>

That seems contradictory to their thoughts on same sex pedophilia.
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. >

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. >

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 >

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. >

What is it about people and being unable to mind their own business? >

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. >

Church attendance is at a historic low and still falling. So fuck 'em, tossers. Let them die with the past they love so much >

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

Their choice >

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

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 >

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. >

Dont go to church then. >

So don’t participate there if it upsets you… just like a store you don’t like… vote with your wallet. >

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

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. >

And they wonder why religion is dying >

Where are they going to get kids to rape if gay people can get married? >

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. >

That's the Official Religion of England, whose bishops hold 25 seats in the upper house of Parliament, whose official leader is the King, and whose top bishops are literally appointed by the elected Prime Minister.
I'd love it if they left the rest of us alone. >

Me too. England is overly oppressive to its citizens. I weep for them daily. >

No you don't.
I'm English, I'm not weeping about "oppression" 
Don't be silly >

You kind of are though. Being upset at the church for having a traditional definition of marriage is like being upset that math teachers teach math. >

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. >

I don’t understand why organizations that survive on recruiting and growth do shit to tamper membership. >

I think it’s funny that churches are going in this direction and then complaining about how people are going farther and farther away from the church! Quite frankly, why would anyone be drawn to these organizations anymore instead of being all full of Jesus love they’re all full of hate these days! >

Aren’t they allowed to do that? They’re an institution all their own and they get to make up pretty much any rules they like? >

I see where we get our own attitudes. The bigoted apple doesn't fall far from the colonialism tree. >

Funny how all the people and companies here complaining about the Church of England keeping one tradition were very quick to ban any and all rainbow colored apparel in Qatar for the sake of business. 
Most Western Christians have learned to just ignore the naysayers who flock to Dubai and do business in Qatar while trying to enforce their woke beliefs in the West. >

Not sure what I'm missing here.
If you want to be religious, be religious. If you don't, don't...
Example - if you go to John's house for dinner and he says take your shoes off at the door, take your shoes off at the door. 
If you'd rather not take your shoes off at the door, that's fine - you'd be better going for dinner at Simon's house, because he doesn't mind. >

Who needs the church’s approval? >

I find it stupid that they even wanted to be wed by the church. It's an institution that is against their ways and them LGBT don't fancy the church, so why bother? 
If the state recognizes your marriage via the marriage contract, that is all that matter. Heck, church weddings are legal because of the contract, take that out and it's just cosplay. >

As a queer person, I’ve never understood what possible reason I would have to enlist the services of an institution which I know ahead of time is anti-me or anti-my lifestyle. It all smacks of performatism or protest, which I get, but what did they honestly expect would happen? >

Religions demonstrate everyday why, in this day and age, they have become irrelevent. >

The day religion dies in this world we can finally progress as a society into the future. Religion continues to keep us in the past 😞 >

Religion is a big offender, but hardly the only thing stopping progress. >

Tribalism, it all boils down to tribalism. Religion is just one form of tribalism. >

Curious if King could override >

Nope >

Ironic that marrage was invented to stop us wife swapping. Now its to stop peeps getting married at all. Can see why over 50% of the population in uk is athiest >

"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. >

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? >

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

Henry VIII is rolling in his grave, ‘I completely changed religions in this country so we could marry whoever we wanted when we wanted!’ >

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 >

So just dont get married through church? Nobody has to strp in each othrrs toes. >

Marriage is a religious nuance. Every country in the EU as far as I know allows same sex unions. I really do not understand what the point is? The religious practices contend that homosexuality is wrong and the people want to force them to change. I don't see religion changing their mind. >

Marriage doesn't belong to any religion. The only reason to have civil unions instead of marriage is to give privileged treatment and influence to religion.
The solution to let the churches discriminate would be to stop allowing them to have a role in legal marriage. >

I am a very tolerant person and also an Atheist. We had our marriage in town hall as something like 90% of people in my country do not believe in god. The cases where people do have a marriage in a church that church must agree of course to allow it and they need to be a member or something like this. >

Well, I refuse to allow Church of England bishops. Now what? >

As has been mentioned, this Church exists so that a King could get divorced and marry some dime piece.  
Standing by their morals… >

That is the entire point. A church that exists deliberately to defy a “traditional view of marriage” because it was viewed as “not essential to the teachings of Jesus” is now holding on to traditional views of marriage that are not essential to the teachings of Jesus. It’s blatant hypocrisy. 
The principles that lead to the schism fundamentally would support allowing this form of marriage. >

The church doesn't tolerate gay marriage, just pedophilia, rape & tax free donations... >

Someone is free to correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t know the Anglicans have the same pedophile problem that Catholics do. >

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. >

Isn’t Charles head of the Church? Why isn’t he telling them to cut the malarkey ( or whatever peasants say)? >

The church of England is not even an authentic church. Throughout history, it has been an extended branch of the royal family to do their beckoning, And justify their criminal activities as being the will of God. It was king Henry the VIII who brought about the church of England. Because the Catholic Church would not annul his marriages. >

Just another religious leader spewing hate instead of forgiveness. >

Wtf, i thought UK lived in 2023 and not 1823🤔 strange that it isnt allowed in this day and age. >

Abandon the church >

But don’t forget: He Gets Us! >

And they get a choice why? >

Literally a bunch of wankers >

Keep church and state separate >

Religion is a cancer.  Cure it. >

Because being lgbtq+ does not stop people from being religious. Some people are just stuck to tradition, some are stuck pleasing their family, and some want to push religions away from conservatism. >

It’s not the bishops call I thought it was the kings call so should this be a washout >

That’s nice. What does the SUPREME GOVERNOR of the Church, HIs Majesty Charles III, say?