Bold move from a church founded on making up new rules about marriage.


Bold move from a church rapidly losing followers.






Right up against it, grinding through their pants.


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.


https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977415222/illicit-for-catholic-church-to-bless-same-sex-marriages-vatican-says The Catholic Church does not really accept the unions, despite what comments may have been made by the pope. Doctrine has not changed.


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.


Pope Francis' PR is amazing and his quotes are often cut out of longer less progressive talks. But his so far progressive policies can be summarised by the old school love the sinner hate the sin stuff the Catholics have been pushing forever. Pretty much you can be gay, gays are loved by God...but you must spend everyday in shame and guilt overcoming these failings in order to become closer to God, and never act on them. This shit is why Catholics are so full of guilt.


> you must spend everyday in shame and guilt overcoming these failings in order to become closer to God So, just like every other Catholic.


But at least you can drink the pain away.


Doubt they'll really care much about how racist and bigoted we were. I think most of their ire will be focused on how we massively fucked up the climate.


Oh for sure, that too. It amazes me that we’d rather pay a greater price later than a smaller price now. And that there was still debate when 99% of scientists were united and the others were shills for the gas companies.


Anything that calls into question Capitalism's need for infinite growth must be derided and dismissed. If we started discussing the long-term survival of humanity, the poor might get the impression their their lives and quality of life matters more than shareholder ROI.


Those in the CofE are pretty divided on this, largely along age lines. Those in the CofE who actually get to make decisions on this kind of thing are, for the most part, much older.


Do you think this move will be a net gain or a net loss of followers?


It'll probably lose them some followers. Most people won't care about it and some people will actively endorse it. I can't see it bringing in new members though.


Anglican here, I'm not sure it'll make as big a difference as some people think it might. Same sex marriage is a hot topic but allowing same sex weddings in church won't exactly save the church from decline.


Just about anything the church does at this point will lose followers. People leave all the time because they wake up one day and realize it isn't real. People coming into the church are almost always either born into the church, have no other option for food/shelter, or had a traumatic event. I don't know what the church can do to attract more people, and I hope they don't figure it out


And made himself head of said church all so he could remarry as people were starting to get a bit miffed at all the murders Makes you wonder why people still need convincing that churches are aloud of crap who's only function is to control.


One of the things that's odd when you watch The early seasons of The Crown or anything connected to the abdication. When did a church founded because Henry wanted a divorce get so sensitive about divorce?


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


You forgot the two wife murders.


"It was different times."


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.


Thomas Moore was a vicious sack of shit.


Maybe. Maybe. To be fair, there is evidence that the more awful things Moore is alleged to have done may have been part of a post-Reformation British anti-Catholic misinformation campaign against him. The British were/are notorious for spreading rabidly anti-Catholic misinformation after they left Catholicism under Henry VIII. There used to be a joke about how openly anti-Catholic bigotry is the last acceptable form of outright bigotry in the Anglosphere, in general. Of course, that was before sh*t really hit the fan recently, and all the old forms of bigotry became cool again, apparently.


Could be worse, Moore could’ve been born Cromwell. Now THERE’S a large sack of undigested pig slop. (apologies to undigested pig slop)


Thomas Cromwell? I thought we reserved that kind of language for Olly.


This feels out of order. Do you think "Gout ridden philandering bag of shit" flows better?


Concurred. Add “wife murdering,” to the beginning, and I think that covers most of the bases


Disease ridden should precede “sloppy fuck” in my opinion. Semantics I guess :-)


> should proceed Did you mean precede?


But those calves


So I guess we have to wait for a gay king of the UK


He wasn’t the “sloppy fuck” we associate him with yet at the point when he broke from the church. In fact he was hugely athletic and referred to as one of the most attractive kings in his day, but Jan 24th 1536, a few days after the death of his first wife Kathrine of Aragon, he had a bad fall from his horse during a joust and after that he was in constant pain an could no longer do the rigorous physical activities that were keeping him healthy. And, much like an athlete who stops working out but doesn’t change their eating habits, he rapidly gained weight.


One can be emotionally sloppy. I would know, I’ve been a sloppy joe of bad choices for my 35 years on this rock


I wouldn’t call him emotionally sloppy either (at this point in his life at least), there is a modern misconception that he was just a fat greedy man who just wanted a hotter wife. But in reality, Henry’s reign came during living memory of the War of the Roses. In his mind, if he didn’t have a male heir who was out of childhood when Henry died, civil war was going to break out at his death. Also, he was being influenced by religious zealots who convinced him that he committed a great sin by marrying his first wife, Kathrine, because she was his brothers widow, and it was this sin that was keeping him from having a male heir.


He was excellently portrayed in his prime by Jonathan Rhys Meyers in The Tudors TV show.


Annulment, not divorce.




That was the 2nd and the 5th one, not the one this thing start with.


Divorced beheaded died, divorced beheaded died.


Divorced, beheaded, *survived!*


And tonight... we... are...


You are right!


She did die at some point afterwards though, as far as I’m aware. But I might be mistaken.


Nah. She's immortal, still wandering around England getting into the usual Catherine Parr hijinks.




It was less about divorce and more about politics. Henry the 8th could not produce an heir with his chosen wife and the church typically allowed for anulement in these cases. When Henry the Eight presented his case he indicated that she was barren.... and also had sex with her brother. The second claim was so offensive and so damaging to the Aragon royal family that they used their influence in the papacy to block the anulement. Henry the Eight was more than willing to have affairs with a mistress (very common at the time). But he was not willing to have a childless marriage with no clear male heir to the throne of England. His decision to start a new church came when The Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that he would offer an anulement if only he wasn't bound to the Pope's will.


She was married to his brother, Arthur, not one of her own brothers.


Anne Boleyn, his second wife, was the one accused of sex with her brother (plus many other men) when they wanted an excuse to execute her.


Think you might have one point mixed up. She was Henry VIII’s older brother’s widow - I don’t believe he ever claimed that she has had sex with her own brother (!), but he believed the Bible said that marrying a marriage with brother’s widow will be childless… In fact he has had to go to lengths to get the Pope to give special permission for that marriage, which may be part of what so annoyed the Pope when he changed his mind again and asked for an annulment (not a divorce). It’s a particularly odd stance though, given that the Bible actually *commanded* Levirate marriage in some circumstances, at least for ancient Israel: according to the book of Ruth, Boaz was obligated to marry Ruth, his brother’s widow, and that marriage produced the line that included David. And it was very much about the personal aspect too. He wanted a male heir, but he was also in love with Ann Boleyn by then. It was even partly about religion - Boleyn probably persuaded him on many Lutheran-influenced points. But of course his own ego, power and having an heir were paramount.


I think the idea of Levirate marriage was to provide your dead brother with an heir if he died issueless.


Right but this would have applied in Henry’s case too


but he believed the Bible said that marrying a marriage with brother’s widow will be childless Which, mind you, didn’t stop him from taking Mary Boleyn as his mistress and then marrying her sister.


Also you posted a lot of the political side for Henry, the situation was politically complicated for the pope as well. Charles V held clement prisoner essentially at this point, Charles V was Catherine's nephew, and clement ultimately just wanted all of the European powers to be at peace and knew annulment would greatly damage relations between two European Powers. Also there was this Martin Luther guy too who was putting to question the popes actual divine-ness and called out the corruption in the papacy. The pope knew that appeasing Henry would not be good a good look for that end either.


Stay with me, my story is getting better… :)


Remember, back then no male heir meant a guaranteed civil war. Later on when they decided women could rule, a monarch continuing to have daughters didn't cause many peasants to die.


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.


It's not about changing the law to prevent all gay marriage; it's about whether they start to allow gay people to get married in church. So far the balance of voting is no, they stay with the old way of doing things. But they have voted to permit same-sex couples to have their civil marriages blessed in church, and to do away with the expectation that gay clergy in relationships will be celibate (which was frankly laughable if not for the fact it was causing people great distress). So...baby steps forward. And more bishops are starting to speak up about being pro-gay marriage equality, so while they might not have won the vote this time, minds are changing. It's just taking a while!


It's not just England we have to think about. The worldwide Anglican church would schism if the CofE ever adopted gay marriage. All the African Anglican churches who are much stricter on gay relationships would split away. That's the real reason for their slow progress. They don't want the worldwide Anglican church to split.


Welcome to the US Episcopal Church which is part of the Anglican Communion. We make our own decisions and have our own head bishop. There has been splitting here for decades over the ordination of women, gay priests/bishops, same sex marriage amount other things. Some parishes have left the church and formed their own church. Like the American Episcopal Church. Original huh? There have been cases where compromises with the national church have happened like a group of parishes have agreed to stay in the Anglican Communion but be part of a diocese from another country that is more conservative. I don’t get it the Episcopal Church has always been ‘ Welcome come in but don’t leave your brain at the door. We encourage questions. It’s how we can see another viewpoint that my not change my mind but let’s me explore another way to look at life”


I know. And to some extent I have sympathy for that desire to keep everyone together. But the thing is, while I don't particularly want the church to schism, I've come to think it's inevitable over the last twenty years. And possibly even for the best. Because how long is it truly reasonable to wait for the African churches to catch up? How long is it ok to let them hold everyone else hostage? How long should their feelings be prioritised while people outside of the African churches who also need the church to give a shit about them are neglected and left to feel unwelcome in their own religion? And does pandering to African conservatives - some of whom are advocating for the death penalty for gay people - actually help anyone in Africa or does it just normalise and support the extreme viewpoints?


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


25 out of 780


Woah. Yeah that sounds like power...


Very limited. The lords cannot block legislation only send it back for revisions but this can overruled by the commons. The power in this instance is the power to maybe influence the people with actual power. Although this is still far to much. The lords needs major reform.


Unlimited, possibly?


Only 3.2% power


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.


Hordes of Lords


Binders, even


There used to be a gay nightclub called House of Lords, I'd say plenty of them sat in there.


There’s an actual House of Lords?


It’s our equivalent of the US Senate but with way less power. They can’t legislate, but advise the House of Commons on how to improve proposed legislation. The commons can ignore this advice but it is generally followed. They can also delay legislation but will usually only do so if they think it is a bad law. Don’t be fooled by its name, you don’t have to be a member of nobility to be a lord, the prime minister appoints a portion of the lords (this portion is increasing gradually as old nobility dies out). These people can be experts at their field but it can also be a nepotistic appointment.


Ahhh. I like the idea of experts of their field, imagine that. A world ruled by people who actually know instead of these lame ass debutants we elect.


it has its good and bad points: good side is it adds some stability and at least some of the people are there on merit. Bad side is the prime minister can give almost anyone a lifetime seat. Imagine Trump giving Alex Jones or some other idiot a seat in the Senate.


> Bad side is the prime minister can give almost anyone a lifetime seat E.g. Boris Johnson [gave his own brother a seat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Johnson). Must be nice to have a sibling who can give you a taxpayer funded job for life, which lets you make laws for the rest of the country.


**[Jo Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Johnson)** >Joseph Edmund Johnson, Baron Johnson of Marylebone, (born 23 December 1971) is a British politician who was Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation from July to September 2019, as well as previously from 2015 to 2018. A member of the Conservative Party, he was Member of Parliament (MP) for Orpington from 2010 to 2019. He currently sits in the House of Lords. His older brother, Boris Johnson, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2022. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


The "chamber of experts" arguement gets thrown around a lot, but it's largely nonsense. Occasionally a leading scientist, poverty campaigner, etc. will be given a seat in the chamber, but this is the exception and not the norm. Most people given places there are former/failled politicians or those who have made big donations to whichever political party is currently in government. It was never meant to be a "chamber of experts".


Some of them are great, some of them are awful, a lot of them turn up, sign on to collect the money and then fuck off back to their stately homes.


beware meritocracy. It sounds great in theory, but it has its own issues you have to watch out for. And you have to make sure you know who is selecting the experts. Historically, you don’t get the brightest experts entering into politics, you get the most political ones.


I saw an interview with member of the House of Lords on YouTube where he was like "well of course it's an insane institution. I have no qualifications whatsoever. But if people are going to just give me a bit of power for no reason it's not like I'm gonna say 'no.'"


Well, that's fair


Well, it’s not actually a house, they don’t all live together and bicker about who left the pans soaking overnight. Obviously that would be the ideal setup, but it would take some serious reform to bring about.


Now that's a Celebrity Big Brother I might actually watch!


Yup. Unelected lifetime appointments and they actually get a say in England’s laws.


They mean in their churches by their priest.


I'm not sure why this is news, then. Priests aren't part of the government, and while they can get certification to file the marriage paperwork (and in the US, at least, anyone can), they're not under any obligation to marry people, either with a religious ceremony or in the legal sense. I'd also be surprised if they *could* legally be compelled to do so. The whole thing is at their discretion.


No, the same way it doesn't matter what the Catholic church says. If you're a believer you follow, if you're not, who cares. The only problem is when religion can lobby or decide legislation.


[Just wait until you hear about who has a guaranteed 25 seats in the British House of Lords...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual)


The Middle Ages approves your way of government...


The House of Lords is effectively just an advisory body these days, although they have veto power as well.


Their boss does though :-)


The immortal lich queen and skeleton corgi army deep in her royal sanctum?


Who is even in charge of that mess


The head of the Church of England is King Charles III.


That explains a lot


They have the authority to refuse to allow CofE clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, and to refuse to allow CofE churches to be used for such marriages. **But.** It's worth noting that this is strictly an objection to same-sex **religious** marriage (implicitly, performed by the CofE). They made it clear at the same time that they have no problem in principle with the holding of a service of blessing for a same-sex **civil** marriage in a church, presided over by CofE clergy. In other words - and for the record, I'm an atheist - the media brewing a storm in a tea-cup. They're not remotely opposing same-sex marriage; simply refusing to actively compromise their own particular religious beliefs as to what marriage is in the religious sense. On the worldwide scale of things, that's pretty laid back for a religious sect.


I’m (M) getting married to my F bride-to-be in that denomination even tho I’m not a member yet. A hang up is we’re both divorced and do not have it recognized by their bishop as valid, though that’s not hard to do. So they offered a way to do the wedding without all that. We’ll have a person to do the civil part of the marriage, then the priest starts his part of blessing the union. I’d imagine same sex unions would work in a similar way.


There are gay people who are dedicated members of CoE who sadly still can’t get married in the ceremony they want despite years of attending church or volunteering. There are CoE vicars who want to marry them but risk getting fired for doing so


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.


Yes, a lot of people don't realize that.


I went to a gay wedding by a Lutheran priest and one of the grooms wanted a ceremony, it even included Eucharist. It’s just unfortunate that gay people who want to be religious are excluded even if an individual priest would want to make an exception. The “traditional wedding” has such a cultural impact that people tend to prefer having one


*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.


You can get married in a registry office. Well, you can get married anywhere by a Superintendent Registrar. The church is just deciding whether people can get married in church. It's not necessary and it's often just a tradition. In England a Justice of the Peace is a magistrate who acts as a judge-like person in a magistrates court.


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)


They are already separate institutions, state marriage and Holy Matrimony, which the Church refers to as marriage as well.


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.


>I disagree, and I actually think the total opposite should be the case. Woah woah woah hang on... >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. Oh OK yeah. Completely agree.


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?


in the vast majority of cases people don't want to follow the religions they were forced into by birth, but they feel they have no choice. apostasy (i.e the freedom to leave or not follow religion) is still considered a capital offense within Islamic sharia law. Blasphemy laws are also enforced in over 20% of countries today. affecting the lives of more than 1 billion people.. https://www.imb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Apostasy_and_Blasphemy_Laws_Around_the_World.jpg


It’s kind of scary how dangerous and powerful religion is…The power to make absolute laws and rules over large number of people. The power to control people, some willingly but even the ones unwilling, holy shit. The power to own a person the moment they wake up alive to the world.


There are gay people who do deeply believe in god/s and subscribe to certain religious sects. They may have attended ceremonies and done everything that gets preached or volunteer for the church/donate. They might even know a priest who wants to marry them and doesn’t see issue with them being gay. Yet due to hierarchy cannot get one ceremony. As much as the leaders or some members hate them. They should have the freedom to have a religious ceremony to a church they’ve dedicated themselves too. Freedom for religion for everyone but lgbtq and their allies in priesthood


Anytime you say “freedom of x” know that ONLY applies to government. It’s infuriating how much people ignore that. A business can fire you for exercising any of your legal rights, a club or organization as well. There’s no freedom of anything in any sphere except for government


>A business can fire you for exercising any of your legal rights, a club or organization as well. There’s no freedom of anything in any sphere except for government I mean... that's only in America. If a company here (Italy) fires you for, I don't know, being gay, you can sue them and they *will* be forced to rehire you (in addition to paying compensation).


That's explicitly false. In the UK a business cannot fire you because of your political or religious beliefs, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or age (provided that you are between 18 and 65). These are all legally protected categories in every walk of life.


As a religious guy, I've always thought it was silly that people "shop around" for deities. Like you believe this god exists and that one doesn't because he lets you eat bacon? If god exists, he does so independently of our beliefs. If you're part of a religion, it should be because that's what you believe is true. Anything less is just following a philosophy, not a religion.


So you're saying that religion needs no god? Not a sarcastic question, genuinely curious what you mean.


Technically, I suppose that's in line with what I said, but it wasn't my point. It was more the complementary: God needs no religion. I guess the question is: what's the difference between a philosophy and a religion? Both impact the physical world and what we're morally allowed to do in it, but the latter also has information revealed to witnesses as to the inner workings of the universe. It's built on those assumptions. These assumptions are generally untestable. We believe in them the same way we do a witness at a trial. There may be no physical evidence, but we do believe them (or not) based on their testimony. There is a tendency to believe them based on whether or not their testimony is good for you, like Democrats believing Dr. Ford over Judge Kavanaugh at his acceptance hearings and Republicans believing the reverse. Regardless of belief, he either did or didn't do it. Religion is our faith and belief, but it has no impact on whether or not it actually happened. God doesn't need your faith to exist.


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.


Kids who were groomed. And even those are leaving in droves after growing up.


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.


Yeah, I was surprised to see CoE hasn’t been keeping pace. Episcopalians in the US are pretty cool. Well, except for the break-off denominations which are generally full of nutters.


Had to scroll this far to find that. People in here think CoE is some kind of Bible thumping megachurch.


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


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


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


r/worldcontinuation isn't as popular tho


The Anglican church used to prohibit gay marriage. They still do but they used to too. - Mitch Hedberg


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 needs the church’s approval?


Alternative headline : Church abides by its religious teachings.


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


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.


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


Men go to war for God; Nations go to war for money. Religion unites the two.


Bishops move diagonally back 1 century.


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:


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


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


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


Their choice


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.


Not every country in the EU allows civil unions — Poland, Romania and Slovakia certainly don’t allow them just off the top of my head.


On the contrary, marriage existed long before Christianity was invented. Jews marry. Hindus marry. Buddhists marry. Atheists marry. Sluts marry. Divorcees marry. Ancient Egyptian and Canaanite men married each other. British women can and do marry each other. Episcopalian nonbinaries marry Episcopalian bigenders. In Christianity itself, a priest or minister does not perform the marriage. The spouses do. The Church is merely a witness. The Bible teaches that you marry the first person you have sex with and cannot divorce if sex occurred before betrothal. People who refuse to be married after sex, or who have sex with anyone else are to be put to death. Religious interpretations and teachings change, obviously. The Anglican Church was founded precisely to allow for the sinful divorce and remarriages of Henry VIII. The issue is that many Anglicans themselves do not want to be hypocrites, and plenty of Anglican priests and bishops reject marriage discrimination. What is being discussed is precisely the call from Bishops to end marriage discrimination. The Church already allows Anglican priests and bishops to be in same-sex civil unions, and clergy have blessed same-sex marriage already. This is not about random LGBTQ people trying to force religious people to change their beliefs. It is about Anglicans already having beliefs that are different from each other. The Anglican Church in the US -- the Episcopal Church -- has explicitly taught for a half century *Homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the church.* And, it has already approved marriage equality. Discrimination in the name of Jesus is an abomination to them. The issue is that Anglicans do not want to be hateful and hypocritical for religious reasons -- but some of them do. But it isn't even the English. The real issue is that there are more Anglicans in Africa than in the UK. Nigeria has 18 Million Anglicans alone, and in Nigeria homosexuality is a crime -- and punishable by death for Muslims and nonmuslims who consent to trial in Sharia courts. There is no chance of passing marriage equality through a general synod because of geocultural differences. The British clergy have been unwilling to risk fracturing the Communion.


It's not that simple. Marriage isn't just a religious nuance. It's a social institution, and a legal one. A lot of stuff is built on it. If you make one path for straight people and another for gay.... separate but equal never works. There's plenty of evidence around the world that marriage equality leads to equality and a seperate civil union path leads to discrimination. I mean, you could stop recognizing marriages at all. Make them a religious nuance and make civil unions the only legal path. People don't want that though. So, marriage equality is the only way to go. Whether or not religions should be forced to change their view... The short answer is no. The long answer is no, but there are consequences. You can be in religion that believes is all sort of nasty stuff. Bigotry, whatever. You can't expect this religion to be normative or appropriate in wider society. There are lots of protestant churches in the UK with all sorts of views, some quite ugly. The CoE is more of a public institution than any of them. So sure... they don't have to change. But if you're playing that game... the King doesn't have to be coronated by them. They don't have to have seats in the HoL. Etc. There are consequences to belligerence towards mainstream society. You don't get to be its emblem. All criticism based on the assumption that Church of England want to remain the Church of England... in England. If they want to be just another church... whatever.


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




There are vicars who want to do same sex ceremonies in CoE and there are gay people who still attend church and believe in the god of that church and want their committed relationship blessed. It’s not a simple issue


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


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


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


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


headline is a bit deceiving because they're just not going to marry them in the church, they don't have any control on what the state recognizes as a marriage. Pretty simple


Welby and his predecessor Williams are two of the biggest sellouts in the Christian world. Such cowards.


Dont go to church then.


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?