Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Vicar 'refuses to baptise' baby of lesbian

96 posts in this topic

Aimi Leggett, 25, and civil partner Victoria, 22, had planned to have one-year-old son Alfie christened at St Mary's Church, Gosport, Hants, in two weeks.

However, when both women asked to be listed as the mother in a meeting with Reverend George Gebauer he said the church baptism register would not allow it.

He suggested one be registered as the mother while the other be put down as the Godmother instead.

http://www.telegraph...red-mother.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO you may not directly state that their sexuality is an issue, but even a blind man could see it is. Do you think by avoiding direct mention that it somehow makes things better? And you really think anyone who kidnaps a child is going to want it baptised in the church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure he was aware of their sexuality and I don’t think that came into his decision, both women asked to be listed as the mother in a meeting with Reverend and he said the church baptism register would not allow it, rules are there for everyone, incl Lesbian couples and he does have a point. I think the church has become very flexible over the years, although I would never step foot inside one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Their sexuality has no bearing on the issue."

Says Rev Gebauer.

"We can only make sure the child is theirs. For all we know they may have pinched the child."

Because, you know, it's common knowledge that lesbian couples roam the country pinching children. :rolleyes:

Not like normal heterosexual couples. They would never pinch children.

But it's nothing to do with their sexuality. :rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to read the article. While the retired vicar Rev. Gebauer may have been clueless at best and hard-of-heart at worst, the clearer cleric prevailed and the proper and legal resolution was achieved.

Having faced a similar situation myself, I just would have altered the register "famother," presided at the sacrament and signed off. Not every retiree fill-in can be expected to think along such flexible lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find nothing wrong with a CHURCH deciding it's own rules regarding membership. There is nothing illegal in such a concept. As Rlyeh said - if they don't want you why try to be a member? As soon as marriage became legal among same sex couples there were couples resorting to the court to force a church to solemnize their union even though the dogma of the church - it's very foundation - disallows such unions. If some find that "hateful" then I would by all means avoid such a hateful institution. The greater goal has always been for EVERYONE to recognize AND APPROVE of the gay lifestyle and choice. This is completely unfair and most gay folk probably would not demand such rights. But a minority who are militant will - and hard feelings will abound due to this.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a homosexual's faith should be totally ignored. They are not allowed to believe in God or participate in church functions. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are being left out, could be their friends and family are doing it too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who on earth wants to follow a religion that rejects you?

Spot on.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a homosexual's faith should be totally ignored. They are not allowed to believe in God or participate in church functions. :tu:

This isn't the issue. The alternative is to FORCE the majority to go against their faith to accommodate a small group whose ideas are diametrically opposite of the church on this issue. Homosexuals are entitled to revere any god or no god but they are not entitled to force others to believe as they do simply because it gives them some form of comfort or self justification. This stance isn't about hate - it's about fairness to all.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess all we can say is that some faith causes harm in the world and doesn't fit Jesus' test of whether it bears good fruit or rotten fruit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find nothing wrong with a CHURCH deciding it's own rules regarding membership.

As long as the church organisation is a private institution, then I have no issue with it having rules promoting prejudice and discrimination. However, the Church of England is a public institution and has a say in public policy through representation in the House of Lords. As such, this public institution should be required to abide by the anti-discrimination laws all other public institutions in this country have to abide by.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds as though disestablishment of the Church of England would be a good idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the issue. The alternative is to FORCE the majority to go against their faith to accommodate a small group whose ideas are diametrically opposite of the church on this issue. Homosexuals are entitled to revere any god or no god but they are not entitled to force others to believe as they do simply because it gives them some form of comfort or self justification. This stance isn't about hate - it's about fairness to all.

The church's stance, and that of religions like it, is extremely distasteful and it HAS fostered a great dea of hate for centuries. In fact in any places (ook at Russia and African countries for christianity, the idde east for islam) and you get a pretty good view of that happening today. The stance is not about fairness, it's never been about fairness, quite the oppsite. It is about treating gay people as inferior and somehow getting away with it with zero consequence.

Fairness, don't make me laugh.

And forcing the majority to go against their faith? Most polls show that people in the church of england see gay people as full equals, so it would NOT be against the majority. The only majority it seems to offed is those in power in the church, which are so out of touch with the majority of parishoners it's becoming a joke.

The church of england is pushing a very mixed message when it comes to gay people and it needs to come into the 21st century without having one foot in the past like it does now. Right now it's preaching that homophobia is wrong and welcomes gay people, but won't perform marriages or civil unions. This is about a baptism and just look at how it's gone. One days yes, one says no, then back to yes again. It needs to decide hat it's going to do. It needs to properly taake a positive stance towards gay people, then stuff like this wouldn't happen. Right now it's trying to do both and it simply won't work, not in the long run.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find nothing wrong with a CHURCH deciding it's own rules regarding membership. There is nothing illegal in such a concept. As Rlyeh said - if they don't want you why try to be a member? As soon as marriage became legal among same sex couples there were couples resorting to the court to force a church to solemnize their union even though the dogma of the church - it's very foundation - disallows such unions. If some find that "hateful" then I would by all means avoid such a hateful institution. The greater goal has always been for EVERYONE to recognize AND APPROVE of the gay lifestyle and choice. This is completely unfair and most gay folk probably would not demand such rights. But a minority who are militant will - and hard feelings will abound due to this.

I think it's about time discrimination laws, child sex abuse laws and corruption laws were properly applied to the churches. Why does your religious opinion give you a shield to hide behind from which to spit intolerance at those you should be loving and accepting? Should we respect someone's belief in Social Darwinism when they say "mentally retarded people should be neutered"? Where exactly is the get out clause for religion? It's important to you, I know. Star Wars is important to me but it doesn't allow me to cower and hurl venom at those on the fringes on society. Frankly the Church has been one of the biggest bullies of homosexuals in history, and I think it's because so many priests, cardinals and popes were closeted homosexuals themselves. Look at every loud mouth reactionary who has badmouthed people for something and been busted doing exactly that. It's time that they reform for their own good, and for societies.

It seems the church would rather see a baby sent to Hell than allow openly gay parishioners to partake in their rituals.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Wars is important to me but it doesn't allow me to cower and hurl venom at those on the fringes on society.=

Unless they are Trek Fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pinched, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find nothing wrong with a CHURCH deciding it's own rules regarding membership. There is nothing illegal in such a concept. As Rlyeh said - if they don't want you why try to be a member? As soon as marriage became legal among same sex couples there were couples resorting to the court to force a church to solemnize their union even though the dogma of the church - it's very foundation - disallows such unions. If some find that "hateful" then I would by all means avoid such a hateful institution. The greater goal has always been for EVERYONE to recognize AND APPROVE of the gay lifestyle and choice. This is completely unfair and most gay folk probably would not demand such rights. But a minority who are militant will - and hard feelings will abound due to this.

Forget the church's rules regarding membership. Babies shouldn't be baptised at all. PERIOD! Since it would be cruel and possibly dangerous - - they sprinkle and call it a baptism. It is not a baptism unless they are fully dipped - fully covered with a fluid (that is what baptismos means from which the word baptise comes). According to the Bible: baptism is believer's baptism only. That automatically eliminates infants and most children. Earthly baptism is not necessary to be saved eternally. Infants who die before they are naturally born are not baptized. Earthly water baptism "is the answer of a good conscience..." meaning they are giving a symbolic gesture that he/she has died to the flesh and are following Jesus. As the Bible says: "the answer of a good conscience..." that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea -- Jesus didn't get baptized until he was thirty. The fear of course is that the baby will die unbaptized and go to Limbo (a relatively pleasant suburb of Hell). This is superstitious silliness but derives from Scholastic thinking, which is still basically the RC Church and a few of its close relatives such as the Anglicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the church organisation is a private institution, then I have no issue with it having rules promoting prejudice and discrimination. However, the Church of England is a public institution and has a say in public policy through representation in the House of Lords. As such, this public institution should be required to abide by the anti-discrimination laws all other public institutions in this country have to abide by.

I have no such experience as an American so I defer to your statement as correct. However it seems to me that a church isn't truly a church unless it abides by God's law as its supreme authority. But if this is the way the British choose to live then it is their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is seriously debatable that private institutions should be allowed to discriminate and do other forms of harm when public ones properly are not allowed to do so. I would put more reliance on freedom of religion than on freedom of private association, but with all freedoms there are boundaries.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no such experience as an American so I defer to your statement as correct. However it seems to me that a church isn't truly a church unless it abides by God's law as its supreme authority. But if this is the way the British choose to live then it is their choice.

Ultimately god is an absent presence in any church. He doesn't get a vote in how it's run on a day to day (or year by year) basis. all he is attributed to do is dump a book on us, filled with a lot of laws that were very much time sensitive, and culture sensittive. As such most churches (and religious people) have to use their own conscience and think for themselves because god's law doesn't cover anything and some is context sensitve. (Indeed the problem with most of the anti-gay parts of the bible is along those lines.) As such, people and churches have to use their own minds and part of that is realising that this is the 21st century, not the time of jesus nor the time of any compilation of the bible.

Looking around the room I'm in I see lightbulbs, I see a television and a phone, I'm on a computer. Out the window I see the next door neighours car. Now for a christian, using the supreme authority' of the bible to decide to use any of those things would be useless as the bible makes no reference to either of those things (and why would it?). Siimilarly, churches also decide wheather to condemn or allow those things without the guidance of the bible to go on.

In terms of a church examples would be what good cause should we give colelction money to (the bble would not give you an answer, apart from a general one) or should we allow woman priests (the bible says no but at the time there was a reason: women didn't have the knlowedge to teach. Does that excuse hold as much weight now? Hardly.).

Treating gay peope and their families equally and fairly (and accepting them fully) requires using such thinking. I don't understand why some people just can't seem to think further than their bibles on this, when they are obviously capable of doing so for other things.

If you're going to take the bible as the paragon of moral authority and abandon all critical thinking skills of your own then you may as well find a community and live as they did in the bible days. No modern medcine, no technology, no thinking for yourself, no education, no ability to read or write for yourself. But I suspect you don't want to do that do you? You only want the bible as 'supreme authority' when you want it to, when you can use it as a weapon against people and a shield to hide behind.

It is seriously debatable that private institutions should be allowed to discriminate and do other forms of harm when public ones properly are not allowed to do so. I would put more reliance on freedom of religion than on freedom of private association, but with all freedoms there are boundaries.

I agree. descimination is descrimination. We need to stop letting religious groups act like their text gives them a free ride with it. (After all the bible or koran is not considered an acceptable excuse to kill, despite their being instances in both where execution is listed as acceptable.)

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never found anything in the Bible that forbids lesbianism, only male homosexuality. Is there something in the New Testament that I overlooked?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my view, but some Christians interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to "unnatural" sexual activity among women: ". . .Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." The whole passage, verse 20-32, has to do with idolatry (worshiping the creature instead of the Creator) and that kind of inversion can happen in heterosexual relationships, and any other aspect of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.