Not Again !

167891012»

Comments

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    QUILTBAG is the pronounceable version of LGBTQAI+ if you have to pronounce it.
    While a pronounceable version is a great idea, I can’t see QUILTBAG catching on here. I think it would be heard as derogatory— “bag” has slang connotations, and QUILTBAG is probably too close too close to “douche bag.” (And yes, “douche bag” as a derogatory term is a problem of its own.)

    I don't disagree. That, however, was the acronym used by the person I asked.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Keeping any type of ethnic or religious data in France is against the Constitution.

    So, for instance, in prisons, the guesstimate for how many Muslims are in jail is seeing what proportion of inmates opt for pork-free meals, but that amounts to a wild guess only.

    Welcome to the Republican Ideal.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Alan

    It’s not as simple as that. The acronym as it stands could not be used in any law reform to prevent discrimination. It is simply not clear enough or coherent enough to work as a definition to be used in such discrimination.
    I don't think the acronym has been used in that context, nor is anyone to my knowledge seeking to enshrine any version of the acronym into legislation. Unless I missed something, we're talking about how discriminated individuals and groups self-identify and wish others would identify them in general discussion. Legal language is a law unto itself, and generally doesn't use acronyms that aren't carefully defined. A lot of the discussion over the recent The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill revolved around who the Bill sought to protect ("prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics" apparently not being clear enough).

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited March 22
    Then I think we agree. It’s a colloquial expression but not necessarily a clear or accurate one when it comes to expressing gender and/or sexual identity. A new and evolving community shibboleth, to be respected in those terms.

    What’s its value as a shibboleth? I guess the answer to that question is best found in the hearts and minds of those communities who think it says something important about their collective identity.

    What’s its value in cross community discussions about discrimination? There I am not too clear. I don’t think there is anyone who has the authorised right to speak about the specific needs for justice for all of those communities since they are by no means homogeneous in their experiences and needs. For example trans needs for fair play and fair treatment are quite distinctive.
  • AchillesAchilles Shipmate Posts: 14
    And the farce continues ! Over a year since I tried to find out what is going on, and what changes are proposed it is clear that there are very serious flaws with the 'consultation process'. The Rural Dean didn't want to talk to me when he was last in church. The diocesan LLF Advocate has e-mailed "We encouraging church leaders – ordained and lay – to offer LLF courses in their locality and then for leaders and participants to feedback their responses – which will be received nationally and locally – as part of the listening process which the House of Bishops have commissioned. " Nothing has actually happened. My vicar has now e-mailed me a 'Zoom' link to the LLF on-line course. This doesn't have an agenda nor does it identify how one contributes. I certainly do not have any faith in General Synod to sort out this controversial matter if the views of each individual member of the congregations are not solicited in good time and analysed.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    While I have a lot of time for the proposed LLF process, it is not something that I can see being done effectively in any other way than in person. That means it will need to wait until that kind of meeting can happen. Also, IME, many people are anxious about the process because they don’t think it will come to the conclusion they believe it ought to. (Which is, of course, a derogation from what the process intends.)
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    @BroJames I'm curious as to why you have a lot of time for LLF, when it is so obviously yet another kicking-the-can-down-the-road exercise. We're just about 6 years on from when the Facilitated Conversations were meant to have been reported on to the House of Bishops for action: the only things that have changed in that time are that views have become more entrenched and polarised, and the CofE has seen its number of regular communicants fall at a faster rate than previously.
  • *bump*

    A breath of fresh air from a senior Bishop:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/26/church-of-england-should-recognise-same-sex-marriage-says-bishop

    Doubtless he will incur the customary hatred, bile, bitterness etc. etc. etc., but I suspect he speaks for many Anglicans (not that there are all that many nowadays).
  • Nice. I think he’s absolutely right about the world beyond the church setting the moral agenda, at least in regards to equal marriage.
    Achilles wrote: »
    And the farce continues ! Over a year since I tried to find out what is going on, and what changes are proposed it is clear that there are very serious flaws with the 'consultation process'. The Rural Dean didn't want to talk to me when he was last in church. The diocesan LLF Advocate has e-mailed "We encouraging church leaders – ordained and lay – to offer LLF courses in their locality and then for leaders and participants to feedback their responses – which will be received nationally and locally – as part of the listening process which the House of Bishops have commissioned. " Nothing has actually happened. My vicar has now e-mailed me a 'Zoom' link to the LLF on-line course. This doesn't have an agenda nor does it identify how one contributes. I certainly do not have any faith in General Synod to sort out this controversial matter if the views of each individual member of the congregations are not solicited in good time and analysed.

    Has your course started yet, Achilles?
    I don’t think it’s the sort of thing to have an agenda, as I understand it, it sounds much more free- flowing. In terms of giving feedback, I think one can give feedback on the materials as an individual, rather than as part of the course. This could be a useful option for those whose will find the course a difficult or traumatic experience.
  • St GermanSt German Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Most people in England didn't get married in a church until the law forced them to (in 1753 apparently). Only rich people with lots of property bothered to go through the formalities so everyone knew which children got to inherit.

    For centuries, ordinary people just started living together as husband and wife.

    The whole notion that the church wants you to have the right piece of paper is a relatively recent idea in the scheme of things.

    And it was 1836 when people started being allowed to have non-church formal marriages.

    So this whole "most of the Church of England's history" notion? It covers a period of 83 years.

    Absolutely right. In the medieval cannon law a couple who shared bed and board were ipso facto married. If you look at the 16th C, Book of Common Prayer, you will see that the marriage ceremony is still then described as the solemnisation of marriage i.e. the formal recognition of it. Those in a civil partnership are married.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended?

    No.

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Back to Paul Bayes, I would hope that people would read the whole piece and take it to heart, but in particular this:
    Bayes’ comments were made two weeks before the C of E’s ruling body, the General Synod, will again discuss issues of sexuality at an online meeting. Such debates, Bayes said, suggested that “people’s lives can be picked over remotely and intellectually without damage. They can’t.”
  • Back to Paul Bayes, I would hope that people would read the whole piece and take it to heart, but in particular this:
    Bayes’ comments were made two weeks before the C of E’s ruling body, the General Synod, will again discuss issues of sexuality at an online meeting. Such debates, Bayes said, suggested that “people’s lives can be picked over remotely and intellectually without damage. They can’t.”

    I rather fear +Bayes will be a voice crying in the wilderness, although I hope I'm wrong, and that other Bishops will speak out as well.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 30
    Meanwhile, the Methodist Church moves forward:
    https://theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/30/methodist-church-allows-same-sex-marriage-after-vote

    (I wonder what Father Wesley would have said? :wink: )
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited June 30
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended?

    No.

    Exactly. And from what's posted here, I gather that most of those involved at the top level in this little fracas are enjoying it. It is, after all, only the plebs who are hurting.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Meanwhile, the Methodist Church moves forward:

    (I wonder what Father Wesley would have said? :wink: )
    Well done, the Methodists.

  • Yes, indeed, and (after he'd done a bit of research) that's probably what Father W would have said, too.
    :wink:
  • SandemaniacSandemaniac Shipmate
    edited July 1
    *bump*

    A breath of fresh air from a senior Bishop:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/26/church-of-england-should-recognise-same-sex-marriage-says-bishop

    Doubtless he will incur the customary hatred, bile, bitterness etc. etc. etc., but I suspect he speaks for many Anglicans (not that there are all that many nowadays).

    I suspect that sooner or later same-sex couples will be the only ones wanting to get married in churches, so he'd better get with the zeitgeist if he wants any custom at all.
    (possibly a little flippant for a serious topic, but I've thought it for a while)
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 1
    *bump*

    A breath of fresh air from a senior Bishop:
    https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/26/church-of-england-should-recognise-same-sex-marriage-says-bishop

    Doubtless he will incur the customary hatred, bile, bitterness etc. etc. etc., but I suspect he speaks for many Anglicans (not that there are all that many nowadays).

    I suspect that sooner or later same-sex couples will be the only ones wanting to get married in churches, so he'd better get with the zeitgeist if he wants any custom at all.
    (possibly a little flippant for a serious topic, but I've thought it for a while)

    No, you may well have a point.

    The number of weddings conducted at Our Place over the past 10 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Granted, we're not the prettiest church in town, but even so - despite the fact that a church wedding is not all that expensive, compared to some places - business is not exactly booming.

    I wonder if the Methodist Church in England will now experience an upsurge in the number of weddings requested? In a way, I hope it does, as the C of E might (just for once) *Look, Learn, and Take Heed*.

  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    There is also a generational issue. I am a gay man, and I insist on both terms equally. I am not having a twenty-something agender/non-binary person telling me I have to cede the definition of the term "man" to cis hets and call myself non-binary as soon as I don't fit into a very strict cishet defintion of what the word means. That non-binary person is making a serious strategic error in my opinion, as well as painting me into a corner I have no desire to inhabit.

    From which others can take it as read that this community is not homogenous, even if it does exist, and trying to find a single set of demands, apart from "stop defining our preferred way of being as illegal and/or immoral, and/or making it more difficult than it need be" will be impossible.
  • The number of weddings conducted at Our Place over the past 10 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Granted, we're not the prettiest church in town, but even so - despite the fact that a church wedding is not all that expensive, compared to some places - business is not exactly booming.

    If people are just looking for a venue, and don't much care about God, they probably want to have a big meal / party / dance / whatever for all the guests. If you're hiring a facility (hotel function rooms or whatever) for that, do you have to pay much extra to also have a half-hour wedding ceremony in it?

    (And if they just want the wedding, with no party, perhaps the register office is the default choice?)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Before the pandemic, destination weddings were quite in vogue around here. Church buildings are not exactly destinations. Even my son, who has become a pastor, and his wife chose an outdoor wedding at a campground.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2
    We do have one church around here (the town's original mediaeval building, albeit much restored) which is quite pictureskew. It sits in a wide grassy space (the churchyard minus most of the tombstones), not far from the great, green, greasy Limpopo Medway river, and is all set about with fever lime trees.

    They corner the market for church weddings chiz chiz chiz, but it's a large and difficult parish, so the £££s come in handy.
  • St GermanSt German Shipmate
    There is nothing in the Creeds or the Articles about sexuality issues and, although I don't deny that they are important, they are secondary issues which don't justify dividing the church.

    They are the devil's distraction to obscure the good news of the gospels - which themselves do not agree on e.g. whether divorce is permissible. This was not Our Lord's main focus, nor should it be ours.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    @StGerman 👏👏👏
  • St German wrote: »
    There is nothing in the Creeds or the Articles about sexuality issues and, although I don't deny that they are important, they are secondary issues which don't justify dividing the church.

    They are the devil's distraction to obscure the good news of the gospels - which themselves do not agree on e.g. whether divorce is permissible. This was not Our Lord's main focus, nor should it be ours.
    In your eyes they are secondary, in the eyes of others they are not. Who gets to decide what is primary/secondary anyway?

  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Someone who isn't desperate for an excuse to condemn the way others love, preferably.
  • St German wrote: »
    There is nothing in the Creeds or the Articles about sexuality issues and, although I don't deny that they are important, they are secondary issues which don't justify dividing the church.

    They are the devil's distraction to obscure the good news of the gospels - which themselves do not agree on e.g. whether divorce is permissible. This was not Our Lord's main focus, nor should it be ours.
    In your eyes they are secondary, in the eyes of others they are not. Who gets to decide what is primary/secondary anyway?

    Jesus via the Gospels?
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    edited July 4
    St German wrote: »
    There is nothing in the Creeds or the Articles about sexuality issues and, although I don't deny that they are important, they are secondary issues which don't justify dividing the church.

    They are the devil's distraction to obscure the good news of the gospels - which themselves do not agree on e.g. whether divorce is permissible. This was not Our Lord's main focus, nor should it be ours.
    In your eyes they are secondary, in the eyes of others they are not. Who gets to decide what is primary/secondary anyway?

    You are literally replying to a post that refers to the Creeds and the Articles, and yet you show no sign of acknowledging or understanding why the Creeds and the Articles were referred to.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Does the church not need to take its time to get this right. It should not follow the world like a lap dog. Each denomination has to have its own discussions. The world is more mixed on this than the church. Gay rights have improved tremendously but there are still a lot of people who do not like it out there.
  • I was digging through Oblivion on Ye Olde Shippe™, looking for a thread I thought I'd started, and was startled to see how many threads exist on the topic of same sex marriage from as far back as Oblivion exists, (there are existing Dead Horses threads from before the purge to 2012 and 2012 onwards). The Ship, so therefore the churches, has been discussing this for ever. I was reminded that there were bishops against giving churches exemptions in the 2010 Equality Act. It doesn't seem that giving more time is doing anything other than entrenching opinions.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    There's your problem @st ge
    Hugal wrote: »
    Does the church not need to take its time to get this right. It should not follow the world like a lap dog. Each denomination has to have its own discussions. The world is more mixed on this than the church. Gay rights have improved tremendously but there are still a lot of people who do not like it out there.

    You're right that the church should not follow the world like a lap-dog. It should have been leading the world in challenging attitudes to LGBTQ+ people. Unfortunately it didn't, so all it can do now is get its act together. Fast.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited July 4
    KarlLB wrote: »
    You're right that the church should not follow the world like a lap-dog. It should have been leading the world in challenging attitudes to LGBTQ+ people.
    The sad thing is that for a while it was: the C of E was recommending that homosexual sex be legal before the Wolfenden report came out. My feeling is that the church was in advance of society until about the end of the eighties and start of the nineties.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    You're right that the church should not follow the world like a lap-dog. It should have been leading the world in challenging attitudes to LGBTQ+ people.
    The sad thing is that for a while it was: the C of E was recommending that homosexual sex be legal before the Wolfenden report came out. My feeling is that the church was in advance of society until about the end of the eighties and start of the nineties.

    I was confirmed into the embers of a prophetic church which has not existed since the mid-90s, when ignorant, simplistic bullshit was embraced as selling better, and being altogether easier to subdue.

    On the other hand, the church has been working against the activity of the holy spirit in the world, because of her inconvenient tendency to threaten its bureaucracy and idolatry of control, since the movement for the abolition of slavery. Each and every time - the labour movement, feminism, gay liberation - the church has been reluctantly forced into embracing a movement which the holy spirit had been noisily getting on with beyond its walls. The last of these cases was a bit of an exception for a while, but then it reverted to type.

    I'm talking primarily about the Church of England, but I would suggest that most churches have a similarly chequered history of suspicion and resistance. Similar does not, of course, mean identical.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    I think in a way, in recent times, our wider society has been more effective in putting into practice some of the essentials of Christianity than the churches. However, talking of Wolfenden, I can remember him saying at the end of a discussion on a television programme a long time ago that he feared that 'liberalism' would be wiped out in the next century. Our present government seems to be hell-bent on making his prediction come true. If that happens churches might begin to appear to be out of step in a good way, which is yet another reason why it would be good if the Church of England changed its stance on SSM fairly quickly.

    Back in the 1960's when I joined the C of E, I found bishops a big problem. In my mind they didn't seem to tie into my new-found faith in a loving God! They were part of the Establishment, they headed an Established Church, and they just had too much power and money. Since then I've come across some very good ones, but it hasn't changed my view that they are out of date in their present form and need their wings clipped to make them more fit for purpose.

    I think the bishops' statements accompanying LLF, to the effect that they are divided on issues of sexuality and need to consult, is an important admission, and should be regarded as an opportunity for God's frozen people to unfreeze. (Actually they are unfrozen: it's just that the powers that be seem to find every possible excuse for putting them in the freezer.) There is about half a year left to set up an LLF course even if your vicar, area dean, or bishop isn't interested, or hasn't in all fairness got the time.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    There's your problem @st ge
    Hugal wrote: »
    Does the church not need to take its time to get this right. It should not follow the world like a lap dog. Each denomination has to have its own discussions. The world is more mixed on this than the church. Gay rights have improved tremendously but there are still a lot of people who do not like it out there.

    You're right that the church should not follow the world like a lap-dog. It should have been leading the world in challenging attitudes to LGBTQ+ people. Unfortunately it didn't, so all it can do now is get its act together. Fast.

    👏👏👏 Yes!
    wabale wrote: »
    I think the bishops' statements accompanying LLF, to the effect that they are divided on issues of sexuality and need to consult, is an important admission, and should be regarded as an opportunity for God's frozen people to unfreeze. (Actually they are unfrozen: it's just that the powers that be seem to find every possible excuse for putting them in the freezer.) There is about half a year left to set up an LLF course even if your vicar, area dean, or bishop isn't interested, or hasn't in all fairness got the time.

    The statement by the bishops is nothing more than stating the blindingly obvious, coupled with the announcement of yet another delaying tactic period of consultation and discernment. It is a waste of time while the CofE continues to haemorrhage people, at the same time acting as a powerful disincentive to those who might be persuaded to give church a try.

    IMHO thd CofE is self-immolating out of sheer stupidity, cowardice and a catastrophically dreadful leadership who, if the Second Coming happened tomorrow would just issue a discussion document for a never-to-be-delivered report to GS.

Sign In or Register to comment.