Anglican church against gay marriage

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Bible never talks about Homosexual Marriage, there is a number of passages that condemns male-male sexual intercourse, nothing on lesbianism, or affection and love for someone of the same gender, let alone prohibiting their marriage to one another.

The bible define marriage as an institution between man and woman only and every accepted sexual activity in the bible was only between a man and a woman

No it doesn't, the only passage to support that is about divorce, and it is a description of a type of marriage, one that doesn't even conform to those already presented in the Bible, such as King David or King Solomon, for example, or Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar.

[Novus America]

The Bible never talks about Homosexual Marriage, there is a number of passages that condemns male-male sexual intercourse, nothing on lesbianism, or affection and love for someone of the same gender, let alone prohibiting their marriage to one another.

The bible define marriage as an institution between man and woman only and every accepted sexual activity in the bible was only between a man and a woman

Again you are not going to agree, many people have different views and interpretations of the Bible. You are not goin to convince him, nor he convince you.

[Diopolis]

Such a liberal bible scholar is unlikely to have the grace of holy orders and as such a share in the magisterial authority of the church.

Only, many don't accept the authority of the Magisterial Authority of the Church, period. You are presuming that the Papists are right and arguing from that starting point, I am arguing that anyone knowledgeable of the bible is able to make an informed, if not necessarily correct, opinion that can be well argued and which many may find convincing, despite our reservation for their position.

Only some protestants, not including many anglicans, disbelieve in the magisterial authority of the church or the grace of holy orders.

[St alberto]

The bible define marriage as an institution between man and woman only and every accepted sexual activity in the bible was only between a man and a woman

No it doesn't, the only passage to support that is about divorce, and it is a description of a type of marriage, one that doesn't even conform to those already presented in the Bible, such as King David or King Solomon, for example, or Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar.

You have no point to justify your gay marriage stuff

[United Marxist Nations]

A priest conducts the ceremony of communion, AFAIK, only men doing this is tradition. Const had a lengthy thing explaining the reasons for this in the CDT, so I will defer to him, as I am less educated on the matter.

I though the Anglicans accepted the Ecumenical Councils as well?

Nonetheless, I don't see anything morally wrong with a break in tradition including allowing women to be priests. So as of now, I'm hoping that Const and I could agree to disagree.

For the traditional (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic) Churches, those traditions are held to have been defined in accordance to the will of God, and therefore breaking them would be heresy, as I understand it.

[St alberto]

All homosexuals have no right to claim that their lifestyle is acceptable or should be accepted under the christian religion

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No it doesn't, the only passage to support that is about divorce, and it is a description of a type of marriage, one that doesn't even conform to those already presented in the Bible, such as King David or King Solomon, for example, or Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar.

You have no point to justify your gay marriage stuff

I'm not trying to say that the Bible actually states gay folks can marry, only that a generous reading of the Bible allows, via omission, for a chaste homosexual marriage.

[Diopolis]

No it doesn't, the only passage to support that is about divorce, and it is a description of a type of marriage, one that doesn't even conform to those already presented in the Bible, such as King David or King Solomon, for example, or Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar.

You have no point to justify your gay marriage stuff

Of course they do. Who wouldn't want Christianity to match their arbitrary preconcieved agenda?
Of course, most people have the maturity to realize that it doesn't and that they(themselves) are not always right, but still.

[United Marxist Nations]

All homosexuals have no right to claim that their lifestyle is acceptable or should be accepted under the christian religion

>implying homosexuals can't live a Christian lifestyle like anyone else

[Diopolis]

Nonetheless, I don't see anything morally wrong with a break in tradition including allowing women to be priests. So as of now, I'm hoping that Const and I could agree to disagree.

For the traditional (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic) Churches, those traditions are held to have been defined in accordance to the will of God, and therefore breaking them would be heresy, as I understand it.

Pretty much. Some Anglicans fall under the traditional umbrella, but they don't have valid orders.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Only, many don't accept the authority of the Magisterial Authority of the Church, period. You are presuming that the Papists are right and arguing from that starting point, I am arguing that anyone knowledgeable of the bible is able to make an informed, if not necessarily correct, opinion that can be well argued and which many may find convincing, despite our reservation for their position.

Only some protestants, not including many anglicans, disbelieve in the magisterial authority of the church or the grace of holy orders.

Again, you are presuming that the Magisterial Authority of the Church is right, and then arguing circularly from there. Regardless of what your some (I would argue most, as in all but the Anglo-Catholic) protestants would dispute the Church's authority.

[St alberto]

You have no point to justify your gay marriage stuff

Of course they do. Who wouldn't want Christianity to match their arbitrary preconcieved agenda?
Of course, most people have the maturity to realize that it doesn't and that they(themselves) are not always right, but still.

I stand on my point they do not. and if you they do then such right should be extended to those practicing incest

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You have no point to justify your gay marriage stuff

Of course they do. Who wouldn't want Christianity to match their arbitrary preconcieved agenda?
Of course, most people have the maturity to realize that it doesn't and that they(themselves) are not always right, but still.

You mean trying to argue that the Bible says something that the Church inferred from certain passage kind to match their preconceived agenda?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Of course they do. Who wouldn't want Christianity to match their arbitrary preconcieved agenda?
Of course, most people have the maturity to realize that it doesn't and that they(themselves) are not always right, but still.

I stand on my point they do not. and if you they do then such right should be extended to those practicing incest

And bestiality, and inanimate object, and oh no, God's going to send fire and brimstones nnow, are you going to spout random, irrelevant platitudes that we all have heard already?

[St alberto]

Of course they do. Who wouldn't want Christianity to match their arbitrary preconcieved agenda?
Of course, most people have the maturity to realize that it doesn't and that they(themselves) are not always right, but still.

You mean trying to argue that the Bible says something that the Church inferred from certain passage kind to match their preconceived agenda?

There is no pre-conceived agenda . The stand against homosexuality is clear under the christian law do not try to manipulate the clear stand of the bible which is against the same-sex life style

[St alberto]

I stand on my point they do not. and if you they do then such right should be extended to those practicing incest

And bestiality, and inanimate object, and oh no, God's going to send fire and brimstones nnow, are you going to spout random, irrelevant platitudes that we all have heard already?

Still you have no point to justify your american newly establish same-sex marriage which is incompatible with the natural law

[The Flutterlands]

And bestiality, and inanimate object, and oh no, God's going to send fire and brimstones nnow, are you going to spout random, irrelevant platitudes that we all have heard already?

Still you have no point to justify your american newly establish same-sex marriage which is incompatible with the natural law

Incompatible with natural law how? Animals have been observed to have homosexual relations. So the 'natural law' argument is bullshit in every meaning of the word. Also, Canada established same-sex marriage at least five years before America

[St alberto]

Still you have no point to justify your american newly establish same-sex marriage which is incompatible with the natural law

Incompatible with natural law how? Animals have been observed to have homosexual relations. So the 'natural law' argument is bullshit in every meaning of the word. Also, Canada established same-sex marriage at least five years before America

Sexual disorderliness can not be considered to be a natural sexual life activity and homosexuality in animal is not enough to make same-sex activity natural

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And bestiality, and inanimate object, and oh no, God's going to send fire and brimstones nnow, are you going to spout random, irrelevant platitudes that we all have heard already?

Still you have no point to justify your american newly establish same-sex marriage which is incompatible with the natural law

Only it isn't newly established, same sex marriage has occurred in various civilizations, from Fujian in China to Rome (where it is the butt of one of Juvenal's more puerile jokes).

[St alberto]

I will continue to kick against the same-sex marriage/activity in as much as i am alive

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Incompatible with natural law how? Animals have been observed to have homosexual relations. So the 'natural law' argument is bullshit in every meaning of the word. Also, Canada established same-sex marriage at least five years before America

Sexual disorderliness can not be considered to be a natural sexual life activity and homosexuality in animal is not enough to make same-sex activity natural

Please define natural, since it occurs in nature, we have naturally practiced it, and most civilization have not only tolerated it, but celebrated homosexual love.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I will continue to kick against the same-sex marriage/activity in as much as i am alive

You've made that clear enough, you have yet to show us why.

[St alberto]

Still you have no point to justify your american newly establish same-sex marriage which is incompatible with the natural law

Only it isn't newly established, same sex marriage has occurred in various civilizations, from Fujian in China to Rome (where it is the butt of one of Juvenal's more puerile jokes).

And one of the main reasons why such civilization collapsed. American considered such abnormality the newly 21st century artificial right

[Farnhamia]

I will continue to kick against the same-sex marriage/activity in as much as i am alive

You've made that clear enough, you have yet to show us why.

To fair, he has. God, the Bible, various saints and Church Fathers. Not particularly meaningful authorities to me but to each their own.

[St alberto]

I will continue to kick against the same-sex marriage/activity in as much as i am alive

You've made that clear enough, you have yet to show us why.

Because you have shown no reason why your gay stuff is natural