Not Again !

1356712

Comments

  • I don't understand why they are tying themselves in knots to produce a message that clearly a large percentage of people in the church do not actually agree with. Stop flapping around and split already. How hard can it be?
  • It's not only a large percentage of people in the church (probably), but also a large percentage of those outside it (most of the rest of the population, IOW).
  • I don't have a problem with a religious group that has a minority position. That's almost the nature of believing something in a varied multi-cultural society.

    I do have a problem with a minority boldly stating something when they do not even have the majority of their own religious group and potentially this could have much wider impacts on people who have never said that they agree with this position.
  • The basic problem here has been the CofE being 'established' and the nation being nominally of one religion, originally RC, then CofE, and then CofE plus Christian dissent. This meant that 'marriage' was being conceived in 'Christian' terms.

    If instead society is thought of from the start as plural with many different and broadly equal beliefs including atheist and agnostic as well as religions, the need is rather different. Essentially the state needs a category of legal relationship which is personal rather than business (and yes I am aware that a lot of past marriages among the well off were 'business' as well!); and actually that kind of legal relationship needs to be not only for 'marriage' as religions conceive it but also for some kinds of non-sexual relationships (adult 'adoptions' such as Roman emperors used to do, and situations like an elderly single lady and a companion).

    In effect, in a plural society 'marriage' as different religions conceive it is not totally th' state's business. What is needed is that the state doesn't do 'marriages' as such at all but supplies, for its own and its citizens convenience, a more flexible and wider-ranging legal relationship which can also be used as the legal foundation of different versions of 'marriage' in differing religions - a not necessarily sexual "civil partnership".

    In terms of the OP, Christians will enter into a 'civil partnership' for legal and secular convenience, but will also get 'married' in Christian terms usually in a church ceremony.

    That's a long winded way of saying you want civil marriage abolished and civil partnerships opened to more people. That seems like a lot of legal and social upheaval to not solve any problems. And no, the problem here isn't establishment, it's that the CofE has a name and temporal assets that have or could have value in spreading the Gospel, and neither faction in the church is willing to give that up by leaving. The Bishops think that weasel words and changing nothing will keep the show on the road a little bit longer, reckoning that slow death from sepsis is better than risking bleeding out from amputating the gangrenous limb of homophobia and sexism in the church.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with a religious group that has a minority position. That's almost the nature of believing something in a varied multi-cultural society.

    I do have a problem with a minority boldly stating something when they do not even have the majority of their own religious group and potentially this could have much wider impacts on people who have never said that they agree with this position.

    This.
  • Putting aside the issue of 'gay marriage' (and how I hate the abuse of that old English word 'gay'), in the real world are people who want to enter into an open sexual relationship of any kind going to expect a C. of E. priest to bless it?
  • Where is the mention of an open sexual relationship?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Putting aside the issue of 'gay marriage' (and how I hate the abuse of that old English word 'gay'), in the real world are people who want to enter into an open sexual relationship of any kind going to expect a C. of E. priest to bless it?

    I don't think many are complaining about the idea that Anglicans think marriage is supposed to be a long-term relationship. Hence I am not sure what you mean by your statement.
  • Interestingly there is far more, and more vocal, bishoply dissent than usual this time. Rachel Treweek first and then at least half a dozen other bishops have come out on social media and elsewhere to condemn the timing, lack of consultation and crass presentation of this guidance. I’m interested by that as it’s a marked contrast to the closing ranks round the party line we’ve seen over the last few years. Those involved in the awaited Living in Love and Faith work seem especially angry that this has preempted and undermined that (having said which, I hold out little hope that that will be other than the usual fluff memorably summarised by Catherine Fox as “God loves you. God loves you very much - but you must never ever have sex”
  • ...and apologies for double post. But, for me, I really don’t think I can stay any longer. There doesn’t seem to be a place for me, as a gay woman, in a church which treats me with consistent and patronising contempt.
  • Thanks, @CJCfarwest, for that timely reminder that some, at least, of the Pointy Hats have retained a modicum of common-sense, and are prepared to stand up and admit the fact.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Putting aside the issue of 'gay marriage' (and how I hate the abuse of that old English word 'gay'), in the real world are people who want to enter into an open sexual relationship of any kind going to expect a C. of E. priest to bless it?

    Are there any other changes in the meaning of words over time than you find objectionable, or only those used as a shorthand for intimate relationships between same-sex couples? In any case, the terms "same-sex marriage" and "equal-marriage" are ready and waiting.

    I join with others in wondering what "open sexual relationships" have to do with the price of fish.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    People who want open sexual relationships tend not to want to get married. Those, of whatever orientation, who want to declare their commitment to one other person may.
  • People who want open sexual relationships tend not to want to get married. Those, of whatever orientation, who want to declare their commitment to one other person may.

    In my experience, most couples in open sexual relationships have been married. That being said, I’ve only known of one that had a religious wedding. I’m also not aware of the actual sociological data on the topic, though.
  • Truth be known, my son ran afoul of the ELCA Council of Bishops. He had graduated from seminary. While he was on internship, his partner--now wife, who was ordained in the United Church of Christ (USA)--came to live with him. When he applied as a candidate for ordination, the plan was they would get officially married before he accepted his first call. The Bishops disagreed. They had long held that a candidate needs to be married before one is eligible for a call (if in a relationship.) They held up his application. He and his partner were very hurt. They eventually got a civil marriage. The Council then accepted his candidacy.

    My son then accepted a call. Before he was installed at that congregation, he and his wife then had a religious ceremony they had long planned. I have to say it was a beautiful ceremony at Flathead lake in Montana.

    Religious or civil, in the US it seems that weddings are more and more destination weddings; at lakes, in barns, at vineyards.
  • Why is the suggestion of so-called open marriage being raised? Even the archbishops aren't suggesting that people in civil partnerships are choosing that because they wish to be promiscuous.
  • by Blahblah
    I generally disagree with that. I think it is the state's business to encourage long-term relationships, so it makes sense to try to encourage marriage, in as many forms as are required.

    Yes the state will want to encourage long-term relationships - but a plural state needs to be doing so in a way broadly neutral between different religions/philosopies.

    Whereas the Christian Church ought not to be a state church in the first place, and this tangle is just one of the many reasons why....
  • by Blahblah
    I generally disagree with that. I think it is the state's business to encourage long-term relationships, so it makes sense to try to encourage marriage, in as many forms as are required.

    Yes the state will want to encourage long-term relationships - but a plural state needs to be doing so in a way broadly neutral between different religions/philosopies.

    Whereas the Christian Church ought not to be a state church in the first place, and this tangle is just one of the many reasons why....

    I agree with your second para but your first appears to be the opposite of what you said previously.
  • A state that doesn't want to dedicate itself to a particular faith must do its best with a balancing act of the various beliefs and philosophies that exist within it, plus of some degree of practicality to avoid total anarchy. It will I think end up with something like 'marriage' but as I suggested on a fairly flexible basis, resulting in various stable legal relationships but not only about sexuality.

    Trouble is that as things have developed we've not done a proper sort-out of appropriate principles for a fair plural society, but simply a long dragged-out reluctant retreat by a church determined to hang on to the rags of its former worldly influence.
  • One think that really bugs me is that many years ago - when I was actually young - one of the arguments I heard against homosexuality was that there was a culture of promiscuity among gays - that they didn't tend to form committed stable relationships*.

    So when they are actually prepared to enter into a comitted relationship with each other, to still reject them feels especially shitty. Almost as if the church is homophobic. Rather than seeking truth.

    *I have no idea if this was true even then. Bear in mind, this was before AIDS. And we will ignore the fact that many young heterosexual people were promiscuous as well - it was just becoing more common at the time.
  • Gracious RebelGracious Rebel Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    BroJames wrote: »
    ISTM that there are two issues around the blessing of civil partnerships.

    ....
    The second (IMHO separate) issue is the question of what kind of provision should be made for a covenanted relationship which doesn’t include a promise of sexual fidelity.

    Even if the first question (gender of the participants) was not there, the church would still want to address the second.

    Various people here have expressed puzzlement as to why this discussion has expanded to include open relationships. I suspect it is a reaction to this post at the foot of the previous page. Probably a misunderstanding of the post actually, which to me was just saying that civil partnerships don't have to have vows.
  • One think that really bugs me is that many years ago - when I was actually young - one of the arguments I heard against homosexuality was that there was a culture of promiscuity among gays - that they didn't tend to form committed stable relationships*.

    So when they are actually prepared to enter into a comitted relationship with each other, to still reject them feels especially shitty. Almost as if the church is homophobic. Rather than seeking truth.

    *I have no idea if this was true even then. Bear in mind, this was before AIDS. And we will ignore the fact that many young heterosexual people were promiscuous as well - it was just becoing more common at the time.

    I think promiscuity probably was a prominent feature of "out" gay culture at the beginning. This makes a certain amount of sense - why would people willing to tell society to shove its opinions about who they have sex with not also ignore opinions about how many people they have sex with? Also, male promiscuity has only ever really been frowned upon in theory, men have been able to sleep around for centuries with little more than tutting, compared with attitudes to women. If both parties are similarly unconstrained then, quelle surprise, you get more sex. Add in no risk of pregnancy to give folk pause, and an absence of role models (because closeting) for long term stable relationships and you have a lot of drivers towards promiscuity. Social acceptance has allowed stable relationships to grow and flourish.
  • It isn't complicated; no religious group should be forced to conduct marriages just because the state does. If/when the state had laws for "open marriages" churches can decide not to conduct them. That's a continuation of current practice.

    The complication is when you have a State church. In that messy situation, the established church wishes to retain a quasi-state role in registering marriage but somehow thinks it can claim special dibs on deciding who to marry.

    --

    Maybe there are some in the Anglican church who want the church to recognise "open marriages". I doubt that it really overlaps significantly with those who are homosexuals and want to marry.
  • Apologies if I have misunderstood the background to this affair. As I said, I understand why, in view of the rooted objection to the marriage of same-sex couples in some quarters, the 'Civil Partnership' was invented as an alternative term. Now we have heterosexual couples wanting to enter into civil partnerships because, they say, they object to the 'patriarchal overtones' of conventional marriage. I took that to be an objection to the concept of 'headship', in the fist place, which for the majority of Christians has no place in a marriage today, certainly not in a civil marriage, and in the second place to the idea that in marriage the couple 'possess' each other to the exclusion of others. In a civil partnersip, as has been said, there are no vows, and the implication seemed obvious. If I have inadvertently caused offence, I apologise, and withdraw.

    Is there any reason why a priest or minister should not pray for the couple's happiness,provided this was not in the context of 'public worship'?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Apologies if I have misunderstood the background to this affair. As I said, I understand why, in view of the rooted objection to the marriage of same-sex couples in some quarters, the 'Civil Partnership' was invented as an alternative term. Now we have heterosexual couples wanting to enter into civil partnerships because, they say, they object to the 'patriarchal overtones' of conventional marriage. I took that to be an objection to the concept of 'headship', in the fist place, which for the majority of Christians has no place in a marriage today, certainly not in a civil marriage, and in the second place to the idea that in marriage the couple 'possess' each other to the exclusion of others. In a civil partnersip, as has been said, there are no vows, and the implication seemed obvious. If I have inadvertently caused offence, I apologise, and withdraw.

    Is there any reason why a priest or minister should not pray for the couple's happiness,provided this was not in the context of 'public worship'?

    Of course not. But then there is no reason not to pray for that in the context of public worship either, beyond the privacy of the couple.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Apologies if I have misunderstood the background to this affair. As I said, I understand why, in view of the rooted objection to the marriage of same-sex couples in some quarters, the 'Civil Partnership' was invented as an alternative term. Now we have heterosexual couples wanting to enter into civil partnerships because, they say, they object to the 'patriarchal overtones' of conventional marriage. I took that to be an objection to the concept of 'headship', in the fist place, which for the majority of Christians has no place in a marriage today, certainly not in a civil marriage, and in the second place to the idea that in marriage the couple 'possess' each other to the exclusion of others. In a civil partnersip, as has been said, there are no vows, and the implication seemed obvious. If I have inadvertently caused offence, I apologise, and withdraw.

    Is there any reason why a priest or minister should not pray for the couple's happiness,provided this was not in the context of 'public worship'?

    Apology accepted for the implication of promiscuity among those who want a CP.

    BUT, why on earth should prayers for a CP couple not be in the context of public worship? Dear Lord, are we returning back to the idea of a "love that dare not speak its name"? I hope not.

    The people who have been the public face of those campaigning for CPs for straight couples have been very sincere in their wish and the reasons for it: their rejection of the patriarchal nature of marriage: the whole notion of a bride being "given away" by her father; the adoption of the (invariably) husband's name by the wife, etc, etc, etc. Not one of the people who have ben campaigning have expressed a view or wish for a CP because they want something that shows anything other than wholehearted commitment to the relationship. For the bishops, or anyone else for that matter, to imply otherwise is, IMHO, scandalous and tells us far more about the bishops' views on marriages, what keeps people together, etc, than any mealy-mouthed statement about pastoral support, never mind the supremely offensive use of the word sensitively in the context of a statement that makes clear just how uninclusive, unchristian and unpastoral they really are.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Apologies if I have misunderstood the background to this affair. As I said, I understand why, in view of the rooted objection to the marriage of same-sex couples in some quarters, the 'Civil Partnership' was invented as an alternative term. Now we have heterosexual couples wanting to enter into civil partnerships because, they say, they object to the 'patriarchal overtones' of conventional marriage. I took that to be an objection to the concept of 'headship', in the fist place, which for the majority of Christians has no place in a marriage today, certainly not in a civil marriage, and in the second place to the idea that in marriage the couple 'possess' each other to the exclusion of others. In a civil partnersip, as has been said, there are no vows, and the implication seemed obvious. If I have inadvertently caused offence, I apologise, and withdraw.

    Is there any reason why a priest or minister should not pray for the couple's happiness,provided this was not in the context of 'public worship'?

    Of course not. But then there is no reason not to pray for that in the context of public worship either

    And there's an argument from tradition for including such prayers in the context of public worship.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    I strongly suspect that this whole sorry farce does not stem from any pastoral motive, but is just virtue signalling from conservative bishops to their conservative supporters.

    Hence bishops now distancing themselves from pastoral guidance supposedly issued in their name.
  • No, not issued in the name of all bishops, just the two archbishops.
  • Not only on sexuality but on many other issues the CofE is in a fundamentally conflicted position because of its 'established' status.

    It has to on the one hand be God's church, standing for the original (=biblical) teachings of the faith, and at the same time has to justify its claim to be a national church, a church for everybody in the nation, and justify the status and influence it has as such.

    It is therefore torn two ways, now that it is no longer able to just persecute dissent but has to seek voluntary adherence/support/etc. It is under the pressure to uphold the basic faith and at the same time it is under pressure to be acceptable to, well, the whole nation. If it's not saying things acceptable to all, it can't really be the national church; but if it throws over the original faith and stops believing it, then it has nothing special to offer anyway.

    And so long as it's trying to do both essentially incompatible things at once, it's going to end up being rather incoherent and contradictory. The correct answer would be to cut loose from the state connection and free itself from the pressure to "let the surrounding world squeeze it into its own mould" (Romans 12/2 Phillips version), and accept the status of an independent body standing for basic Christianity, seeking only voluntary adherence, and giving up a worldly status and influence it should never have had.

    At the moment they're trying to have it both ways, and that's ultimately a lost cause

  • Part of the trouble stems from bishops falling into the same trap as some of the laity and claiming that all sorts of things are teachings of Our Lord when they just aren't. For example, I've been told by a bishop that the encounter with the woman at the well "proves" Jesus was anti-divorce and anti-gay :astonished:
  • Surely, in the context of the present marriage service, there is no requirement for the bride to be 'given away' by her father (Meghan Markle wasn't). And wives aren't required to adopt their husband's surname (two of my daughters didn't). These are just matters of tradition. A greater discouragement from marriage, in my opinion, is the accretion of so much flummery and show (hen and stag parties, lavish receptions, 'favours for guests, etc.) which have accreted around today's formal weddings. A Dutch friend, invited to an English wedding, was very surprised. 'Such things are not needed in my country.'

    On public worship, I had in mind the promise to use only authorised forms of worship. Of course, we do pray for those getting married in our Sunday services when banns are called, but I haven't heard of prayers being said publicly for people entering into Civil Partnerships. I must enquire from those with knowledge of these matters.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Surely, in the context of the present marriage service, there is no requirement for the bride to be 'given away' by her father (Meghan Markle wasn't). And wives aren't required to adopt their husband's surname (two of my daughters didn't). These are just matters of tradition. A greater discouragement from marriage, in my opinion, is the accretion of so much flummery and show (hen and stag parties, lavish receptions, 'favours for guests, etc.) which have accreted around today's formal weddings. A Dutch friend, invited to an English wedding, was very surprised. 'Such things are not needed in my country.'

    The cynical side of me says (re flummery) that far more effort is spent on the wedding than on the actual marriage IYSWIM.

    I just wish the bishops would wake up to the obvious fact that they do NOT speak for the whole church, let alone the country.

    (Which country, BTW? The C of E doesn't include the Church of Ireland, in NI, and the Republic, the Church in Wales, or the Scottish Episcopal Church. What, I wonder, is the position of the bishops of these sister churches? Another thread, perhaps?)

  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Surely, in the context of the present marriage service, there is no requirement for the bride to be 'given away' by her father (Meghan Markle wasn't). And wives aren't required to adopt their husband's surname (two of my daughters didn't). These are just matters of tradition. A greater discouragement from marriage, in my opinion, is the accretion of so much flummery and show (hen and stag parties, lavish receptions, 'favours for guests, etc.) which have accreted around today's formal weddings. A Dutch friend, invited to an English wedding, was very surprised. 'Such things are not needed in my country.'

    The cynical side of me says (re flummery) that far more effort is spent on the wedding than on the actual marriage IYSWIM.

    I just wish the bishops would wake up to the obvious fact that they do NOT speak for the whole church, let alone the country.

    (Which country, BTW? The C of E doesn't include the Church of Ireland, in NI, and the Republic, the Church in Wales, or the Scottish Episcopal Church. What, I wonder, is the position of the bishops of these sister churches? Another thread, perhaps?)

    Not difficult to work out in the case of the SEC given that all but 1 of the bishops voted in favour of allowing all marriages, including those of same sex couples, to be solemnised in church.
  • And the Church in Wales is likely to follow suit soon.
  • Part of the trouble stems from bishops falling into the same trap as some of the laity and claiming that all sorts of things are teachings of Our Lord when they just aren't. For example, I've been told by a bishop that the encounter with the woman at the well "proves" Jesus was anti-divorce and anti-gay :astonished:

    I'd be willing to bet my house that they have never ever made the same kind of comment about polygamy. Which apparently is fairly accepted by some Conservative African Anglican bishops, I understand.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Surely, in the context of the present marriage service, there is no requirement for the bride to be 'given away' by her father (Meghan Markle wasn't). And wives aren't required to adopt their husband's surname (two of my daughters didn't). These are just matters of tradition. A greater discouragement from marriage, in my opinion, is the accretion of so much flummery and show (hen and stag parties, lavish receptions, 'favours for guests, etc.) which have accreted around today's formal weddings. A Dutch friend, invited to an English wedding, was very surprised. 'Such things are not needed in my country.'

    On public worship, I had in mind the promise to use only authorised forms of worship. Of course, we do pray for those getting married in our Sunday services when banns are called, but I haven't heard of prayers being said publicly for people entering into Civil Partnerships. I must enquire from those with knowledge of these matters.

    I had none of those things and was married in a small non-conformist chapel with a reception for family in the village hall.

    If there is any firm link between wedding excess and Anglican services (which, honestly, I doubt) there are plenty of models of church weddings where it does not happen.

    I can't really see why you are so focussed on civil partnerships. I'm fairly sure that same-sex and now mixed-sex couples who want civil partnerships are not doing it for the reasons you seem to think they are.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited January 2020
    I believe it took a court case to get hetero civil partnerships, because the government were arguing they were going to ditch the system having introduced equal marriage - so there was no point in widening the scope.

    I don’t know if that’s still the plan, but it does suggest from the state’s perspective it’s a distinction without a difference.

    If the CofE maintained people in registry office, non-religious, marriages should not have sex - that would be theologically consistent. Their current position just seems ridiculous - as if the primary theological issue is word choice rather than the nature of the relationship.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    edited January 2020
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Part of the trouble stems from bishops falling into the same trap as some of the laity and claiming that all sorts of things are teachings of Our Lord when they just aren't. For example, I've been told by a bishop that the encounter with the woman at the well "proves" Jesus was anti-divorce and anti-gay :astonished:

    I'd be willing to bet my house that they have never ever made the same kind of comment about polygamy. Which apparently is fairly accepted by some Conservative African Anglican bishops, I understand.

    Personally, I believe multiperson marriages should be legal under civil law - provided all existing members of the relationship consent and are present participating in the ceremony.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited January 2020
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Surely, in the context of the present marriage service, there is no requirement for the bride to be 'given away' by her father (Meghan Markle wasn't). And wives aren't required to adopt their husband's surname (two of my daughters didn't). These are just matters of tradition. A greater discouragement from marriage, in my opinion, is the accretion of so much flummery and show (hen and stag parties, lavish receptions, 'favours for guests, etc.) which have accreted around today's formal weddings. A Dutch friend, invited to an English wedding, was very surprised. 'Such things are not needed in my country.'

    The cynical side of me says (re flummery) that far more effort is spent on the wedding than on the actual marriage IYSWIM.

    I just wish the bishops would wake up to the obvious fact that they do NOT speak for the whole church, let alone the country.

    (Which country, BTW? The C of E doesn't include the Church of Ireland, in NI, and the Republic, the Church in Wales, or the Scottish Episcopal Church. What, I wonder, is the position of the bishops of these sister churches? Another thread, perhaps?)

    Not difficult to work out in the case of the SEC given that all but 1 of the bishops voted in favour of allowing all marriages, including those of same sex couples, to be solemnised in church.
    And the Church in Wales is likely to follow suit soon.

    Thank you, both. I'm glad to hear that there are at least some sensible bishops around.

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.

    I'm reminded of the following limerick:

    There was a Young Person of Lyme,
    Who married three wives at one time.
    When they asked 'Why the third?',
    He replied 'One's absurd -
    and bigamy, Sirs, is a crime
    !'.

    I'll see meself out.
  • I believe it took a court case to get hetero civil partnerships, because the government were arguing they were going to ditch the system having introduced equal marriage - so there was no point in widening the scope.

    I don’t know if that’s still the plan, but it does suggest from the state’s perspective it’s a distinction without a difference.

    If the CofE maintained people in registry office, non-religious, marriages should not have sex - that would be theologically consistent. Their current position just seems ridiculous - as if the primary theological issue is word choice rather than the nature of the relationship.

    Yes, they seem to tie themselves in knots, since they accept civil marriages as valid, so sex is OK, unless you are gay, when civil marriage becomes not OK, and also civil partnerships should be celibate, since it's not marriage. Oof, what a muddle.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.

    Why ?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    In English law adultery is a ground for divorce in any marriage (same sex or opposite sex). It is the corollary of an expectation of sexual faithfulness within marriage and it implies that sexual relations are part of the expectation of a marriage.

    In civil partnerships there is no concept of adultery and while some people may enter civil partnerships as ‘marriage without the cultural baggage’, others may enter for quite different reasons. Civil partnerships have no inbuilt expectations about either sex or sexual fidelity.

    Even if the Church of England changes its view about gender and marriage, I would be surprised if it changed its view about sexual fidelity within marriage, or indeed its view that sex belongs within a lifelong commitment to one another in faithfulness

    I think it will remain the case that the Church will be unwilling to bless a relationship where there is an expectation that the partners will be sexually active with each other unless there is also a promise of fidelity.
  • Yes, I daresay that will be so, when (or if) the ostriches remove their heads from the sand.

    One wonders, though, just how many of these 'open' sexual relationships there actually are...adultery goes on, of course, as does promiscuity, but...
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.

    Why ?

    It almost always involves enslavement of women. To the extent that it should never be encouraged.
  • Wait, so people in civil partnerships are declaring that they want to be promiscuous?

    I never knew that. Shows how much I know..
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.

    Why ?

    It almost always involves enslavement of women. To the extent that it should never be encouraged.

    Fair point. The Mormons spring to mind to this Westerner (am I correct?), but no doubt there are other examples, from other countries/cultures.

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I think it is very wrong and should not be encouraged by any civil authority and should be condemned with at least the passion wasted currently on homosexual relationships by church figures.

    Why ?

    It almost always involves enslavement of women. To the extent that it should never be encouraged.

    Not having a legal framework means that wives other than the first have few legal rights. It also massively complicates life for stable polycules to have to create their own legal frameworks to deal with parental rights or responsibilities to each other in the event of breakdown. I can see practical grounds for not having >2 person civil marriage but I'm not convinced of a moral case against it.
Sign In or Register to comment.