Comments: Private Members' Motions

The first 2 motions would cancel each other out wouldn't they?

The first would greatly benefit the lesbian and gay members of the Church and their families, friends and colleagues. It would go some way to improving the image of the CofE with the rest of us.

The second (CP) is unpleasant and snide. (Also hilarious, coming from Southwark diocese -- where so many clergy are gay , and always have been. One of the C of E's gay bishops was even exported from Southwark ). I wonder if the minister who proposes it intrudes into, and interferes in the relationships, family life and sex lives of his parishoners ? If so, few of them will be coming to his services.

Posted by laurence roberts at Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 12:36pm BST

I also note that civil partnerships - a sign of committed gay relationship - has been highlighted, and the resoplution appears to be saying that people known to be in a civil partnership in the laity should be restricted from the Eucharist.

Of course, those shagging about like rabbits, hetero or homo, would be fine, then. Its only those willing to make a public commitment who would be in the firing line.

Posted by Merseymike at Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 6:45pm BST

Yes, Mike the C of E officially prefers one night stands to living together, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us do part.

No-one can hide an on-going relationship -- whereas a quick shag.....

How well I remember when a lay member of the South London Industrial Mission (SLIM) Council realized I had a dark secret, when he found out that my partner's 99 year old bed-ridden grannie, lived with us. He proceeded to try to get the 3 of us turfed out onto the street.


Motion 2 on CP

is incompatible with 'Issues in Human Sexuality'. I think they are trying, quietly to distance themselves from even the rather condescening recognition of lay-gay relationships and love-making. I don't think the New Leaders of the Anglican Communion would approve of such wilde liberality !!

Breaking your word

is central to all this --it started with the murderous maniac known as 'Henry 8', and has continued ever since. Rowan Williams has broken his word. His lecture to LGCM., his co-authored letter to LGBT people after the Lambeth Conference; and his words to the lesbian & gay clergy consultation, at the Royal Foundation of S.Cathereine, at which I was present.

Rowan, if you're there --- it's no good saying, "I was a professor trying out some ideas."
You were & are, a minister, and teacher with a duty of personal integrity, and of care, for the lesbian and gay people your talk was addressing, and encouraging.

What are those of us who have been following that teaching of yours for some decades, by now, supposed to do, --- now that you have had second thoughts ?

You can not treat people like this.

Posted by laurence roberts at Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 9:47pm BST

Well of course if queers are actually not people like you and me and the other person over there, you can actually treat them any way you like, short of the most orthodox historic examples of brutal religious violence displayed in a public square.

For some reason which new conserve believers never bother to adequately explain, despite the clear literal meanings of the Leviticus commandment about the death penalty, that sort of brutality in public has gone out of fashion, even with people who are dead set against all the queer stuff.

It is not so much that I value that brutality as that I continue to remember how short a time ago it was the core norm. Just how the classical orthodox new conserve believers actually get around the precedent of brutal violence still puzzles and amazes me. The new conserve claim is simple truth and high logic to compel conformity among us all, so glitches like this in the tapestry of straight/queer domination arrangements only call our attention to the underlying merit of the supposedly water tight common sense logic being used to read scripture.

Calling queer folks about every bad name in a culture's book of bad sayings is still permissable, though less often permissable in formal public speech than it ever used to be. Except maybe among the most new conserve members of this or that world religion, with a big tip of the hat to the so-called Abraham traditions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Punishing queer folks for trying to be the best partner they can be, lifelong, seems patently obvious to the new conserve position - though perhaps less obvious to others. Ooops, I think I lost my grip again, so tell me, just how is it ethical to discourage committed ethical relationships? To Punish People for having them? To Encourage the Down Low Phenomenon in various sexual or romantic demi=monde subterranean milieus while officially ignoring the real impacts of all your high-mindedness?

If committed queer partnership innately threaten the value of man/woman marriage, maybe committed relationships between unbelievers also threaten orthodox new conserve religious marriage in something very like a similar way. Could there could be lots of unconformed relationships which we ought to criminalize and punish just as much? Could permitting adoption possibly threaten the merit of biological parenting?

Posted by drdanfee at Friday, 22 September 2006 at 4:52am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.