ALL the editors. FTFY.
1 Like
Some CofE Vicars are so okay with same sex marriage they are trying it out themselves. 
2 Likes
Iâm not sure how alternative that viewpoint is. Heâs arguing, if I understand correctly, that marriage as a religious sacrament should be limited solely to heterosexuals. I havenât really followed the debate in Britain, but I thought it was the same argument that was being made in the United States: no one is being asked to change their personal beliefs, but personal beliefs arenât the basis for denying same-sex couples the right to be covered under the legal definition of marriage. Is the Church of England so thoroughly tied to the government of England that applying the term âmarriageâ to all couples equally will force the Church to alter its theology?
The reason âcivil partnershipsâ have been rejected here in the United States is because, even when theyâre passed with the best intentions and are as comprehensive as possible, they still create a âseparate but equalâ status. And theyâre redundant. The U.S. governmentâs legal definition of marriage is strictly secular, or at least should be, since, in theory, our government doesnât give priority to any religious belief, so âcivil partnershipsâ merely add a new category when the existing one is more than sufficient. Do all heterosexuals in England who are not members of the Church and who wish to have a legal union have to have a civil partnership rather than being married?
Iâm not being sarcastic. Iâm asking that seriously, because I really donât understand how closely tied the Church of England and the government are.
It should also be noted that a large part of his argument is that he claims only a small number of âqueerâ people really want to marry, although he provides no evidence, only speculation.
The Church of England are the state religion, with guaranteed seats in the House of Lords for the top bishops.
Yet this would mean that long established religions, such as the Quakers, will not be able to marry everyone they want to.
No, if you go to the register office you can get married there.
âDo all heterosexuals in England who are not members of the Church and
who wish to have a legal union have to have a civil partnership rather
than being married?â
No, but C of E clergymen have the authority to marry couples in their own right. Clergymen of other denominations do not have that right, so couples have to involve a registrar. Civil partnerships were introduced in the UK for homosexual couples, I honestly donât know whether theyâre available to heterosexual couples.
As for Brian Sewellâs opinions on the number of homosexuals who want to marry, I can only go by what he says. Heâs an intelligent well-informed public figure, I have no particular reason to doubt what he says.
1 Like
He also has a reputation for being an inflammatory arsehole. Often the two combine.
5 Likes
Since when does being âan intelligent well-informed public figureâ trump evidence?
More importantly, though, even if it were a minority, does that justify denying the right to marry? Because that is what heâs arguing: that because he believes (again, without any corroborating evidence) that only a few want to marry itâs not a right they deserve.
As far as the C of E goes, it seems that the clergymen have the same legal standing and serve the same purpose as the register office, so the point I made regarding civil partnerships in the U.S. applies in England as well. Theyâre an unnecessary duplication of an existing structure. If the C of E doesnât want to marry same-sex couples those couples can marry at the register office, unless someone can offer a reason why they should be treated differently from non-C of E heterosexuals.
Anusol?
I know people who have a similar viewpoint, but I still donât really understand their basic premise. Marriage certainly is a sacrament that has specific significance in Christian theology. This doesnât mean that it doesnât also exist in other cultures which attach a different significance to it. Like ordination, coming of age, birth and death, itâs a major moment in the life of an individual and a significant element binding that individual to the larger community, so I doubt there are all that many traditional cultures that donât commemorate forming partnerships in a symbolic way.
Procreation is certainly an important reason for the wider society to show an interest in marriage; especially in traditional societies, the family unit (in whatever form it takes) plays a huge role in shaping the future of the society. Insisting on faithfulness defines relationships and strengthens family ties, inheritance rights, trust within the community etc. Still, this is a model that is based on a traditional society that doesnât necessarily fit well in our own. Procreation isnât as important anymore (even to heterosexuals), but there are ways for gays and lesbians to raise children without both being birth parents. Sewell himself sees the problem with seeing sex without the possibility of children as dirty, so why push this as a necessary and universal element? A lot of the main principles of marriage that a traditionalist would be familiar with can be carried over quite well to SSM. The couple becomes a recognised unit in an already established system. Thereâs no reason why the principles of faithfulness and exclusivity would be any more problematic in this case than with hetero marriage.
In some senses, it isnât strictly necessary for there to be SSM. If Christians hasnât made such a fuss at all the other steps along the way to equal rights for homosexuals, there might have been some credibility in the argument that this was the one line that couldnât be crossed, and people might have been happy with civil partnerships. But one of the major elements of marriage is acceptance in society as a valued and respected member, and after all this history a CP doesnât look like âthe same rank, but distinct from marriageâ. At this point people want to know that they and their relationships are legally and otherwise valued the same as those of married heterosexual couples, which can only really be ensured if they are given the same name.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
