Gay Bishops

[topcat]

Presbyterians avoid the issue by simply not having Bishops.

 

The Catholics don't even allow bishops to be openly hetrosexual so the Anglicans look positively enlightened by comparison.

[cosanostra]

You meet comparatively few who have been brought up in it these days.

There will always be many but growing churches are filled with 'new blood,' and I reckon most have little if any connection to any church.

 

Not my experiences at all.

 

I know a fair few church goers from work and university. Every one of them has had their religeon drummed into them from school and parents from an early age.

 

I think i might know one person who started going to church as an adult but that was to marry a catholic burd.

[The Doctor]

Maybe I should tone down the facetiousness when posting.

 

My serious point is that many Christians claim that God chose them. That's fair enough, I appreciate the draw. However, when choosing people to follow Him, how come He focused on Europe? Surely as the almighty, counter of every hair on our heads, He could've extended his focus to the Middle East (where He put His son), the Indian sub-continent and other places. Would've saved an awful lot of hassle between competing religions and eliminated all the unpleasantness to which you allude when talking about converts from one religion to another.

 

I'm not certain which bit you're exhorting me to not worry about and investigate myself? As a London dweller, I'm well aware that there are folk practising Christianity whose skin colour would suggest they didn't start out along that route. I've also got Christian-tinged songs by Cat Stevens and an album by the Muslim, Yusuf Islam - the two sound pretty similar vocally What bit am I missing?

 

(Darn it - I may have let a little sly humour creep in there! Please don't think I'm having a pop; I'm genuinely intrigued.)

 

A couple of things. Christianity is a major religion in India, a higher percentage of Indians are Christians than British are Christians. I think it's Hinduism then Sikhism then Christianity then Buddhism in terms of the popularity of comparative religions in India. I think over 10% of the population are Christian compared to under 5% in the UK, so you could argue that India is a more Christian country than the UK.

 

Christianity is not at all focussed on Europe, the gospel spread into North Africa and Russia at the same time as spreading West into Europe. It has now spread over the entire globe, every continent and most countries.

 

Why has God not 'chosen' Arabs? I think that this is a very false perception. Whilst I have said that God reveals truth through the Holy Spirit it's not usually in isolation. God uses Christians to share the gospel, but whether it is heard and whether it convicts the hearer is the work of the Spirit.

 

I can say to you, Jesus loves you, he died so that you can be forgiven and be restored to God. It's only the Holy Spirit who can make that real and personal to you, I can say it, the Spirit makes it real.

 

BUT...

 

God uses Christians to say it the first place. Why are there so few Christians in Arab countries? Because Christians are not allowed to share the gospel. Here's one example of how Christians are treated in some Islamic states;

http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=411

 

There are many more examples on that site.

 

Christians who are part of the persecuted church risk their lives, just by following Jesus. It's hardly a surprise that few are able to to tell people the good news about Jesus.

 

It's not always like that though. In China the church is growing faster than anywhere in the world, it's been growing slowly for years, despite state repression. It's ready to explode, I believe that the Chinese church will soon become the most powerful Christian body on Earth. I pray that they will learn from the mistakes of their brothers and sisters in the US.

 

In Africa and South America the church is vibrant and alive, to suggest that God is mainly concerned with, or concentrates on, Europe is just wrong.

[Tynie b]

Spelling, I was led to use 'Firefox,' as it has a automatic spell checker!

Driving cars and rearing children is based on 'fear.' Fear of danger on the roads and the accidents caused there. Fear of kids playing with fire or other dangers around them. Are these wrong? Christianity is based on the Love of God to folks who are not worth loving, me and you and anyone else who wants to investigate it and take it on. Fear of standing one day before a perfect Holy God who's very perfection means we cannot go near him, yes that's fear. And God shows his love by dying on our behalf to enable imperfect people to be acceptable to him so he can give to them a better life, that's love!

 

Plague and pestilence affect all of us, although not so much here. But when it rains we all get wet, Christians and others. We all suffer when Hearts lose, and rejoice when they win - if they ever win again!

 

There is no agenda, no ulterior motive, just a one to one with God through Jesus and his finished work on the cross. Consider it.

 

Nope, The bit in Bold is not wrong...All things mentioned are REAL,The fear I have that something may happen to my kids is VERY Real,This "God" and Jebus the Joiner are (IMO) a lot of ferkin Nonsence (sp?)So therefor are NOT Real...I was going to ask some questions, But TBH, I don't want to know Anything about ANY religion,It causes NOTHING but Missery...But,Everyone to there own I suppose!

[Debtor]

Nope, The bit in Bold is not wrong...All things mentioned are REAL,The fear I have that something may happen to my kids is VERY Real,This "God" and Jebus the Joiner are (IMO) a lot of ferkin Nonsence (sp?)So therefor are NOT Real...I was going to ask some questions, But TBH, I don't want to know Anything about ANY religion,It causes NOTHING but Missery...But,Everyone to there own I suppose!

 

 

 

It could be said most things cause nothing but misery, as they are full of people!

Therefore you can cause misery if you choose.

 

And use this will you! Firefox

[BigC]

The homosexuality debate inside the church doesn't worry me at all.

 

If people want to run a bigoted organisation that does not welcome people based on what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom, then that's their perogative. As long as it has no bearing on those of us who chose not to follow the teachings of that institution, it's fine by me. I don't agree with it, but I don't have to take part.

 

The problems begin for me when people use their "faith" as an excuse for bigoted behaviour outside the church.

 

Take this story for example:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/registrar-wins-right-to-refuse-gay-weddings-865042.html

 

A registrar wins the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships because she is a homophobic bigot.

 

It seems that if you learn your homophobia from a bunch of skinheads in the pub, it's not OK and you can be treated in the same way as a racist if you discriminate against someone based on their sexuality. But if you learn your bigotry from an old man with the word "Father" or "Reverend" in front of his name, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

A bigot is a bigot and we should not be excusing anyone.

 

It's a disgraceful double standard and at the moment the law seems to be protecting the discriminators over the discriminated.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm a lapsed Anglican (Church of Ireland) and I think the whole spectacle is symptomatic of the religious "smorgasboard" that the States has become. It's not going to encourage me to either go to church or disassociate myself with the Anglican church. As far as I'm concerned, the Big Man upstairs will be the final arbitor of everyone in any case.

 

However, I will relate a tale of homosexuality in the church, namely the local church I attended when I was growing up, St Colmanell's in Ahoghill, Co Antrim. We had the same rector since 1959, Rev Maurice Leeman, a very nice guy and a "confirmed bachelor" or so it was thought. In fact, it transpired he was gay, and was arrested for cottaging in toilets in Ballymena. As a result, he had a nervous breakdown, left hospital and almost immediately committed suicide by jumping into the old well at the rectory. Now, there was never any indication that he had tried "anything" with anyone in the parish and indeed it shocked everyone in the parish.

 

I do wonder though that if he was allowed to be open with his sexuality that he may be still on the planet. Having said that, I would doubt he would have been accepted by the local community if he had done. To me, that's the key point. A religious leader of whatever faith or denomination should be seen as a pillar of the local community. If Bishop Robinson's "flock" have no issue with his sexuality, then I don't either.

[Debtor]

A registrar wins the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships because she is a homophobic bigot

 

 

How is she homophobic or a bigot?

 

Surely those who insist she does what 'they' tell her and bully her because she has her own (correct in my view) opinions are the bigots, and 'christophobic?' if there is such a word?

 

We live now in a world where 'Gays' dictate what we should or should not say, but she is a 'bigot?' There is nothing 'bigoted' in saying homosexuality is a perversion. But in todays world we are taught to claim it is. Sounds like a fascist state to me.

[Boris]

A registrar wins the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships because she is a homophobic bigot

 

 

How is she homophobic or a bigot?

 

Surely those who insist she does what 'they' tell her and bully her because she has her own (correct in my view) opinions are the bigots, and 'christophobic?' if there is such a word?

 

We live now in a world where 'Gays' dictate what we should or should not say, but she is a 'bigot?' There is nothing 'bigoted' in saying homosexuality is a perversion. But in todays world we are taught to claim it is. Sounds like a fascist state to me.

 

 

Can we call blacks sub-human because their skin colour is different? Of course not. No difference in my book if people are discriminated against due to their sexuality.

 

I have no real comment on the OP other than it still shows in this day and age the perceived hold that the CofE and other churches have within UK life & society.

 

If they want to argue about it then fine, but in all honesty i don't think that any church is relevant or should have any influence on legislation/running of our society. 100% secularism for me thanks.

 

It's similar to when the Queen dies and people will say should Charles be king. The deabate should really be do we still need a monarchy in the 21st century.

[Tynie b]

A registrar wins the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships because she is a homophobic bigot

 

 

How is she homophobic or a bigot?

 

Surely those who insist she does what 'they' tell her and bully her because she has her own (correct in my view) opinions are the bigots, and 'christophobic?' if there is such a word?

 

We live now in a world where 'Gays' dictate what we should or should not say, but she is a 'bigot?' There is nothing 'bigoted' in saying homosexuality is a perversion. But in todays world we are taught to claim it is. Sounds like a fascist state to me.

 

Who says it's a Perversion??? Your "God"? :mad:Not you, because you obviously don't have the intelligence to think for yourself!!

I'm not gay, but a Close Member of my Family is, a less perverse person you could not wish to meet. He's a Primary school Teacher, has worked abroad with Physically and Mentaly challenged kids,For no Fee and is the most calm, down to earth person I Know...Obviously he is not atall religious, Well your God thinks he a Perv, so why would he be??

 

Stop hiding behind religion, Think for Yourself, Get out and meet NORMAL people...As I've said before, People who are Brainwashed religious, are this way because they have something to Hide!!

 

Do your lot DO confession?? Get whatever it is off your chest, and get back to the real world!

[felix]

Can't see the big deal with a registrar refusing to marry gays. She's entitled to her beliefs, just as the skinheads are entitled to theirs - so long as neither the registrar or the skinheads partake in a spot of queer-bashing, respecting others religious views makes us a more tolerant society.

 

If that means we allow muslim workers in Tesco to abstain from selling alcohol, or excuse orthodox christians from officiating at homosexual weddings - so be it.

[Boris]

Can't see the big deal with a registrar refusing to marry gays. She's entitled to her beliefs, just as the skinheads are entitled to theirs - so long as neither the registrar or the skinheads partake in a spot of queer-bashing, respecting others religious views makes us a more tolerant society.

 

If that means we allow muslim workers in Tesco to abstain from selling alcohol, or excuse orthodox christians from officiating at homosexual weddings - so be it.

 

What if I don't want to serve someone due to their skin colour or their religion? Doubt that would be acceptable. Does the registrar in question still carry out civil weddings between men & women? Surely this too would be in breach of her Christian values?

[Craigieboy]

Yea, but the rights of religious people is a total quagmire, a minefield.

 

What do you say to the jehovas witnesses who say that some people chose to die for their country and so "we are prepared to die for our god"? What about their kids? Are they not entitled to parents or is it ok for them to grow up parentless because of some utterly stupid religious law. (blood transfusions).

 

The world has gone mad with religious rights and thats why I have little time for religion.

 

It makes people do bad things.

 

.

[cosanostra]

What if I don't want to serve someone due to their skin colour or their religion? Doubt that would be acceptable. Does the registrar in question still carry out civil weddings between men & women? Surely this too would be in breach of her Christian values?

 

Exactly, some views on here only serve to back up the reasons for disliking religeon and being wary of religous people. Hung up, cowardly and nasty people explaining away their own bigotry by playing the religeon card - it's pathetic. Why are religeons so concerned with what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? Get over it, it's not that important.

 

If a registrar refuses to marry a gay couple on religous grounds, they should be sacked immediatly as they are not fit to to the job. Get someone in who can and they can go work in a factory or something. That goes for a muslim who refuses to sell alcohol or a catholic who refuses to sell morning after pillls. They should not be doing that job in the first place if that's how they feel.

[Debtor]

Who says it's a Perversion??? Your "God"? :mad:Not you, because you obviously don't have the intelligence to think for yourself!!

I'm not gay, but a Close Member of my Family is, a less perverse person you could not wish to meet. He's a Primary school Teacher, has worked abroad with Physically and Mentaly challenged kids,For no Fee and is the most calm, down to earth person I Know...Obviously he is not atall religious, Well your God thinks he a Perv, so why would he be??

 

Stop hiding behind religion, Think for Yourself, Get out and meet NORMAL people...As I've said before, People who are Brainwashed religious, are this way because they have something to Hide!!

 

Do your lot DO confession?? Get whatever it is off your chest, and get back to the real world!

 

 

 

Dearie me, what a sad outburst.

I think you will find I do think for myself, which is why you object. I do not follow the fashion of the day, as you appear to do, nor should I. If I did I would be like you.

 

So a family member is good to folks, why not? There is no reason for him not to be, but that does not stop homosexuality being perverted from the normal. Only unthinking folks could disagree with that, as they follow the fashion of the day! I have possibly known more Lesbians and Gays than you, and I know their struggles, and their guilt! Telling them something is normal when it is not does not help them, or you.

 

As I said before, the registrar incident shows the fascist nature of this society. Follow the crowd or else. You follow, I will continue to have my on opinion.

[Boris]

Dearie me, what a sad outburst.

I think you will find I do think for myself, which is why you object. I do not follow the fashion of the day, as you appear to do, nor should I. If I did I would be like you.

 

So a family member is good to folks, why not? There is no reason for him not to be, but that does not stop homosexuality being perverted from the normal. Only unthinking folks could disagree with that, as they follow the fashion of the day! I have possibly known more Lesbians and Gays than you, and I know their struggles, and their guilt! Telling them something is normal when it is not does not help them, or you.

 

As I said before, the registrar incident shows the fascist nature of this society. Follow the crowd or else. You follow, I will continue to have my on opinion.

 

 

I think you are a bigot and rather gullible as well. But that's just my own opinion.

[cosanostra]

Dearie me, what a sad outburst.

I think you will find I do think for myself, which is why you object. I do not follow the fashion of the day, as you appear to do, nor should I. If I did I would be like you.

 

So a family member is good to folks, why not? There is no reason for him not to be, but that does not stop homosexuality being perverted from the normal. Only unthinking folks could disagree with that, as they follow the fashion of the day! I have possibly known more Lesbians and Gays than you, and I know their struggles, and their guilt! Telling them something is normal when it is not does not help them, or you.

 

As I said before, the registrar incident shows the fascist nature of this society. Follow the crowd or else. You follow, I will continue to have my on opinion.

 

Sorry debtor, but the only thing abnormal and perverted on this thread are your views. Telling people they abnormal and perverted because of their natural, legally and socially acceptable sexual preference is completely immoral and I have no idea how any right minded person could suggest otherwise.

[Debtor]

Sorry debtor, but the only thing abnormal and perverted on this thread are your views. Telling people they abnormal and perverted because of their natural, legally and socially acceptable sexual preference is completely immoral and I have no idea how any right minded person could suggest otherwise.

 

The fact that it is 'natural' (to them), or legal and socially acceptable does not make it right. Are 'paedophiles' natural? Are they not people needing healing also? Or can they be hated because they are not socially acceptable. In this world one day they might be! Which is somewhat worrying.

You are a thinking person but you have followed the fashion of the day. because it is there does not make it right.

[Debtor]

I think you are a bigot and rather gullible as well. But that's just my own opinion.

 

I'm surprised by that as I always thought of you as someone with your own opinion. Yet you say 'bigot' for having my own view. I;m glad the gays I have known thought differently. Especially those who struggle with something they know is wrong.

[cosanostra]

The fact that it is 'natural' (to them), or legal and socially acceptable does not make it right. Are 'paedophiles' natural? Are they not people needing healing also? Or can they be hated because they are not socially acceptable. In this world one day they might be! Which is somewhat worrying.

You are a thinking person but you have followed the fashion of the day. because it is there does not make it right.

 

That post is just downright sick.

 

Do you understand the concept of consent? It's not difficult. Paedophilia involves people who cannot consent being abused by older people. There is no consent there. In what way, in your sick little world, could that ever be, in any way acceptable?

 

What a horrible thing to post on a public forum.

[Boris]

I'm surprised by that as I always thought of you as someone with your own opinion. Yet you say 'bigot' for having my own view. I;m glad the gays I have known thought differently. Especially those who struggle with something they know is wrong.

 

I do have my own opinion but when you refer to others as being perverted because it disagrees with your opinion, that to me is bigotted.

[Craigieboy]

Comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is something I have observed a fair few religious people do.

 

Criminalising gays is bigoted.

 

.

[cosanostra]

Comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is something I have observed a fair few religious people do.

 

Criminalising gays is bigoted.

 

.

 

Have to say, it's something i've noticed as well.

 

It's pretty sick and downright nasty. I've read many times that hetrosexuals are far more likely to be child abusers than homosexuals but that doesn't seem to register with some people.

[Craigieboy]

Have to say, it's something i've noticed as well.

 

It's pretty sick and downright nasty. I've read many times that hetrosexuals are far more likely to be child abusers than homosexuals but that doesn't seem to register with some people.

 

As I have said previously on this thread, I find religious peoples obsession with other peoples sex lives disturbing.

 

For righteous, chaste people it's all they seem to think about.

 

.

[felix]

What if I don't want to serve someone due to their skin colour or their religion?

Why would you do that though ?

That's either racist or bigotted and therefore against the law. It's not against the law for a registrar's belief that same-sex marriage is wrong to be taken into account. As I understand she wasn't attemping to block the marriage, simply asking that someone else perform it ?

 

Does the registrar in question still carry out civil weddings between men & women? Surely this too would be in breach of her Christian values ?

 

Suppose it's her moral values that are being offended here , and that's different.

[Boris]

Why would you do that though ?

That's either racist or bigotted and therefore against the law. It's not against the law for a registrar's belief that same-sex marriage is wrong to be taken into account. As I understand she wasn't attemping to block the marriage, simply asking that someone else perform it ?

 

So is discriminating against someones sexuality so really the race/religion thing is comparable.

 

Suppose it's her moral values that are being offended here , and that's different.

 

As opposed to her moral values being offended by marrying a gay couple? I really can't see the differentiation.

[felix]

So is discriminating against someones sexuality so really the race/religion thing is comparable.

She wasn't discriminating against them, she was refusing to marry them because of her beliefs. No different from allowing muslims exemption from the armed forces or from selling alcohol. That's not discrimination, it's called tolerance.

 

As opposed to her moral values being offended by marrying a gay couple? I really can't see the differentiation

Yep. Some people are offended by gays marrying , doesn't make them bad people.

Some people are offended by sex. You wouldn't expect to see them working in Private Lines.

[The Doctor]

As I said earlier the churches teaching on homosexuality is for Christians. It does not apply to all of society, the church should not be involved in what goes on in the lives of individuals, in the bedroom or anywhere else, they are under the law of the land, not guided by the law of God.

 

I think that my Brother Debtor used perversion in it's literal sense. Homosexuality is not the norm, it's not the normal outlet for sexual activity, men and women, in fact all living creatures are designed, or evolved if you prefer, to procreate. It's one of the proofs of life. This is obviously impossible for homosexuals and so a perversion. That doesn't make it wrong, or offensive it's simply not how human bodies are 'made' to be.

 

To call someone bigoted and cast aspersions on their intelligence is offensive. I don't believe for a second that Debtor is any less than loving and caring towards his fellow man, regardless of their sexuality. If he didn't care he wouldn't be posting in this thread.

 

Nope, The bit in Bold is not wrong...All things mentioned are REAL,The fear I have that something may happen to my kids is VERY Real,This "God" and Jebus the Joiner are (IMO) a lot of ferkin Nonsence (sp?)So therefor are NOT Real...I was going to ask some questions, But TBH, I don't want to know Anything about ANY religion,It causes NOTHING but Missery...But,Everyone to there own I suppose!

 

This is offensive and unintelligent. I have tried over several years to answer questions and take part in debates about a range of issues around Christian belief. I have enjoyed lively and respectful debate and I believe that that respect has been generally mutual. I have even met one or two of you in person and that respect has carried over to friendly handshakes and well wishing. This is how it should be, but to take Jesus name, pervert it with a poor joke nicked from The Simpsons and dismiss 2,000 years of Christian theology, debate and understanding as a lot of ferkin Nonsence (sic) is just ignorant.

 

It's 300 years since the enlightenment and yet the church is still going strong in this country and abroad. Christian belief and moral teaching remains at the heart of our judicial and welfare system, our society was built on it.

 

I will always welcome debate, I will always endeavour to answer any question, but I won't put up with being ridiculed.

[The Doctor]

My opinion about the registrar who refused to marry a gay couple on religious grounds is that she's probably in the wrong job. Part of her responsibility is to carry out the law of the land, as laid down by our democratic process, if she is unable on moral grounds to do that then she should be looking for a more suitable job.

[felix]

My opinion about the registrar who refused to marry a gay couple on religious grounds is that she's probably in the wrong job. Part of her responsibility is to carry out the law of the land, as laid down by our democratic process, if she is unable on moral grounds to do that then she should be looking for a more suitable job.

 

She was in her job pre-December 2005 , therefore her contract probably doesn't make clear she should officiate at same-sex ceremonies.

[Tynie b]

Embarrassing.

 

This does grown up debate no good and undermines a lot of valid and intelligent points.

 

I feel quite sorry.

 

Doctor...TBH, I couldn't care less what you God Botherers think of me...I know YOU lot are not quite right...This is the last i'll be on this Thread...Probably when the Mods read it, it'll be the last I'll be on JKB!!

[The Doctor]

Doctor...TBH, I couldn't care less what you God Botherers think of me...I know YOU lot are not quite right...This is the last i'll be on this Thread...Probably when the Mods read it, it'll be the last I'll be on JKB!!

 

I hope not, maybe you should just breathe and count to ten before you go off on one!

 

"not quite right", I'll just let that slide........

[The Doctor]

She was in her job pre-December 2005 , therefore her contract probably doesn't make clear she should officiate at same-sex ceremonies.

 

That may be the case, but job responsibilities change and new laws are passed all the time. I'd be surprised if as a representative of the crown there wasn't something in her contract saying that she must carry out duties in line with the law.

[cosanostra]

My opinion about the registrar who refused to marry a gay couple on religious grounds is that she's probably in the wrong job. Part of her responsibility is to carry out the law of the land, as laid down by our democratic process, if she is unable on moral grounds to do that then she should be looking for a more suitable job.

 

Mr Todd, if all Christians in the UK were as sensible and reasonable as yourself, I think your organisation would command far more respect than it presently does.

Your posts on the subject of religeon always give me something to think about.

[Tynie b]

I hope not, maybe you should just breathe and count to ten before you go off on one!

 

"not quite right", I'll just let that slide........

 

Apologise Doctor!!

 

Like you say, Count to 10 and Breath...

[I P Knightley]

Apologise Doctor!!

 

Like you say, Count to 10 and Breath...

 

after

 

know YOU lot are not quite right...This is the last i'll be on this Thread

 

 

A promise is a promise in any religion

[Tynie b]

after

 

 

 

 

A promise is a promise in any religion

 

You're Right.....

[I P Knightley]

.....

 

 

.....

 

shhhh

.....

 

 

 

d'ya think he's gone?

[Tynie b]

Boooooooo

[felix]

That may be the case, but job responsibilities change and new laws are passed all the time. I'd be surprised if as a representative of the crown there wasn't something in her contract saying that she must carry out duties in line with the law.

 

Even if these new duties conflicted with her christian beliefs ?

 

There surely needs to be a degree of tolerance. It shouldn't be beyond the remit of her employers to make sure she didn't have to perform at a gay ceremony rather than discriminate against her for refusing to take part (as seems to have occurred).

[Deek]

Just to remind people this was my original question.

 

My question to you then is, are the church right to include homosexual's into the church or is it contrary to the teachings in the bible.

 

For what it is worth, although I was brought up to believe homosexuality is a sin, I have no issue with the church allowing them to be members or even Bishops. I was hoping for for reasoned debate around the subject and we have just about managed it.

 

A secondary question is do you ever think the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic church will allow homosexuals to become Ministers or Priests. I dont know if I will see it in my lifetime.

 

I watched an interesting programme last night on Channel 4 called The Qur?an. In Iran according to their interpretation of the book they still hang homosexuals, unbelievable.

 

As for the registrar, I respect her views, but in my job, there are certain things I dont like doing, but if I didn't, I would be sacked.

[The Doctor]

Just to remind people this was my original question.

 

 

 

For what it is worth, although I was brought up to believe homosexuality is a sin, I have no issue with the church allowing them to be members or even Bishops. I was hoping for for reasoned debate around the subject and we have just about managed it.

 

A secondary question is do you ever think the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic church will allow homosexuals to become Ministers or Priests. I dont know if I will see it in my lifetime.

 

I watched an interesting programme last night on Channel 4 called The Qur?an. In Iran according to their interpretation of the book they still hang homosexuals, unbelievable.

 

As for the registrar, I respect her views, but in my job, there are certain things I dont like doing, but if I didn't, I would be sacked.

 

It's a moot point with Catholic Priests as they take a vow of celibacy so the church could no more recognise a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one.

 

As for CofS that's a far more interesting question which I will come back to tonight. Right now I really have to get some work done. The poor won't feed themselves.... apparently.

[bighusref]

Just to remind people this was my original question.

 

My question to you then is, are the church right to include homosexual's into the church or is it contrary to the teachings in the bible.

For what it is worth, although I was brought up to believe homosexuality is a sin, I have no issue with the church allowing them to be members or even Bishops. I was hoping for for reasoned debate around the subject and we have just about managed it.

 

A secondary question is do you ever think the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic church will allow homosexuals to become Ministers or Priests. I dont know if I will see it in my lifetime.

 

I watched an interesting programme last night on Channel 4 called The Qur?an. In Iran according to their interpretation of the book they still hang homosexuals, unbelievable.

 

As for the registrar, I respect her views, but in my job, there are certain things I dont like doing, but if I didn't, I would be sacked.

 

My personal opinion is the whole thing is laughable. Not having a go at your parents, but I would suggest it was a fearful form of teaching.

 

Not aimed at you, but there are many things that the bible comes down strongly on, a lot of them we seem to allow in modern society. The below are, according to the bible, sins that should be punishable by death.*

 

Birth Control - Gen 38:10-11

Psychic Counselling - I Chr 10:13

Remarrying after Divorce - Matthew 5:32

Overeating - Psalm 78:31

Working on a Saturday - Deut 31:15

Disobeying your Parents - Deut 21:20-21

Making fun of Bald People - 2 Kings 2:23-24

 

Given that these things (largely) are considered okay, to hold strong the dislike or hatred for homosexuality suggests reasons other than the bible.

 

*Many thanks Super Furry Animals for source material!

[Deek]

My personal opinion is the whole thing is laughable. Not having a go at your parents, but I would suggest it was a fearful form of teaching.

 

Dont worry about my parents Bighusref, my dad is dead anyway.

 

Being slightly older than you (but with more hair) everybody of my age(40 something) had christianity drummed into them at school. I went to schools in Scotland, England and Germany and it was the same everywhere. We were never taught about other religions. It was all about Jesus and All Things Bright and Beautiful. My parents were not to bothered about religion although being a soldiers son I was marched off to Sunday school every week with my friends. Onward christian soldiers and all that.

 

Interesting, I went to a boarding school in Germany. Before school started in the morning, all the protestants went to church and all the catholics went to chapel. Then we all went to our classes and mixed. Sometimes we would sneak into chapel to see if it was different from church, but it was the same.

[bighusref]

Dont worry about my parents Bighusref, my dad is dead anyway.

 

Being slightly older than you (but with more hair) everybody of my age(40 something) had christianity drummed into them at school. I went to schools in Scotland, England and Germany and it was the same everywhere. We were never taught about other religions. It was all about Jesus and All Things Bright and Beautiful. My parents were not to bothered about religion although being a soldiers son I was marched off to Sunday school every week with my friends. Onward christian soldiers and all that.

 

Interesting, I went to a boarding school in Germany. Before school started in the morning, all the protestants went to church and all the catholics went to chapel. Then we all went to our classes and mixed. Sometimes we would sneak into chapel to see if it was different from church, but it was the same.

 

Hey! I cut my hair as such through choice, it would grow if I left it! I would get upset at that if I didn't think you put that in following my post above!

 

I too went to Sunday school, just one of those things my parents sent me to do.

[felix]

As for the registrar, I respect her views, but in my job, there are certain things I dont like doing, but if I didn't, I would be sacked.

 

Likewise - but I'll bet the things you don't like doing were apparent to you before you took the job on.

[Ulysses]

Even if these new duties conflicted with her christian beliefs ?

 

Let's say her duties conflict with a deeply held "non-Christian" belief. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she personally believes (or belongs to a religion that teaches) that people should not get married below the age of 25.

 

Should she be entitled to refuse to carry out a marriage in accordance with the law of the land if one of the partners is under 25?

[felix]

Let's say her duties conflict with a deeply held "non-Christian" belief. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she personally believes (or belongs to a religion that teaches) that people should not get married below the age of 25.

 

Should she be entitled to refuse to carry out a marriage in accordance with the law of the land if one of the partners is under 25?

 

If she firmly believes marriage starts at 25+, as a registrar, she's in the wrong job.

[The Doctor]

Right, gay CofS ministers.

 

I've met one and know of a couple more. I'm not going into detail of where I met the one, it's not a good story and will doubtless confuse things. Those who know me might guess, that's all I'll say.

 

Speaking very broadly, there are two kinds of CofS minister, liberal and evangelical. I think that liberal ministers probably would not have a problem with gay colleagues and evangelicals probably would, especially if they were practising. I know CofS ministers who believe that same sex relationships are fully equal to opposite sex relationships and I know one CofS minister who works very closely with a lesbian Episcopal priest, who's partner has led worship in his church many times.

 

Here's a wee story of a meeting that really challenged my stance. I met this woman, this lesbian minister and I wanted all of my prejudice to be confirmed. I really wanted to dislike her, to be able to write her off as a Millie Tant (for those who remember the Viz character of the late 80's and 90's) type feminist, wimmin loving, dyke. I had been on a long walk and met her for the last 5 miles or so, I had already walked 16 miles that day, my feet were blistered and sore, I was tired and hungry.

 

For those miles, over a sandy bay we walked together, along with a young homeless girl that I had been working with. This girl is lovely, but quite hard work. She's not the smartest and many people would write her off within minutes of meeting her, but this lesbian minister was so kind and thoughtful and gracious towards her, so patient, listening to her stories, which most people would have dismissed as nonsense, and chatting with her as an equal. She treated this homeless girl, whom she'd never met, with dignity and value. It was like walking with Jesus, she was so full of grace.

 

I was blown away. I realised that my issue was not with this woman's sexual behaviour, but what I should be concerned about was my prejudice and my judgementalism. I wanted my prejudices to be affirmed, but I realised that my problem was me, not who she slept with.

 

I still think that that's something she has to work out with God, she has to come to terms with it, but it's none of my business, whether she does, when she does or how she does.

 

To get back to the question, it seems to me that nominalism is dying out in the CofS. Very few people go to church because of tradition, that's what you do, put on a tie and hat and your Sunday best and go to church. I was preaching in a city centre church a couple of weeks ago, Augustine's on George IV Bridge, an established, city centre church. There were less than 30 people there and the average age was well over 65, probably over 70. I don't know how it survives now, I can't see it being there in 20 years. They are vacant just now, hoping that a new minister will breathe new life into the church, I fear for it's future.

 

There are churches that are vibrant, growing and busy in the city. Morningside Baptist, St Paul's and St George's, pentecostal churches like Destiny, busy churches, full of young people every Sunday morning and evening. The people who go to church because they are alive in Christ go to churches like these, they go there because the message they hear is real and relevant. These kind of church goers would not, I suspect, put up with a practising gay minister.

 

So, nominalism is dying out (literally), only committed Christians will be left 20 years from now, if the CofS wanted to ratify gay ministers, I think they've left it too late. The committed Christians won't have it and they won't put up with liberal ministers, so all that'll be left is people preaching bible truth, that sex outside of marriage is a sin and men can only marry women and women can only marry men. Which is where I started some 90 posts ago!

[BigC]

She was in her job pre-December 2005 , therefore her contract probably doesn't make clear she should officiate at same-sex ceremonies.

 

True, but there is a big difference between a civil partnership and a marriage.

 

A civil partnership is a legally binding agreement that gives couples the same rights as married couples.

 

The difference is there is no presumption of a sexual relationship.

 

A marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated. A civil partnership cannot.

 

All a civil partnership does is gives gay couples the same legal rights in terms of benefits, tax and inheritance etc.

 

It was done this way to avoid the objections of the church who wanted marriage to remain between a man and a woman. The gay rights lobby didn't object as all they wanted was the same rights as married couples so civil partnerships are a compromise to please everyone.

 

All she would be doing by officiating in the ceremony would be conferring their legal rights to receive the same benefits as married couples on them - which is precisely her job description.

 

She would not be endorsing sodomy so her whole argument does not stand up, which makes it all the more perplexing that she won the case. I really hope the council appeal this decision.

 

p.s. Sorry for hijacking the thread Deek. I was thinking about starting a thread on the subject but it seemed sensible to post on this one as many of the arguments would be similar.