General Chat

Noticed in my local paper that a minister CofS has retired because a
minister who is gay has been accepted into the church and he feels
this is wrong. He hopes his congregation will walk out with him and come
worship in his house.
Must add that this is not the first gay minister appointed to my town.
There was a bit of controversy when the first one was appointed but
his congregation are delighted with him and apparently he gives a good
sermon. Wonder how he stands on same sex marriage and would he be
allowed to perform the service. Maybe stupid question but am not very
knowledgeable in these topics, know a little.
Emma :-)

well seems to me that as gay people obviously attend church, why should there not be a gay minister

Exactly and why is a big thing made of the fact that they
are gay, and if the church accept them as such why is the
church against same sex marriage.

and the minister who has resigned displays a complete lack of Christian values

One of my very good friends from work is married or made a thingy commintment to a Vicar their marriage has been accepted.

Although I could be wrong, the Established Churches accept homosexual Ministers, as long as they agree to be celebate. Hmm - that must be awful for the Minsters concerned, if correct.

Despite the various views, I'm still against the word 'Marriage' being used for same gender Civil Partnerships. Its the religious connection with the vaste majority of faiths condoning same gender relationships.

Partnerships were only introduced 9 years ago; I think that it is too soon for 'Marriage' to be introduced. In the meantime, make sure that both 'Married' and 'Partnered' couples have the same rights under the law.

Give it another 10 years, then may be.

It is good to see that OP appears to have changed considerably from her position of 5 days ago. I never suggested she had a complete lack of Christian values 5 days ago. I would rather she did not accuse others of that because they feel as she did 5 days ago (see first post on thread)

St Paul suggested celibacy for all in Christian ministry was best (Cointhians) That sexual marriage for having children was second best. And any other sex gave churches problems of cohesion. And he was writing to Greeks as well as Jews in those new churches - and Greeks behaved in a very unrestrained way outside those infant Christian churches in Thessalonica, Ephesus and Corinth.

What people who have no firm religious base do is entirely their free will in this country, as long as within law. Anything can be made to appear good and respectable if the basic foundations of society are undermined.

I do not have a problem with gay 'marriage' if they are committed Christians being denied the opportunity to marry in a church obviously they are being discriminated against.

I think the word 'marriage' makes people less comfortable with the concept simply because it has always denoted a man/woman union.

Once the general population has got past that I can see the ministry being more accepting. Of course, there will always be some ministers who will refuse to perform the ceremony. You can't force them and shouldn't try. However, if the gay couple attend their place of worship regularly that would undermine any objection to marrying them.

I hope that makes sense.

Ministers who either voted no or abstained shouldn't be regarded as homophobic, maybe some are. Maybe some think it's rather too soon after civil partnerships were granted as Det said.

In the light of all the problems the UK has at present I really do think there are more important social issues to be addressed. Once this proposal has been passed in law, and I'm sure it will be, then ministers can get on with attacking the economy and not gay rights.

I think DET has it spot on...maybe just not enough time for folk to digest it so soon after the civil ceremony being introduced.

I had no idea until this thread what the actual differences were between the proposed marriage and civil ceremony ! ..though my original view still remains the same...as long as no one is forced into performing these ceremonies against their will..and no one is forced into marriage against their will..then i consider it to be none of my business x

and when you say "I never suggested she had a complete lack of Christian values 5 days ago" tell me where I accused you of that - the idea of a debate such as this is to be enlightened by other people's points of view - I do not have a closed mind and I have not changed my point of view from my opening post

you, on the other hand, do have a closed mind

by the way, I was under the impression you were leaving this thread - another one of your lies again

When Civil Partnerships were introduced, there were conflicts.

Reported at the time, a Registrar with a strong Christian faith refused to conduct a partnership ceremony. She was certainly Disciplined, and possibly sacked. It wasn't as if she had taken the job after Civil Partnerships were permitted!

http://goo.gl/OYl6k

He loves the limelight whether it be good or bad - typical of narcissistic behaviour.

I disagree but DET I fully respect your opinion, for me I can not see the difference if it a marriage a union or commitment or even United front but like Muffy and I suspect many others I didnt know the difference untill now, I thought it was a marriage already and that became legal 9 yrs ago.....with regards waiting 10 yrs I can not see why they should have too, its 2013 the world moves on and changes all the time, if we all want to live as one then we must learn to accept one and another as equals...thats just my opinion :-D

No problem Hayley :-D

Agree with Chris .

I can't get my head round some of it to be truthful.
Accepted as gay Christians , accepted as gay ministers,
but not accepted as in a same sex relationship wanting to
marry. :-S

Thank God for Emma......mwahhhh ((( hugs))) me neither :-D

Chris, only when it suits and it's his version :-(

Thank gawd I'm not alone :-D :-D

~~~~ Hayley ...Welcome Back :-)

>>>>>>>>>scarpers before I open me big gob!! ;-)