Nobody cares about you organizing a community around shared principles.
It’s when you try to use the government to force everyone to follow your principles that others see this as oppression & hatred.
Except that’s not what this thread is about. Unless you’re under the impression the Anglican Church is a part of the Canadian government?
“It needed a triple majority of bishops, clergy and laity to pass. The laity voted 79 to 59 in favour and clergy voted 63 to 53, but bishops voted 21 to 19 against.” I know it’s cold comfort but that’s a very close vote. Does this get deliberated again at some point or is this it?
Given that religious weddings are neither necessary nor sufficient for a legal marriage, please explain in what way they are not already separated.
For a lot of people, the one that really counts is the goddy one. I don’t know why people would want to be part of a club that doesn’t want them, but that’s another thread. The thing is, with gay folk, they’re generally not accepted under *either * category. That’s the pisser of the whole thing.
Only in Canada they kind of ARE. Gay people can legally marry. And while as an Episcopalian I am annoyed and angered and tired and unsurprised by the lack of gay acceptance (though here in Hippyland, TX we are more chill about it than most places) it should not be the place of the government to tell churches what to do any more than it should the the place of churches to tell the government what to do.
So anyone telling me that Anglicans MUST have gay wedding ceremonies because the government sponsors gay marriage is going to be answered with a :dubious: . Anyone telling me that Anglicans should have gay wedding ceremonies because it’s backward and moronic to discriminate against people for who they love when love is supposed to be the basis of the whole religion I high five and say “You got it, brother.”
I am sorry they’re not letting you into their stupid club for jerks, guys. There are others who will. Heck, one of the former big guys at the Austin Episcopal Seminary speaks out from the pulpit that our gay brothers and sisters are our brothers and sisters and should be treated with the same love and respect as everyone else, that this fact is purely self-evident.
I agree. I don’t think the government should have any say-so in what bizarre hocus-pocus goes on in the church. If the church decides to look the other way and allow gay marriage, great! If they don’t…in my opinion, the proper response is to walk away. Completely. The whole we-can-make-them-change-their-minds thing changes not only their minds, but the religion itself. In which case, why not just go start your own? You’re not in line with that church’s practices.
For me, the answer to “why not start your own” is that I’d rather change the course on a big ship and hopefully eventually take the richness of its cargo where I’d like it to go, than to start building my own nearly empty dinghy.
I think people overlook or forget just how close this vote was. There’s a lot of history, resources, and people in the Canadian Anglican Church, just as there are in the United Methodist Church, to which I belong. I don’t see why it is inherently better or more moral to wash your hands of the church than it is to work to change the minds of two or three bishops, or change two or three bishops altogether, or even just to add your voice to the chorus, making it explicit that when they vote as they do they are overruling the wishes of their collective congregants and are manifestly out of step with their parishoners.
I have no issue with people for whom this is a make-or-break issue, who can’t associate with an organization that fails in this way. But I choose to stay and to work for the change I want to see, and I don’t think anyone else has the right to judge me for that.
And frankly, this sort of razor-thin vote seems to me like the time to up the pressure, not the time to walk away, since just a few more votes would swing the issue the other way. But that’s my opinion as an outsider, and it’s not my church.
The civil (i.e. government-sanctioned-only) ceremony results in a union that is called marriage. The churchified bluenoses who stand in the way of gay weddings have rested their objections on the sanctity of the ceremony for which marriage is the commonly understood label, and claim to be protecting same. Calling the civil contract, of whatever form, a “union” instead of a marriage removes their objection. Of course, I have no doubt that were this policy to be enacted, other objections would be raised, because the true motivation of the churchified bluenoses is that they’re creeped out by fags and dykes and want them to disappear, but at least by playing their semantic game we can bring their true motivations into clearer focus.
That’s quite a feat there, Kreskin. Are you always this adept at discerning others’ true motivations in defiance of whatever they say their objections are, or is this gift of yours restricted to just this one field?
In government and society in general, I’d agree with you 100%. But with a church, well…to me it seems to defeat the purpose of joining one in the first place. I mean, why NOT join one that already thinks the way you do? To me, changing them weakens the whole concept of god and religion and the bible. It’s another example of cherry-picking. It may strengthen people, but it reduces the religion to nothing more than human construct aimed at ticket sales. IMHO, of course.
Because I haven’t had any better luck in finding a church I agree with 100% on every subject than I have in finding a family, political party, or country I agree with 100% on every subject. You do the best you can with what you have available.
Well, it sounds like you’re looking not only for a church you are in perfect philosophical communion with (ha! get it? communion!), but one that is completely immutable, because IYO working for change is cherry-picking and diminishes the church. So good luck with that. In the matter of the immutability of doctrine at least, history doesn’t appear to be on your side, thank God.
I agree. I just have no tolerance for groups that practice institutionalized marginalization of innocent people. I know most people don’t see it as such, but I do. There *are * better alternatives. Some differences can be tolerated, I suppose, but I find this issue to be a deal-breaker.
I’m an atheist, so there’s precious little that religious history and I have in common. 
I think the whole thing is so free-form that I’m surprised any church has more than a couple hundred joiners world-wide.
Then their objection is purely semantic and hence just dumb.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are already separate entities which require no disentangling. The only entanglement anywhere in the system is that the government allows religious officials to officiate at a wedding that formalizes the civil marriage at the same time as it sanctifies or whatever the religious one. I would have no issue with the state declaring that this will no longer be allowed and that anyone who wants to be legally married must formalize that arrangement before a govt official in addition to whatever religious ceremony (if any) they desire.
But I see no reason that the state should hand religion the ‘marriage’ moniker. Marriages both civil and religious are found in virtually every known human culture throughout history. Some Christians might think the church invented marriage, but they’re just ignorant. If they can’t deal with the fact that legally-recognized civil marriages go by the same name as their precious sacrament just as has been the case for millenia, they need to get a grip.
Admittedly, I didn’t see the last post by Gorsnak on the previous page. I did look a bit hysterical there, dint I? Well, drawing those examples as a parallel, as I thought was happening, is worthy IMO of some hysterics. Wasn’t the case, oops, my bad.
What WOULD I do without your boundless genius? :dubious:
Take a small portion of this quote, and you have the crux of the debate I think, “the stances THEIR churches have taken against them” Being gay isn’t a choice, right? You can CHOOSE a church though, can’t you? Doesn’t everybody read the same book, pray to the same magical sky pixie, basically sing the same songs? Voting with one’s feet would be the way to go in this deal. There’s not a thing I can do about it more than I’ve already done. I’ve let my congresscritters know my stance, I’ve voiced my choice whenever polled, but not being 1) gay and 2) religious, my opinion is a touch less valid.
The states/counties won’t do anything unless the Church changes THEIR stance on SSM, and the Church won’t consider changing their stance on SSM unless the state does, they both have convenient excuses for pandering to their base, and, more directly, catering to the vocal majority who spends money on churches and votes the politicians in.
I can certainly respect that, but I would ask you to believe me when I tell you that that is a lot easier position to hold when you are an atheist who doesn’t have a church home with years of personal history. For a person of faith who practices that faith through church participation, leaving a church is like a divorce. Yes, you can always vote with your feet, obviously, but that may be an extremely painful option – so painful that the only way you go is that it becomes more painful to stay. That is an agonizing place to be.
I understand your pain. I’m sure it is a lot like a divorce, and just as agonizing. I would look at it like an act of infidelity on the part of the church, I suppose. Some people can live with it and some can’t.
Well, it’s not my personal pain, to be honest. I haven’t left my church. This part of their theology doesn’t make me happy, but this is not my personal deal-breaker. As I said, I’d rather work for change internally than leave.
Not even close. Different denominations of Christianity have slightly different Bibles and quite different prayers, rituals, and songs. There are a lot of different ideas about God within Christianity, too- a Unitarian Universalist who identifies as Christian almost certainly has a very different concept of God than a Southern Baptist does, for example.
Some of us believe that morality does evolve over time, and religious teachings should change to keep up with it. The Bible sanctions slavery, for example, because the idea of a society without it would have been unthinkable at the time. If you’re religious, you could believe (as I do) that God directs this evolution of morals, like people who believe in theistic evolution believe that God directs evolution. The idea that morals change over time does weaken certain concepts of God, religion, and the Bible, but by no means all of them, any more than the theory of evolution does.
Sure, one sees God as a really neat and loving higher power that respects and values the dignity of the very creatures he created, and one sees God as a paradoxically vengeful and loving creator who sends to burn in a firey lake for all all eternity the faithless heathens who follow any path but the one they ordain is correct.
In all seriousness though, religion is such a barrier to faith, that its mere existance has caused the the majority of the human strife and suffering that you read about in history, and see before you today.
The Bible and the Qu’ran, the included dogma, and the doctrine of the church/mosque and the shadow they cast over the world is the most dangerous thing ever to exist. When you find something people are willing to kill and then to die for, then control it so that through it’s far-reaching tentacles you can control the population to such a degree that killing in the name of “God” actually makes SENSE, the battle is already lost. The idea that we evolve, and that morality then evolves with us, as directed by God, is a good one, if only more Christians believed it, perhaps this thread wouldn’t even need to exist, and we could get back to bashing Bush.