U.K. reportedly to allow same-sex unions to be conducted in churches

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 8:05 AM GMT
    But it's not clear from this article if that would include the Church of England. And of course the Roman Catholics would never agree to this. I think it just means that civil unions MAY be conducted in a place of worship, which is currently prohibited, but only if the religious institution agrees to do so themselves. Still, another step forward, while the US regresses, especially at state level, which is the Republican Party anti-gay tactic.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41556653/ns/world_news-europe/
  • hebrewman

    Posts: 1367

    Feb 13, 2011 9:01 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidBut it's not clear from this article if that would include the Church of England. And of course the Roman Catholics would never agree to this. I think it just means that civil unions MAY be conducted in a place of worship, which is currently prohibited, but only if the religious institution agrees to do so themselves. Still, another step forward, while the US regresses, especially at state level, which is the Republican Party anti-gay tactic.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41556653/ns/world_news-europe/


    like i have said before, the usa is so way behind the curve ball on things. it's just goofy how the right wing controls this country, and not for the good of all it's citizens. what total shame.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 11:35 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidBut it's not clear from this article if that would include the Church of England. And of course the Roman Catholics would never agree to this. I think it just means that civil unions MAY be conducted in a place of worship, which is currently prohibited, but only if the religious institution agrees to do so themselves. Still, another step forward, while the US regresses, especially at state level, which is the Republican Party anti-gay tactic.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41556653/ns/world_news-europe/



    It is great that this is finally becoming a potential option, another step forward in human evolution. However, why anybody would really feel the need for a church/building to further validate their marriage/union is quite bizzare to me.

    Each to their own.

    =]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidIt is great that this is finally becoming a potential option, another step forward in human evolution. However, why anybody would really feel the need for a church/building to further validate their marriage/union is quite bizzare to me.

    Each to their own. =]

    I could imagine because it's traditional, sorta like the bride wearing an elaborate gown, often white in many western countries. And a church can be a much grander setting than a municipal building, many times equipped with an organ and more impressive acoustics, pews in most of them instead of folding chairs, or no chairs at all. It is a building designed for ceremony.

    And of the course the Brits are a people more steeped in tradition than many others, so the ability to be married in a church may appeal even more to them. We often think, at least here in the US, that in a wedding the bride should be indulged with all her fantasies, in many ways "her" day. And if she wants to be married like a Princess, in a church building that, in much of Great Britain at least, looks vaguely like an enchanted castle with a great hall, I think she should be allowed.

    And so I'm glad for this, on practical, political & symbolic levels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 2:32 PM GMT
    The Church of England is not a big homogenous entity with a centralized source of opinion or authority.

    I know plenty of people within the church, particularly priests, who have pushed for this and for whom this will be a blessing; I think some others will resist it.

    As for the Catholics, who cares?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    _SAGE_ saidIt is great that this is finally becoming a potential option, another step forward in human evolution. However, why anybody would really feel the need for a church/building to further validate their marriage/union is quite bizzare to me.

    Each to their own. =]

    I could imagine because it's traditional, sorta like the bride wearing an elaborate gown, often white in many western countries. And a church can be a much grander setting than a municipal building, many times equipped with an organ and more impressive acoustics, pews in most of them instead of folding chairs, or no chairs at all. It is a building designed for ceremony.

    And of the course the Brits are a people more steeped in tradition than many others, so the ability to be married in a church may appeal even more to them. We often think, at least here in the US, that in a wedding the bride should be indulged with all her fantasies, in many ways "her" day. And if she wants to be married like a Princess, in a church building that, in much of Great Britain at least, looks vaguely like an enchanted castle with a great hall, I think she should be allowed.

    And so I'm glad for this, on practical, political & symbolic levels.



    The UK has traditionally been quite steeped in convention yes, but not so much these days, except in small and archaic social circles. The older generations may still hold on to some traditions they hold dear, but even then, nowhere near as much as people assume about us Brits. The younger generations in the UK are much more worldly and free thinking. No more so than the gays and or intellectuals, from my experience.


    Yh I agree that church buildings can be quite grand. However, the fact that homosexuality is such a revulsion to Christianity and it's followers, as a whole, yet the fact that there is still a sizeable amount of gay people who still aspire to hetero-normative religious dogma and social-institutions for validation, not merely for the building itself, seems quite odd to me.

    People can get married in a whole range of beautiful, exotic, grande or humble setting, municipal buildings aren't the only alternative.

    I am glad that this Bill is likely to be passed, as there should always be the option for gays to marry anywhere straight people can, despite how bizzare in this instance, imo.
  • owen19832006

    Posts: 1035

    Feb 13, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    thats a consultative paper, but its progress in the right direction!
    the CofE said it wouldnt allow its churches to be used, the RCC will not consider it, which leaves the Church of Scotland very very conservative and the all the other little churches, but its a step forward towards official gay marriage in the UK!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 3:05 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidThe UK has traditionally been quite steeped in convention yes, but not so much these days, except in small and archaic social circles. The older generations may still hold on to some traditions they hold dear, but even then, nowhere near as much as people assume about us Brits. The younger generations in the UK are much more worldly and free thinking. No more so than the gays and or intellectuals, from my experience.


    Yh I agree that church buildings can be quite grand. However, the fact that homosexuality is such a revulsion to Christianity and it's followers, as a whole, yet the fact that there is still a sizeable amount of gay people who still aspire to hetero-normative dogma and social-institutions for validation, not merely for the building itself, seems quite odd to me.

    People can get married in a whole range of beautiful, exotic, grande or humble setting, municipal buildings aren't the only alternative.

    I am glad that this Bill is likely to be passed, as there should always be the option for gays to marry anywhere straight people can, despite how bizzare in this instance, imo.

    You live there today, while myself only some little time years ago, so your view carries the greater weight. I agree with you, a matter of options, for those who wish them. And their reasoning for those choices their business, not mine. Though I would think even young people, humans being humans everywhere, may harbor some inner fantasies about their wedding day (even if by civil ceremony), that transcend contemporary political philosophies and day-to-day life.

    Because the alternative to having options has been quite discriminatory & insulting: gays & lesbians legally barred from church venues for their civil ceremonies. Which may still occur as the church's choice, but at least the government will no longer be a party to it, and enforce it.

    BTW, a clarification of my last post above: I talked about brides' dresses and such as both a parallel, but also, which I failed to make clear, aspirations that might apply to some lesbians, and quite frankly, some gays, too. Not to suggest gays coming down the aisle in a full gown (though I can imagine the possibility), but a boy can have his own fantasies of fairy tale weddings, too.

    As you say, a matter of having options, and not restrictions placed on us.
  • iowaguy000

    Posts: 62

    Feb 13, 2011 3:11 PM GMT
    "However, why anybody would really feel the need for a church/building to further validate their marriage/union is quite bizzare to me. "

    "However, the fact that homosexuality is such a revulsion to Christianity and it's followers, as a whole, ...."


    I think the reason that couples desire to be married in a church is that not all Christians, as a whole, consider homosexuality to be a revulsion to Christianity.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 3:16 PM GMT
    iowaguy000 said"However, why anybody would really feel the need for a church/building to further validate their marriage/union is quite bizzare to me. "

    "However, the fact that homosexuality is such a revulsion to Christianity and it's followers, as a whole, ...."


    I think the reason that couples desire to be married in a church is that not all Christians, as a whole, consider homosexuality to be a revulsion to Christianity.



    I never said all. As you clearly quoted. The fact there are a minority of Christians who stray away from the generally accepted and and religiously sanctioned homophobia shouldn't suggest that the religion itself is accepting of them.

    I'm sure there are some KKK members who actually have black friends and who just go to meetings for the social aspect, that shouldn't suggest that black people are any more welome to join.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 3:58 PM GMT
    This is a little confusing, prior to this there was some law that no church was allowed to perform a sex-sex union? Ugh!
    Here in Canada, since gay marriages began, any church (religion) was free to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays if the church felt so inclined. They are not obligated to under any circumstances. Freedom of religion intact. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 4:11 PM GMT
    I really dont see why people get so wound up about the need to marry in church, after all, 'marriage' is purely a ceremony undertaken in the eyes of god, who ever your god happens to be. Civil partnerships with 100% of the same rights as people married within the church or registry office are fine, its the wacko religious leaders that have the issue and why the hell would you wish to marry in a church that refuses to accept that you are gay?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 6:03 PM GMT
    I myself don't see why a (pure) salmon homosexual one of the real gays, would want or care about this. A religion is a private club with its own rules, they behold the right to say no Salmon weddings in our church, and this does not make us any less a person.

    We as salmon homosexuals, the real gays need to move away from the heterosexual institution of marriage, something our half brothers the bi's have long had access to, and still do! But......lets make something of our very own and move away from this heterosexual institution of marriage with it's roots in religion. But.....at the end of the day, you don't need a heterosexual institution of marriage, a church or a piece of paper to make a commitment to a loved one; although our half brothers the bisexuals who have already married in a church with their women, and wife to be, may have diffrent issues about us gays marring in a church; but thats their issue.

    As for the chuch of England it lost it's way once it allowed women priests, as the priesthood was not created or even meant for women, as they where given the right to childbirth, and men the priesthood.

    Just as marriage was not created for Adam and Steve in a church, and I as a (pure) Salmon homosexual behold no issues with this, nor does one feel it gives one less status either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 6:23 PM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidI myself don't see why a (pure) salmon homosexual one of the real gays, would want or care about this. A religion is a private club with its own rules, they behold the right to say no Salmon weddings in our church, and this does not make us any less a person.

    We as salmon homosexuals, the real gays need to move away from the heterosexual institution of marriage, something our half brothers the bi's have long had access to, and make something of our very own. But.....at the end of the day you don't need a church or a piece of paper to make a commitment, although our half brothers the bisexuals who have already married in a church with their women, and wife to be, may have diffrent issues about us gays marring in a church; but thats thei issue.

    As for the chuch of England it lost it's way once it allowed women priests, as the priesthood was not created or ever meant for women, as they wheer given the right to childbirth, and men the priesthood.

    Just as marriage was not created for Adam and Steve in a church, and I as a (pure) Salmon homosexual behold no issues with this, nor does one feel it gives one less status either.
    Cram your bible right where the sun never shines..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2011 6:27 PM GMT



    Salmon homosexuals.

    You're a fish? wut?


    If you'd read the article the gov't had forbidden any religion from marrying gay people. Now a religion can IF THEY WISH TO.


    Comprehension can be your friend, but it takes some effort.