Mandy Ford Together for the Church of England Dean of Bristol sends message to the Bishops
Sermon preached by the Very Revd Mandy Ford at Canterbury Cathedral, 14th December 2025
Trevor Thurston-Smith The Pensive Pilgrim A Fearful House?
Alice Goodman Prospect Clerical life: We priests need our turnaround time to get our heads straight
Mandy Ford speaks of “the days when a feast may not be a wedding, but can look a lot like one, because one day there will be weddings!” That is just where the problem lies for those of us who wish to affirm and celebrate committed same-sex unions while also upholding the Church’s doctrine of marriage. Once the CofE solemnizes same-sex marriages, our teaching will have changed for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. The goods of permanence and fidelity can remain, but the good of offspring cannot. This is an aspect which posts on TA often treat less than seriously.… Read more »
Sorry, but there are two problems with this argument.
Recognising same sex marriage does not change the definition of marriage from what we currently have. Offspring are a fruit of marriage but not essential to marriage.
Since the late 70s our modern rites of marriage have ordered the good of offspring after the goods of permanence and fidelity in recognition that the latter goods are the foundation in which children can flourish. The procreative good remains, without which humankind would soon cease to have a future. However, if the woman is past childbearing age, or if either party is infertile, their marriage as no less a marriage; similarly if a couple choose not to have children as it would risk the mother’s wellbeing or pass on a genetic condition. But the analogy between such couples… Read more »
Handmaid’s Tale anyone?
1662 BCP
Of course, 1662 also recognized (keeping up with the earlier books as well) that a woman could be “past child bearing” and the prayer for offspring be omitted — so the Preface to the rite notwithstanding, the C of E “doctrine” of marriage has always included recognition of the fact that procreation is a “gift” when possible, but far from an essential element in marriage. It is, rather, as the Book says, a “cause” for the creation of the institution of marriage; not a necessary element in every marriage.
But heterosexual people who are rather too old or infirm do specifically lack the capacity for procreation. They certainly belong to groups whose nature is such that many members of one do have that capacity in partnership with many members of the other. But group membership doesn’t seem to mark an essential difference on the moral level between pairs of individuals, who do have the socially vital ability and capacity to nurture children together and may be rather good at it. I don’t want to deny recognition and honour to people like that, in Christian or other terms. Some may… Read more »
Capacity for procreation can include surrogacy and adoption where a same-sex married couple achieve acquiring a family.
But is, say, adoption a consequence of a “capacity” for procreation?
I’m not sure if a child looking for a loving home cares less about “capacity” and “consequences”.
No, but often an expression of capacity to nurture children
‘Angels dancing on a pin ‘ argument if I ever heard one. We have three sons. Two “adopted ‘ and one home grown. We also,at a time, fostered 13, some long term, some long term. It’s very clear to me that the capacity for procreation extends far beyond anything that goes in the womb into the wonderful, stressful and rewarding business of parenting which continues into adulthood. The ‘bank of Mum and Dad” proves the case!
This more than amply fulfills the good of ‘being open to the gift of children’. But as I asked in an earlier post, is being open to the gift of children an intrinsic part of the ‘landscape’ of gay marriage?
Could be. Fostering and adoption arrangements apply to gay couples and heterosexual couples. Married and Unmarried. Which to me, highlights the core of the knot that the church has got itself into over the whole LLF debate. We speak as if we’re the sole authority on this matter, oblivious to other disciplines that inform societal development and treat Scripture as if its a car manual or a cookery book out of which we can draw our own pet theories and practices. Of course. Gay fostering and adoption placements fail. As do heterosexual ones. So do marriages and civil partnerships. Family… Read more »
Amen to that, FrDavid. My daughter and her wife have two sons (now 15 and 9); both of them are my daughter’s children, born by means of the wonders of modern technology (and from the same donor). They are being brought up in a home where they are loved and guided, and are also surrounded by an extended family that loves them like crazy. My brother and his wife, having tried for years to have biological children, eventually adopted a girl and then a boy, both of whom are now young adults. My brother and his wife obviously lacked the… Read more »
I am not sure where you get this from in the bible? Genesis 2 is often claimed to the biblical ‘definition of marriage’. If so then we may note there is no procreation in the Garden. No children play in the cool of the evening there. There are no children until they are in exile from the garden, after the Fall. What are we to understand from that?
A blessed Advent Ember tide to all. Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals, I wonder? LOL! Her is a an excerpt from an article about Neil Ormerod. The link to the entire thing is in my comment back on the December 13th thread. ” ‘We can no longer simply narrate the Garden of Eden story as if it’s something that happened in the way it’s depicted literally: the first humans were not living in a lovely garden; their conditions were harsh and survival-oriented.’ ‘The whole salvation and redemption narrative hangs on how we understand original sin.’ Neil argues that meaning-making is… Read more »
How does Neil Ormerod actually know that? Mountain gorillas spend their lives in lush rain forests, eating bamboo and messing around. Why would a supposedly more intelligent species make such a hash of their lives that they instead lived in harsh and survival-oriented conditions, when if they’d just taken it easy and stuck to the bamboo, everything would have been fine? Perhaps Adam and Eve were gorillas!
“How does Neil Ormerod actually know that?”. The answer is in the article I referenced. In brief, collaborative research, and specifically archaeology. The last line in my comment, (a lengthy citation from the article) Ormerod is referencing a book by fellow scholar Tom Hughson SJ titled, Neanderthal Religion? Theology in Dialogue with Archaeology. Did you have opportunity to actually read the article? I said it was in a comment of mine in the December 13th thread; but for convenience I have included the link again below. With a handle like ‘rerum novarum’ I thought you would be interested in the… Read more »
Yes, very interesting now that I’ve read it. I very much value catholic thought, as it has a depth and connection with church history that we sometimes struggle to match.
i still think my point is fair though – the other primates have carved out pretty decent lifestyles for themselves, so if Adam and Eve were living in a Mad Max-type wasteland, you’ve got to wonder why.
I was shocked not that long ago to learn that, while the RCC generally accepts the Theory of Evolution . . . they still somehow believe in a literal Adam&Eve! 😮
On the RCC, you may be interested in the article linked below, Catholic Scientists: Adam and Eve and Evolution. However, instance the 1662 BCP tradition: ” holy matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency..” . This is myth constructed upon myth. My comment about a neanderthal Adam and Eve was intended to be a tongue in cheek comment noting what happens when attempts are made to harmonize etiological myth ( Adam, Eve, Paradise, and ‘original sin’ which is also myth constructed upon myth) with evidence based hypothesis about the origins of human… Read more »
Dos the book mention St Augustine’s views on science? That Christians may make themselves look ridiculous?
I would say that Augustine’s theological legacy is the more problematic issue. I am currently wading through Diarmaid MacCulloch’s, Lower than the Angels. MacCulloch notes that Augustine, a crucial influence on western Christianity, was not greatly aware of what his Greek contemporaries were thinking, and his knowledge of Greek philosophy was ” at one remove”. It’s his section, From Jovinian to Augustine, found in the above mentioned. Ridiculous presentation has many possible grounds. For example, MacCulloch gives St. Jerome his due homage as a biblical scholar while at the same time remarking, with a sense of the drole, on Jerome’s… Read more »
My post was not informed by Genesis 2 (nor, for that matter, by Genesis 1), but from Church teaching – notably Augustine and the BCP. Two sources which would have been informed by a breadth of Scripture.
How can your post, expressing strong beliefs on the Christian understanding of marriage and procreation, claim not be informed by Genesis 2? It is a central text in ‘Church teaching’, the BCP and Augustine’s tortured beliefs about sex, children and the Fall. It is surely more true to say your views on marriage are informed, at least in part, by Gen 2, as taught by the BCP service and Augustine.
David, as someone who has admired your courage in preaching (strong beliefs?) on this vexed topic in socially conservative rural Devon parishes, I should nonetheless point out that not being an Evangelical means my approach – even when it reaches similar conclusions to yours – is likely to differ. If asked to name one Bible passage as the basis for a Christian theology of marriage (and one reflected in our historic and contemporary rites of marriage), it would be Ephesians 5, particularly verses 29b to 32. This is not to dismiss Genesis 2 – it is as you say taught… Read more »
How does extending marriage to gay people change the Church’s teaching on heterosexual marriage? It changes it not one jot.
Fr, I look forward to hearing you declare to a same-sex couple “It is given as the foundation of family life in which children may be born and nurtured.”
Hopefully soon.
Greetings Alan – the connection is now clear! I have to say I found rural Devon churches welcoming and progressive on this. I get your concern to stress the importance of childen. In the inclusive networks I have been part of I have never known this downplayed. But I have to note that Ephesians 5.29-32 makes no mention of children in marriage – any more than marriage pre-fall Gen 2 does. This is the more surprising as Paul is outlining a Christian Household code there. So I am not sure of your appeal to those verses to support your conerns.
And greetings, David! Like you, I look back fondly on my Devon days. I’m very happy to defer to your scholarship on Scripture, with the proviso it is best heard in conversation with tradition.
The understanding of marriage that we find in the Bible often includes polygamy
Indeed. I was responding to the more specific claims of Mr Sheath.
David is incorrect. The call to be fruitful and multiply is from Genesis 1. And Gen 4 continues the story of Gen 4.Don’t cherry pick in Scripture. Jesus didn’t.
I was clearly speaking of Gen 2 – the Garden narrative. I have read Gen 1 actually. How the two very differrent stories relate is another discussion. ‘Gen 4 continues the story of Gen 4’ needs clarifying.
‘Don’t cherry pick in Scripture. Jesus didn’t.’
Um – yes he does. ‘Thus he declared all foods clean.’
Wrong. Jesus was not cherry picking. He was giving a dominical ruling declaring kosher rules no longer binding. Enjoy your Christmas ham. With or without cherries.
In other words, he was authoritatively setting aside portions of the word of God in the Hebrew scriptures, because they did not jive with his interpretation of the will of God.
Works for me, because I agree with C.S. Lewis’ view of scripture and its relationship to Jesus (see my blog post at https://tachesterton.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/c-s-lewis-on-the-bible-2/).
Wrong again. Jesus was stating that there were dispensations under the Mosaic ls which served a time-limited function which came to an end with the coming of the Messiah. It’s the same reason why we don’t we have animal sacrifices today – not because they are wrong and cruel but because what they signified under the Old Covenant no longer applies after the Cross. It will be fascinating to see if the Jews ever rebuild the Temple (they would have to knock down the Dome of the Rock first), if anyone tries to reintroduce animal sacrifices. As for Lewis, I… Read more »
Except that nowhere in the Mosaic law does it imply that they were time-bound.
So what? Jesus is Lord.
So because Jesus is Lord, he’s allowed to pronounce on which bits of the OT are the word of God for all time and which bits are time bound, but he’s not a cherry-picker.
Okay.
Sorry, I find Lewis’ view much more sensible and logical.
I’m not sure we need to be so absolute. In some cases, where Jesus set aside some Mosaic law, it was because he took a ‘pastoral’ view, and could see that not all laws are at the same level.
As someone who has written a commentary on Genesis my answer David to your question would be that there is intended to be a strong link between ‘knowledge of good and evil’ and sexual intercourse (or more generally creative powers). And the reason Adam and Eve need to get turfed out of the Garden after eating the fruit of that tree is because sexual intercourse leads to (lots of) children. And if they still remain in the Garden they (and their progeny) will be able to eat of the Tree of Life and thus live for ever – and God… Read more »
Claire, isn’t there more than just a “hint”of mesopotamian myths here. As someone who only looked at Genesis closely only after spending time with mesopotamian and Greek myth, all I can see in the Genesis Eden narratives are reflections of what is elsewhere. I can’t help seeing parallels between the Genesis “apple” story and the story of the Priestess Shamhat, Enkidu and Gilgamesh, where it is the sexual encounter between man and woman which triggers some form of transformation in Enkidu, from an unconscious wild man at one with the animals into a self-aware human. To me there are parallels… Read more »
The church accepts IVF, including forms of IVF which use eggs of sperm which are not from the couple who will bring up the child. “Nurture” is not restricted to a biological child. Many same sex couples are now nurturing and bring up children, and often, children who desperately need a home. I have had children, and I realise that this is a particular gift and expression of love, but more and more I also see and learn that there are (and always have been) many ways of bringing up children, and above all, offering them a loving home.
When my mother died, I spent two pre-school years in the loving care of two ladies who were probably gay. My one regret is that I was never able to thank them as an adult. However, is the nurture of children an intrinsic part of the gay ‘landscape’? I’m not sure that it is.
I don’t think implying that gay people are less likely to be parental helps anyone – do you have any proof that it’s *not* part of our “landscape”? Given the barriers to adopting children that are, I believe, put in the path of gay couples, I don’t think it’s a correct assumption to make. How do you know it’s intrinsically part of the straight “landscape”? Lots of straight people these days give back the fruits of their marriage to the community in a capacity outside of child rearing. I don’t think that’s any less valuable.
I know many male same-sex couples, and although none have any plans to adopt, most “give back the fruits of their marriage to the community in a capacity outside of child rearing.” Like you, I don’t think that’s any less valuable – just not one of the goods of marriage.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but what the Prayer Book actually teaches is that one of the purposes of marriage is ‘for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.’ To suggest that ‘procreation’ can be separated from ‘in the fear the nurture of the Lord’ is to disconnect the ‘Christian’ distinctive from ‘marriage’ as a general human good (ie a creation ordinance). In the Church we are not concerned simply with ‘marriage’ but with ‘Christian marriage’ which has a number of concomitants, one… Read more »
This is a huge question for an established church post-Christendom, not least given our poor record in handing on the faith to our children. Historically, it has suited the CofE very well to emphasise marriage as a creation ordinance, given our virtual monopoly on it, not to say our legal obligation to marry most comers. Genesis 2 is customarily cited as scriptural support, but now taken up by opponents of same-sex unions to affirm traditional marriage as God-given while denying God’s blessings on permanent, faithful, stable same-sex couples. Ephesians 5 is the one scriptural basis for a Christian theology… Read more »
Well argued. When I go to Battersea Park (I go often to jog around the paths) there is a big sign at the entrance advertising facilities for marriages. I am always struck by the wording on the poster ‘for the modern couple’, although apparently there is also the ability to have religious ceremonies. Not sure why a couple who worship regularly at a church would want to have a marriage outside of that church. Funny things, folk. Do couples still need to attend church for the reading of the banns? Do clergy still provide pre and post marriage counselling for… Read more »
Why is that any of your business? Something about a log in your eye, yada yada?
Please correct me Rosemary if I am wrong but Im not sure the Church of England has a defined position on Artificial Insemination by Donor or surrogacy. Given the recent case where a man who donated sperm resulting in around 200 conceptions who inadvertently passed on a genetic defect causing many of the children to develop cancer at a young age, perhaps it is time to have an open discussion in the church about the moral, ethical and theological issues involved.
” The capacity for procreation remains essential to the form of marriage, even when unfulfilled” I think this is called having your cake and eating it; the dog is installed permanently in the manger. (It’s also a rather insulting argument for heterosexuals; they are reduced to breeding farm animals, but that’s bye the bye.) If the marriage doesn’t involve procreation, it’s still a marriage because the capacity is (theoretically) there, even if it isn’t. If the marriage isn’t permanent, it’s still marriage because the couple intended it to be when they married and it had the capacity to last, even though… Read more »
I’m sorry, but to me you just have a idiosyncratic hang-up. Same-sex couples have children All. The. Time. (“Mombians” “GayDads” anyone?). The fact that these children aren’t procreated in these same-sex couples’, well, “marital acts” (I almost said “intimacy”, but in fact their procreation can be VERY intimate!) is a bizarre hill to die upon (how many heterosexual acts of procreation in marriage were less than perfectly consensual? Did any clergy ever inquire?) We’re all sinners. ALL of our marriages are imperfect. Every marital partner has sinned “in the marriage bed” a time or three (even if just by being… Read more »
May the peace of the Christ-child be yours this Christmas.
And with you—including the peace that comes from genuine dialogue-in-Christ.
A man and a woman who choose not to have children are going against the clear teaching of the Church, marriage is for the procreation of children and a creation ordinance.
That sounds like it should be compulsory for same-sex couples to acquire children.
Not everyone has a vocation to be a parent.
Not everyone has a vocation to marriage. All Christians have a vocation to holiness.
Indeed. And marriage is a temporary arrangement. No one will be married in heaven.
“A man and a woman who choose not to have children are going against the clear teaching of the Church…”
Is this a joke?
Ever heard of Humanae Vitae?
Ever heard of Anglicanism?
Mirabile dictu, yes I have. For the assistance of the hard of thinking, my point was that to dismiss as a joke the idea of the Church (in the widest sense, surely subsisting in the Catholic Church) insisting on the openness of marriage to procreation, was either perversely mischievous, or stunningly historically and theologically ignorant.
Ever heard of the Branch Theory?
I earnestly pray for the Roman Catholic Church to re-establish communion w/ the Anglican Communion (Abrogating Apostolicae Curae. And with the AC willing to graciously offer the Bishop of Rome, in return, Primus Inter Pares.)
I thought it was fairly standard teaching in the RC church, unless circumstances dictated otherwise?
I remember when I told my dad of my intentions to marry a woman who already had two children, his only question was ‘do you intend to have more children?’.
If your primary concern is to increase the birth rate then that is evidence for same-sex marriage rather than against. Other posts on this thread have pointed out that many same-sex couples bring up children, either their own through IVF and surrogacy, or other people’s children through adoption. Turning to evidence from animal behavioural studies, it would seem that such same-sex childrearing is “natural”. There are many examples, mainly in birds, where same sex male couples have “adopted” abandoned eggs and successfully reared them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphen_and_Magic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/flamingo-dads-san-diego-zoo There is a lot of research into this area, triangulating animal behaviour studies, ethnography… Read more »
Actually, Simon, my primary concern was not increasing birthrate – welcome though that might be. I’m not sure the estate of marriage can be reduced to the achieving of goals; the ‘goods’ are good because they participate in God’s loving purposes for his people. And children are one consequence of that.
Let’s expand the debate.
If a couple came to you and said:
would you agree to marry them?
I don’t quite see the point, myself.
Good question!
First couple: I’d marry them (God has a habit of mocking people’s plans).
Second couple: this sounds vaguely cultic, so I’d probably seek my Bishop’s advice.
Third couple: I’d marry them.
I’m not sure whether I intended an AND or an OR between the questions! I have an old friend who insisted many years ago he would never have children. He got married and divorced after a few years. No children by common consent. Move on a few years and he married again, and had children. Probably not an uncommon experience. No doubt the RC church would have annulled the first marriage. The second one – it is surely not uncommon for two people to be good friends but have no sexual attraction for each other? Or maybe they start with… Read more »
Principles vs Pastoral. Most of us live in the space in-between.
BTW, childlessness is not grounds for annulment in Rome.
Here’s another situation. A friend in his sixties got divorced and married a woman in her thirties, she’s younger than his children from his first marriage. My friend now has two sons, one from each marriage, the older son is 46, the younger son is 6 and they’ve never met. My friend continues to procreate just because he can.
The House of Bishops’ Pastoral Guidance on Marriage has: “The inability or even the decision not to have children does not invalidate a marriage, nor preclude it from being celebrated in church.” Even an anti-natalist position need not amount to the rejection of a good of marriage — unless it comes from a cult that denies procreation as intrinsic to the nature of marriage (Augustine allowed for marriage without an intention to procreate as long as the couple did not actively reject children).
I read Alice Goodman’s article in the 10 minutes between two demanding meetings. It’s not just clergy who need to reset, and it’s an extraordinarily useful discipline to cultivate and stick to.
I was very shocked by her reference to the Clergy Malt Club. Surely, all the best clergy drink gin. In industrial quantities.
Au contraire, Fr Dexter—all the best clergy drink Yorkshire Tea!
Yorkshire Tea is fine in the mornings!
Only the middle-of-the-road clergy, surely? Fino or manzanilla are more BCP.
Just reporting the facts, gentlemen! GIN, whisky, Yorkshire tea, cooking brandy, and all manner of other beverages seem to be consumed (and photographed) after midnight mass. Though I myself like an occasional fino or manzanilla after Evensong, as suggested by M. Tomlinson.
Reading through many of the comments on whether or not priest should/could agree to marry couple in church makes terrific argument for registry office.
From my perspective, the question of who we should marry can feel a bit academic. In my eight years in my current parish there have been just two weddings, and I know that other churches nearby that once celebrated many weddings now do far fewer than they once did.
Agreed. My goal in participating in discussions on whom priest should/should not marry was mainly to expose how ridiculous the arguments can seem. Particularly if we then start looking at the proportion of humans in each category. Read something this morning about an operation on a man who was born without a penis I think GS need to start a working group to discuss CoE policy on whether he should be allowed to marry ore not, and whether to a woman or a man. It might take a few decades. Real life is never perfect, and individual priests should be… Read more »
That I do find surprising. Yours is a traditional looking church with an attractive interior and plenty of grass outside for the photographs. I don’t get as many here as I did back in the early noughties, but there were still four here this year, and this in an inner suburban church in a very Muslim area. Very few weddings are from the parish though. The few weddings I do are almost all from white working class Oldbury where most of the c of e churches are barely functional or from black working class Winson Green where two of the… Read more »
I have found the discussion of procreation in marriage that Allan Sheath began interesting, although I was disturbed by the negativity shown by some contributors to having children, as if this were some sort of imposition on our freedom and dignity. No one has yet made the point that the child of a married couple is the fruit of their union. All sorts of couples, gay or straight, groups or single people can be wonderful parents. To bear one’s spouse’s child, however, is a particular gift of marriage and a fruit of the sacramental sexual act which consummates it. Although… Read more »
Many thanks, Alison Milbank, for a theologian’s reflections. I began this thread by saying that once we solemnize same-sex marriages, our teaching on marriage – opposite-sex as much as same-sex – will have changed. This is no trivial, second order issue (although some appear to treat it as such). Try saying the CW marriage Preface over an imaginary same-sex couple and the absurdity of it will soon become evident. Of course, a ‘unisex’ Preface could be written, but let’s be clear: by ignoring the tradition of the undivided Church we would be changing the doctrine of marriage for everyone and… Read more »
Are people actually arguing that same-sex marriage services should be identical to opposite-sex ones? One thing can be very much like another without being the same, as Dr Milbank suggests above. I don’t see how adding a category, which is effectively what homosexual marriage would be, alters the existing category of heterosexual marriage. No philosophical assumptions about men and women need change, no theological points or comments on ontological realities. One is simply bolting on something different and charitably calling it by the same name. Is any thinking person really going to not see the difference? At least, that’s how… Read more »
I would love to see, as I’ve said before on TA, a fully worked-out public liturgy that affirms and celebrates the covenantal personality of committed same-sex relationships; a rite that blesses both the individuals and their unions. I can see no threat to marriage as the Church has received it from such a rite. Having begun the thread, I’ve felt obliged to reply as far as I’m able and in good faith to most of the points raised. However, the tenor of some posts (not yours!) has been such that my defence of trad marriage is almost an impertinence. So… Read more »
The changes you would need would be so minimal that everyone would see it was indeed a marriage in the word’s current sense
This is the one used in our Diocese of Edmonton, Alberta.
https://dq5pwpg1q8ru0.cloudfront.net/2023/11/08/12/37/48/63a45dc4-da1c-4f65-98fe-52cdf7ae0ad2/Gender%20Inclusive%20Marriage%20BAS.pdf
I admire the Canadian rite for the way it begins “Marriage is a gift of God…” omitting the reference to “..in creation” in the English rite. This plays down marriage as a creation ordinance, allowing it to be seen in the order of redemption. I recall the Root Report of many years ago claiming there is no such thing as Christian Marriage, only the marriage of Christians. But given our history as England’s marriage broker, we would say that, wouldn’t we!
‘Charitably’ expresses a great deal of contempt. I read with grief
It wasn’t intended to express contempt, merely to recognise that people’s feelings on the issue of terminology matter. I’m perfectly content in my CP; others will have a different felt need and the term ‘marriage’ will mean a lot to them regardless of the real differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It’s worth saying that ‘difference’ does not, and should not, imply inferiority. However, implying that no difference exists is simply to ignore reality.
If the difference is that the word expresses recognition of reality in one case but is said to express generosity or charity in the other then what is really expressed is contempt
These kinds of arguments and dancing on pins gets excruciatingly tedious.
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”
[does anybody else find the opening chapters some of the funniest in all literature? The absurdity of people.]
Similarly, all marriages are alike, all marriages are different.
I do not mean to express contempt, therefore I am not expressing contempt. Your perception is your own. Likewise, if you choose to believe a man and a woman marrying is the same as two men or two women marrying, you are free to do so. I tend to think the Queer theorists (and many queer/LGBT+ people) who perceive their relationships as fundamentally different to straight ones are correct. Marriage between two men or two women is simply not the same as marriage between a man and a woman- and for reasons which go far beyond ones already discussed in… Read more »
Marrying a couple of the same sex is of course a major change of practice, but not of fundamental doctrine. It is comparable to the Church’s decision to ordain women. That decision also ignored the tradition of the undivided church and was presented as a dramatic change, but has it in fact changed our understanding of priesthood? Most members of the Church of England would say not – if anything, it has strengthened and enriched it. Equally, solemnizing same-sex marriage has not changed the doctrine of marriage in our American, Canadian, Scottish and Scandinavian sister churches – if anything, it… Read more »
Thank you, Jeffrey John, for this – you’ve caused me to reverse (temporarily) my vow of silence! I echo your views on women in the priesthood, indeed I’ve always seen an inclusive presbyterate as the corollary of baptism – if we won’t ordain women as priests (and bishops), then we should make baptism ‘boys only’. Regarding same-sex unions, back in the day when I was AffCath convenor for Exeter Diocese, your ‘Permanent, Faithful, Stable‘ was my go-to bible. I see that in a subsequent edition you changed your mind on ‘marriage’ as not the right word. I would love to… Read more »
The priestly ordination of women changed who may preside at the altar but without changing our eucharistic rites. Same-sex marriage would entail liturgical change. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Wishing all on TA a blessed Christmas.
FWIW, I didn’t see this at all. I think the most negativity is in the modern capitalist state (I speak particularly of the USA context) making it so bloody difficult, socio-economically, to have children…
I see nothing but positive attitude towards having children around here, just very reserved attitudes about gay people and procreation
There’s nothing metaphorical about the procreation of children who are raised by a same sex couple or about their adoption. If you mean that only metaphorically can the relationships where this happens be called marriages – that is the point at issue. There is considerable sameness on the literal level, especially the experience of the child being nurtured and the mutual commitment of the adults. If you say that this is not enough for the term to be used I would disagree, as would the national majority that has given these relationships the same legal status. (You would disagree with… Read more »