Anglican bishops defeat vote to approve same-sex marriages

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]

Yeah, because THAT example is appropriate. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

The example of racial segregation is entirely appropriate. Many people, including numerous posters on this very board, have lectured gays and lesbians on how they ought to be satisfied with civil unions that are in no way legally equal with civil marriages. We have a minority being denied access to one of the basic institutions in our society, and being given a cheap sham facsimile in its place and being told it’s just as good as the real thing, and won’t you just shut up and stop agitating already.

42

[QUOTE=Kythereia]
After all the waffling and hedging and tiptoeing and “we’ll keep referring it to someone higher up”
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s the problem with Judaism and Christianity: if you keep referring it to “someone higher up,” you eventually get to the top, i.e. the fellow who inspired the Bible, a decidedly racist, sexist and homophobic book.

How do liberal Christian churches justify their tolerance of homosexuality? The New as well as Old Testaments seem unambiguous in their condemnation of it. Am I incorrect in that, or are those parts of the Bible just dismissed as mistranslated/relics of an older time/just plain wrong?

43

I remember seeing the blog of a… pastor of somewhere, but I can’t even remember what denomination… talking about SSM.

He pointed out the passages that people bring up and said “okay that’s arguable, that one’s bull, that one’s reasonable to assume, and yet…”

And then he went off. Seriously. Like a firecracker. It was freaking amazing. His point? Your average Christian pays shitty attention to huge portions of their holy book. They don’t keep kosher, they work on Sunday, they hold visible faith more important than the inner light and hold both higher than love, the highest virtue of all, higher ever than faith, but gay people? People mentioned in a scattering of verses? Ohh, we can’t have THAT.

Four thousand years ago, men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women were men and women not having babies. And that was a big freaking deal when you belonged to a tiny half-nomadic oppressed pseudo-nation. Just as there was a reasonable point to kosher cooking practices and not making cloth from two kinds of fibers (because if you want your clothes to last for 40 years you want them to wear evenly and be equally dyeable. Believe it or not there really was a point to that pointless rule), there was a reasonable point against same sex marriage back in the day.

Marriage was all about land and inheritance. If two men or women married each other, they couldn’t have legitimate children. As soon as they both died, the land was going to be warred over by whoever could afford to try grabbing for a slice.

But things are (for the most part) different now. Marriage became a practice for people in love, and “But I don’t love him, Papa” actually DID become a reason for not marrying someone. It’s not just a money and property and progeny deal anymore. We’re not afraid of all the Canadians dying because they don’t have lots of babies. They’re also some of the least likely people to have a war and kill hundreds of people over Aunt Julie’s silver – and we’ve got these handy dandy legal documents called “wills” that handle that stuff.

The fact is, the church never likes to throw out something that’s old just because it’s unpopular. The fact that it’s also just stupid and outdated is taking longer than we thought to filter into the brains of a few people.

I’m willing to bet the Canadian bishops are concerned about Anglicans splitting off to join the African churches, or is that just our clever American buddies? :rolleyes:

In short: decision dumb. Not unexpected, just dumb and heartless.

44

[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]

How do liberal Christian churches justify their tolerance of homosexuality? The New as well as Old Testaments seem unambiguous in their condemnation of it. Am I incorrect in that, or are those parts of the Bible just dismissed as mistranslated/relics of an older time/just plain wrong?
[/QUOTE]

This seems to be a good site that examines the issue–and key passages from the Bible (Old Testament and New).

I don’t want to give up on being Christian, or Anglican. I just feel like there’s nothing I can do except switch churches–vote with my feet, like drachillix put it–and I wish there was more I could do.

45

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Because the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the American Catholic Church, the American Orthodox Catholic Church and at least a dozen others aren’t Christian…
[/QUOTE]

I’m not interested in getting into a no true Scotsman debate about Christianity. There is clear biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Whether or not you choose to live by that is up to you. You can choose to believe that Christianity is as mutable as you want to, and schism the night away.

Der Trihs We aren’t talking about the law of the state, we are talking about the edicts of the Anglican priesthood.

46

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
The example of racial segregation is entirely appropriate. Many people, including numerous posters on this very board, have lectured gays and lesbians on how they ought to be satisfied with civil unions that are in no way legally equal with civil marriages. We have a minority being denied access to one of the basic institutions in our society, and being given a cheap sham facsimile in its place and being told it’s just as good as the real thing, and won’t you just shut up and stop agitating already.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course, because as we ALL know, the gays were brought here from their beautifully decorated homeland by the dreaded gay traders, held in the holds of ships, forced when they arrived here to decorate the halls of antebellum mansions until their fingers bled, and whupped by the overseers when the colors in a room clashed.

The two things are similar, I’ll grant you, but they are NOT equal. I’m white as they come, and that example offends me. You simply cannot compare the black struggle to present day lack of ability of homosexual couples to wed, you simply fucking CAN’T.

If they come up (they being the gov’t) with a seperate-but-equal rule for that, wouldn’t that be a step in the right direction? Wouldn’t it be enough, at least for now?

47

[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
Well, that’s the problem with Judaism and Christianity: if you keep referring it to “someone higher up,” you eventually get to the top, i.e. the fellow who inspired the Bible, a decidedly racist, sexist and homophobic book.

How do liberal Christian churches justify their tolerance of homosexuality? The New as well as Old Testaments seem unambiguous in their condemnation of it. Am I incorrect in that, or are those parts of the Bible just dismissed as mistranslated/relics of an older time/just plain wrong?
[/QUOTE]

A couple of ways.

Some people think that Jesus came to throw out all the old laws and give us new ones. That’s not supported by Biblical evidence, though (but of course that, like everything else, is debatable).

Some people think the translations are wrong. Debatable.

Some people think the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally (Anglicans frequently don’t believe in the literal truth of every word of the Bible).

Some people think that when we were told the greatest virtue and the highest law is LOVE, plain and simple and above even faith and hope, that meant that if we just loved our fellow man we were doing okay.

As an avid and faithful churchgoer, I nevertheless admit that if you’re looking for internal consistency, religion is the wrong place to start.

48

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
If they come up (they being the gov’t) with a seperate-but-equal rule for that, wouldn’t that be a step in the right direction? Wouldn’t it be enough, at least for now?
[/QUOTE]

I say the government should get out of the damned marriage business. It’s no longer their concern. Call it a binary binding business relationship, call it a civil union, call it a pony, whatever. Give two people (I say only two because we already have a framework for two-person unions and the inheritance/power of attorney laws are more straightforward) the right that the current marriage laws offer. Whatever two people ask for it.

Let the churches decide what ceremonies they like. If they won’t give you the ceremony you think is best, lobby for change or find another church. But this marriage crap oughtn’t be up to the government.

That’s not the issue here, though. Unless religions can keep people from entering into government-sponsored marriages/civil unions, they shouldn’t be screwed with by the government in that respect. It’s their choice.

That said, I think this is a stupid and backward choice by the Anglican church.

49

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Yes, of course, because as we ALL know, the gays were brought here from their beautifully decorated homeland by the dreaded gay traders, held in the holds of ships, forced when they arrived here to decorate the halls of antebellum mansions until their fingers bled, and whupped by the overseers when the colors in a room clashed.
[/quote]

And rightly so! That sort of thing is just inexcusable.

Oh dear, I’m so very sorry! I forgot that analogies had to be exactly equivalent in order to be made at all! :rolleyes:

Nobody is saying that the situations are equal, just that they’re analogous. Untie that knot in your panties fer cryinoutloud. The same moral principles that made segregation wrong make legal discrimination against gays wrong as well. THAT is why the example is brought up. See, look, X is unambiguously morally wrong, and so obviously so that absolutely everyone agrees. Y shares features A, B, and C with X, and those are the features that make X wrong. Therefore Y is wrong as well. It’s a very basic argument form. Just because there are a host of other features that X and Y don’t share doesn’t make it illegitimate.

And while a separate-but-equal rule would be a step in the right direction (in your country at least, it’d be going backwards in mine), it is not enough, not even for now. For one thing, the separate-but-unequal rules put forward so far are not equal, not even close. For another, the families formed by gays deserve the same recognition as those formed by straights. Period.

I’m frankly sick and fucking tired of this argument that “the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely, and leave it up to the churches.” Bullshit. People were getting married for thousands of years before there even was a church. Marriage has been a civil and social institution every bit as long as it’s been a religious one.

50

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Many people, including numerous posters on this very board, have lectured gays and lesbians on how they ought to be satisfied with civil unions that are in no way legally equal with civil marriages. We have a minority being denied access to one of the basic institutions in our society, and being given a cheap sham facsimile in its place and being told it’s just as good as the real thing, and won’t you just shut up and stop agitating already.
[/QUOTE]

You might be interested in this GD thread I started a few years ago.

51

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Yes, of course, because as we ALL know, the gays were brought here from their beautifully decorated homeland by the dreaded gay traders, held in the holds of ships, forced when they arrived here to decorate the halls of antebellum mansions until their fingers bled, and whupped by the overseers when the colors in a room clashed.
[/quote]

Which has absolutely fuck-all to do with the discussion. You can’t duck the analogy by getting into a dick-measuring, “Who was more oppressed” contest. The comparison between marriage laws and segregation laws is on point because it illustrates that seperate, parrallel social structures are never going to be equal when one of those social structures was creating specifically to target a disliked minority. How badly that minority was treated in the past does not affect the validity of the analogy in the slightest.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Try and stop me.

No, it wouldn’t be. Because it would not be equal, it would just be a more gradiated form of inequality.

52

[QUOTE=mswas]
Der Trihs We aren’t talking about the law of the state, we are talking about the edicts of the Anglican priesthood.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I’m talking about morality. Laws, edicts or God’s will; if it forbids gays to get married because they are gay, it’s wrong.

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
I say the government should get out of the damned marriage business. It’s no longer their concern. Call it a binary binding business relationship, call it a civil union, call it a pony, whatever. Give two people (I say only two because we already have a framework for two-person unions and the inheritance/power of attorney laws are more straightforward) the right that the current marriage laws offer. Whatever two people ask for it.

Let the churches decide what ceremonies they like. If they won’t give you the ceremony you think is best, lobby for change or find another church. But this marriage crap oughtn’t be up to the government.
[/QUOTE]
What gives churches the right to marry, and the government not ? If anything the churches should get out of it.

And by your logic atheists and/or members of non-organized religions shouldn’t be allowed to call their union marriage, without grovelling to a church for the privilige. Charming.

53

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
What gives churches the right to marry, and the government not ? If anything the churches should get out of it.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I think you’re missing his point.

The government should get out of the ceremonial “ooo, it’s a Marriage, combine your souls in holy matrimony! loose the doves!” business.

The churches should get out of the legal “join this pair in an officially recognized partnership contract with benefits of various kinds” business.

Want to join in a partnership without benefit of church oversight? Fine. Knock yourself out. Sign the paper and affirm your commitment in front of a judge. Want to call it a marriage when you’re done? Great. Whatever.

Want to join in a marriage but not entangle yourself legally? Fine. Stand at the front of a church and call yourself married. Want the formal benefits? Great, sign the state paper and affirm your commitment.

Two separate things. It’s already kinda sorta like that anyway. Let’s just make it a done deal.

54

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Actually I’m talking about morality. Laws, edicts or God’s will; if it forbids gays to get married because they are gay, it’s wrong.

What gives churches the right to marry, and the government not ? If anything the churches should get out of it.

And by your logic atheists and/or members of non-organized religions shouldn’t be allowed to call their union marriage, without grovelling to a church for the privilige. Charming.
[/QUOTE]

What do you know of Gods will? You don’t believe he exists. If two people want to stand before Him and become one so be it. I don’t have a clue what Gods plan is but I do know it involves Love.And I know how much you despise that. But it’s not the churches business nor yours nor mine. People must pursue their relationship with Him even if everyone else thinks it’s wrong. He and *they * will know that it is right. And that’s all that matters.

55

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Actually I’m talking about morality. Laws, edicts or God’s will; if it forbids gays to get married because they are gay, it’s wrong.
[/quote]

It’s a cultural thing. You don’t have to join the Anglican church if you do not want to. Therefore the edicts of its priests have jack squat to do with your life.

It’s a cultural institution, if you want to be a part of that community you play by its rules. If its rules don’t suit you then don’t join it.

Like Cervaise said, you’re missing the point. Anyone can call anything they want marriage. When it becomes an issue is when they want an established social hierarchy to recognize it that it becomes sticky. It only matters what the Anglican church says, if for some reason you care what the Anglican church says.

Do you?

56

[QUOTE=Doctor Whalemilk]
Did God tell Henry VIII he could start his own church so he could get married five times?
[/QUOTE]
Actually that was me who told Henry. Sorry, everybody, my bad.

57

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Actually that was me who told Henry. Sorry, everybody, my bad.
[/QUOTE]

Freakin’ guests :rolleyes:

58

[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s a cultural thing. You don’t have to join the Anglican church if you do not want to. Therefore the edicts of its priests have jack squat to do with your life.
[/quote]
Since I’m neither religious, gay, nor interested in marriage this never had much chance of affecting me personally; so what ? Unlike some people, I actually care what happens to other people. Forbidding gay marriage is wrong even if it’s among people whom I never meet or hear about.

[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s a cultural institution, if you want to be a part of that community you play by its rules. If its rules don’t suit you then don’t join it.
[/quote]
It’s not a game. If the rules are evil, then they are evil whether or not they are made by a “cultural institution” or anything else.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Like Cervaise said, you’re missing the point. Anyone can call anything they want marriage. When it becomes an issue is when they want an established social hierarchy to recognize it that it becomes sticky.
[/quote]
If it’s not recognized, it’s not a marriage, for all practical puposes. And it’s only an issue because America is stuffed full of bigots.

[QUOTE=mswas]
It only matters what the Anglican church says, if for some reason you care what the Anglican church says.

Do you?
[/QUOTE]
Of course. They hurt actual people, and they have proven themselves bigots. And they vote, and influence the direction others vote.

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
What do you know of Gods will?
[/QUOTE]
The same as everyone else : nothing. I simply don’t care about God’s will, assuming he exists. If he opposes gay marriage, then he’s in the wrong.

59

[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s a cultural institution, if you want to be a part of that community you play by its rules. If its rules don’t suit you then don’t join it.

[/QUOTE]
Or remain in it, and try to change the rules to be more fair.

Which is what the church members did here, actually. They approved the change, by a fairly big margin. It was the church hierarchy, the bishops, who forbid it.

60

[QUOTE=Kythereia]
This seems to be a good site that examines the issue–and key passages from the Bible (Old Testament and New).

I don’t want to give up on being Christian, or Anglican. I just feel like there’s nothing I can do except switch churches–vote with my feet, like drachillix put it–and I wish there was more I could do.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it would be better if you stayed put. You’re fairly young, right? Well, the people who voted against this aren’t. They’re old men, and they’ll be dead soon, and their replacements are going to be chosen from people like you. Gay rights, like most civil rights battles, is a generational conflict. Stay. Wait 'em out. Reclaim your church.

And thanks for caring.