>

I gave up on the Anglican church at 13 when they ordained our ex-choirmaster, who had been kicked out of our church for sexually abusing young choirboys, as a priest. It was so fucking ironic and absolutely disgusting.
Bold move from a church founded on making up new rules about marriage. >

Bold move from a church rapidly losing followers. >

I always assumed that the big churches are still against gay marriage.
Isn’t the Vatican still not cool with it? >

Kind of a mixed bag. Pope Francis supports civil marriage for gay couples, or at least he did in 2010. Being gay is not a sin, but homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered”
So the Catholic Church currently accepts same-sex civil unions, but does not accept same sex marriages as the Sacrament of Marriage is between a man and a women, as per God’s design.
I am not a catholic, and have my own opinions on the matter (namely that the biblical support is thin, the Bible is fallible, and there’s much larger sins in the world that the church has neglected to address) but there you have it.
At least until the next pope. I can’t see someone more liberal taking the position.
I just hope that our great grandchildren will read about this in history books and think we were stupid. People are people, let them like who they like. >

Yeah, not surprised >

The fact he didn’t excommunicate all the pedophile priests kinda proves he’s worthless overall and cut from the same sacramental cloth as all the rest. >

Let’s all take a second to remember that the CoE was started so a sloppy fuck could get divorced bc the pope wouldn’t let him >


sloppy fuck 

That’s one way to describe King Henry VIII >

“Gout ridden bag of philandering shit” seemed a little on the nose >

I hate what he did to my man Sir Thomas More. >

The More You Know… >

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. Henry the eighth had six wives. >

Ah yes, the church of “our king wanted a new wife but the old church wouldn’t let him keep killing & divorcing his old ones so we just made a new church that would let him” is definitely the moral authority I’m matters of marriage >

Does it even matter what the Church of England says? They have no legal power. >

Don't some bishops sit in the House of Lords? >

25 out of 780 >

Woah.  Yeah that sounds like power... >

Unlimited, possibly? >

I have learned a dark truth. I have learned that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a Sith Lord. >

Are we blind? Deploy the alter boys! >

Have you ever heard the tragedy of King Henry “the eighth”? I thought not, it is a Protestant tale. >

King Henry VIII was a King of England, so powerful and debaucherous that he could use the Crown to influence the Will of God. He had such clout that he could even annul the sacrament of marriage. Divorce is a pathway to many executions, which some would consider to be…immoral. >

From the article:

The Church of England will refuse to allow same-sex couples to get married in its churches under proposals set out on Wednesday in which the centuries-old institution said it would stick to its teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Separately, Church of England bishops will be issuing an apology later this week to LGBTQI+ people for the "rejection, exclusion and hostility" they have faced in churches, according to the statement.

Someone should remind them that contrition is rooted in a resolution to end harm >

Who cares? Get married outside of the church. It's not like any church doctrine supports same sex marriage anyway. They can tolerate it I guess, but their religion excludes that as abhorrent. >

I remember when Gay Marriage was decided in the courts for the US my gay friend told me how he cant wait to make his local priest wed him and another guy.  When I explained thats now how it works he legit didn't understand that a marriage license is from the state. >

I’ve had to explain this to my BF too. He was raised catholic and felt that his priest would allow it. Had to break it to him that even if the priest allowed it, the Church itself won’t. >

Raised Catholic and didn't get that? Yeaaaaah >

In his defense, his particular church was fairly tolerant all things considered. They didn’t care he was gay. His church was also ethnically homogenous, and they accepted me without problems as well. He just didn’t know much about how powerful the organization itself was. >

I'm not sure how it works in England, but in the US you can be married by a Justice of the Peace. If similar in England, what's to stop a priest from going rogue, be permitted to marry people outside of the church, form a parish and marry anyone? >

Nothing, but they won't be members of the Church of England any more. >

Why do you want to marry through an institution that hates you? Fuck em, religious marriages don't matter >

Marriage should definitely always be a legal matter, not a Religious matter (in my opinion) >

I disagree, and I actually think the total opposite should be the case.
I don’t think state should be formalizing marriage in any way. Instead, it should allow all benefits of a marriage as a civil contract to be made between any number of consenting adult partners, and drop the “marriage” word, which has significant religious baggage. 
It often has linguistic baggage as well - for example in my native language the word marriage literally comes from words “husband and wife”, so a same sex marriage sounds farcical to people.
State should not provide preference to any type of relationship, and marriage should just be a ritual for religious people with no direct legal consequences.
But that’s only my (pretty radical) opinion. >

I enjoy hearing about all the different etymological meanings behind words like marriage.
Especially because the Swedish word for marriage is identical in spelling and pronunciation to the Swedish word for poison.
Hell of a statement to make. >

The Knife were a great Swedish duo. 👍
Karin seems a little insane though. >

Happy to see atheism growing, with help from good old medieval religious homophobia. >

Idk why people want religion to validate your way of life, clearly the religion doesn't value or like you so why try to be apart of that religion? >

I've know a few cases were the people.actully wanted to be married in the church as a venue, and the religion thing is just what comes together. >

I don't get why people think they should be able to use a church as prop. >

Because history, and because fair play.
Church has always been a prop and churches have always used this to their advantage. CoE is a prop for political stuff, lending legitimacy to the crown and parliament. Benefiting from power. In the case of marriage, being a prop is a fine revenue source... besides other advantages. 
If you are a small church that does ceremonies for their own members... no one feels entitled to get married there. If you rent your church to strangers for money twice a week... you made yourself a prop. You are like any other wedding hall.
Can't have it both ways. 
You want your seats in the Lords? You don't get to hide behind state-church separation or personal beliefs. Rent your Church by the hour, live by hotel rules. Want to crown the new King? Represent societal norms. Choose. >


If you rent your church to strangers for money twice a week... you made yourself a prop. You are like any other wedding hall.

Unless you only rent it out to other people who are part of your religion but don't attend your church.  It depends on what their rules are for who they allow to rent it out.

Want to crown the new King? Represent societal norms. Choose.

The whole idea of progressivism is to go against societal norms to make changes.  If we only go by societal norms, then changes don't get made, and gay marriage wouldn't be allowed anywhere. >

Ok. Go by good morals instead or norms.
My point is that CoE cannot hide behind "these are our ways." This isn't some french monastic order or Texas megachurch. They're part of society, not an alternative to it. >

Who is actually joining these churches anymore? >

Nobody. They are in active decline in the UK. People are fleeing these churches and not looking back. The only people left are the hardcore Christians who only accelerate the decline because they take more extreme, less mainstream positions which is even less attractive to people. >

Yes this has been my observation. I think this is why you also see religions push against abortions and for large ‘traditional’ families, in order to boost numbers. It’s easier to indoctrinate someone whose born into it l, then to try and recruit new members. >

It's working in Africa and Asia. The churches are holding onto the West for monetary reasons (why the Catholic Church refuses to do anything about German Bishops openly defying the Vatican for example) but focuses their actual effort on Africa in particular where populations are growing. >

Time to do the old English tradition of starting a whole new religion so you can marry however the fuck you want I guess? >

The Episcopal Church in the US does allow same sex marriage. >

And LGBT clergy! I can't help but feel like this is a really cynical attempt to mollify certain members of the Anglican Communion. >

The African churches have threatened an all out breach over this. Some conservatives in the US also split off, but they found that the diocese actually owns the church buildings. >

I know they have. And then of course the SEA churches and the Church in Rwanda have missions in the US for conservative Episcopalians. Whole thing's a mess. >

I hope they have fun slipping into obscurity. >

"We just want to bugger them, not marry them..." >

That’s okay, secular people still refuse to allow priests to molest little kids >

In Denmark, we just made a law that our state religion is responsible for finding a priest when a same-sex couple wants to marry. So one of them might refuse, but fortunately only a few of them are backwards enough to deny it.
The only good thing about having a state religion is that the state then has some power over it. >

“Why are people leaving the church?”
The church: >

Who needs the church’s approval? >

Why would there be any pressure to get religious groups to do something they've long held opposition to? It doesn't make sense to me. And then to be upset when they take a traditional religious view on the matter? Waste of time. Plus I see a lot of this targeting Christian denominations but give this a try in the mosques and temples. You'll get a firm no 99.9% of the time.
It's religion. Folks forcing them to accept any "alternative" lifestyle should be seen like them trying to get you to accept their God and dogma. Agree to disagree and get married elsewhere. Beliefs and faith aren't things you can argue from or against with much success. >

This 100% why force a group that doesn't accept your lifestyle? I learned this as a 5'1 tall man in the dating world. If she's not interested just move on to someone who IS. I wish people would just let religious groups be and move on >

I don't agree with the bishops, but it's not like you need to be married in a church to have the benefits of married status. Who cares what some religious cult thinks? It's really that simple. >


Who cares what some religious cult thinks

They're the state religion. I don't care about any other religious leaders opinions, but these ones are an arm of the nation state. >


They're the state religion

What does that even mean? Legit question because I would expect to hear that in one sentence with such of Iran, not England. >

They're recognised as the official national religion. This is different for every country - but in this case:
They get 25 seats in the House of Lords, these 'Lords Ecclesiastical' have the same power as any other Member of the Upper House.
All law is derived from the Crown, which derives its power from God - symbolised by the King being joint head of state and head of Church. This will be hammered home when the Archbishop crowns him as Lord of the land and 'protector of the Church' this summer.
They have more rights to record and licence marriages than other religions.
They are the largest landlord in the country.
Most of this is symbolic, traditional, or soft power - but the Church is still a major player in Britain. >

This isn't news...  News implies something 'new' or has changed.
This is continuation. >

r/worldcontinuation isn't as popular tho >

ha, that's a fair point >

Bishops move diagonally back 1 century. >

Ok, and?  I'm perfectly fine with religions saying they won't perform same sex marriages.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Let them have their beliefs.  The state, however, should not be banning same sex marriages based on religious grounds, or any grounds for that matter.  The state, should not care. >

The state doesn't. >

"Don't push your beliefs on people" goes both ways. Shouldn't try to force people to do things that they are morally against. Inclusion doesn't mean bulldozing the beliefs of others. >

And they wonder why religion is dying >

Religion shouldn't update to be inclusive. It's clearly laid out that homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't say they can't go to church or be apart of the church (looking at you openly gay music director at my local church) but a church shouldn't be required to Wed a Homosexual couple. People sin but the church should not be a place that promotes or turns a blind eye to sin. Church should be a place to reflect inward on our own sinful behavior and work to be better people. 
If religion dies because it stays true to its principles then so be it. >

Alternative headline : Church abides by its religious teachings. >

How about:  Cult refuses to change it's arbitrary and ridiculous rules. >

Who cares? It’s a Church. Nobody’s obligated to go or participate in what they do or agree. Leave them alone. >

The Church of England is different, being it’s head is literally the king… >

The church & the crown is just symbolic now though. 
It’s not parliament.
It’s like being upset at a Spanish school for teaching Spanish. >

Allow is the wrong word. The church refuses to perform them and this is consistent with their religious beliefs. 
Why is it that people feel the solution to their problems lies in compelling others to do things that go against those peoples deepest held convictions? >

Nobody's forcing or compelling. It was a motion put to a vote by the church leadership, and the vote didn't pass. Protestant Churches (big "C" church, like a national church) run a lot like governments — they are federations of dioceses (like states, made up of congregations/parishes) represented by bishops, or congregations directly represented by an elected representative. Their members of the federation make motions and vote.
The same process happened years ago in the US in the Episcopal Church — an offshoot of the Anglican Church after the revolution made things tricky. In that case, they ultimately voted to allow same-sex marriages to be performed, and now even allow married same-sex clergy. >

Good thing Church of England bishops aren’t in charge of gay marriage. >

Churches should have the freedom to choose if they accept gay marriage or any issue. The GOVERNMENT  should make the facilities for gay marriage,  not the church that it directly goes against its beliefs