Classic Anglican waffle. The bottom line is that he wants his supernaturalist notions of marriage to define civil marriage for others.
No thanks. And would you folk please get out of the House of Lords while you’re at it?
That’s a nice Thornton’s Chocolate Waffle with Toffee Sauce!
Very sticky….but that’s your position dear man….you are on very sticky ground!
I respect his honesty and his desire to find a solution that will make as many people as possible happy. Through dialogue we can bring the change we want, by writing him and others who are looking from a soltuioon from their side off there’s a risk of further alienation
Duncan, he’s personally against equal marriage. What could possibly make us happy unless equal marriage is legislated into law? All of those Tories who claim their constituents are overwhelmingly against it would vote no regardless even if the majority were for it. This has more to do with imposing a religious belief on a civil issue. These religious nutters believe civil marriage is the business of the church. It isn’t and never will be. His church is vehemently against it so I fail to see how people have to try and find a way forward? To where, he doesn’t elucidate beyond that. What he is probably saying is, we have CP’s, that should be enough, so get over it. NO, we won’t and no thank you.
I don’t respect anyone who doesn’t respect me. He thinks I’m less, my love is less and my relationships are less – and he is arrogant enough to decide he can judge me on all and have a “dialogue” on my life. I don’t want a dialogue on deciding what rights he’s entitled to – yet he thinks he’s part of a debate on mine?
He does not respect me, I do not respect him.
Sparky, it’s all about a penis and a vagina, regardless of the ability to breed. Same as the roman cult, obsessed with sex, especially the gay variety.
His honesty is one thing. His perception is something else. The legal state of marriage is nothing to do with his church. I can respect and disagree with his views as an individual, but he is not speaking as individual. He speaking as a Bishop and, I would say, abusing his platform of privilege in an attempt that his view carries more weight and validity than mine. His position does not even have value of being validated democratically.
“maybe we could call it something else?”
Why? Marriage is not fundamentally a christian based ceremony. We have equality all wrong. What we have are systems that decide who should be equal and for what purposes. I don’t believe that to be equality. I believe that to be privilege that is bestowed upon selected citizens only. Equality should be starting with the premise that all start equal and then, if we must, decide who is not deserving of equality. It would be a very different conversation.
What is *legal* marriage to do with him though? Dialogue would indeed be appropriate if the church was somehow being required to take part, but it isn’t.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no point in having dialogue with him. The only way out is to introduce equal civil marriage as planned. His thoughts and opinions don’t count for anything since his cult is banned from participating, so he should shut his mouth and stay out of it.
As for Tory MP Sarah Newton, what’s the betting she will now do an about turn and vote no I suppose. I’m also betting the consensus of opinion at the debate was negative?
Why enter a dialogue with people like this? do we need to discuss how many rights they’ll “allow” us to have? Maybe we’re worthy of a little respect – but not a lot! Not as much as NORMAL people after all.
NORMAL, believing civil marriage is the business of his cult? If anything, he’s delusional and in denial. My gaydar is also reacting a bit lookin at that photo of him.
They JUST DON’t GET IT-do they?
They can wriggle and wriggle and wriggle- but at the end of the day-all we want is EQUALITY and THAT means-in a word- MARRIAGE.
Its simple-and there is no amount of wriggling or procrastinating or arguing that is going to change that.
Actually, I think they do get it. They fully understand that there is not one rational argument against marriage equality. All they can do is sound like they agree in principle, and try to seem reasonable by raising one small objection: the term ‘marriage’. It’s as if the bigots from the southern states of the USA had said, ‘we have always sat at the front of the bus, so if black people want the same, they can sit at the “black front”, namely, the rear.
Let’s just call it “marriage”.
You can call yours “Holy Matrimony” if you so wish.
100% exactly what I was going to post. Well said!
“I say no, but let’s talk about it.” No, sunshine. You and your organisation have had ample opportunity “to talk” and all that happens is you come down on the side of inequality, oppression and screaming that you’re being oppressed whenever anyone challenges your bigotry. You are either in favour of equality, or you are not. The reason you are not is because of your book of fairy tales tells you that’s what you have to believe. Talking is a waste of time because if what is said contradicts what is in your book, you will disregard it claiming that the book has authority. My equality is not up for negotiation with blinkered bigots like you.
Marriage under any other name would just be a way of saying “your love is not as valid as mine”
“The issue is about trying to understand what this union of two people is about.
What, I say what, is so difficult to understand?
It’s the Church of England: they don’t agree with each other on anything, but have to pretend they have something meaningful to say for anyone else to take them seriously. To be honest, I prefer the Catholics: at least they have a consistent position that we can easily critique.
Unless they’re legally marriages, they are not generally recognised in other countries that do have same-sex marriage. This is not something we can resolve by altering our own laws; it could only be done with an international agreement to recognise civil partnerships as marriage.
Frankly, pushing for that is a complete waste of everyone’s time when you could just make it a legal marriage in the first place and be done with it.
Not to mention that the Church does not own the concept of marriage and should have no say in its legal definition. What they consider it to mean within their walls is their own business.
Ok, let’s call it something different to appease a bloke who lets face it wears to practise his beliefs a stunning embroidered sparkly frock to make a drag queen cry with envy ..
How about…’ Ecclesiastical Equality’
Well done to the Mp (I could almost forgive her for being a Tory) for trying to hold an open debate.
I live in Cornwall. I knew about the debate as did many of my gay friends. They & I did not attend due to experience of multiple incidents of Cornwall police homophobic conduct.
Equality & diversity is simply paid lip service by most institutions in Cornwall. In particular by some LGBT groups which simper to their fund masters & ostracise victims of institutional homophobia.
“The problem is that it doesn’t meet [some people's] desires and needs.”
Same sex marriage didn’t suit my desires and needs, so I didn’t have one.
Stupid reasoning again isn’t it? Equivalent to “I don’t have kids, therefore there should be no schools.”
Is it too much to ask for just one of these anti-equality people to come up with a decent reason as to why they are against this? Something that doesn’t boil down to personal prejudice?
They’re at their wits end because they weren’t expecting the quadruple lock which has isolated them, pushed them into a corner from which it’s going to be extremely difficult to get out. It’s diminished their power to some extent and they just don’t like it. These are acts of desperation, they can no longer say they will be sued or forced to conduct our marriages in spite of those bigoted MPs like Flello and others who keep insisting that they they will. There is no way forward with this bunch of delusional fools, clutching at straws. The problem is, a lot of people believe them including many MPs most of whom are Tories.
I’m against christians trying to constantly pretend they’re not bigoted while endlessly attacking us. Maybe we should call them something else? I suggest “Arseholes”
“I’m against same-sex marriage — maybe we could call it something else?”
No homophobic bigotry is what we traditionally and correctly call it and it’s totally apt.
I can’t imagine why he’s consulted anyway.
The UK is largely atheist. Many people record themselves as Christians but actually aren’t. They do so from habit due to it being the default answer.
I’ve no idea why his sect are even consulted
Yes, and a lot of couples get married in church and never step foot inside one unless it’s for a wedding, christening and sometimes a funeral. Some women even march down the aisle already pregnant, some wear a white wedding dress indicating virginity, yet most aren’t, been bonking throughout their engagement up until their wedding night, while Anglican clergy smile and conduct their marriages. They’re all a bunch of hypocrites and bigots. There was a time not so long ago when some Anglican clergy were contemplating not performing marriages at all for people who didn’t attend church regularly. I wonder why that never came about?
All religious congregations in England and Wales are free to conduct or not same-sex marriages, except Church of England, who is even banned from doing this. Please, what wish You more, Right Reverend? De facto theocratic state as the current situation in Italy and Greece already is? I think, even You are against it (very deep in the hearth, of course). P.S. If my memory is correct, during the ‘campaign’ for Archbishop of Canterbury last autumn Bishop of Truro was presented in the BBC reportage by Robert Pigot as ‘one of candidates of liberal wing in the Church of England’. Is he?
The fact, that both biggest Churches in England are so active in the discussions about redefinition of civil marriage, show that: 1. or they feel so incredible dependent from the secular State and even ‘civil society’, that are too weak to resist them in silence (situation of Church of England); 2. or have no (more) believe in separation between State and Church, and are seeing ‘secular state’ as temporary evil and nothing more, who one beautiful day will end (position of Catholic Church). Common ground for both: they have so little to say something about other thematic, have even no wish to do this, and gay marriage is for both Churches an perfect possibility to make own ‘social profile’ more strong in the public space. And if this is possible only under condition of homophobia, well, not a big deal: once Jews, Cathars, witches, libertarians, Socialists, now gays. What matters, is keeping the power and characteristic for all religions sense “I am so right and so very pure’.
““The issue is about trying to understand what this union of two people is about.”
Bless, you have a cognitive disorder, the problem is yours.
From growing up in Cornwall, I know that it is a very homophobic and backward county. His opinion is one of many, unfortunately.
Ain’t that the truth re: Cornwall being very homophobic.
In a recent ‘Expert Witness’ statement (I have copy) requested by a Crown Court health tribunal, reference was made by a consultant forensic physiologist of local LGBT groups in Cornwall (& one based in Exeter) identified by the victim of a diagnosed ‘catastrophic trauma’ as these groups having added too & compounded abuse & homophobic victimisation of the gay victim of multiple incidents of homophobic institutional abuse.
But it’s entirely what I expect from LGBT groups in Cornwall
Oh, hello Malcom, whining everywhere again are we… Get that chip off your shoulder and join the real world
“I’m against it, so let’s call it something else?”
What, like ‘civil partnerships’?
Separate is not equal. Silly man.
Let’s give him what he wants and then see what he b*tches about:
Religious = “Holy” Matrimony
Civil = Marriage
Don’t forget that several religions WANT equal marriage (Unitarians, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews, Pagans, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, and latterly even the United Reformed Church has signed up).
No, I’m afraid we “can’t call it something else” because EQUALITY has no other name.
Why should we call it something else? Religion didn’t invent marriage. Not only that, if he’s basing his opinion on the fallacious ‘one man, one woman as in the bible’ crap, then maybe he could have a look at the rest of the bible with its proscriptions against divorce and adultery. All those civil marriages by divorcees all count as adultery according to the bible, so maybe the Bish could try holding a public meeting to prevent divorcees being allowed to call their 2nd unions ‘marriage’?
Or maybe he could instigate compulsory fertility checks at all registry offices to make sure all those men and women marrying can have children? If they can’t, or if they don’t want to, of course, Tim would be insisting they refer to their union as something else, wouldn’t he?
I mean I’m sure he’s not so prejudiced as to just be picking on LGBT people, right?
I’m fed up with all this discrimination. Mr Thornton, get your nose out of CIVIL matters. We’re just as worthy to marry as any other people.
There’s quite a lot of polygamy in the Bible; also women being forced to marry the man who raped them.
Yep, that’s why I put the “fallacious” in there. There’s incest too, of course, and god-sanctioned rape.
Some christians seem to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves. At the beginning of this equal marriage debate, lots of them said ‘one man, one woman for life’ – until it was pointed out to them that in that case they should be campaigning to ban divorce :D Now they’ve reduced that to ‘one man, one woman’. The fact that that isn’t a true representation of what’s in the bible doesn’t seem to bother them at all.
Marriage is outdated.
It would be better to scrap marriage entirely and offer civil contracts to everyone regardless of gender.
If anyone wants to do the mumbo jumbo later then that is a matter for the parties concerned.
I’ve no idea why religious organisations are even anything to do with what should be a legal contract between two adults and registered with the state.
Yeah, we’ll have civil contracts to everyone regardless of gender. Let’s think of a name for them…..How about “marriage”?
Most marriages in the UK already have to include a civil registrar by law, with the “mumbo jumbo” being an optional extra. Only the Church of England clergy have the power to marry couples on behalf of the state. If the Government disestablishes the Church (which I hope they will once Liz in gone) then the state will administer marriage in all cases. So why say marriage is outdated? It’s just about evolved into what you want already.
“The issue is about trying to understand what this union of two people is about.”
And there in lies the problem Rev. Thornton. You don’t (or don’t want to) understand that a same sex union is the same as an opposite sex union.
Words are a powerful thing, especially when they are given authority (like the Bible). Which is why you don’t want such unions to be officially called marriage, it would open a lot of people’s eyes to the fact that marriage is neither exclusive to religion or heterosexuals. It could very well be a catalyst to a large scale debate within the Church about the validity of its teachings on homosexuality, one which is just too soon to be had without the Church’s reputation & standing within its own congregations being irretrievably damaged. The Church doesn’t have the sway it used to to avoid the recriminations for all the damage it’s done.
Well Rev Thornton that’s the Church’s problem, not mine. So kindly butt out of my life and my relationships.
The only language the dear old biggoted Bishop wants to hear is language of hate and biggotory like his own…If he would just admit that instead of pretending he has something of worth to say on the issue, move along and be happy with your biggoted self bishop…
Why is he commenting at all? This is a civil matter he will not need to be involved, in fact he will be banned from being involved.
Indeed – seems mad to me, getting the opinion of someone who won’t be involved in SSMs at all. It’s like asking for a travel review of a country from someone who’s never been there and is banned from ever going there! Stupid.
I’m for that, if you’ll change the name for heterosexual unions to something else. This is about ‘equality’ you nob.
Clearly the idea of equality just goes over them… Look there is goes!
Idiot… if you want to call it something else it’s not equal is it. What a pleb!
Dear Bishop Thornton, I disagree with children being raped in your church, but there you go, it exists. When a year goes by without any child raping in your church, then I’ll listen to anything you have to say on the subject of morality
Same old sh1te. Different assh0le.
I TOTALLY agree with the Bishop.
I believe that religious “marriage” should find another name.
Only civil marriages should be called marriage, since THAT is the closest thing to the “true origin of marriage”.
Mixing religion in with marriage is a perversion of nature.
“The issue is about trying to understand what this union of two people is about.” This can be said of many straight marriages as well, with people wondering how the couple ever got together. As for nature: homo sapiens is the only animal with some kind of institutionalized bonding. The rest of the animals just fuck around, which seems quite natural.
Some animals do mate for life. Seahorses for instance.
However, apes tend to go for the dominant male with harem of females model, using all other males to defend territory. Maybe we need to go with what nature intended, have one man who gets to impregnate all the women (I vote for Russell Brand), whilst the rest of us guys spend our time learning martial arts? Would that make the Church happy? :-D
Thornton has missed the point – call what something else? A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Spanner1960 is spot on – let the religionists call theirs Holy Matrimony if they want and do it in Church and let the rest of the world move on.
I know lots of people have quoted this already, but it ain’t rocket science. The guy is well and truly thick! What he’s doing as a bishop is anyone’s guess.
Oy Vey! ” Let’s call it something else”…lol. is code for it doesn’t not deserve to be treated equally to heterosexual marriage.
Yes, it was called a Civil Partnership but was it equal to marriage, no ! The cofe have been banned so why are they still interfering.
It would STILL be wrong if it was ‘different but the same’ – it is STILL segregation of LGBT people.
It’s like having seats on a bus labelled black and white, in no particular order of layout. It’s not acceptable.
It is not the dearth of language but rather our inability to parse the concept of one people under one sky all gifted by the Creator with life and the right to have the recognition of their Equality honored and upheld in the light of Love…Bishop Thorton you may not yet have the faith to believe that this is true…..but keep listening and keep wrestling with God….You will find both the rightness of the language of Marriage…and an unparsed Equality.
OK Bish Tim…time to stick to your Chocolates and Toffees! A new language? “On Saturday I’m about to Hazelnut Whirled with my partner” or “I’m going to be melded with my Turkish Delight” not to mention “Joining with my Coffee Cream”!
Will these bloody people ever “get real”?
“I believe in listening to what people have to say, and then trying to discern what’s the right thing to do.”
Sure you do. Hint: the “right” thing to do is treat everyone equally, especially WRT laws.Marriage is marriage; anything less is the same old seperate-but-unequal approach.
Superstitious faith bigots are CRIMINALS
Ok. Let’s agree to differ. Let’s stop acknowledging the marital status of heterosexuals who refuse to accept our equal worth and the titles of these horrible clerics. Mr Thornton and Miss whatever her name is can frankly just get stuffed. Pity really. He’s quite a good looking guy.
I’m against homophobia. Shall we call it something else .. like …. religious bigotry?