Unclear on the concept

I did a double take -- heck, I think I did a triple take -- when I read this:

"Men in a civil union will now be allowed to become bishops in the Church of England, but they are not allowed to have sex."

In other words, the Church of England thinks that same-sex couples may sometimes be entering civil unions but keeping things platonic. The article emphasizes this point further down:

"The church . . . does not bless civil unions of any kind, for fear some of them may be sexual."

Really? And here I thought people got into civil unions just so they could sit around with their partners and play checkers all night.

I don't even know what to make of this stunning display of n
aïvete from the Anglican church. Except to speculate that, if you keep trying to accomodate cultural ideas and demands about sexuality, maybe you start to forget how it actually works. 


I like that, Jason
The thought of Anglican bishops ceremonially mingling blood is an amusing one.
But then, when was the last time there was anyone in the leadership of the Anglican church that actually has red blood? :-)
I suppose you could logically say that it is hypothetically not a sin if done in that manner while still acknowledging that one would not believe it in real life.

Still one question remains and that is, if people intend to do that, should they not use the rituals and terminology used for specifically platonic relationships; ceremonially mingling blood like some warband in a fantasy for instance? Rather then wanting to use words like marriage.

BreakPoint Blog