Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Archbishop says the Church will resist Government moves on gay marriage

Nathair/|\

By Nathair/|\
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

MorningStar Grand Master

MorningStar

Posted
Posted

Good for him!

Jaybear Mentor

Jaybear

Posted
Posted

The headline is misleading.

I fully respect and support the Archbishop's position.

The Archbishop is not expressing opposition to gay rights, or Government recognition of gay marriage. He just doesn't want Gay marriage to take place in his church, the Church of England. Specifically:

He told a private meeting of influential politicians that the Church of England would not bow to public pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

Unlike, for example, the LDS Church and Catholic which have taken proactive roles in trying to to prevent gay marriage from taking place at not just their own, but at other people's churches.

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted

The headline is misleading.

I fully respect and support the Archbishop's position.

The Archbishop is not expressing opposition to gay rights, or Government recognition of gay marriage. He just doesn't want Gay marriage to take place in his church, the Church of England. Specifically:

Unlike, for example, the LDS Church and Catholic which have taken proactive roles in trying to to prevent gay marriage from taking place at not just their own, but at other people's churches.

Not too long ago, JB was telling me I was a reactionary idiot for claiming that SSM's compelled normalization would sure lead to government seeking to compel SSMs being performed in Mormon Temples.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury can't keep SSMs out of Canterbury Cathedral, just how is President Monson supposed to keep Steve and Larry on the sidewalk outside Temple Square?

USU "Yes, I would freely give my life to protect our temples from this abomination" 78

frankenstein Proficient

frankenstein

Posted
Posted

Not too long ago, JB was telling me I was a reactionary idiot for claiming that SSM's compelled normalization would sure lead to government seeking to compel SSMs being performed in Mormon Temples.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury can't keep SSMs out of Canterbury Cathedral, just how is President Monson supposed to keep Steve and Larry on the sidewalk outside Temple Square?

USU "Yes, I would freely give my life to protect our temples from this abomination" 78

apples to apples please.

what role does Parliament have in the Church of England?

What role does Congress have in the CoJCoLDS?

Does the Church of England have the power and authority to pass "primary legislation"?

Does the CoJCoLDS have a similar power in Congress?

What is the Official Church of England?

What is the Official Church of the United States?

Who chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Who chooses the Prophet of the CoJCoLDS

if we are going to fearmonger, lets at least have very close comparisons.

Jaybear Mentor

Jaybear

Posted
Posted

Not too long ago, JB was telling me I was a reactionary idiot for claiming that SSM's compelled normalization would sure lead to government seeking to compel SSMs being performed in Mormon Temples.

You are aware that the Church of England is the official church of England. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the Queen, who exercises her authority through the Prime Minister.

So unless you plan on joining the Church of England, you have nothing to worry about.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

frankenstein:

The Church of England is the officially recognized church in England, and bishops sit as Lords in the House of Lords.

I don't know, but something about dis-incorporating the Church about a century ago comes to mind.

The LDS have no such power.

Since Henry VIII broke with Rome, the Archbishops of Canterbury have been selected by the English (British since the Act of Union in 1707) monarch. Today the choice is made in the name of the monarch by the prime minister, from a shortlist of two selected by an ad-hoc committee called the Crown Nominations Commission. Since the twentieth century, the appointment of Archbishops of Canterbury conventionally alternates between more moderate Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals.

The most senior member of the Twelve is the one who gets the position.

krose Contributor

krose

Posted
Posted

USU, you appear to be assuming that the UK government is looking to force churches to marry gay couples. That's not what I read.

The law they are considering appears to be aimed at allowing churches to conduct same-sex ceremonies if they wish, something that is currently disallowed by law.

From the article in the same paper a week earlier:

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, is expected shortly to outline firm plans to lift the current ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

In a political "win" for Nick Clegg and his party, the Coalition will also say that such ceremonies should for the first time be allowed to have a religious element, such as hymn-singing and readings from the Bible.

They could, it is understood, also be carried out in the future by priests or other religious figures.

The Church of England has already pledged not to allow any of its buildings to be used for civil partnership ceremonies, while last year Pope Benedict said same-sex marriage was among the "most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good."

Some faiths, however

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted
You are aware that the Church of England is the official church of England. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the Queen, who exercises her authority through the Prime Minister.

So unless you plan on joining the Church of England, you have nothing to worry about.

Of course: w/Lib judges looking to European precedents, including legislative precedents, in order to shine light into Harry Blackmun's penumbra and find positive rights in the US Constitution, and savage sufferers of SSDS seeking our downfall at every turn, it is a childish hope to think they'll ever leave us alone.

As surely as JB will take the libdemantimormon side of every issue on this board, the SSDS thugs will never leave us alone.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

USU78:

"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them..." should ring a bell.

Those darn Librul judges always messing around with the Constitution. Like Brown vs Board of Education; One man One vote; Miranda Warnings for the accused. IIRC it was the Conservatives who gave us Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, making sure Exxon did not have to pay for their mess, giving the US its first court appointed President.

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted
USU, you appear to be assuming that the UK government is looking to force churches to marry gay couples.

It is admittedly a camel/nose/tent argument . . . yet we made the same argument against civil unions 10 years ago, and look where we are today.

Nathair/|\ Mentor

Nathair/|\

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I only know a little about Archbishop Rowan Williams, but I like everything I know. He is also a Druid in the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards, an organization dedicated to promoting Welsh culture and heritage.

Bikeemikey Grand Master

Bikeemikey

Posted
Posted

Jaybear:

Not quite. The LDS are objecting to government recognition of SSM. Any church can do any religious ceremony they like.

Just to be sure I understand you.

Mormons dont mind or object to other Religions expressing their freedom by marrying Homosexual couples. Mormon's just don't want those unions to be accepted by the State?

bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted

Some of us can't wait for that day to come...

H.

;):P

For a second i thought you were saying that you couldn't wait for USU to be dead....

LDSToronto Proficient

LDSToronto

Posted
Posted

;):P

For a second i thought you were saying that you couldn't wait for USU to be dead....

LOL; I was kind of implying that I doubt he'd give his life defending the temple. Clumsy wording.

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted

LOL; I was kind of implying that I doubt he'd give his life defending the temple. Clumsy wording.

Clumsy truthsense.

LDSToronto Proficient

LDSToronto

Posted
Posted

Clumsy truthsense.

Listen, USU "Yes, I would freely give my life to protect our temples from this abomination" 78, I apologize. I fully support you in your martyrdom, and should you decide to give your life in defense of the temple, I will not raise a hand in protest.

You will be missed.

H.

frankenstein Proficient

frankenstein

Posted
Posted

What applicability does a State run Religion have to do with a religion in the United States which is not run by the State?

A religion run by the state will do what the state mandates. Of course the good archbishop could just make himself and the church twice removed from Rome by a religious act of succession.

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted
I apologize. I fully support you in your martyrdom, and should you decide to give your life in defense of the temple, I will not raise a hand in protest.

So very full must be the life lived sans commitment. The merry traipsing towards self-indulgent lassitude behind the protective wall manned by men of commitment and moral strength.

USU "Jimmy has many, many acolytes -- each as ineffectual as he . . . and as nasty-mouthed" 78

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...