Springsummer Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians Apparently no one believe it or/and practice it in western societies. In fact, the opposite is true, especially judging from some of the threads here. But what's wrong with it? Would like to see what are people's arguments and rationals of against it. Might be very illuminating. Link to post Share on other sites
Timshel Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 The British monarchy aka Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England...God save the Queen. The United States were founded by Puritans booted out by 17th century king Charles. Life was ruff being settlers and after much sweat and tears they decided that the wigs and tights who came over to collect tax for their efforts were no longer welcome. The burgeoning colonies said ummm no and a successful Revolutionary war. I have no understanding why any British colony in 2020 would continue to be taxed by such a corrupt, classicist and hypocritical institution...but ok. Many religions are against LGBT as blasphemy and sin. Link to post Share on other sites
Foxhall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 A lot of men of all ages and both men and women of an older generation still have an issue with the whole idea of two guys going at it, there does seem something unnatural about it and I think that is a fair viewpoint and Im not apologising for saying that. how can a man desire another man and not be attracted to the amazing beauty of a woman. then on the other hand, it is ok to be different so if people choose to be gay that is fair enough and they should be left in peace. I guess it is pretty much accepted nowadays although you still hear of violent assaults and things been carried out on gay men suggesting that society still has a long way to go. . Link to post Share on other sites
Cookiesandough Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Hmm perhaps because it alienates people with other sexual orientations and people who don’t want to get married from one of life’s most pleasurable experiences? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
preraph Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 There's religious fundamentalists of nearly all faiths, and this is just one reason why they're considered fanatical outliers. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Some people are telling others how to live based on what's in their book of stories about what their imaginary friend in the sky says. No...I've got no idea what could be wrong with it. 🙄 3 Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) Church of England, the Anglican church is the main church in England. It has been preaching virtually the same stuff for centuries. It is not going to change its fundamental stance on marriage or homosexuality for anyone. BUT in 2017 "Scottish Anglicans have voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry in church. The historic move sets the church on a potential collision course with the global Anglican communion and risks fracture within its own ranks.The vote at the Scottish Episcopal church general synod makes it the first Anglican church in the UK to allow same-sex weddings, with the first ceremony likely to take place this autumn." Edited January 25, 2020 by elaine567 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Springsummer Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 Thank you for your thoughts but I don't think anyone has answered the question why the view is wrong and therefore premarital, same and other form of sex are right? Link to post Share on other sites
preraph Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Because people should be free to do what they want as long as they're not hurting other people. And it's maybe not right for everyone, but it's right for some at certain times in their lives. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Springsummer said: but I don't think anyone has answered the question why the view is wrong and therefore premarital, same and other form of sex are right? It is OK for them to have this view for how they live their own lives. But it's not OK for the church to foist those views on others. Also, go back and read Cookiesanddough's response. She gave an excellent reason - not sure why you didn't acknowledge it. Edited January 25, 2020 by basil67 Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 The reason I'm against state sanctioned gay marriage is simply that it's a move in the wrong direction - the state shouldn't be in the marriage biz at all. Adding more ways for them to be in the biz is a bad way to go. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, sothereiwas said: The reason I'm against state sanctioned gay marriage is simply that it's a move in the wrong direction - the state shouldn't be in the marriage biz at all. Adding more ways for them to be in the biz is a bad way to go. So to be clear, you're suggesting everyone should be free to marry whoever they please without government interference? I quite agree. Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 8 hours ago, Springsummer said: Apparently no one believe it or/and practice it in western societies. That is not true, plenty religious people believe in it whole-heartedly. I doubt the Church of England would be announcing this if they thought no-one believed or practised it. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Springsummer Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 31 minutes ago, basil67 said: So to be clear, you're suggesting everyone should be free to marry whoever they please without government interference? I quite agree. so, that means, for example, people related by blood to marry each other? if not, then this argument doesn't stand. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Springsummer Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, basil67 said: It is OK for them to have this view for how they live their own lives. But it's not OK for the church to foist those views on others. Also, go back and read Cookiesanddough's response. She gave an excellent reason - not sure why you didn't acknowledge it. what's populous is right? I don't think that's a good reason Edited January 26, 2020 by Springsummer Link to post Share on other sites
Timshel Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 59 minutes ago, Springsummer said: I don't think anyone has answered the question why the view is wrong and therefore premarital, same and other form of sex are right? The link that you posted is 'Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says the Church of England.' This implies as it says, that a person having sex out of marriage is a sinner (cast out from the church/implied salvation/heaven) and a person who is not heterosexual/straight is also cast to oblivion. If a person who is a leader of such church (QEll) or a parishioner of the Church of England believes in this doctrine then who is another to say they are 'wrong?' This is religious ideology and other people don't walk around disparaging other persons belief's unless these beliefs are harmful to others. Most of the time, this is subjective; sometimes it isn't and these are the difficulties of minding one's business and not being an enabler of harmful practice in the guise of God. What leads you to ponder this Springsummer? Link to post Share on other sites
mark clemson Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) It's not really wrong as a private belief. Along the lines of what @Cookiesandough wrote above, what's wrong is when it attempts to enforce someone else's morality on others unnecessarily, where no objectively provable harm is done. In this case, the others being gays and unmarried straight people. The reason enforcing your morality on others is wrong is because is a very slippery slope as things like enforcement of severe punishments for not wearing burkas or kissing in public in some countries illustrate. Where does one draw the line? Ultimately if you say enforcing morality on others is "okay" and follow that logic to it's conclusion, the most absolute morally conservative position becomes "the standard" and the law. Hence "missionary position" etc and no sex without intent to procreate, etc. Any stopping point is arbitrary. You become subject to the whims of some wierdo who finds all sorts of things that aren't really his business objectionable. So that's what's wrong with it. I'll leave you with this tidbit from Corinthians 11, a fact which Paul, apparently found self-evident for some reason. All new testament. "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ... Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." Perhaps the C of E should be about preaching and mandating this too? Edited January 26, 2020 by mark clemson Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 hour ago, basil67 said: So to be clear, you're suggesting everyone should be free to marry whoever they please without government interference? Yeah, marriage shouldn't have any governmental interference at all, no licenses, no government sanctioned contracts, and so on. If two (or three, or seven) people want to get married, then more power to them, go for it. If they want a contract, have a lawyer draw one up. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, mark clemson said: what's wrong is when it attempts to enforce someone else's morality on others unnecessarily, where no objectively provable harm is done. In this case, the others being gays and unmarried straight people. But religion is always about enforcing it's rules and morals onto others. That is essentially what religion is all about. All followers sing from the same hymnsheet, both metaphorically and literally. The practising membership of the Church of England, tend to believe in its teachings and agree with its stances on all or most aspects of life . If they don't like it, no-one is forcing them to stay in the church. In a free country, they surely have to right to believe what they want. Link to post Share on other sites
mark clemson Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 A fair point. I suppose if you don't mind leaving your church (and/or have the option, which some people effectively don't, even in "free" countries) it's not a problem. Of course, many religions have "shunning" and similar, cutting you off from your existing social network to enforce morality. To the extent that one "level of intensity" of morality doesn't usually work for all various schisms and so forth occur (one being the creation of the C of E) but there are many more modern equivalents. Homosexuality appears to be particularly divisive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_realignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Quakerism Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Springsummer said: what's populous is right? I don't think that's a good reason If you don't want my opinion, don't ask the question. Edited January 26, 2020 by basil67 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 22 minutes ago, elaine567 said: But religion is always about enforcing it's rules and morals onto others. >snip< In a free country, they surely have to right to believe what they want. The first sentence is why I object. Also because churches try to have input into laws made in secular nations. The last sentence is very true. I don't care what Anglicans do, as long as they don't push their beliefs on others. Link to post Share on other sites
Kyra Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/26/2020 at 10:20 AM, Springsummer said: but I don't think anyone has answered the question why the view is wrong and therefore premarital, same and other form of sex are right? because there is nothing wrong with same-sex sex nor sex outside of marriage. Some people think it's a sin or against god but that's just their opinion. This is the same religion that has said in the past that sex during menstruation (within marriage) is a sin - along with a whole lot of other rubbish Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts