UK: house of commons votes in favour of gay marriage

Does that mean that any vicar or curate who does
perform one, automatically becomes a Dissenter?

Will this also mean that, in regard to Gay Clergy,
and Women Clergy, the Old Believers will be recognized
as Anglicans, and all those who would accept them,
will become Dissenters?

And what if these Dissenters become the Majority?

Pointy-Headed Liberal Map-addict

[quote="JimHacker"]
[snip -htm]
Incidentally, under this law the Anglican Church
is specifically banned from performing gay marriages
(this ban was to draw Tory support).

[snip - htm]

quote]

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Does that mean that any vicar or curate who does
perform one, automatically becomes a Dissenter?

Will this also mean that, in regard to Gay Clergy,
and Women Clergy, the Old Believers will be recognized
as Anglicans, and all those who would accept them,
will become Dissenters?

And what if these Dissenters become the Majority?

Pointy-Headed Liberal Map-addict

JimHacker wrote:[snip -htm]
Incidentally, under this law the Anglican Church
is specifically banned from performing gay marriages
(this ban was to draw Tory support).

[snip - htm]

quote]

Ooops, I slipped up. I've been spending too much time with Americans and called it the Anglican Church by accident. I did in fact mean mean the Church of England, to which the Anglican Church is obviously associated and is tenuously subordinate (so long as the C of E desn't actually try to order it to do anything).

Currently I believe The CofE allows both female and gay clergy but does not permit them to become bishops. The CofE had a rule against gay marriage anyway, the point of the law is that even if the general synod voted to allow gay marriage it would still be illegal. However, under the law other churches (even, fat chance, catholic ones), synagogues, mosques etc may perform gay marriages if they wished to but could not be compelled to do so. If they had a disgreement between the individual places of worship and the upper heirarchy then obviously that is between them.

I am an American.
I understand "Church of England" and "Anglican Church"
to be synonyms. If they differ, please tell us how.

Howard T. Map-addict

JimHacker wrote:
Ooops, I slipped up. I've been spending too much time with Americans and called it the Anglican Church by accident. I did in fact mean mean the Church of England, to which the Anglican Church is obviously associated and is tenuously subordinate (so long as the C of E desn't actually try to order it to do anything).
[snip - htm]

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I am an American.
I understand "Church of England" and "Anglican Church"
to be synonyms. If they differ, please tell us how.

Howard T. Map-addict

The "Church of England" is England's national church, and a major member of the Anglican Communion. Anglican churches in other nations are generally not part of the Church of England, but are led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and still part of the one organisation.

rmsgrey wrote:
The "Church of England" is England's national church, and a major member of the Anglican Communion. Anglican churches in other nations are generally not part of the Church of England, but are led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and still part of the one organisation.

Correct, but the archbishop is only ex oficio head: its mostly symbolic. De facto, he's more first among equals. Im 90% certain the law only applies to the CofE which is a good thing as i suspect that however much lip service the rest of the communion may pay to the archbishop of canterbury and queen as head of the church, they would throw a fit if they, let alone parliament, attempted to dictate their rules.

JimHacker wrote:And spacewiki: SSC? i'm impressed.

that what happens when i get so bored i spend 3 hours straight hitting the random button on wikipedia. all the interesting stuff you learn. And it could make a good benchmark for what could/should be allowed, as the limitations will work for everyone, no matter their preference.

Hi all,

My point on where to draw the line was not to equate gays with pedophiles, in most cases pedophilia is heterosexual. Older men and women and younger girls and boys.

Oddly society seams to wink at female on male pedophilia, and guys saying, "I should have been so luck at thirteen," when a forty year old female teacher has sex with a thirteen-year-old boy. Less so but often winked at older female on younger female. Older males having sex with either younger males or females is generally considered heinous. This kind of sexual discrimination even occasionally works its way into law.

As I correctly point out where does one draw the line? For instance in some states when two children the same age consent to have sex only the male is prosecutable for statutory rape.

Ah well I remember a line from the movie Oliver when a man was informed that the law assumed he was responsible for the actions of his wife, his answer, "The law, Sir, is an ass."

Poker

I also dont care whether someone is straight, gay, bi, polygamous, whatever, so long as they are all treated equally.

Polygamy is incredibly destructive to a society if practiced on a wide scale. We're starting to see the negative effects now of sex selection in India and China. Widespread polygamy produces the same sort of sex imbalance. The only reason Grayson was a stable society in Honorverse is that there was an exceptionally large number of females born for every live male birth. If they chose to fix their genes and allow more male births they will need to make polygamy a rare occurrence to maintain a stable society.

biochem wrote:

I also dont care whether someone is straight, gay, bi, polygamous, whatever, so long as they are all treated equally.

Polygamy is incredibly destructive to a society if practiced on a wide scale. We're starting to see the negative effects now of sex selection in India and China. Widespread polygamy produces the same sort of sex imbalance. The only reason Grayson was a stable society in Honorverse is that there was an exceptionally large number of females born for every live male birth. If they chose to fix their genes and allow more male births they will need to make polygamy a rare occurrence to maintain a stable society.

Funny thing about polygamy, is that not many girls seem to like it. As one girl i know said of it in a discussion our class was having on partner selection: "I have to share?!"
Yes the imbalance is pretty bad at the moment, but in 2 decades or so, expect it to be the other way as the 'worth' of females becomes much greater, due to the lack of them.
Agreed also on the fixing of the imbalance going to bite grayson in the ass at some point as well.

Spacekiwi wrote:

biochem wrote:
Polygamy is incredibly destructive to a society if practiced on a wide scale. We're starting to see the negative effects now of sex selection in India and China. Widespread polygamy produces the same sort of sex imbalance. The only reason Grayson was a stable society in Honorverse is that there was an exceptionally large number of females born for every live male birth. If they chose to fix their genes and allow more male births they will need to make polygamy a rare occurrence to maintain a stable society.

Funny thing about polygamy, is that not many girls seem to like it. As one girl i know said of it in a discussion our class was having on partner selection: "I have to share?!"
Yes the imbalance is pretty bad at the moment, but in 2 decades or so, expect it to be the other way as the 'worth' of females becomes much greater, due to the lack of them.
Agreed also on the fixing of the imbalance going to bite grayson in the ass at some point as well.

Obviously polyamory is not for everyone. But those who want to engage in it should be able to with other consenting adults.