Comments: more on the civil partners pensions debate

AM response typically weaselly.

There seems to be a decided tension between the avowed intention of the Giddings amendment (to offer the same level of care to those who have been housekeepers, eg aunts uncles, etc) and the declaration of continuing hostility to the vote.

SURELY if AM were as concerned with 'justice' as the Giddings amendment suggests (\irony) they would applaud the progress made this week in that direction......

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 3:25pm GMT

Mr. Giddings' unsubtle attempt to undermine the Bill seems singularly lacking in Christian Charity. Perhaps he should be ordered by his Bishop to enter fully into the uncoming Lenten Fast - preferably with sackcloth and ashes and only the minimum of food and water. But (thinks), who is his Bishop? Not Winchester?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 14 February 2010 at 5:01am GMT

Oxford, and more exactly, the Reading area.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Sunday, 14 February 2010 at 9:08am GMT

"The conservative case against Rowan Williams, then and now, is exactly the same as the liberal case in his favour: he argues that the question of how well two people love each other is much more important than what they do with their bits, naughtily or otherwise. - Andrew Brown, Guardian -

This is a very nice way of putting the whole dilemma of the outcome of G.S.'s vote to allow generous pension rights to same-sex clergy partnership survivors. I'm glad that Jeffrey John's partner will now at least benefit from his supportive relationship with the Dean of St. Albans. It's about time he was given a similar privilege allowed to heterosexual partners of clergy who, for the most part, have been a source of love and support to their long term beloveds.

Having agreed that same-sex partnerships might well be within the perquisites of the clergy, perhaps the Church will begin to understand the further ramifications of a different standard of accommodation of their sexual relationships. To pretend that all same-sex partnerships are - or even should be - celibate, is a form of subtle hypocrisy that the Church could well cease to insist upon.

After all, heterosexual relationships are given by God to enable a couple to enter into a deeper more loving partnership than is otherwise possible - quite apart from their capacity to reproduce. Should same-sex couples be denied this share in God's provision? Or is the gift of sexuality only given by God to heterosexual and married couples?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 1:42am GMT

"Screams of homophobia . . . "

Wow. That's some reprisal.

I'd much prefer losing my job, having no pension, no support for my spouse, being pilloried at every turn, and possibly physically assaulted.

We gays just don't understand the pain and sacrifice of these strong, brave orthodites.

Seriously, are any of them above the age of 15? That's what all of their complaining, self-pity, and delusions of martyrdom sound like. And, honestly, most adolescents I've ever known were far stronger, more self-giving, and nowhere near as self-pitying as these great "orthodox defenders of the faith." I just imagine these "martyrs" during the reign of Domitian or Nero -

"Colosseum?! Why no sir! I'm not one of them stinkin' Christians! I can tell you who *is*, though!"

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 5:23am GMT

'"Screams of homophobia . . . "

Wow. That's some reprisal.'

It doesn't usually stop 'em - does it ?
Truth to tell Synod has been too restrained for that, so far. That is so isn't it ?

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 9:36pm GMT

"Truth to tell Synod has been too restrained for that, so far. That is so isn't it ?"

The weakness of progressives - and I speak of one - is our confusion of "tolerance" and "indulgence." We've seen that line blurred and then destroyed by conservative rationalizing, and so fear putting a firm foot down. It looks as indecision, but it's really a terror that we may be "doing what *they* do."

The truth is, boundaries are a good thing, a healthy thing, and boundaries have to be drawn by liberals, as well. One of the boundaries we've failed to draw is what constitutes rational and compassionate behavior. Another is how far we'll bend to accomodate those who feel uncomfortable with change and experimentation.

God is limitless, but we are not, and when we talk about infinite tolerance on our part, we are trying to take God's role, and the result is not tolerance but indulgence and nourishment of bad behavior. In this, the conservatives are right, but are wrong in where - and why - they wish to set the boundary.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 17 February 2010 at 6:43am GMT

Truth to tell Synod has been too restrained for that, so far. That is so isn't it ?"

The weakness of progressives - and I speak of one - is our confusion of "tolerance" and "indulgence." We've seen that line blurred and then destroyed by conservative rationalizing, and so fear putting a firm foot down. It looks as indecision, but it's really a terror that we may be "doing what *they* do."

I think this is very true. Thank you. And I know I struggle with it, personally, myself.

My openness inter-personally and spiritually may be the undoing of me, but I tend to think that in my own idiom, it is 'the doing of me' or the making of me.

I am finding that I believe more and more, in less and less. And this brings me a good deal of joy now, but it does me being prepared to go on dying --or at least going out with the tides towards death or life ... no guarnatees.

Does'nt mean, as you rightly imply, always letting the fearful sh-t on me. Only sometimes ...

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Friday, 19 February 2010 at 5:22pm GMT
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.