Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other denominations

This article fails to mention other denominations that have provided some form of blessings to same sex couples. I think the PCUSA has rites for commitment ceremonies. What about them? What about the United Methodists? MPS 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Unitarianism and denominations completely outside of Christianity, such as Judaism and Wicca. Urgh, there's probably a box that can be added to the article to indicate the types of additions that are needed...I'll see if I can figure it out. --DavidK93 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up renaming the page to end with "in Anglicanism." Now the title accurately reflects the contents, and people can write articles about same-sex union blessings in other faiths if they want, and the articles can be merged in the future if deemed appropriate. --DavidK93 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a poor decision. I propose changing it back and adding other faiths. MPS 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Anglican Church is having the highest-profile struggle over "The Issue". The United Methodists do not have such a rite at all, the PCUSA has a very limited allowance [1] and prefer to assume that the couples are not actually having sex. Wicca, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, Unitarians, and Reform/Reconstructionist Judaism, wisely, actually have same-sex marriage. Anyone left? Carolynparrishfan 22:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement:The Anglican Church is having the highest-profile struggle over "The Issue" ...is incorrect. I have been following this issue for some time as well. A presbyterian (PCUSA) pastor recently made lots of news when he pronounced a same sex couple "married" when the presbytery specifically disallows "marriage" of a same sex couple while it allows an official "blessing" of their committment. Many people unfamiliar with the difference between a same sex blessing and a same sex marriage will benefit from discussion of this issue in a wikipedia article. The United Church of Christ, that I am most familiar with, follows the congregational church governance model, so many of the UCC congregations have different marriage policies... for instance a recent minnesota minister recently refused to perform state marriages but he said he would bless same sex and different sex couples. Other churches just signed the "lexington confession" stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The "official" UCC policy on marriage is that the UCC does not have any binding policy that applies to the denomination. I would encourage you to consider the fact that your might have a certain POV on this issue about Episcopalians when in fact many different churches are dealing with or considering this same issue. ELCAs and Disciples of Christ come to mind. MPS 13:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I have a POV, but I submit that it is not because I am an Anglican, but rather because I am Canadian. Our denominational situation is different up here. The ELCIC recently voted against blessings, which leaves the matter settled for the moment at least. The Presbyterian Church in Canada is not having a debate at all, so forgive me for my ignorance about their American counterparts' situation. However, the citation I provided to PCUSA policy clearly offers a very limited blessing scheme. Our closest equivalent to the UCC is the United Church of Canada, which does indeed provide marriage to queer couples. As regards the Disciples of Christ, we have them up here too (though not many) and I have never heard a peep from them on the issue (which is one that I follow closely).
My main POV on this issue, however, is that "blessing" same sex unions is a cowardly compromise designed to accomodate queer couples to a limited extent while not shocking the establishment by upsetting the status quo. The role of a saints, it has been said, is to "disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed". Carolynparrishfan 12:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are great facts to know. Unless you had put it in wikipedia, I would have had very little knowledge of the status of "blessing" same-sex unions in any Canadian denomination. I don't want to sound heavy handed here but I ask you to consider whether there is a place in Wikipedia where these highly useful facts about Blessing of same-sex unions could be presented. ;) MPS 14:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blessings for same-sex unions are not only discussed and allowed in Anglicanism..also other churches bless same-ssex unions...lutheran churches in Germany, reformed churches in Switzerland, Netherlands, ...--GLGerman 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman...so i think that should also part of the homepage...i will transfer it, where all churches, which bless same-sex couples, can be noticed.--GLGerman 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)GLGErman[reply]

Well, now we have a title which does not really reflect the contents of the page. If you're going to broaden the title, it would be nice of you to do some work on correspondingly broadening the article. Currently, the "Blessings in Christian churches unrelated to Anglicanism" is about two sentences long and lists only three churches, without any details. Carolynparrishfan 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs for Improvement of this article

If this is an article on the status of blessing of same-sex unions in presumably ALL Christian churches, why does it read like an Anglican article? Why does it exclude all mention of the majority of Christians?

Several improvements wich I would suggest for this article:

  1. The introduction should state that Christian Churches are divided on the issue.
  2. A terminology section is needed to decypher same-sex marriage, blessing, civil union etc. Even it is brief and mostly points the reader with such questions to other articles.
  3. A section is needed outlining the theological and other reasons some churches favor and some churches oppose same-sex unions.
  4. An outline of which churches whose practices are most favorable and least favorable to same-sex unions and those which are in between.
  5. Another section with the best available statistics on same-sex unions is also needed.
  6. At least a mention of some ecclesiastical divisions with pointers to relevant articles should also be included.

For the casual reader, this article raises more questions than it answers--okay for a homily, but not okay for an encyclopedia. Vaquero100 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do your best to help, Vaquero1000,--GLGerman 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman[reply]
I think that dividing the world into "favorable" and "unfavorable" is a false division. Churches may have nuances that prohibit such easy categorization. Perhaps we should just list all the churches like the denominational positions on homosexuality article but have it be called "List of Christian denominational positions on same sex marriage and same sex unions."MPS 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A majority or not?

Thge user MPS has changed the following text:

At present the majority of Christian Churches have either not approved any recognition of same-sex unions or have publicly opposed them.

to:

At present a very large number of Christian Churches have either not approved any recognition of same-sex unions or have publicly opposed them.

The rationale he offered is, "majority implies 51%+. "large number" is more supportable without a source.)" To that I say that this article is the source. The article lists almost every -- if not every -- church that doesn't disapprove of or hasn't publicly opposed same-sex unions. Many of these churches are themselves divided on the issue. Even without consulting an official source on the number of churches or denominations out there, it is plain that the majority of Christian churches have either not approved any recognition of same-sex unions or have publicly opposed them.

I'm reverting that text. ~ Hairouna 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear... I am not against having "a majority" be in the article, but that is a mathematically precise term that we don;t have any sources (besudes, uh, wikipedia) that document this. If it is so clear to all involved then it shoudn't be that hard to find a reliable source OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA that says this. Please review WP:NOR and Wikipedia:cite sources for more info on why original research doesn't pass muster at wikipedia.
I agree that this article has provided many examples of churches that oppose SSM etc, but this only shows that a large number of churches have this policy, not that a majority have this policy. I am reverting back, but let's keep this dicussion going MPS 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's some confusing speech there. You aren't against it being in the article, yet you changed it and you think it qualifies as original work? I don't see anything in either of those articles that suggest that saying it's a "majority" is original work any more than I see anything that says saying it's a "large number" is original work.

I don't know any direct sources that outright say that the majority of Christian churches or Christians reject same-sex marriage, and I haven't been able to find any after 5 or so minutes of google searching, but I don't think that says anything. This is a commonly accepted fact, is it not? You say you aren't against it, so unless you can give a valid reason why you think it's original work I don't see why it should be changed. ~ Hairouna 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my speech. I personally believe/intuit that the "majority" statistic is probably true, but without any evidence, I hesitate as a wikipedian to make such a strong claim. You would think Barna Group or Hartford Institute for Religion Research or some other religious research organization would have these stats. MPS 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I wouldn't expect that they would, since there's nothing to report there. It's far more likely that they'll have polls on the attitudes towards and positions on homosexuality (and they do) than a statistic about how many churches support same-sex unions. The fact is that there are so few, that these few are so confined to certain geographical areas, and that the issue is still not as huge as some make it to be that such research is unlikely. And the claim that there's a majority is just about as strong as the claim of many, especially since so few have favourable views on same-sex unions. ~ Hairouna 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point is that wikipedia doesn't have opinions on things... if wikipedia is the only organization in the whole world claiming something, then that violates WP:NOR even if the claim is correct. Lucky for us, there was a real research project ("World Religions and Same-Sex Marriage" Marriage Law Project July 2002) that agrees with your and my intuitions. I am going to update the claim with sourcing and blockquote. 97.6 % of US Christians and 99.97% of Christians worldwide believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
pdf version
found here

Yet within this diversity, the over- whelming consensus among Christians is that marriage, by definition, requires a man and a woman. There are only minor exceptions (see part II.E below). These amount to 2.4 percent of Christians in the United States and 0.03 per- cent worldwide. We treat “Christianity” in terms of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Latter-day Saints. Then we address “The Exceptions" (those religious bodies that endorse same- sex “marriage”).

So? Many Christians who support same-sex blessings adhere to a heterosexual definition of marriage per se. Andrew Hutchison, for example. Carolynparrishfan 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MPS. Carolynparrishfan, one person doesn't really count as many, especially when compared to a total of maybe 2 billion. I suspect that people like that would live almost exclusively in developed countries, and they don't even contain the majority of Christians. But even so, your claim actually suffers from what mine was accused of suffering from (:P): it's baseless and sourceless. ~ Hairouna 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a claim at all, but rather finding a hole in another. My point is simply that the survey quoted doesn't tell us whether a majority of Christians agree or disagree with blessing of same-sex unions, only whether they think that such unions are marriages. Obviously, I am not presenting the Primate as "many" people. But then, I think you knew that already. Carolynparrishfan 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if I say that there's probably no real distinction between the two in the minds of most, you'll ask me to source such a claim? ~ Hairouna 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the language of the pdf suggests that they're considering same-sex unions in general. They repeatedly refer to the "marriages" are same-sex "marriages". ~ Hairouna 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so here's the state of the union (sorry for the pun ;) )...
  • we do have source-cited statistics on Christians being a majority unfavorable to same sex marriage.
  • We do not have source-cited statistics on how many churches or Christians officially disparage "blessing" of same sex unions or how many Christian churches officially/regularly provide such blessings.
Because of this lack of statistics on the insidence of SSU, the "unfavorable" section merely explains why it's hard to document such blessings. Unless we get a source I am not comfortable asserting that "most" churches think blessing SSU is AOK. In wikipedia, it is not safe to assume anything... we have to cite sources on disputable issues. MPS 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agreed If we have the stats use them. Just becomes some don't like the facts is no reason to disregard themThright (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Non-Christian blessings?

There appears to be no article that discusses the blessing of same-sex unions in non-Christian religions. Should this one be expanded to do so, or should a new, broader article be created? (Or am I just missing this article, which in fact already exists?)

DanB†DanD 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but isn't the answer that this should be discussed in the same sex union article, and perhaps gay marriage articles??? MPS 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can see. Same-sex union is a disambiguation page. Same-sex marriage is overwhelmingly political in its focus (which I am trying to correct). Blessing of same-sex unions redirects to Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. DanB†DanD 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... you raise a good point. Maybe we should change the name of the article from Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches to Blessing of same-sex unions and have just a section on Christians. That might ruffle a few feathers but I would back you on it if you proposed a move vote. The other option is maybe create and article on Blessing of same-sex unions and list (with sources) other communities (religious communities?) that "bless" unions. I think this is a significant enough issue that I think you have wiggle room to be bold and create something that may be the 60% solution. Go for it!!! MPS 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea, seperating the secular from the non. If done, it better come with a warning label, reader beware!Thright (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Eastern synod does not speak for the whole church, and the ELCIC has ruled against the local option. Please see the ELCIC website for more info. Thright (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Thright, the fact that Eastern Synod "lost," as it were, doesn't mean that the events aren't noteworthy. Why are you so anxious to rewrite history? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what I deleted said that the elcic supported the notion, in fact NO synod in the elcic supports ssb. Sorry if you dont like the stand, but wiki needs to reflect the truth. Take careThright (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
what it said: "In 2006, the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada's full communion partner through the Waterloo Declaration, voted to allow a "local option" provision similar to that in New Westminster, precipitating a dispute between the synod and the national church (which had previously rejected the proposal) as to where the authority to make that decision lay. In September of that year, the ELCIC's national church council ruled that authority to permit the local option lay with the National Convention.[22] The Council agreed to initiate further study on the issue and to bring forward another motion permitting the local option to the 2007 National Convention." Given that the page is entitled "Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches", and in 2007 the national church rejected the eastern synods request, there is no room for the above on a page which is to outline churches which support ssb. I am sure I can name all the churches in Canada that have had this discussion on this page, which in fact is not this pages purpose. The fact is 2007 HAS PASSED and the results are in, NO ELCIC church supports ssb. The above makes no mention of this, and the fact that it fail is evidence why it should not be on this page. Yours in ethics, Thright (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
Thright, nowhere does the quote you provide suggest that the ELCIC as a body supports same-sex unions. This page is not only about denominations that support same-sex blessings, but to overview the positions of all major denominations, pro or con. And in fact there are ELCIC churches that support same-sex blessings. St Paul's, Guelph is one. The fact that 2007 has passed does not mean the past should not be written about. Or do you believe that National Socialism should be deleted because 1945 "HAS PASSED and the results are in." Carolynparrishfan (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carolyn,parrishfan, it is clear that you fail to understand the structure of the ELCIC. Churches are not allowed to act alone, they must act according the the policies set forth by the national church. Nowhere on the St.Paul's website does it say they support ssb. All it says is that they are open to everyone. Please brush up on your theology, there is a HUGE difference between ssb and being open. It is clear that you do not understand the Lutheran Churches - ELCIC- stand and are acting because you want to push your personal ideas. Please stop. I highly recommend you ask another Lutheran about the ELCIC policies. Blessings Thright (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Thright, don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I am perfectly aware of Lutheran polity. No, Lutheran churches are not free to act alone. But you stated that "no ELCIC church *supports* same-sex blessings" which is simply not true (I used to attend St Paul's). I am constantly brushing up on my theology, but there is no need to take that tone. I have not pushed a personal opinion on anything; I have just insisted that the debate be covered. I don't care who "won" or "lost" it. But it's clearly notable, and blanking relevant information is tantamount to vandalism, which I must ask you to stop. I ask you directly: do you deny that the information on the debate is relevant? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolynparrishfan, I'm sorry if you think I was harsh, which I was not, in anycase this page is about ssb which again the ELCIC does not support. When the ELCIC supports ssb then it can be added to this page. The MAJORITY of ELCIC members are in disagreement with ssb and you are offending a lot of people. And please dont call me a vandal for telling you the truth. I have acted in a respectful manner and ask for you to do the same. Please, the this discussion is over, and I ask you to inquire - maybe Pasterdavid as he is an admin and member of wiki lutheranism - before acting alone on this one. Blessings Thright (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
Thright, do you understand that it doesn't matter whether the ELCIC supports SSBs or not, and that their position, as well as dissenting views from it within the ELCIC, are still relevant? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this will be my last reply on the topic. Carolynparrishfan, please ask for a third opinion. Thank youThright (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

Blessing in Church of England

References

  1. ^ Episcopalchurch: Gay priests' civil partnership blessed in London church

Blessing in Roman catholic church in Germany

Also in 2003 five same-sex unions in german town Mönchengladbach in Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen got in church a blessing.

89.166.224.195 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Frankfurter Rundscha:Dekan muss gehen wegen Schwulen-Trauung (german)
  2. ^ Hessischer Rundfunk: (german)

Blessing in Belgium

Gay eucharists

Apart from same-sex blessings, there are also reports about gay eucharists, or liturgical ceremonies, in Anglican churches. There should probably information about this somewhere. [2] [3] ADM (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

  • The section on Germany seems to be missing words conveying the situation within those churches. 98.218.241.48 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! +Angr 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Baptists?

They aren't mentioned in the article, and they're a major denomination which opposes gay marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.169.230 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be considered one of the "Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant denominations" listed under the header "Churches unfavorable to same-sex unions and marriage". There's no point in explicitly listing all such denominations. —Angr (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in USA

On May 10, 2011, the presbyteries voted 205—56, with three abstentions, to approve the constitutional change.

that is a good news. 188.118.147.211 (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scotland

Also Church of Scotland allows on its General Assembly in 2011 open homosexual ministers, who live in civil unions. 188.118.147.211 (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers

In 2009, already british Quakers said "yes" to same-sex marriages and allowed blessings.

United Reformed Church

In 2011, also the United Reformed Church in United Kingdom allowed the blessing of same-sex unions.

47.64.255.139 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada:Evangelical Church in Canada

In July 2011 Evangelical Church in Canada permits blessing of same-sex unions and allows open homosexual priests. 188.118.140.75 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) + Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada votes to bless same-sex marriage188.118.140.75 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate in UMC

Methodists in UMC debate blessing of same-sex unions. The Methodist Church is “the last holdout” among mainline Protestant denominations, as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ all now ordain gay ministers and bless same-sex unions.

Re-name?

The distinction between the blessing by churches of same-sex unions and same-sex marriages is getting increasingly blurred. It really depends on the law of the land - and some countries are upgrading unions to marriage. I think it makes sense therefore to rename this article to "Blessing of same-sex marriages and unions in Chritian churches". Any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Contaldo, I know you waited 3 days, and this is a good faith proposal, but it fails WP:CRITERIA "Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long." Why not take this to WP:RM. – Lionel (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think how you would shorten it, though, as it's quite a specific issue? It's unsatisfactory as it stands as marriage is obviously not the same as a union. The other option is to split the article into two, but I think that's more confusing. I suppose we could try something like "Christian blessing of same-sex marriages and unions" (which actually has the same number of words as the current title) - does that help? How will bringing it to WP:RM help - will they come up with suggestions as to how to handle? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections then I'm going to change the article name to: Christian blessing of same-sex marriages and unions. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Views of those who oppose same-sex unions and/or marriage

Multiple problems leading to serious NPOV issues. One, these statements are made as if they are statements of fact. They are, in fact, opinions. Two, the article is "Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches". Statements about churches that don't give their blessing are for a different article, not this one. -00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9480:2E:8586:C542:C885:E3E0 (talk)

Iceland

In Church of Iceland blessings of same-sex couples are allowed. 178.3.23.62 (talk)

Source? Angr (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marintosalla (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalists?

Why are the Unitarian Universalists on the list? They aren't really a Christian denomination, so aren't they outside the scope of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.128.5 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Church of England in 2013

In 2013, Church of England plans blessing of gay couples. 188.96.190.196 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More details would be welcome. When will this or did this begin? Maybe something about the deliberations that led to this and the reactions of those who disagree. The reactions of those who agree are probably more predictable and thus less necessary to include. Sterrettc (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Theological differences between support and opposition"

The section headed Theological differences between support and opposition was misleadingly titled. It implied that some sort of comparison of views would be presented. Insted, the section had a single sub-section and no other content. Having a section whose only content is a single subsection is poor layout in any case.

I have therefore renamed the subsection to Theological views of those who support same-sex unions and/or marriages, promoted it to a full level 2 section, and removed the header Theological differences between support and opposition. If anyone thinks this is unwise, the matter can be discussed here, with or without a revert. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the definition of "blessing"

I've noticed that the opening paragraphs do not define "blessing", and it appears that the term may be interpreted differently in the sections for different churches. From what I can see, the term "blessing" in this article original must have referred to a ceremony inside a church that legitimizes or affirms a permanent cohabiting union between two people. Such ceremonies are meant as a wedding-like ceremony for people who would otherwise not qualify for marriage (e.g. homosexuals in a country or church where homosexual marriage is not an option).

The word "bless" can, however, also simply mean to accept or to condone, and may not refer to holding a ceremony in which an ordained person legitimizes the relationship. See, for example, how the opening sentence was change to read "blessing of same-sex unions and same-sex marriages", which may indicate that the author of that change thought that "blessing" here means to condone.

I therefore suggest that we define "blessing" in the opening paragraph.

  • Do you agree with me that "blessing" in this article refers to whether churches have such ceremonies and/or wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, and does not refer to simply acceptance of same-sex unions?
  • Do you think the article should be specifically about wedding-like ceremonies, or should it rather be about the churches' acceptance of formalized same-sex unions (which, in many countries, are actually legal and/or regarded by the governments to be equal to marriage)? --leuce (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense

"* On May 11, 2022 again in more than 100 Roman-Catholic churches in Germany blessings of same-sex marriages were celebrated, for example in the Roman-Catholic cathedral in Magdeburg, and in Essen was first time a Roman-Catholic bishop with Ludger Schepers at place.[1]" This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Kiltpin (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Kiltpin (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Die Tagespost: Erster Bischof bei öffentlicher Segnung queerer Paare dabei, May 2022
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches&oldid=1221739294"