If the heterosexual community sees itself (and the sacrament of marriage) as being harmed or threatened by the possibility of blessing same-sex unions, whether physically or not, is this not an equally important side of the issue?
If white people in Vancouver "feel" they get a raw deal in university admissions owing to an "Asian invasion," even if they cannot support the assertion, aren't those "feelings" equally important? Remember that we are talking about allowing people into said sacrament: is the implicit assumption that it will be tainted? What is the alleged harm?
Considering that about 1/2 of homosexual "marriages" are what is termed an "open marriage" (meaning that adultery is the norm) means that the very concept of marriage is damaged!
A red herring. No redefinition of the monogamy requirement is proposed. Same gender couples must submit to the same obligations of Christian marriage as anyone else.
Truth of the matter is that God's Word does not change, nor will it ever, just to suit our purposes or the year we live in. It should be our ultimate Map & Guide, these types of issues are to be subservient to its Truth. Why is it so hard to figure out that with its mercy, judgement comes hand-in-hand. This should not be an issue AT ALL. Yes I admit that is the 'narrow' view, but is it not part of our mandate to set an example to the world?
It is interesting how many people are citing the authority of scripture as a grounds for refusing a more compassionate approach to gays and lesbians. No one is advocating stoning adulterers, and the Anglican Church of Canada seems to have accommodated divorce and remarriage without too much of an assault on its conscience. Yet the “texts of terror” on homosexuality suit people’s prejudices, and so are retained.
The need to hold to biblical standards is more important than listening to the experiences of people.
An unwittingly apt encapsulation of the tragedy of the reasserter position: the text is more important than human souls.
The opening statement of this article is very misleading. It reads Once again members at next months General Synod (GS) will be asked to consider issues of human sexuality.This will mark our next step in the now 34-year journey of debate, study, and discernment that began with the commissioning of the first task force by the House of Bishops in 1976. Many, including the bloggers who have commented here, will interpret this statement to say that the issues which are facing our church today have been studied and debated for thiry years. That is just not the case.
In what sense is it not? The theology behind this began closer to 40 years ago, dating back at least to Pittenger's Time for Consent?
Most of those who see themselves as remaining faithful to traditional teachings of the Church and the guidance of Holy Scripture do NOT "hate" gays.
Homosexuality-as-sin was 2004; it's now 2010. We're not backtracking. Do reasserters believe if they don't mention the current position of the Anglican Church, liberals will forget about it? Right now, we acknowledge that these unions are holy yet refrain from blessing them, which is an inherently absurd position.