:rolleyes: Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity.
[QUOTE=mswas]
:rolleyes: Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Because the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the American Catholic Church, the American Orthodox Catholic Church and at least a dozen others aren’t Christian…
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
…If you can get everything you need from civil unions, I say take it, and let the nutters have their “marriage”. The whole concept is outmoded and arcane anyhow.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, just as long as everyone has to file their civil union paperwork at city hall and then let the churchs* sort the rest out.
*By church I mean any religious organization.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Because the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the American Catholic Church, the American Orthodox Catholic Church and at least a dozen others aren’t Christian…
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention (repeats self) the largest Protestant denomination in this country.
I’m used to being ignored, but it piques me when people ignore me and precede it with a rolleyes smiley.
As a firm believer in the separation of chirch and state, I couldn’t care less what Anglicans or Catholics or the UCC allow within their “communions”.
As a single person, I am pissed that we are discriminated against as a matter of state policy in favor of married people.
Personally I believe this issue is better resolved by by the state completely ignoring the marital status of EVERYONE.
Kythereia, I feel bad for you that you feel betrayed by your Church. I too am shocked, shocked to learn the extent of hypocracy in religious leadership.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
. . . It’s not there for our fun or pleasure . . .
[/QUOTE]
I want to go on record as saying that it is there specifically for our fun and pleasure, and doesn’t need any further justification.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
The thing is, as the OP’s link pointed out, the majority of the religious folks THEMSELVES in this case were in favor of allowing SSM blessings, but they got undemocratically smacked down by the upper levels of the church hierarchy:
However, as I already noted, a sizable majority of this particular Christian church is in favor of it. It is rather understandable that they’re pissed off at the closed-minded unresponsiveness of the higher-ups.
[In preview: And yeah, what matt said.]
[/QUOTE]
And that’s a fundamental problem with religion. Even if the majority of Canadian Anglicans are cool, if one believes that god drives what is right, then the wishes of the majority are irrelevant. The bishops might answer that through their training they can interpret the wishes of God better than those at lower levels. If I were a bishop, I might say that the majority of Israelites were ready to worship the Golden Calf, but that didn’t make it right.
Still, I’d take government recognition with no church recognition (I understand some churches are doing the right thing) over some church recognition with little government recognition.
As for me, I got married in the Ethical Culture Society, with no mention of God.
Sorry, wrong forum. Carry on.
I’ve had this problem posting over the years- why are my posts appearing oddly in the SDMB? Same trouble with e-mail also.
Keep in mind that the Canadian bishops are not only accountable to their own laity & clergy but also to the global Anglican Communion. They could choose to
put themselves at odds with Canterbury, along with their fellows in the ECUSA,
and also risk schim from the more conservative in their ranks.
I’m big on “Principles Over Unity”- if one believes refusing ordaining & marrying gays violates C’tian principles of love & justice OR if one believes that ordaining & marrying them violates C’tian principles of family & sexual morality, then one should see the issue as worth splitting over. Fortunately, my church & I are in accord on the issue, but if we weren’t & I were totally convinced of my position & saw no way of changing my church, off I’d go. I do have differences with my church on her interpretation of Spiritual Gifts, Eschatology & alcohol but not to the extent of being schmatic about it.
My posts have spaced & displayed irregularly for years- same with my e-mail:
What’s up with that?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Why, your Holiness, I’m glad you’ve finally decided to out yourself on the Dope. With your expertise about Vatican affairs, I’m sure you can clear up a lot of discussions about what the Catholic Church really believes. :rolleyes:
Of course, with me being an Anglican, even if you were Benedict XVI, I’d still tell you: Don’t EVER fucking presume to speak for all of Christianity – especially when better than a dozen Christian Dopers have gone on record as supporting same-sex marriages!
And yes, we too believe it’s a sacrament given by God, not a casual thing. And we think that couples don’t have to be one from column A and one from column B to feel lifelong love and commitment for each other. And that includes adopting or, rarely, begetting/bearing children as a part of creating a family, just like everyone else.
I trust I make myself clear? :mad:
[/QUOTE]
[aside] I think this is one of the things that people complaining about Liberal Christianity want to see from you guys - properly directed righteous fire. It makes me glad that you’re mad, if that doesn’t sound too insulting or confusing. Go, Polycarp!
I look forward to the point in my lifetime where SSM is commonplace, legal, and accepted as normal. Because it’s going to happen. Those who are against it can fight it all they want, but you have a rising tide of against bigotry and for acceptance and it will happen. Just like the end of slavery, voting rights for women, and the Civil Rights movement. I’d say a change is a’comin, but it’s already here.
[QUOTE=mswas]
:rolleyes: Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, Christianity is not God.
[QUOTE=mswas]
:rolleyes: Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
And so is wearing mixed fabric. You going to push for that being made illegal ?
And saying that a religion or it’s God is bigoted the way you are is an argument for not following them, not for writing that bigotry into law.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
It is? People don’t get married in China?
[/QUOTE]
Yes sparky, in the OP’s example, 'tis.
Regarding your China reference, many of the marriage customs practiced by the Han Nationality mirror modern western religious and pseudo-religious practices (save for the firecrackers of course). Even the “three bows” incorporates a nod to “heaven” as it were.
[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
You seem to have missed that this isn’t a matter of “SSM advocates” telling “religious folks” how “their” rules ought to be. This is an internal discussion within the Anglican Church of Canada, with a hefty proportion of said church being in favour of blessing same-sex unions. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual Anglicans as well as Anglicans who are straight allies have every right to be upset.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently not hefty enough a proportion. If you advocate SSM (which I do by the way, or more precisely, I don’t care who marries who, no dog in the fight and all that) whether or not you’re LGBT, you’re a SSM advocate, are you not? Perhaps “religious folks” wasn’t the right terminology, perhaps I should have said “Church Administration” in any case, swing and a miss.
[QUOTE=matt mcl]
And as I attempted to point out, Christians who are in favour of SSM are hardly a lunatic fringe. The largest Protestant denomination in Canada solemnizes same-sex marriages and ordains LGBT people as ministers.
[/QUOTE]
Never said they were. Said a majority of them are against it. Perhaps the OP should look into that particular denomination.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Agreed, just as long as everyone has to file their civil union paperwork at city hall and then let the churchs* sort the rest out.
*By church I mean any religious organization.
[/QUOTE]
They already do. You need, at least in most US counties, a “license” and in some cases blood tests. The states and counties (with the exception of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) are hedging their political bets, waiting to see what the church does.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Well, that’s an ugly little tautology you’ve got there. I think we can safely assume that everyone “believes what they believe because they believe it to be true.” The racist believes blacks are inferior to whites, because he believes that to be true. The pacifist believes it is never okay to harm another person, because he believes that to be true. In both cases, what those people believe, tells us about what sort of person they are. And so, too, does your beliefs about how God thinks homosexuals should be treated, tell us something about you. It’s got nothing to do with how deeply or tightly you hold that belief. It’s about what sort of person would look at the world, and come to that particular conclusion.
[/QUOTE]
I just want to say that I really like this post, for some reason. I think I want to print it out on a little business card and give it to people who wonder why their beliefs bother others.
That’s all I have to say here. This subject depresses me too much to contribute to a discussion of it, because the fact that the subject even exists seems to me to reflect all the meanness and pettiness of which we are capable.
Ugh.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Right. Try filing your taxes as ‘Civil Unioned’.
“I don’t see why those uppity negroes are screaming for integrated schools when ‘separate but equal’ colored schools are a sufficient replacement.”
[/QUOTE]
OK, so it aint the same is what you’re saying. Fine. Work to make it the same. Start with the people you can sway with money and votes, THEN work on the churches.
Yeah, because THAT example is appropriate. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
I just want to say that I really like this post, for some reason. I think I want to print it out on a little business card and give it to people who wonder why their beliefs bother others.
[/QUOTE]
Oooh! Could you get some made up for me, too, please? See, I’m going home (to the Dirty South) for a family reunion next month, and Lawd knows that I wouldn’t want to show up empty-handed. After all, I was bred better than that!
If I remember correctly, you’re in J.C. I’m in that neighboring city by the bay (no, not Newark–the other one), so I can just swing on by on the H-B light rail or whatever and pick 'em up when they’re ready.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
<snip>the fact that the subject even exists seems to me to reflect all the meanness and pettiness of which we are capable.
Ugh.
[/QUOTE]
No shortage of subjects that reflect likewise, I’m afraid. But, yeah, seconded. Vociferously.