Changing Attitude has published a lengthy and detailed analysis on the number of civil partnerships of Church of England members reported to it. You can read the whole report here: Changing Attitude reveals results of Civil Partnership Survey.
They report a total of 87 Anglican events out of an English total of 14,084. (UK total 15,672). (That’s 0.6 % of the English total.)
The official national statistics can be found here.
Hi Simon
Have you seen this yet ? http://www.forwardtogether.org.uk/
Dave
The national figures are very encouraging — and those for the C of E a disgrace.
Well, I for one wanted absolutely no part for the church within my civil partnership – it was a wonderful day, something to cherish, and I certainly didn’t want an institutionally homophobic organisation having any part of it. The involvement of the church would have been entirely superfluous.
Dear Merseymike, people who don’t think Civil Partnershiops are rght for Christians are not necessarily homo”phobic”. You have moral beliefs that some other people’s sexual desires and behaviours are wrong, and to be discouraged; yet I presume that you don’t think that you are “phobic” of those people. Are you morally superior ?
ps You’ll also have to avoid more than just the CofE. The Scottish Episcopal church has just overwhelmingly rejected Same Sex Blessings: http://www.forwardtogether.org.uk/
Dave
I’m sorry that is incorrect. The body that is mentioned on that website is the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, not the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Thanks for the correction Simon. 🙂
And, Dave, you really do need to recognise the contemporary use of the word homophobic, and the nature of institutional homophobia. Go away and do a bit of homework and then you may be able to make a valid contribution.
Dear Merseymike, do you actually hate people whose sexualities you see as abusive or disagreeable ? Or do you just reserve to yourself the right to judge which sexualities may not be criticised – without being “phobic”.
I thought The Archers episode last Thursday, and repeated in today’s omnibus, of Adam and Ian’s special day and how it was received was very true to our times. The sheer pleasure, joy or good will of most people. The struggles of their fathers with the problematics of masculinity and its tension with the reality of ‘fatherhood’. In the end, these two farmers of an older generation, manage to put theri sons’ happiness and well-being before their own conditioning. I think this soap both depicted how our society is now, as well as exploring the feelings and issues of those… Read more »
You sound like one of those people who still complain about ‘gay’ not meaning purely those who are happy, sportive and cheerful, Dave! The term homophobia has long been used, colloquially, in a much broader way that in its initial psychological roots. No matter how much you may wish to look to the past in language as well as religion, that remains the case. Whilst you continue to actively oppose equality for gay people and actively support discrimination against them, both of which you do, then your attitudes can be viewed as homophobic. similarly, the church is institutionally homophobic, given… Read more »
Dear Merseymike Your labelling of people who don’t approve of same-sex sex as “homophobic” seems to me to be in danger of inciting hate and vilification of Christians. There are, in my view, four broad levels of opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal”: 1. People who fear or hate people who are LGB – and attack, villify or incite persecution against them. This is completely un-Christian. As you know we are under an obligation of love towards everyone – even our enemies and the worst types of criminals. 2. People who say that same-sex sex is a one… Read more »
Quite simply, you either believe that gay people and their relationships should be treated as equal to straight people and their relationships, with regard to the civil law , society and within your organisation. If you don’t do this, then you display some degree of homophobia, which simply equates to ‘anti-gay’ in common parlance. It may not be a particularly ‘good’ word, but its the one which is most commonly used, and it doesn’t bother me – indeed, the only people it bothers are those who like to make out their position is not anti-gay, using religion as an excuse.… Read more »
Dave – you cannot debate when the meaning of words are being revised…..waste of time
This is the meaning of the word in everyday life, NP. By attempting to hold on to an older, more rarefied but obsolete meaning, debate can be ignored by concentrating on the meaning of words rather than the actual actions which illuminate the genuine attitudes.
Dear MM and NP, the word “homophobia” is just being used to vilify people, and to justify irrational exclusion of debate. You need to find a more loving and inclusive way of expressing yourself – in a measured and respectful manner – or you could be acused of hate-speech. You would object pretty strongly to being legally obliged to speak and act as if polygamy were equivalent to monogamy – with legal threats of police investigations and civil suits! If you were then accused of polygamy-phobia every time you tried to explain your position you would begin to walk in… Read more »
Its not ‘my’ word, Dave. Its simply the word in common parlance. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but language is a dynamic thing! It simply means ‘anti-gay’ or ‘not regarding gays as equal in matters such as relationships and moral worth’ or ‘wishing to actively discriminate against gays’
You fulfil all those criteria, Dave. Tha’ts why the word can legitimately be applied to you.
And yes, it doesn’t ‘sound nice’ but then, discriminatory opinions don’t sound nice either.
Dave wrote: “Your labelling of people who don’t approve of same-sex sex as “homophobic” seems to me to be in danger of inciting hate and vilification of Christians. There are, in my view, four broad levels of opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal”“ You are mixing things again, Dave. The trouble is not your “of opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal”“, but your of opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality. The fact that you cannot accept a fact as a fact, without squeezing it into your little Hierarchy of Neo Platonist Values, first. And, since a… Read more »
Dave – I thought I was supporting what you were saying!
Anyway, the ABC has made it clear he does not fall the for the screams of “bigot” or “phobia” which some people use, because they cannot argue their position from the bible, to try and silence mainstream, traditional, clearly Biblical, Christian values…..
“homophobic” is a stupid, illogical word, and it is deployed in a fairly obviously political way, as a catch-all term, to label and shame critics. It always carries moral – and now criminal – censure. It’s straight out of the playbook of ‘1984’. Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour! But MM – I’m sure you don’t think language is set in stone. Anyone with a hint of historical awareness, let alone a knowledge of diachronic linguistics, knows this isn’t so. Just consider how and why the words ‘bastard’ and ‘nigger’ have become so freighted in recent years. “gay”… Read more »
I actually DO have a knowledge of diachronic linguistics, which is why I have little time for those who seem to think it a great sin that ‘gay’ now means homosexual, as though the language has been somehow highjacked. Language changes, it always has, I often wonder when was the last time some of these people ‘prevented’ someone at church. As to ‘homophobia’, do you understand the damage caused by the way Conservative Evos preach their message? Not the message itself, but the way it’s preached. Why do Evos seem to think that they can preach their message in whatever… Read more »
Again, Steve, you may not like ‘homophobia’, but I think its because it actually shames conservatives and reveals them for what they are. No wonder they don’t like the word! Of course it is used politically, because the prejudice of anti-gay organisations and individuals is deeply political. Prejudice should certainly be censored.
I’m the one who has been saying that language isn’t set in stone, Steve. Haven’t yopu read the thread?
Ford – I would completely support you in being against some of the oppression you mention above.
I just struggle with ordaining people who say the bible is plain wrong on issues they pick – whatever that issue.
People on TA take very seriously (and quite rightly) what the bible says on justice and the poor….but then want to reject its authority when inconvenient. That is not satisfactory, I am afraid……but this is not supporting prejudice or discrimination in the workplace or society, I hope you will agree.
MM: I can’t find the phrase ‘set in stone’ in your posts (it’s in mine), but at least we are agreed that language usage changes over time, and always has. Often I wish it didn’t so we didn’t have to keep revising Bible translations, or explain Shakespeare to our children – or even Yeats (‘I have heard that hysterical women say/They are sick of poets who are always gay’). I am glad also that you agree that the use of the recent neologism ‘homophobia’ is a political tactic used to shame and silence opponents of an ideology – which is… Read more »
Dear MM, I don’t really expect that you will change your belief that same-sex sex is any thing other than equal with male-female sex. Though I think that, if you thought about it, you could probably identify several reasons why that is not factually correct. And I could begin to enjoy the spectacle of you calling someone “homophobic” and your “enemy” after they have just said that they are determined to love you, even though they disapprove of same-sex sexual behaviour! I have had friends who are divorced and remarried, some who were living together outside marriage, and the occassional… Read more »
Oh, agreed – I don’t share Tatchell’s outlook at all. I’m much more mainstream.
Nothing to do with behaviour, Dave. Identity, personhood, relationship. Until you grasp this, you will continue to speak in your usual homophobic way. And you will continue to be marginalised – just as the Church is today.
“People on TA take very seriously (and quite rightly) what the bible says on justice and the poor….but then want to reject its authority when inconvenient. That is not satisfactory, I am afraid……but this is not supporting prejudice or discrimination in the workplace or society, I hope you will agree.”
What ever makes you think this has to do with “convenience”?
A forged translation is a forged translation.
So, I do think this is suppporting prejudice and discrimination. It’s Social and Political, nothing to do with the Bible.
O, Dave, I so do hope you will leave these meaningless anecdotes!
They cannot be verified either way.
Dave (and others): OK, Homophobia may not be the right word (or it may be, we’ll see). Let’s try another: Heterosexism. It means believing that and acting from the premise that being heterosexual is superior, better, more (insert your adjective here) than the lives and experience of gays and lesbians. It relates to terms like ageism (believing that the older members of society, their perspective and wishes, are less valuable or valid than younger members of society) or nativism (believing that the views and perspectives and lives of immigrants are somehow less valid than those who are native born) or… Read more »
Dennis wrote: “OK, Homophobia may not be the right word….. Let’s try another: Heterosexism. It means believing that and acting from the premise that being heterosexual is superior, better, more (insert your adjective here) than the lives and experience of gays and lesbians.” Dear Dennis, “Heterosexism” would certainly be an improvement over an extremely abusive term like “homophobia”. However, most “-isms” such as racism or sexism are predicated on the idea that *people* of one race or sex are inherently better than those of another. I think that most conservative thinking anglicans wouldn’t think that people of a homosexual orientation… Read more »