married in church (or in any ceremony they want), but there would be no laws at all about that - no legal recognition of marriage. If you want legal recognition for your relationship (whether you consider it "marriage" or not), you fill out a civil union form.

[The Flutterlands]

But the problem is, marriage comes with more benefits than civil unions, right? Or should all the legal benefits just be taken out of marriage and put into civil unions. Or Should both marriage and civil unions hold the same benefits?

What I am saying is that marriage should be abolished as a legal category, and all its benefits transferred over to civil unions. Also, civil unions should be available for any number of people (not just two), and for people of any sexuality (or no sexuality at all).

Then, people could still get married in church (or in any ceremony they want), but there would be no laws at all about that - no legal recognition of marriage. If you want legal recognition for your relationship (whether you consider it "marriage" or not), you fill out a civil union form.

Then, legally, that would make civil unions superior to marriage.

[Constantinopolis]

What I am saying is that marriage should be abolished as a legal category, and all its benefits transferred over to civil unions. Also, civil unions should be available for any number of people (not just two), and for people of any sexuality (or no sexuality at all).

Then, people could still get married in church (or in any ceremony they want), but there would be no laws at all about that - no legal recognition of marriage. If you want legal recognition for your relationship (whether you consider it "marriage" or not), you fill out a civil union form.

Then, legally, that would make civil unions superior to marriage.

Correct. And that is perfectly fine, and also more fair than the current situation.

[Revolutious]

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something for a moment.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

The government can do what the government wants. What I am against is a Church sanctioning it.

I see! Thank you for the clarification ^^

Are you of the mindset then, that the New Testament wasn't meant as a replacement for the old? Do agree with Pope Francis that in the end, only God can judge an LGBT individual?
I am more of a Secular Humanist spiritually, but it is interesting to discuss these things in a non-hostile environment away from all the petty politics.

[Revolutious]

Excuse for a moment, terribly sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to discuss something for a moment.

So the only real and justified argument against SSM I have ever heard is that marriage is a religious institute, and thus, up to religious officials to determine.
From what I can tell, this seems to be your argument, which, as I said, is reasonable in my eyes.

That being said, would you be against civil unions with the same benefits as marriage for same sex couples?

I am not UMN, but I also oppose SSM for religious reasons, and I also want to answer your question, by quoting a post where I explained my preferred solution to this issue:

Basically, I say we should leave "marriage" up to churches and other religious institutions, and abolish it as a legal category, to be replaced with a much more open-ended "legal union" that can include any number of people (not just two) and does not come with any expectation of romantic or sexual involvement.

Then, the people who want to get married can do so in whatever way holds meaning to them (whether in a church, or in a secular ceremony with friends, etc.) and go sign a legal union contract afterwards (or before, or any time they want). And those who just want the legal union without the "marriage" label can get that, too. In any case, the state will no longer be involved in deciding who is or isn't "married". Problem solved.

Or, to summarize: Civil unions for everyone (straight, gay, bi, poly, asexual, whatever) - with the same benefits that legal marriage has today - and no more state-recognized "marriage" at all. Let "marriage" become a purely religious and cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a legal category. So it would become like engagement is today, for example. There are no laws about getting engaged. It's just a cultural phenomenon.

I like that thinking ^^

Keep church and state separate with respect for both, eh?
It's nice seeing so many religious Socialists. To be honest, it makes sense that people who truly believe in what Jesus, and other prophets/teachers taught, would gravitate towards a more compassionate ideology.

[The Flutterlands]

Then, legally, that would make civil unions superior to marriage.

Correct. And that is perfectly fine, and also more fair than the current situation.

There's A LOT of red tape involved but it sounds fair. Could people get married in the curch and enter a civil union at the same time?

[Revolutious]

Correct. And that is perfectly fine, and also more fair than the current situation.

There's A LOT of red tape involved but it sounds fair. Could people get married in the curch and enter a civil union at the same time?

I don't see why not

Just add the signing of the contract into the marriage ceremony.

[Novus America]

Correct. And that is perfectly fine, and also more fair than the current situation.

There's A LOT of red tape involved but it sounds fair. Could people get married in the curch and enter a civil union at the same time?

Not really more red tape. It is just changing the name on government certificates and such.

And of course you could get get married in the church and enter a civil union at the same time. At least in many churches like the Catholic Church church and government marriage are considered very different but often conducted at the same time. But you can get a government marriage first and a church marriage later.

I think it should only be two people as trying to make multiple people would require at completely overhauling the whole system rather than keeping the existing system and merely changing the name.

[Constantinopolis]

Correct. And that is perfectly fine, and also more fair than the current situation.

There's A LOT of red tape involved but it sounds fair. Could people get married in the church and enter a civil union at the same time?

If that is what they want, of course.

Don't people already sign a separate legal document in addition to participating in any marriage ceremony? I don't think there is any country where simply going through a ceremony makes you legally married. As far as I'm aware, in every country, it's already the case that you have to sign a document in order to be legally married.

Across much of Europe, following the French republican model, there is a "legal marriage" ceremony that involves the signing of a legal document in front of a representative of the state, and which is entirely separate from any religious marriage ceremony. People who get married in church therefore have two separate ceremonies - one legal, one religious.

[Belovakia]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

AMEN BROTHER!

[Aelex]

Across much of Europe, following the French republican model, there is a "legal marriage" ceremony that involves the signing of a legal document in front of a representative of the state, and which is entirely separate from any religious marriage ceremony. People who get married in church therefore have two separate ceremonies - one legal, one religious.

Indeed. People usually go to the city hall first to sign the document, then go to the church and after it throw a little party.

[Novus America]

There's A LOT of red tape involved but it sounds fair. Could people get married in the church and enter a civil union at the same time?

If that is what they want, of course.

Don't people already sign a separate legal document in addition to participating in any marriage ceremony? I don't think there is any country where simply going through a ceremony makes you legally married. As far as I'm aware, in every country, it's already the case that you have to sign a document in order to be legally married.

Across much of Europe, following the French republican model, there is a "legal marriage" ceremony that involves the signing of a legal document in front of a representative of the state, and which is entirely separate from any religious marriage ceremony. People who get married in church therefore have two separate ceremonies - one legal, one religious.

In the US you buy a legal document from the government, but most religious clergy can also get a license to sign it. So you can have a government official sign it or priest or whatever if they have a proper license.

So you can have two ceromonies or one, if your religious leader has the proper liscense to sign it.

But it is the same in that a religious marriage on its own means nothing legally (well outside some contract law). You have to get the government document properly signed. You buy the document separately, but you can have it signed during, before or after your religious ceremony.

So all you would have to do is change the name of the government document really.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

if god is omniscient, then there's literally no way that he doesn't know who will go to heaven and not. We're presented with a false choice.

If God sees that I'm in heaven, I will be in heaven, it's not really up to me because I can't change that.

Because compatibilism isn't a thing anymore.

It is almost as incoherent as Libertarianism.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

You have yet to justify, biblically, this 'Established Christian Doctrine'.

[United Marxist Nations]

While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.

You have yet to justify, biblically, this 'Established Christian Doctrine'.

Most Christians are not Protestants.

[United Marxist Nations]

The government can do what the government wants. What I am against is a Church sanctioning it.

I see! Thank you for the clarification ^^

Are you of the mindset then, that the New Testament wasn't meant as a replacement for the old? Do agree with Pope Francis that in the end, only God can judge an LGBT individual?
I am more of a Secular Humanist spiritually, but it is interesting to discuss these things in a non-hostile environment away from all the petty politics.

Not a full replacement, but an amendment, which did strike out much of the old. Most of OT law is still correct on what is and isn't sin, but the Earthly punishments are taken away, from how I understand it.