BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist

Subject: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 08:35 AM

One of the most conservative sections of a major Australian church, the Sydney/South Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church has raised controversy (once again) by denying it's new wedding vows are sexist. Other dioceses of the Australian branch of the Church of England (headed by the Queen of England!) have managed very ably with women priests & even Bishops or Arch Bishops for years, but this branch stays back in the olden days.


Anglican Church denies new wedding vows are sexist
The Anglican Church says new wedding vows which involve a woman pledging to 'submit' to her husband are not sexist.

Introduced as an alternative to the traditional vows that use the word 'obey', the new promises were written by the liturgical panel of the church's Sydney diocese.

The Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth, is on that panel and says the choice of the word 'submit' is based on the New Testament which talks about the church submitting to Christ.

"I can see why, if you just came upon this, not having read the New Testament about Christ loving the church, the church responding to him, it would look rather odd, just like the word 'obey' would look rather odd," he said.

"But to understand this you must locate it in its context of the New Testament's deep understanding about man and woman and Christ and his church.

Bishop Forsyth says some couples getting married in the church like having separate vows for men and women.

He says a different version was released last year, but the wording was not popular with parishioners.

"We're happy with this version, where the husband promised to serve his wife, to love his wife, and to protect her and she promises to love and serve and to submit," he said.

"The goal is we want men to give leadership in loving and protecting their wives and women respond to that."

sandra (not responding very well to this new? idea)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 08:46 AM

Aye, and over this end of the planet, we have every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination.

So don't expect their sexist stance down under to be any better. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry is increasingly irrelevant. I liked the bit about wording not being popular with parishioners. Especially as the whole idea is to tell them what they like, how to think, how to judge others....

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:08 AM

It will be something of this nature that finally separates church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 11:23 AM

"Submit, me beauty!"
"No! Nay! Never!"
"Submit to my foul desires!"
"Never!"

Sounds like a good plot for a melodrama...does the groom get to tie her to the railroad tracks if she doesn't submit?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Elmore
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 11:37 AM

When my current and final wife inquired into becoming a Catholic, they told her she couldn't vote for a pro choice candidate.That was the end of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 12:43 PM

Been reading 50 Shades, have they? Like I said somewhere else, we women aren't fully human to these guys.

Penny (oops, it says the message has to submit!)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 12:44 PM

Well, whoever said that to her, Elmore was definitely out-of-line, even if he was a bishop.
...

As for Musket's "every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination" I assume he's referring to the "pastoral letter" mentioned in this press release, the text of which it contains - and it doesn't actually say anything along those lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:12 PM

Never never would I agree to 'submit' to a husband or any man. My husband is an African muslim, and this has been rather a problem with us. It's not a 'new' idea; in fact it's the traditional and age-old view that women are in some way inferior and should therefore bow to a man's 'better judgment'. In my husband's country of birth, and among muslim women (as I understand it) women must comport themselves at all times with humility and deference. I'm a University graduate and retired teacher.I have an independent income from my pension and own my own house. I see no reason why I should defer, humble myself or submit to anyone! Are these folk living in the Dark Ages?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:47 PM

Eliza, did you not know that was your groom's position
when you said "yes"? Or "I do", or whatever the form may
have been in your ceremony?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:38 PM

"Submit" is of course taken from what St Paul wrote about marriage. I've always wondered whether he might actually have been writing tongue in cheek when he advised women to be submissive towards their husbands.

Maybe it should be translated "Wives, let your husband think he's in charge."

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:57 PM

Write your own vows.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 05:53 PM

UncleDaveO, oh yes, we were both aware of the cultural differences, and our ceremony was of necessity a civil one in UK, and didn't require promises to 'obey'. My husband has come to accept that women here are equal under the law. But I know it was hard for him at first. He had to get used to the fact I have my opinions and will express them, and that I wouldn't ask his permission to leave the house (as if!!) if I wanted to go out. Also, as I know much more about this country than he does, he has to follow my lead a lot of the time which isn't easy for him. Both my sister and I were brought up to see ourselves as equal to men and were given a good education and encouraged to pursue a career by our forward-looking parents. We were very lucky. I'm a practising Christian (C of E) but would never condone women 'obeying' men. Ridiculous and insulting!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:46 PM

"Are these folk living in the Dark Ages?"

Ahhh... yeah. Sad innit?

If the shoe fits... ya oughta be kicked in the arse with it.

Although, let's get sommat straight eh? Submitting to the marriage and forsaking ALL OTHERS has it's place... it is a contract in which to be totally devoted to each other and the children. In that alone, "submission" to doing right by your spouse and your children is right as rain. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. Submitting to a spouse carte blanche isn't what I believe is meant by the vows but interpretation is in the mind of vower.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:48 PM

". . . interpretation is in the mind of [the] vower."

And their lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:59 PM

ummm, gnu? If I understand correctly, "submit" isn't included in the vow for the groom, just the version for the bride. It might come off as a little strange if it was in both vows, but at least it would be equalized.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:16 PM

Oh for the equality days of SISTER FIDELMA'S WORLD.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:20 PM

It can't be sexist, because that's the way God wants it:

Heaven Has No Feminine Side

Only Married Women Can Go To Heaven

(just a couple of samples, without comment.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:35 PM

It's difficult to argue with that logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:37 PM

9.... I live in Canada. Spouses are equal in the eyes of the law.
Lawyers are not. Therefore, don't hire a lawyer.... read.

froggy... it's not? I am outraged! Appalled at least. Well, taken aback somewhat. >;-) ummmm, froggy? buddy? where did you read what you thought I said? BOTH spouses (or more... hey, it HAPPENS but that's another thread) must submit (enter contract) and if the vows of any persuaion don't reflect that, the entity at fault is living in the dark ages. Right, Eliza? >;)

BTW, the law in New Brunswick, Canada regarding marriage licences is totally fucked up. Twenty bucks? Are you shittin me??!! It should be at least one hundred large. And the divorce "licence" should be $20. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:38 PM

I've heard a lot of far out things from extreme fundamentaiists, but some of the stuff in John's first link is new to me. Rejoice, all you women who have suffered from penis envy; when you get to heaven, you'll have one of your own!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: IvanB
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:01 PM

I note that Pastor Davis (JiK's first link) quotes Galatians 3:28 but seems to gloss over the phrase "neither male nor female" in his glee over male dominance. After all, since there will be no procreation in heaven, what would be the use of a penis? Given his line of thought, use of a penis for, gasp, enjoyment would be an abomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:21 PM

"abomination"? I was told it was called "jerkin off" but abomination sounds a lot classier.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JennieG
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 12:49 AM

When I read that news item on the weekend I was gobsmacked......we are in the 21st century now, but to some people we haven't left the 19th. It smacks to me of 'the little woman' walking a few paces behind her mate, eyes cast demurely down.

If I were to submit, Himself he would wonder what had come over me......

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 05:35 AM

I believe it was David Letterman who made a reference a couple of nights back about the hurricane currently being watched - something like

"...hurricane headed for Tampa that may wipe out the Republican National Convention ... offering one more proof that God ...




...





...




is a woman."


John

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:04 AM

Opening day (ceremonies?) of the convention has been cancelled.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:10 AM

It's a sign from God. The Republicans are screwed this election, which they deserve to be, arrogant shits that they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: foggers
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:17 AM

As a recovered former fundamentalist Christian, I departed from that clique for precisely these reasons of inbuilt sexism. Women were seen as more base in nature because it was Eve who succumbed to Satan's temptation and then lured Adam down the same path. As a highly intelligent graduate I was told my marriage was in trouble because I was failing to submit to my husband. So instead, I left him and left that church.

And the final irony in my personal tale of escaping fundamentalism was that the landlord whose house I moved into was a lovely, kind, supportive GAY man who was exactly the kind of non-judgemental company I needed during a difficult transition.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:26 AM

Good for you foggers! I admire your feistiness and guts. It certainly IS difficult if the woman is well-educated and the man is not. A certain type of man (ie weak!) cannot handle his wife being intelligent and/or qualified. Your gay and supportive landlord is my idea of a truly strong man who can cope with female strength. I'm so lucky in that my church is not one which takes any kind of stand about women and their attitudes and comportment. It's more interested in kindness and welcome, which is how I see God. By the way, I have gay friends who are the most supportive, kind and caring people you could wish to know. They don't have the male chauvinism that some men exhibit. If I'd been forced to 'vow' at our wedding to 'submit' I'm afraid I would have refused and my husband and I would never have been married!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:32 AM

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:50 AM

To love and to submit: a marriage made in 2012

part of the article -
But Stephanie and Andrew Judd from Sydney, who used part of the new service when they wed in January, said those who were offended by the word were not placing it in the right context.

''The husband's love is one of sacrificial love, and to submit to that kind of love is not oppressive, but is actually a joy and a great freedom,'' said Mrs Judd, 26, who teaches Christian studies at a private girls' school.

Mr Judd, 27, who is studying to be a minister, said a Christian marriage was akin to dancing: ''The male always leads, even if he's not necessarily the best dancer … as long as you take the definition of male leadership that we're operating on, which is giving yourself up and putting others' interests ahead of yourself.''

Anglicans in an 18th-century frame of mind - Letters to the editor responses to this story

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:58 AM

"The male always leads" ....???? Eh??? Who says so? This is making me cross! Men are no better and no worse than women in 'taking the lead'. Having a willy doesn't give a human being superiority over those who don't have one!!! Grrrrrr!!! (Hope my sister doesn't read this thread, I just know she'd explode!)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 10:37 AM

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 01:13 PM

The church has long been one of the greatest promulgators of doubletalk.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 06:10 AM

McGraw of Harlow.

Sorry, the letter you gave a link to was one that many priests referred to, but either The Catholic Herald is right or The BBC are right. The BBC reported that many priests gave their own more forthright interpretation.

In any event, the letter you linked to was appalling, bigoted, prejudiced and abhorrent. It says that marriage can only be between man and woman as the aim of marriage is children. Doesn't say much for the unfortunates who cannot conceive, those too old to conceive and those who do not plan to have children then.

So.. Let's sum up. Sexist wedding vows, oppression of not only Gay people but anybody who cannot conceive... I feel a Godwin moment coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 07:37 AM

The Sydney & South Sydney dioceses are amongst the most conservative in Australia.

'Submit' vow could fall foul of the Marriage Act I love that Wilcox cartoon.

Letters to the editor & the best one - How can Sydney Anglican men love their wives ''as Christ loved the church'', that is, in a sacrificial way, considering, when Jesus died, the church did not exist (''To love and to submit: a marriage made in 2012'', August 25-26)? The church evolved after the death of Jesus. His followers made the church. The death of Jesus may have been sacrificial, but it wasn't for the church.

Catherine Walsh Ashfield

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 09:02 AM

My point was that Musket's statement "we have every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination" was not actually correct.

Nor does the pastoral letter actually say "that marriage can only be between man and woman as the aim of marriage is children".

It does refer to "the universally accepted definition of marriage as the union solely of a man and a woman." That is in fact how it has always been defined, as reflected in the terminology involved. A marriage is a contract between a husband and a wife. The legislation which has given formal recognition to analogous contracts between partners of the same sex has not changed that, and provides precisely the same rights and duties.

Football and cricket are both excellent games. Apples and oranges are both excellent fruit. It would of course be possible to attempt redefine the word "football" to cover both sports, and use "apple" to mean both fruits. But I am not sure that it would be a very good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 10:55 AM

Hoorah for Mr Mcgrath.....a good concise post with no weasel words.
Bad legislation should always be opposed.....leave "hatred" out you weasels.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 02:06 PM

"So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?"

I worded that terribly. Sorry.

Here it is rephrased.

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) of south Sydney doing about Bishop Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 02:40 PM

It is a smoke screen.
In the UK, civil union gives all the benefits of marriage....yet homosexual activists demand redefinition.....the word....and the word was equality

Is a homosexual couple equal to a heterosexual one?....not in the primary function, to produce children.

Is an infertile heterosexual couple equal to a fertile one?....not in the primary natural function, to produce children.

So the whole equality agenda is based on a sham.
Look at every aspect of nature and equality has never and will never exist.....and calling something a different name will never make it exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:15 PM

Not sure what point the last poster is making. It appears to be that I can't get have a real marriage because I had my reproductive organs removed because I had ovarian cancer.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:23 PM

And I couldn't either, because I am 80, and my wife, tho younger, is past menopause. Yet Ely registrar, having checked that my first wife was dead, and that Emma was legally free to marry, married us without demur. I think we are married - whatever the precise nature of our relations, which is no business of yours.

Not sure what point you are making here, Ake. Don't entirely believe that you are either.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:48 PM

I think the point being made was that while all kinds of things people do are important, if people don't reproduce, people cease to exist. That means it's got a special kind of importance. That doesn't mean other things aren't important, just not as crucial.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 02:48 AM

My meaning exactly Mr Mcgrath,

Also that although we may all have various talents, none of us are "equal".
The socio/economic system which we labour under ensures that we are very much more unequal, much more so that race, gender, or religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:20 AM

So there are 'real' marriage where both partners are fertile, and some other kind of lesser marriage for non-fertile people. Try telling that to someone who's coping with the pain of discovering they can never have children. "oh and by the way, you're not really married"

What an evil world you would have us live in, Akenaton and McGrath. Luckily most people are are kinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:44 AM

I am truly sorry that you are unable to have children guest.

In my mind marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the creation of a family structure.
If a couple find that for medical reasons they cannot fulfill that function, they are no less "married"
Some choose to remain childless, but as a couple CAN reproduce, they too are no less "married"

At the moment homosexuals cannot reproduce, but I am sure that the horrors of homosexual reproduction will be well within the scope of "Frankensteinian Science" shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:52 AM

Please do not use me as an opportunity to spread your poisonous homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:16 AM

I was going to reply to McGraw of Harlow till he went and sat in Akenaton's passenger seat. I accept that it is churlish not to be seen to agree when you do, but in his case, it only encourages the bugger, as you and I both know.

I don't need to add anything here, but of course I will. Not because I want to add to the debate, but that Akenaton and his mates need challenging at every turn till they either have a barbecued donkey on the road to Damascus moment or keep their odious views to themselves. Of course, they can always carry on spewing them out, hurting decent people in the process, but that speaks louder than the words they use...

The primary function of marriage is not, and never has been to have children. The primary function of sex can be to have children,but like marriage, there are other reasons to indulge.

Churches don't define the term marriage, Parliament does. Hence Parliament (or Holyrood Parliament in the present case) is the place to decide.

Churches can decide what they like, what they want and the terms of joining their club, but polite society has already gone too far by allowing them to conduct marriages and then use their bigotry to decide who qualifies.

If I were them, I'd accept that decent people have indulged them thus far. But no further please..

And so called atheists like Akenaton need to decide whether Frankenstein science is an affront to a God they don't believe in or a personal vendetta that needs professional help.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:20 AM

If you do not wish to contribute to a thread on "gay marriage" guest, why enter it in the first place?
Why do you not address the issues raised, rather than hurl abuse?
"poisonous homophobia"

The fault lies in the legislation and the "liberal" agenda, not the unfortunate homosexuals who are most affected by this agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:32 AM

Frankenstein science is an affront to nature/god.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 05:07 AM

Forget it Ian!

He just doesn't get it, and, given his anti gay bias, he never will.

He spouts about people never having been equal because he has missed the point entirely, which is that people should be treated equally and not suffer discrimination from people like him.

Such "liberal" views are anathema to him because he hasn't a clue what the word liberal really means.

His bigotry is as hard wired as any of those fundamentalist religious nutjobs under discussion, and logic and reason pass him by.

He is truly worth ignoring.

Don T.