It seems with all of the religious controversy surrounding homosexual marriage, the question comes up that if gays were allowed to marry, in the same sense that heterosexual couples do, should the gay people be allowed to get married in a church? I know that not all couples of catholic faith are allowed to wed in a catholic church.... Thoughts?
Why would they even want to get married in a church? To prove they can?
It's the earthly law that's being used/abused to allow them to get married at all, so looks to me like they'd want to cater to that.
Don't divorced people get remarried in churches (even though that's an abuse of Jesus's law on divorce and remarriage)?
Once again, livelonger, most churches believe in the concept of repentance and forgiveness, NOT outright blasphemy. Why isn't that fact clear to you yet?
And I've never heard of any church performing divorces. Plus, most of them refuse to even ordain preachers who've been divorced. Repentance is repentance and is valid. But the consequences of one's sins is something a person still has to be responsible for in some arenas, as they should be.
No, it's clear that many "conservative" churches have members who routinely violate Jesus's word and want the church to bless it. As long as they're the majority and they're the ones filling the plate every Sunday, the church is happy to overlook that.
Why else would a church bless a union that Jesus explicitly called adultery?
Jesus probably isn't. I suspect deep down inside you know that.
Aren't the various blasphemies social constructions? Culturally decided, not universal?
Hi mythbuster. I wasn't talkin' about you above.
I believe the concepts are universal. But even if some are socially constructed, it still is the Bible that's overwhelmingly used as the voice of reason on this subject as well as most subjects!
But, Brenda, there are less than a half dozen references that MIGHT be on "homosexuality" in the first place... so why are Scriptures constantly being used as the heavy authority here?
Many scholars have peeled back the information regarding translation issues, particularly in the Letters to the Corinthians attributed to Paul... to explain that the Hebrew word we now use as "homosexual" (with our current definitions and understandings in OUR culture) actually refers to male prostitutes involved in sexual practices WITH CLERGY.
This 1 Corinthians reference is the intance/reference I notice the most in this homosexual right-wrong debate.
Does it make sense to use a flawed interpretation of Scriptures as the premise to this homosexual topic debate all the time?
There are more than just "Biblical" arguments for this topic, as well, Brenda. Why are all other arguments tossed by the wayside?
Countries and laws and human rights aren't inherently composed in our world by the hand of God in every corner of the globe... PEOPLE/Mankind has been making the laws. Admittedly, it's a nice thing to think about the Hand of God being directly related to the making of our rules - but it is OBVIOUS that "Law" and "Biblical Law" are not the same things... maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't be - but we're definitely looking at both apples and oranges here, aren't we?
If we are going to try and have an alignment of "God's rules" with "Human Laws and agency," shouldn't we at least learn the entire context of the Scriptures we are deciding to follow?
Upon inspection of other Scriptures that may be on the topic of homosexuality, you won't find Jesus uttering any directives on this topic. You'll also find that most references are vague - or - if you trace translations and revisions of books of the Bible just a little way into the past, you'll find that interpretations differ and that more recent versions have "DEVELOPED," not "improved" - according to recent cultural perspectives, politics, etc.
As well, politically and culturally, land ownership, slavery, kinship, family lineage and various things had extremely different meanings.
ie: family lineage today is largely about ego and having a sense of belonging and self combined - so knowing your family lineage is important temporally. In ancient times, knowing your lineage could be the difference between survival of kin, ownership of land and valuables, possessing human rights, etc. If you couldn't name your father, you might be cast out of towns, have no citizenship and rights of any kind in the ancient world - you could be cast out of a village as a child and die, could be sold into slavery, etc. Today, if you don't know your father, it may not mean your life is in danger or that you won't find a substitute...you likely won't die from not knowing who your parents are.
As well - in ancient times, if you could not produce offspring, your lineage was doomed to die. With no blood ties to pass your possessions, land, etc., to, your lineage could die out very quickly. Your sterility might even affect your village in a serious way - small village and no steady source of offspring could stifle a community population very permanently in the ancient world. Not so today. Populating villages was an infinitely more serious concept in ancient days versus now.
If you think of the context of all these things, it is easy to see where at least a few authors inserted things into Scriptures that pertain to marriage unions, child-bearing, etc. Politically, in certain regions is WAS ordered that as many people as could find mates - join together and have offspring.
In other historical documents of ancient times, there are records preserved which indicate that at certain times, when communities were large, successful and wealthy, the law dictated few things related to relationship unions but after plagues, defeats in warfare and such, laws were enacted with such things as "men taking multiple wives," "age of consent to marriage" changes (lowered ages), and things related to treatment of slaves... it was legal to use a slave for sexual intercourse during some years but was not the general practice of cultures to allow this all the time.
Ultimately, using Biblical arguments to oppress homosexuals today doesn't make a whole lot of sense - especially when the Biblical arguments do not gel with the dozens and dozens of other Scriptures which talk about loving thy neighbor, brother, sister, parents, (there are even prescriptives for the humane treatment - then RELEASE of slaves after a certian amount of years), etc - UNCONDITIONALLY (no blurbs about "except if your neighbor, brother, sister, parents, etc is/are homosexual").
I think Unconditional LOVE is going to out-TRUMP the love-everyone-except-homosexuals concept, to tell you the truth.
No persecution has stopped the Christians in hundreds and thousands of years.
No persecution has stopped people from loving each other, either - same-gender love or not.
However...Christian strength has organization and money on its side.
Homosexual love - just love.
Which do you think is stronger? The Christian screams against only a portion of the community - or unconditional love?
You don't consider divorce blasphemy? It flies in the face of scriptural teachings. I don't quite see how you could call it other than that. Sure, you can be forgiven, but you aren't repenting by staying divorced. Are you?
I didn't say divorce.
People who were divorced are remarried in many Christian churches, even though that union is forbidden as adultery by Jesus. Why do you keep on ignoring what the Bible very, very clearly says on the matter? Maybe because it conflicts with the way you want to lead your life?
Maybe you should read what the bible says about homosexuality or maybe you don't want to because it conflicts with your lifestyle live longer
actually, his post on divorce was in response to a bigot's explaination of the bible. And now, once again a bigot brings up the bible. Weeee.... circular argument.
BTW, he could probably care less what the bible says, since he's not Christian. Or do you expect everyone to care about the book whether they are Christian or not? How much do you care about Budist texts?
Yes, exactly. That was my point.
All conveniently overlooked by Christians who obsess about teh gays.
I don't get obsessed with gays, or much of anything else. I do feel that if our individual lives are threatened by gays , then it up to us to set the record straight with the offending party. Once that is done, and we have not led the offending person where we think they should go, Then it should be left between that person and God. We all have to face Him individually and be judged by our actions, not by the actions of people that agravate us.
Does your life get threatened by gays often? I thought that we had finally stomped out the roaming packs of well-dressed men and mechanically inclined women that invade homes, redecorate, and repair small appliances.
Well, at least if you are killed by a gay man he'll clean up the mess and darling you will look fabulous at your funeral.
Yep, three of em and the exclamation marks.
I had almost forgotten just how damn funny you are!
Brutal too. I like that in a gal!
It gets old quick Earnest, just ask my eh-husband. The real comic genius tonight is L.L. in the other gay thread... the one with the positive and negatives. I bow to his superior sarcasm skillz.
You have misread my post. I did not say my life was ever threatened by gays. I said if our individual lives are threatened by gays , then it up to us to set the record straight with the offending party.
Oh, forgive me you don't speak contemptuous sarcasm yet.
In nice person talk, that translates to: Please, do tell how me sleeping with another woman threatens your individual life?
I do speak contemptuous sarcasm well, but will refrain. I'm trying to speak English right now, you know, you second language. I was speaking in general terms. I don't care who you you eat chocolate out of, or who packs whose poop shoot. I said if some body is threatened by it, they should deal with it. How's that for contemptuous sarcasm.
God doesnt always specify why he commands certain laws,though personally I see almost any law being for our protection (everyones), in the spiritual realm and our modern day societies.
It doesnt matter to me what people do ,and for all i know the next stranger I talk too could be a murderer ,fornicator etc etc...I could be for that matter, who knows for sure who people really are.
But it matters to God.
Its not obscession for many Christians, certainly not me.
Hypocrisy is disgusting and unacceptable in any form.
To be very honest,what you do and why you do it is between you and God ( or not, as you choose).
This time period has been termed 'Period of Grace'
My business is to love without prejudice,and leave the laws and justification to God.
No, I know. My comments were directed to the evangelical churches that marry divorced people on the one hand (due to what wilderness astutely pointed out is driven by convenience), and loudly condemn gay couples on the other hand (because not enough of their parishioners are gay for them to care).
In my opinion some churches run Gods business (according to their own creeds) much like any other corporate organisation-quite sad.
It angers me actually any group that is expolited or patronised.
Homosexuals choose to be different in order to upset the apple cart and go against the norms of society. God will not tolerate their misbehaviour and neither do I.
Dave, how have you been? Not seen you for awhile.
I don't agree that homosexuality is a choice. At least not with all.
I am sure there are some who are infatuated with the flamboyant lifestyle. But for many, it is who they are, not chosen.
And I am sure if you asked those who have been beaten almost to death, picked on, ridiculed to no end why they would continue to "choose" this lifestyle, you would find it isn't always a choice.
So you chose to be hetero just so you could be like everyone else?
Are you absolutely sure that is their reasons for being homosexual?
Or, is the fragile shell of your religious convictions cracking under the pressure of a society that accepts an apple cart where love is the norm and petty judgements based on the very same religious convictions are duly ignored.
Yes, we know you are intolerant of other people who don't share your religious convictions and we know your God taught you that.
What's really ironic is that you could learn a whole lot more from homosexuals about honesty, compassion, integrity and love than you could ever learn from your God.
I really don't understand why marraige between two people who love each other can be considered blasphemous. I think the church should be more outraged at all the drunken people getting married in Vegas after only knowing each other for several hours. THAT is insulting to the institute of marraige.
And their are churches that welcome gays, lesbians and transgenders. Let's remember that not all Christians are as intolerant as the Fundies.
Marriage is a very serious institution put in place to protect the rights of mothers and children. To distort this right as being some sort of general right for every person's situation is to undermine the paramount seriousness of the rights of mothers and children.
Historically, mothers and children have never had rights until recently. The rights of marriage did not protect King Henry the 8ths wives... or any other woman who's husband was tired of her. Even in modern times men divorce women simply so that he can replace her with something younger... If anything marriage is a tool used by men to keep women in line.... though admittedly in some of the more modern times it could be described as as two way street. child support and alimony are aspects of civil laws and not protection under marriage.
davenmidtown, you can hardly use Henry VIII as an example of standard behavior. But since we are, it is worth noting that he Henry VIII had to turn the entire system on its head in order to get his way.
In terms of your other point, if it has taken thus long for mothers to have full rights, why then would you seek to diminish them?
As to your last point, it is as I expected. People are trying to push for gay marriage in order that you can have gay adoption easily. All political. Nothing about the real welfare of the child.
no... not at all. I have no intention of marrying nor of adopting children. I do not think that marriage is a natural law at least not as the term applies to say... physics or biology. but that argument may take us down the road to evolution, etc. and that is not what this forum question was about. I am gay and a christian and the intention of this forum was to delve into the church as an institution not the institution of marriage. Yes, Henry the VIII was an extreme example but I felt it was a safe example to keep us on topic. Let me ask you this.... how does a marriage differ when it is performed in a church with a priest (etc.) as opposed to when it is opposed in a court and by a judge?
Ok gotcha, I'm straying from the point.
Legal marriage is for legal recognition and legal protection. Marriage in a church is to make the legal bond a Holy one. Marriage in catholic churches is a sacrament and is unbreakable.
When I refer to 'natural law' I mean that marriage takes the natural system of attraction and reproduction. Since the arrival of children is a sacred thing, the process leading towards that thing must also be sacred and therefore the whole process is given divine recognition.
Lots of mothers of children are gay.
Lots of children are also adopted by gay couples.
And there are lots of heterosexual couples who can't or don't want to have children.
What about all of them?
It is neither here nor there what a mother's inclinations are in relation to the rights of marriage. Marriage is the putting in place of a secure system based on natural law that relies on an assumption that child may arrive and for the protection of the mother and that child. You cannot invent a version of that scenario and demand to apply an identical law. Where would we be?
Not an invention. A reality. There are millions of children being raised by gay parents.
There are also millions of heterosexual couples who have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they will not be bearing children when they enter the bonds of matrimony.
Again, what about them?
People who have no way of reproducing can't get married in a catholic church. Life's unfair.
I never knew that. So, even heterosexuals, who are sterile and know it, aren't allowed to marry in a Roman Catholic church. That seems very unfair, and I would think Catholics should campaign to get this position changed.
The point is for there to be no vagueries surrounding marriage. If two people marry without knowing they are sterile, it is valid. One can always practice and hope for the best. If there is an obvious absence of vital parts, and therefore an inability to consummate the conjugals, then it's off to the monastery I suppose.
Do they forbid post-menopausal women from marrying?
I'm struggling with this concept lizzieboo. Marriage has not in many cases, past or present, protected mothers and children. ( I'm also thinking of Anne Bolyn as Henry V111 is the example used) I'm also struggling with this version as to why marriage was put into place. I obviously need to research this more. When two people marry in church it is supposedly a spiritual union? but has legal implications. Legally speaking men retained the lion share of rights. Not women, or mothers, so I don't see how this argument can be valid.
Bad men will always do bad things. Imagine how much more ill- treated women would have been if there was no legal requirement for even good men to care for a mother and child.
Until recent times, I'm not be specific about when because I actually do not have exact dates to hand, but certainly within the last (50 Years) marriage permitted the physical abuse of women in the form of reasonable chastisement. Often referred to by feminists as the 'rule of thumb' (but that's another issue altogether) Men were also legally permitted to rape their wives (until the 70's I believe although again I'd have to get back to you on that) Marriage has, at no point in history that I can bring to mind protected women. It did however, legalize the abuse of women.
There has always been cases of violence against women it's true. However, women have had cases of violent husbands taken to court for hundreds of years. Lord Byron, the Romantic poet, was taken to court for sodamising his wife. That was only made legal in this country in recent years interestingly.
Marriage doesn't make everyone behave themselves but it sets a standard that most will adhere to. Abuse of wives has always been frowned on.
Abuse of wives has always been frowned on
Legally speaking that is not true. From the (1790's?) on wards, reasonable chastisement was the right of a husband. Although there has been much debate about this, the 'reasonable' was to be determined by the husband. It's interesting that, in respect of Byron, he was taken to court for sodomy (silly word) What, might I ask, was the outcome?
Marriage doesn't make everyone behave themselves but it sets a standard that most will adhere to.
Again, the standards were set by men. Women adhered, they had to? Why, because marriage did not protect them. Those same standards for men may have been uttered, but socially, throughout the last few centuries, it was acceptable for men to break their marriage vows. And when they did not adhere there were no real repercussions, because men had the lions share of rights.
The law of England once allowed a husband to beat his wife, as long as the stick he used was no thicker than his thumb.
Yes, that's also what I believe, if we go back to I think the 1790's an English judge( forget his name, I have a crap memory which is why I'm completely useless in the forums) ruled that it was (permissible, acceptable, legal?) for a man to beat his wife with an object not broader than his thumb, this was deemed to be reasonable chastisement.
However, there are no other records to indicate that this became a precedent. Many commentators claim that this ruling in the 1790's? was adopted and manipulated by feminists groups(during the 70's) for their own agenda and that it had not been a real precedent. (I might add that I believe the opposite, and reasonable chastisement was far worse than that) That's what I meant by a whole other issue.
When I originally talked about protection I was referring to the legal recognition of a husband's financial duties towards his wife and children. That was a very huge commitment until recently and obviously essential to a woman's well-being and security.
Certainly I am not denying that marriage back in the day might not be something we'd put up with now.
You say marriage standards are set by men for men? Even if men were only interested in their offspring it would make sense to take care of the women who cared for them.
I don't think it has ever been socially acceptable for Christian men to break their marriage vows, although they might well have done. If it was kept quiet it's because it was shameful. You could be imprisoned for abandoning a wife and child though. It's far more acceptable now if anything and there certainly aren't repercussions. I think it's hard for us to imagine how seriously people once took marriage and future offspring.
If you look at the literature from the period you're referring to I think you'd be surprised about the affinity shared by men and women. The likes of Mary Wollstonecraft, Anna Letitia Barbauld, George Eliot, Jane Austen and later the Bronte sisters demonstrate that you could mostly expect gentleness from men. 'The Tenent fo Wildfell Hall' is a story all about a shocking case of domestic violence and a woman's escape from that written in the 1840s. Fascinating times.
Byron got in big trouble for obscenity or some such.
Having studied some of the works of Mary Wolstencroft, I, for one, would never have interpreted her works "demonstrate that you could mostly expect gentleness from men" On the contrary, Wolstencroft , although politically active during the enlightenment, was resigned to the back rooms of the "Salons" Despite her position of solidarity with some men and the particular cause, she was never treated as an equal. This was reflected in her works. She may have encountered men that didn't hit women, that didn't mean that the " female condition" she described so fervently was in any way overcome during her exchanges with men.
When I originally talked about protection I was referring to the legal recognition of a husband's financial duties towards his wife and children. That was a very huge commitment until recently and obviously essential to a woman's well-being and security
Women may have won the right to legal challenge, but this does not equate to a husbands financial duties to his wife and child, this was not, has never been, and is not a huge commitment on the part of men.
How much trouble exactly did Byron get into to.
Sorry for the delay. Husband was wondering what I have been doing for last 5 hours.
Ok, yes, Wollstonecraft's whole raison d'etre was the inequality of men and women. But she also travelled Europe as a single, unmarried mum before meeting fellow revolutionary and love of her life, William Godwin, who changed her her view of marriage which she realised was wonderful if you found the right person. Godwin himself was inconsolable when she died after giving birth after their child. George Eliot lived with her married boyfriend for years without having children and whilst being a celebrated author. Both are radical by today's standards.
I can't remember the details of Byron's case. Must look it up. He was certainly seen as a cad and a bounder for plonking his small daughter in a convent and forgetting her. Shelly too was seen as a bad-un for eloping with Mary, the 16 year old daughter of Wollstonecraft and Godwin while his wife threw herself in the Serpentine in despair. Nothing changes.
I believe that many things occur in church that have nothing to do with what God wants. As I have said on many occasions, God and religion have very little in common. Religious people seem to take it upon themselves to tell other people what God's plan for them is. All the while ignoring God's plan for themselves. If a union is made with God's blessing, mankind has nothing to do with that blessing. If that union does not have God's blessing, God can, and will deal with it. Religious people have the responsibility to teach God's word, not make His judgments for Him. God has been speaking for Himself for many generations, sometimes quite emphatically so. I cannot speak for others or tell them what to do. I can say that I traded my religion in many years ago for trust and Faith in God that he has a better plan for me than a group of self serving humans can ever provide.
That's odd, they're actually one and the same, by definition.
Are you referring to God and religion, God and church.....?
The definitions of all three words
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
A building for public, especially Christian worship. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Each definition is different. Which are the same by definition?
Not according to what God says in the Bible ,but then you would know this if you had read it.
Welcome Eaglekiwi, to the, up to now, rather one sided discussion.
Thank-you hubertsvoice for the welcome.
Gods word never changes ,unlike our own watered down laws over the years,which is perhaps why many people have difficulty accepting Gods standards (In my opinion)...but just because we as a society change our minds or become more liberal in our views ,we often insist 'The Church' ie God should be willing to negoiate too.
Then we rebel, reorganise,plan and conspire against each other.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday ,today and forever.
For some that message angers or irritates,for me it offers solid stability.
I agree. Sometimes it is with people that a "verse" in the bible is quoted so many times that it is accepted, only to find out with our own research, that the verse doesn't actually. Kind of like when politicians quote percentages, "that sounds impressive, I'll go with that". As an example of the "verse" for many years I had the idea that Jesus had said at the last supper or on his visit prior to ascension to heaven to not celebrate his birth, but his death, resurrection and ascension to heaven. In my research, I find that never was a verse in the bible.
You mean like how the OT is exactly the same as the NT? It never changed? LOL!
Like how the Church killed people for not believing the Earth was the center of the Universe?
And, you made this up, why?
We already know you haven't read the Bible. That is obvious to anyone.
Are you asking should they be allowed to marry with each other or simply get married? The question is a little ambiguous. For a Gay to join with another Gay, my answer would be "NO" If you are suggesting should one lie and pretend to not be gay and enter a Hetro marriage, "NO" again for that would be lying. If you are suggesting that a gay change their priority and become straight and wish to marry, as long as the partner knows and agrees, OK.
I know of no homosexual couple in the Catholic Faith who's union would be blessed by the church. Homosexual relations is a sin frowned upon by God and the church especially the Catholic Church.
I wonder what the Gay Bishops serving in the Catholic Church would say?
I think you mean the Anglican church dearie.
No, I was in fact referring to the Catholic Church, dearest.
Oh, I see. Well do tell what you think the 'Gay Catholic Bishops' would say on the subject.
Interestingly enough, they are saying the same things any other homosexual with religious beliefs are saying right here on these forums, for example, and coincidentally, they are being accepted or persecuted by the very same type of mindset we see right here on these forums; the reasonable and rational or the religiously intolerant.
And yet, in contradiction to yourself, you are saying that these people are both religious and rational.
Odd, I don't recall saying that. Where exactly?
Your on-going point of argument is that religious people are liars, frauds and are irrational, and yet here you tell me about a gay Bishop (who would need to be very religious ) who has a rational and reasonable argument.
Guess what? You can now get a quickie divorce ("annulment") through the Catholic Church. And now by accepting Anglican priests, you can also be married.
All churches either evolve or die.
Annulment isn't a quickie divorce. It isn't a divorce even. It is when a marriage can be proven to be invalid: eg; if one of the couple was pressured into it, if one of them is already married, if the marriage was never consummated etc..
It's true about Anglican priests. They can be married and then move over to the Catholic church to become a priest there. It's recognition of a shared heritage and a positive move.
There are a multitude of reasons nowadays that can suffice. I had a friend who "annulled" her marriage with her husband that certainly would not qualify under any of the reasons you mention or that are conceivably defensible under Catholic doctrine. She and her husband just decided they didn't love each other and were better suited to be apart (i.e. no-fault divorce).
That's funny you think the acceptance of Anglican priests is about shared cultural heritage. They've always had a shared cultural heritage. It's only now that Catholic numbers in developed countries are falling off a cliff, and that "Catholic priest" is synonymous with "pedophile." It's a market-driven strategic move, certainly understandable given the position of waning power the Catholic church finds itself in.
Well your friend who "annulled" her marriage is not telling you something. If her marriage was valid, it cannot be annulled.
I will take the "pedophile priest" comment on the chin where it was directed, although I don't think the pedophile issue is funny. I would say that there has long been a serious problem with gay priests being put in charge of teenage schoolboys and it's good that the Church is finally being taken to the cleaners about it.
This is not the first time the RC church has invited Anglicans in. The last time was about 20 years ago so it isn't a recent strategy. It isn't as big a leap as you might imagine. Anglican isn't the same as Protestant. They are only out of communion with the Catholics in regards to the Pope but they don't fundamentally disagree on theology.
I'm not aware of anything unseemly that my friend did. And I'm not sure what her priest asked in terms of verification of any of the annulment criteria; probably nothing. The Catholic church has come around on the topic of divorce; they just don't call it that. But it works the same way: a blessed breaking of a union that Jesus said no man would tear asunder. Catholic doctrine makers are getting as good at making excuses as their Protestant brethren.
I don't think the pedophile priest issue is funny either, and it's not my comment that has shaped that perception. And the fact that *married* Anglican priests can now join the Catholic priesthood - unprecedented - has everything to do with the growing perception that Catholic priests are gay and/or prey on boys.
Again, evolution or die.
But what I was saying was that there was a whole swathe of Anglican vicars who moved over when women were first ordained about 20 years ago, before the full extent of the catholic scandal emerged.
I wasn't suggesting your friend did anything unseemly. I just know for a fact that divorce is not recognised by the RC institution. Individual parishes may have rogue priests, but I'm not aware of many.
I think eventually churches will be forced by the government to marry couples despite their teachings and beliefs.
Your church, Onusonus, will eventually accept gay people and probably marry them, as well. But it won't be because of government edict, but rather because eventually most Mormons won't be bigoted towards gay people. This is why the LDS backtracked on treating black people as subhuman, too - it wasn't because of government threat.
I doubt that churches will be forced, but I would say that the states (USA) will eventually be required to legally recognize gay marriages.
gays getting married will always be a controversial topic. a part of the american constitution is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. my thing is, if the gays are allowed to be gay and get married , then that's freedom of expression. equally, if the catholic believes that a marriage should only be between the union of a consenting man and women, then they have a right refuse to marry gays. i don't think anyone should force a religious value on anyone. Jesus certianly didn't. He only went after who would willingly follow and believe in Him. no one can stop anyone from being gay, and no one can force a religious group to accept gay marriages. having said that. "to each his own"
If the person that holds title to the land don't care if ya do?
I would think that just about anybody can get married there , no matter where it is.
Coming late into this conversation I'd nonetheless like to share my thoughts about your initial question.
It just so happened about 60 years ago that my parents were not allowed to be wed in a Catholic church, because my mother was catholic but my father wasn't. When I was born and to be christened, the catholic priest balked for many reasons...I didn't have a saint's name in my two names, and my parents had married outside the church. I was baptized, eventually, by a ruling coming from the parish's bishop, and I did go on to communion and confirmation in the church.
Here's the good news. Priests live with their consciences. What do they do wrong or right by the dictates of the governing councils that rule their duties? Hopefully, they just step up as humans who need to do the right thing. That bishop did that.
I was accepted into my religion by virtue of a bishop somewhere long ago who baptized me, against the church's dictates. He was a rebel. The Catholic church will eventually accept same sex marriage. It might take 100 or more years. But it will start with one person's voice, one person's actions.
I think your confidence is misplaced; the Catholic Church has not accepted contraception yet?
The term church could mean anything. There is the Satanist church in Cali and other groups that call themselves a church. If they find a church that has no problem doing the ceremony that is up to them.
Shouldn't that be up to the church? I know pastors who will not marry someone if there will be alcohol at the reception. On the other hand, churches that allow gay pastors would probably welcome gays with open arms.
It would be up to that particular church whether they want to allow the use or rent of their facility for that.
Exactly, Ms. Dee. Exactly. If a given church wants to allow a given couple to get married in its building, and let its leader officiate at the ceremony, then that's just dandy.
By the same token, no church should be compelled to allow any given couple to get married in its building, and no member of the clergy should be compelled to perform a ceremony for any given couple.
And if the given church doesn't want to rent their facilities to homosexuals, the church and clergy are considered a prejudice bunch of assh****s.
an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
It would seem your comment is accurate.
I find it irrational that any Homosexual would want to be in a church in the first place-give what God has said about lying with the same sex?
Eaglekiwi, could you point me to the scripture where God speaks about homosexuality, I can't seem to find it in my KJV, I'm not saying that it isn't there, I just can't seem to find it.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Sorry just reread where you mentioned KJV:
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.
There are others where it speaks of lying with the same sex.
The Bible seems to be quite clear on the act, the word Homosexual appears later and in other versions.
Why do you think so many churches are willing to marry adulterers (i.e. divorced and remarried) people then?
I think the Catholic Church sticks to the Bible and will not allow divorced people to remarry, but why do all the Protestant churches bless what Jesus called adulterous unions?
Because they'll lose half their constituents if they don't. Catholics will eventually come around, too, when they decide their interpretation was wrong after all.
I believe that if the Catholic Church were to stick to the bible about that, they should likewise stick to the bible about setting up idols to worship, and homosexual priests abusing boys.
Priests who molest boys aren't homosexual, any more than the priests who molest girls (oh yes, they do exist; they just don't seem to provoke outrage) are heterosexual. Both varieties are pedophiles.
Thats a reasonable question ,and Iv heard various answers (from clergy)..
Even the Catholic church has softened its stance, over the years, including divorce.
Man that is.
Thank you very much for those references. I don't know anyting for sure other than I don't know everything, That's why I ask directions.
Are you saying youre a man and prepared to stop and ask questions :lol;
Good for you, worthy of a HP accolade for sure.
LOL! So, you pull that from Leviticus, which you obviously haven't even read. If you did, you would realize there are all sorts of commands in there you would never do or follow. But instead, you focus on one single verse regarding homosexuality.
The hypocrisy is outstanding.
There are so many things in the Bible that have been presented to YOU that you would never do. Is that irrational, too? LOL!
That's the problem with the way you want to mete out judgement based upon that definition. Irrational, unreasonable, etc. are the qualifiers that the liberal agenda ignores. It's quite rational and reasonable to both fear and have an aversion to acceptance of homosexuality.
The 1st definition of prejudice in Webster's 4th Edition is---
A judgement or opinion formed before the facts are known, preconceived idea, favorable, or more usually, unfavorable. 2. A judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it;...
I don't know of anyone, or anyone, who bases their opinions of this issue upon preconceived ideas or irrationality or unreasonableness (unless it's those in favor of it; then they certainly do dismiss the facts!) Most people know the facts of life. And people know what homosexuality means.
As it is irrational to think that God designed, built and then condemned gay people for being as He designed them the call stands. Neither is it rational to believe Gays have a choice in spite of massive evidence and testimony from the gays themselves and the mental health industry.
I would say that the idea gays are that way by choice is disregarding the facts that contradict it. That judgement is formed before facts are known and is a preconceived idea. The call stands
It is neither rational nor reasonable to fear gays. That fear is the result of recognizing differences in gays and is what happens when one allows irrational emotional reactions to overcome reason. Different does not always equal danger.
You and I will never agree on this issue, Brenda; my opinion is based on testimony from the gay community and psychologists while yours is based on the bible. The two don't agree and neither will our opinions.
Sorry to disagree with you here, wilderness. Brenda's very real prejudice is not based on the Bible. The vast majority of Christians don't have the seething hatred she does towards gay people, and the fact that she can find verses that support her prejudice doesn't mean her hatred of gay people finds its source in the Bible. She's very happy to ignore entire swathes of Jesus's word that she doesn't find relevant or that compelling.
you can (and should) stop any ol' time now falsely accusing me of "seething hatred" or of hatred, period. Not that I can stop you, but I'm telling you that you should stop. That's what a civil person should do.
But since you do have me at a disadvantage so that it's left up to me to go on the defensive almost every time, then I will say this(for about the 10th time at least)--I don't hate anyone. And I will go on the offensive a bit, too, by saying this--no matter what, I don't hate you! Because while I think....you would be pleased as punch if I would say I hate you... that just isn't possible. I am sorry if I've messed up your line of prejudice; but you'll just have to deal with those personal feelings yourself since you refuse to see the facts.
By the way, I simply showed wilderness the correct definition of the word "prejudice". And wilderness and you have demonstrated that quite obviously! All it would take would be for either of you to actually look at the definition without leaving out a few words that don't suit you.
P.S. No charge for the English/behavioral lesson. But your score is way below passing grade. Would you like a re-take? Grab your dictionary and a Bible. Or just a dictionary. Or even just your Torah. Whatever.
Yes, I guess I don't know if you're literally seething at the mention of homosexuality, but you sure you do jump in with terms like "perversion" and accusing gay people of trying to indoctrinate children, among other utterly ignorant, bigoted, and untrue things. Occasionally you pull the "hate the sin, not the sinner" bullcarp but you're really not fooling anyone except a tiny handful of other people here who think the exact same way you do.
Are there any forum topics about homosexuality that you don't weigh in on with your usual dose of vituperation? Or where you don't accuse other people of hating heterosexuality if they're not as homophobic as you are?
I mean, I get it. I know you've read the Bible and live in mortal dread at what awaits you for your current (by Jesus's standards) adulterous relationship. You're hoping by heaping on mounds of angry invective towards Obama and gays that Jesus will get distracted, and will forget to condemn you. (Never mind that by doing so you are violating more and more of what Jesus told you as a Christian to do.)
Maybe it will work! Hope springs eternal...
Well, yeah. People are allowed to consider them a bunch of prejudiced a***hats, just as they're allowed to consider homosexuals a bunch of immoral degenerates.
Considering is all good. It's when someone take steps to infringe on someone else's rights that bothers me.
I personally think YES.
But I agree it's up to the individual church.
Some churches are very welcoming.
Others ... not so much.
I would think that a gay/lesbian couple would want to get married in a place that does not promote prejudice against homosexuals and others.
Marriage, the legal act, is a societal/governmental act, not a spiritual one.
God joins two souls together in the bond of love, for so long as the bond of love "lives" the joining of thier souls, by God, remains. Once thier love dies (is no more) so to is the bonding. That is what marriage is, the joining of two souls by God.
Where a human chooses to tell the world about the feelings they have for another person, has nothing to do with the "bonding".
Churches (religious organizations) and governments seem to be under the mistaken belief that they get to decide who God "bonds". They do not.
Marriage, the legal act/ceremony, isn't the important thing...
The important thing is the love that bonds the two souls together, be they two souls of different sex or not. If they love they are joined/bonded by God.
Well Mikel, we do agree on some things even though I don't believe in a god, I do believe that if two people want to be together, that is nobody else's business but their own.
I think there's pretty much unanimous consensus on this: depends on the church.
If the church is anti-gay and doesn't want to allow it, then the gay couple should find another church that is more accepting.
Hmm....do you guys realize how typically and often you try to use distraction instead of facing the actual issue of homosexuality?
It's getting really boring, actually.
Give me some valid, on-point, on-subject opposition and I'll take you seriously.
I don't consider my comment distraction Brenda. I think churchs have the right to decide whether they will perform marriages, or not. But your comment was quite off base.
If you are going to use that for an argument, then you must address the hypocrisy of the church's stand on the divorce issue. You apparently can't.
It's perfectly on point to point out that Christian attitudes towards gay unions are completely hypocritical if they overlook, condone, or even bless other things that are completely against what Jesus taught.
OF COURSE you see that as a distraction. That has to do with the fact that you did get a divorce, and were remarried in a church.
Let's approach this from a different angle... Is there a particular argument that you wouldn't see as a distraction? What specific parameters would it take for you to consider an argument valid?
Ah. Yes. Starting from the basis of humanity, period, including the original purpose and valid usage of the human body and its parts and the fact that humans are special/distinct from the animals.
I don't think you can debate it on that basis. But just on the off-chance that you can, there it is.
Ok. I can run with that.
I can acknowledge that males and females are supposed to copulate to produce offspring. That's how it works.
I can also agree that human beings are at the top of the food chain and that there are distinctions between us and the animal kingdom as a whole.
Now, is it safe to say that human beings copulate for reasons than to produce offspring and that those other reasons are also supported by God? If not, could you please explain why you feel that they are not?
I'm shocked. lol.
I not only agree, but will outright say that I believe God intended sex to be not only for procreation but for pleasure and/or comfort.
LOL @ Emile, do I get any points for that?
You've played into her hands. Your odds just got longer.
Cool, so we agree that sex is also gift for emotional/pleasurable activities. With respect to your sensitivities, I'll not go too far into that. So, we can agree then, that not all couples are intending on or are able to produce a child through sex, but that God will still bless those couples with pleasure and comfort?
What do you mean, "the actual issue of homosexuality?"
What issue would that be?
I guess since God HATES homosexuals, they should not be married in church!
That's the facts! Right?!
And On Behalf of the Vicar's 3x Legged Dog....
I'd like to say...
Isn't it hard enough in the world already balancing this issue on just 2x legs while lifting the 3rd leg to water the church mouse's bowl.. without it becoming an issue as to whether the the water is gay or not???
My church will perform "promise ceremonies" in the church. As soon as my state allows legal gay marriage, then they will be marriages. I imagine it will be quite a busy day in my church when that happens... I plan on baking cupcakes.
There are fundies on both sides of this fence. what is odd to me is that the concept of love and sex seems to be mixed up completely around the subject of gay marriage. Being a gay christian myself, puts me right in the midst of it all. I can see points on both sides that are somewhat valid to individuals but not to an entire group... Christians, gays, etc. I think the concept of marriage being ruined by gays being allowed to participate is crazy, considering that 1) sanctity of marriage was already ruined if compared on the whole, by heterosexual people. 2) that the life style of gay people is represented in the church by the very worst of the decadent gays. I never see the argument for marriage being proposed by the church that uses the couple that has been together for 30 years and who have lived a monogamous life of devotion to each other.
Marriage is truly an act of government/civil liberties that has an impact on religious values but I think the argument should be more about how inviting the concept of marriage into groups that have traditionally been outside of the welcoming arms of church/religion may actually benefit both the religion and in this case, the gay people who participate or who desire a deeper spiritual connection.
I doubt it! That basis has usually gotten people's links and posts (and some people themselves) banned here before. I think it's a taboo subject here. Here, on a site that seems to pride itself on tolerance and diversity and freedom of speech.
Looks like the liberal christian has taken a commanding lead in the field. The Jewish voice a close second. The fundamentalist has fallen behind. Should we place our bets?
It would be entirely between the couple and the church.
considering that test tubes, artificial insemination, egg donors, sperm donors, invetro-womb rentals, etc... I think copulation is no longer needed.
No, I get Brenda's point. What man has managed to do has little to do with original purpose. The test tubes, artificial insemination etc. is a way to avoid the natural process rather than adhere to it.
I don't disagree with those advances, but I can see where she is coming from.
Blimey! I'll even give you points for that one!
*smiles* Brenda, believe it or not, I can see your point on lots of things. Its only a few specific issues we disagree on.
Hold on. I'm mulling on Emile's possibly-very-correct assessment above....I'm not sure you're ready for the more basic point....and I really don't wanna get banned for pointing it out.....
LOL, I'll point it out for you Brenda.
The combination of two males or two females can not produce a child naturally in any unaided situation currently known in human reproduction.
I acknowledge that, as I believe most on both sides of the fence do.
I'm not trying to get you banned or even start a fight. So moderators that be, I am not insulted by being told that I can not reproduce with a women.
I appreciate you saying that. But that wasn't the point I was thinking about.
What else is there?
What's the natural usage of specific human body parts?
Well, continuing on... in answer to your question... there would be two usuages to body parts... one for procreation and one for pleasure/comfort. Both of which are acceptable under God's plan.
I just wanted to be sure we were together in agreement up to this point.
On those two points, yes.
But there's another point that's being overlooked.
Hey, I've gotta go. I'm committing the horrid sin of not cleaning my kitties' litter boxes today, so I'm gonna get right on that.
are you suggesting that sex can be used as a tool? It has certainly been a commodity for ages. I wonder who Jim Baker managed to get through his teenage years without yearning... or why later in life he turned to prostitutes? Sex is irrelevant to marriage... love between two people who support and care for each other may be slightly different then just sex. There is the physical side of sex and the emotional side of sex... is one more holy then the other?
people have been banned here for discussing sex in a forum?
And - YES - I believe homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to get married in Christian churches. Those who do not agree shouldn't come to the ceremony!
It's a moot point. If a church allows gay marriage, then fine. But if a church does not allow gay marriage, no law can be written to force that church to open up to gay marriage. Forget discrimination lawsuits, too.
We live under separation of church and state, and this is one of the ultimate tests: When Sunday ceases to be the least racially segregated day of the week.
It depends on whether they are Christian or not. A lot of people, whether straight or gay want to marry in church because they like the tradition of it, yet do not believe in God or the Christian religion. It does seem unfair however, that an atheist couple could marry in a church, because they want all the tradition that goes with it, yet a gay couple who believe that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour are denied that right.
Just had this thought come to mind.
I don't know how it is today , but not long ago the Catholic Church wouldn't marry a man and a woman if either one has been divorced.
And ... A man and a woman would go to their pastor and "ASK" if he would perform the marriage. They often had to go to counseling before that pastor consented or refused to perform the marriage.
If a gay or lesbian couple were refused access to a church wedding ... they shouldn't feel any more "Wronged" than many, many heterosexual couples who had been denied this service as well.
If a pastor feels that his marriage ceremony is little more than a joke, he is not required to perform it. ... Any more than a doctor who, for his own moral reasons refuse to perform an abortion.
I'm not judging the Gay/lesbian who wants to get married in a church.
I just know that anyone shouldn't be forced to do anything against their will.
Even preachers and doctors.
Regardless of the political climate.
I have known and do know a number of lesbians whom I have and do love very much.
I haven't known any gay men that I have gotten close enough to feel the same love, But I have known a few that Does have my respect.
should we intact laws to force churches to marry them?
there's a word for that.
marriage is a legal contract contract
more often broken . and in no way true love.
so i say no
the gays are lucky .
they haven't dealt with the horror of divorce
No, gays haven't experienced the horror of divorce. But in a democracy gay people should be entitled to experience the same misery as everyone else.
I am not sure... historically, marriage may have been invented as a means to consolidate power between families. Even before Christianity. In that way, marriage is designed by men for the benefit of man. It was a way to ensure that the male child was actually his, since the family fortune was passed down historically to the eldest son. (mostly).... Daughters were used to consolidate power between powerful families or kingdoms. Even into christian times. women did not have much say into who they would be married to. The examples you point out in literature are excellent examples of how marriage can work to benefit both partners. And certainly I do not mean to imply that every man has the intention of Henry VIII. The example was to point out that men could pretty much do as they pleased without repercussions... this included mistresses. I am sure that there are countless examples of spouses who actually cared for each other... and in so caring lived and loved as marriage was designed to be lived. Even in today's standards we see examples of marriages that are thrown away. Perhaps not the best example, but look at Donald Trump and his very public relationship with his current wife, despite the fact that he was married. There were financial implications but that apparently was not a deterrent. I think for a majority, the moral obligation that is marriage is just not accepted. People tend to not want to work through problems of being married when it is so easily and acceptable for divorce. The sanctity of exchanging vows is merely a formality... or so it seems. People who get married in churches, many do not live a christian lifestyle or even study the bible. Yet, this is an institution that is to be protected. From who? It is very much like the Cinderella syndrome where little girls are brought up to believe in marriage but without a full understanding of what that meant. The decline of marriage can be traced by generations through to the current standard of today. Byron was a Scottish poet during a time when England wanted nothing more then to crush Scotland. The English would have found any reason to reject any Scot for rising above the mire.
The consolidation of families, yes, but also perhaps to prevent men fighting over a particular woman. Royalty have indulged in mistresses for many a century it's true. Hence the prefix, Fitz in many artistocratic families now. Fitz means 'bastard of'. Fitzwilliam, Fitzroy, Fitzpatrick. Charles II had about 13 illegitimate children. Terrible people.
I think by Byron you mean Robert Burns. Byron was an aristocratic Lord.
Well you learn something new every day. I was bullied terribly at school by a boy of the surname Fitzgerald. And discovering that Fitz means bastard makes perfect sense.
Not sure where you are! You run too swiftly and never stay still, miss kitty.
If you have to ask if you are really here, then you are much more likely to be there.
This is the true religious/spiritual/philosophical question...
....I'm still working on this one.
Just as A side note: I love this conversation. This to me is a wonderful exchange of information and thought. Thank you.
To all of you that seemed to be enamoured with homosexuals: Please leave the rest of us alone? Please?
There is a distinction within the gay community over being a homosexual and being gay. The distinction has to do with how immersed one is in the community. I think using separate terms is appropriate.
No, they shouldn't. I think that they would not feel comfortable enough to even think of getting married in a church.
If marriage is instigated by God,and He has set down the foundations,I dont understand why a homosexual couple would want to contemplate a church to seal their union.
Because that gay couple is religious themselves?
Not all gay people are accepting the "verdict" that G-d hates homosexuality that many (but clearly not all) Christians have decided.
True ,some have.
Is that why there are Homosexual churches?
You should probably look into the origins of marriage before coming to that conclusion and you may very well understand why...
Yea but we are talking about marriage under God , Church etc(OP).
You could probably read about that in the Bible.
I was not commenting on the history of marriage.
Under a god or gods or spiritual tradition, in a church. I didn't see anyone specify a particular denomination.
To the Christian church means 'Body of Christ' not necessarily a building as such (although for some, the building and man made traditions are important.
However it is labelled ..The Bible defines Gods instructions,in a tent or in a lavish temple.
I'm curious. Are you saying that's where the Bible says people are to be married? I've never heard that before. Where does it say that?
Yes, it was put there well after the origins and reasons for marriage, which had nothing to do with God. Once again, Christianity steals something and makes it it's own.
Oh the drama.
If thats the case it doesnt matter where homosexuals get married ,now does it?
Nobody said Christianity invented marriage. How is it hypocritical to take a natural human practice and give it a Christian context?
Or are you just using the word 'hypocrisy' because it makes you sound avant-garde and edgy?
Because, very much like like other Christian inventions, the natural human practice is judged, sentenced and precluded with the new and improved version, and the rest of us are expected to follow suit.
I had no idea it was 'avant-garde or edgy' to use a dictionary.
Here's what I have in mine:
hypocrisy - An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction. Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
Fitting, isn't it.
I'm sorry you feel so put-upon by Christianity. I don't think there's a law about following suit.
Thank you for you definition of hypocrisy. So, the idea of Christian marriage is, in your book, insincere and lacking in real conviction? What is it about marriage that is at odds with all other Christian thinking?
I don't think you're sorry at all.
There's no law for making Christianity sorry for what it's done to the world, either.
I would suspect the incredibly high divorce rates amongst Christians would be readily available evidence to support that theory, yes.
Compassion, sincerity, integrity, honesty and love, for starters.
I think we can thank our blessed cousins across the pond for the phenomena of the incredibly high divorce rate among Christians. I call it fast-food religion.
I call it Christian hypocrisy, across the pond or wherever.
Well, perhaps in some cases. People aren't good enough because they don't try hard enough. Simple as.
When you point a finger at God ,troubled ,take note ,the other four are pointing back at you!
and when you point a finger at the biblical god you are indicating where the psychotic beliefs come from that sustain all the judgemental religiously infirm and where they get their disgusting "morality" from.
One bad quack does not represent the whole medical profession ,in the same way one whacko who calls himself a Christian does not represent Gods Kingdom.
Christian morals serve to protect marriage ,the family and society.
You have freely admitted some of these individuals and organisations yourself Earnest,therefore your last post is inconsistant and incorrect to imply Christians morals are disgusting .
I am inclined to believe your perspective is a little one -eyed.
See that's what I have a problem with... I don't get how Gay marriage somehow compromises other people's marriages. I don't get how it threatens anything. Gay marriage means gay people get married... it doesn't mean anything to fundies except something is happening in the world that they don't like.
It is not about me ,or you ,or someone else , it is what I understand Gods word to mean.
I didnt write Gods laws butI read and accept that He has said what He did for His reasons.
If I say I trust Gods wisdom for my life ,then this would be just part n parcel of that whole God honor/ trust thing.
(I mean I have trusted his standards on sexual immorality,) why would I say Ok I get that ,now I'll switch over to the worlds standards and accept those decisions too.
I can love people, and I have been a good friend to people who dont share my faith, but I don't hold their future in my hands or have the power to judge.
That belongs to my Heavenly Father.
EW, you are one of my favorite posters so please don't take it personally when I say that your answer in no way answers my question.
I still don't see how gay marriage threatens anyone else's marriage or the institution of marriage in general.
I get thinking being gay is wrong. I'm okay with whatever reasons someone has to think that... being religion or just personal opinion. I'm okay with people having their own opinions, I don't expect nor would I want everyone to agree with me.
But I honestly don't believe that the specifics of any marriage in any way effect any other marriage. I don't see how that it means anything but "I don't like gay marriage so I think it is ruining the sanctity of marriage". When in reality, it is doing no more damage (and most likely less) than the millions of affairs that happen every day in straight marriages.
Thank-you for your comments MB,and I didnt take your post as being specifically directed at me :0
See that's what I have a problem with... I don't get how Gay marriage somehow compromises other people's marriages. I don't get how it threatens anything. Gay marriage means gay people get married... it doesn't mean anything to fundies except something is happening in the world that they don't like.
I agree it doesnt compromise anyone elses marriage ,but it does change the way God described marriage to be,which indirectly does have some ramifications.
I like the idea that the sacredness of marriage be preserved ,and not watered down. If we accept Gods presence and ordinances,lets have some reverence.
If not ,then so be it. Its the half n half version that is confusing and I suggest wishy washy.
The bottom line is God says He abhors homosexuality-so why would I like something that God hates?
By the way ,you are I probably dont agree on all spiritual matters ,but the most important one of loving freely Im sure we do
No, it's entirely about intolerant Christians like yourself.
Exactly, that's what we've been saying all along, you are intolerant to gays, it has nothing to do with Gods laws and everything to do about the choices YOU have made towards others.
You would also be lying to say that considering we have pointed out to you many times "Gods laws" in the Bible that you would NEVER follow.
It's called hypocrisy, eaglewiki.
But, you are judging and you're not loving people, you are being intolerant towards them.
See how that works?
Your explanation makes absolutely no sense.
I will give you an example (hundreds of others Im sure)
My brother broke the law and spent 3mths inside. I hate crime,yet I still love my brother. Justice was right. But it didnt change my love for my brother.
Based on your weak theory ,I should be intolerant of homosexuals ,because God said homosexuality is wrong.
Incorrect analysis again TM
I know you believe it makes no sense, you are the one providing the hypocrisy.
And, you are intolerant of homosexuals, that's exactly what we read from your posts.
We? are you speaking for ALL homosexuals or just your household?
You laughed where I left an example back there ,kinda made your statement look silly huh.
Oh well the gay people I know I love them ,and when they understand how God loves them ,they will know that too.
In the meantime troubled man, walk your own journey and be responsible for your own words.
Is that some failed attempt at humor?
No, your example was laughable.
We've seen your version of love. No thanks.
Typical for Christians of tell us to be responsible for their own words when they have yet to do anything of the sort. Such unfathomable dishonesty.
Hence, the incredibly high divorce rates amongst Christians and their "morals".
No, trouble is a fine example of worrying about the speck in my eye ,when he needs to remove the log from his own
Yes, homosexuals should be allowed to get married in a church.
By whose permission, by whose authority, and in what kind of church?
By permission from the owners of the church, under the authority of the pastor legally able to marry people and in any church that satisfies those two items.
What else would it be? Gods permission and authority? But no one knows when or if that is given, although millions claim (both ways) to know.
well since god doesn't really set the rules in his own house(s)... whomever is in charge... Any church.... it's is more about whether there is a difference between a marriage that takes place in a church with a priest (etc.) or one that takes place in a courthouse ....
God does and has set the rules.
How they are delivered is quite another story
The elders,priests.pastors are the guys deemed to carry out those creeds/rules.
The legal ,environmental,cultural nuances get added in and before ya know it,everyones got their 2cents to add.
What if those terms aren't satisfied? As in....what if permission is denied?
If permission is denied, many of us will have to keep asking, "Why, why, why?" as we are doing right now...
First of all, if the was a 'standing ovation' icon, I would put it here. I haven't visited a lot of forums, but overall, the maturity and respect being demonstrated by you all is awesome. Most threads I've looked into do not maintain this level of civility for this length. Congratulations.
I was curious as to exactly where the term 'marrige' came from so I looked in Websters. They show a differece between 'marrige' being a legal union and 'matrimony' being a spiritual one.
It seems to me, if there is a name specific to a religious institution that oragization would have the 'right' to decide how it's used. If there is a name for the union that transcends any religious ideal, than its use would be decided in the courts of 'human law,' which only citizens, not orgizations would have say in.
I'm sure there are many here more educated as to the terms than I, but it does seem a simple fix for someone to have a spiritual union blessed by a priest of a church that is accepting of gay unions while, when at such time as it becomes law, recieving the legal rights to go along with it. This way, religious organizations wouldn't feel as threatened by what could be viewed as an attack on their traditions and those not covered by the laws of a religion would still get to use the idea of marriage as a way to demonstrate their love for each other.
Well that was a very kind and positive statement to post.
Welcome to Hubpages,buckle up and enjoy the ride (it can get bumpy) at times,but I feel you will survive
Thanks. Been around for a couple months, just now starting to wade into these waters. In its most idealic way, these forums could be great places for those of different viewpoints to discover commonground that would enrich us all. Doesn't seem to always pan out that way, but fingers-crossed for the possibility of a better world.
I agree, 100%
I find people and their diversity so intrigueing,and it actually reaffirms to me just how wonderfully we are made!
Why God even placed his signature on our thumbprint we all struggle with the same problems ,one way or another ,so how much more pleasant it would be to edify and build one another up.
Not a believer in God myself. But I do wonder why Christians cannot believe that if God created them, then He created them as they are. God therefore made gay people gay, just as he made straight people straight. It would seem logical. Because straight people know that being straight was not a choice for them, so logic would dictate therefore that being gay is also not a choice. It would seem odd, that having made people gay, that God would then insist that gay people are not wanted by Him. Believe it or not, there are many gay people who believe in Jesus and are good Christian people. But they are often not welcome in the house of God. Yet, they continue to hold their beliefs dear, even in the face of such hostility and condemnation.
This is an interesting point and one which I've discussed a number of times. When Europe was predominantly Catholic and all culture in all its triumphant forms reflected that particular faith, the monasteries and convents were full and were the heart of communities. They were the hospitals, schools, the old-people's homes and a refuge for men and women who were disinclined towards marriage. Thinking about it, there could have been more unmarried people then as a ratio, compared to now. Particularly men.
Now of course many of these men would have been sent to the priesthood regardless of their inclination since it was good to have one family member in the clergy in those days. But there would have been a good deal of them who simply chose the route as it suited them to be in that purely homocentric environment.
It seems that in every age, there is always a proportion of males in society who have no attraction for women. It is almost as if nature keeps surplus men in reserve in case they are needed, while keeping the population under control. hmm
Let's compromise... they should be allowed to be married in the church...
provided it is in the church closet..
In my opinion, thinking that homosexuality is a SIN is plain primitive.
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Thomas Jefferson was still a Christian. Just saying.
In my opinion Thomas Jefferson seemed way too smart to be a Christian. If you read between the lines of his quotes, he was, definitely, a closet atheist. He just couldn't come out and say what he wanted to say. I mean, look what they did to Thomas Paine!
Abe Lincoln was an atheist too, and so is Obama, but politicians have to pander to the diseased minds of believers.
It matters most (to God) who you say Jesus is ..
None of the above people will be sitting on the throne of God.
Only your imaginary God will be sitting upon His imaginary throne.
So mentioning past political figures was just a waste of your time huh
Yes, all atheists create bibles. He wasn't an atheist, he was a Unitarian.
Politicians pander to whoever will keep them in power
Actually, Jefferson wasn't really much of a panderer. He disagreed with the "mystical" portion of the bible (virgin birth, literal son of God, resurrection) He believed that the teachings of Christ were paramount in Christianity and was adamant about his beliefs even in the face of opposition. The Jefferson Bible wasn't published in his lifetime.
He was a rational Christian.
*Shrugs* It happens. It's fun to watch too... it gives extremists on both sides of the fence fits.
U.U.s have a propensity for debate and derive great joy from throwing everyone off balance
I liked some things about Jefferson, as I have admired certain things in many presidents.
Much to the dismay of many Americans I have real admiration for the current incumbent.
A clever well educated man with a heart.
The job he has is not doable as has been the case for other presidents, when they take on a congress and admin that is married to big business and supported by the many crazed fundy religionists who are only interested in bull*hit like his birth place when they really just hate that he is black.
I love many Americans, but some of them make me wanna puke!
Most Presidents don't seem to find favour until they die,leave office ,or write a book.
Buggar that kinda life! Its a job I guess and someone's gotta do it.
"Mama don't let your sons grow up to be Presidents"
It has it's moments, that's for sure!
I have had a go at politics as you would remember, but to run a country that assassinates and hog ties it's leaders is no place I would like to see my sons heading.
No Earnest ,I didnt know that about you!
I hope one of my sons moves into Politics, kinda ,sorta.
Hes 23 and thinks he can run the world anyway
Actually his interest and goals seem to be more along the lines of 'Speech writing' (Cant remember the actual unit) but writing speeches for other people.
Mind you that was last year,and he was thinking of switching to Physics, of which I know even less about.
I started a successful business at his age, and was dabbling in politics by 25, so I don't see age as a barrier to knowledge of smarts.
Politics is for people more tolerant of stupidity than I am.
Which is exactly why he lost interest too
He is a strong debater and a lateral thinker, I hope he finds joy in whatever he settles into.
Or at least make a healthy income to take care of his aging mum
P.S Not to pry ,but did you mean a political business?
No, I ran on a joint independent ticket for the senate with my doctor.
No, but I would have enjoyed that.
I thought the lunatic Star who went after him about his private life caused a travesty of justice and interrupted a good man with a brain from carrying America to a better future.
Not a perfect human being, but a good president.
I think aside from that fiasco Bill was a little too nice,but yea he did at least seem to demystify congress somewhat.
Wasn't the sex that bothered me ,but the fact he lied about it.
Any leader should be trustworthy.
(If it were me and you in a job, we would have been fired)
Personally I think he and Hillary are reflective of politicians who just don't know when to quit,but I dont blame them ,its a profitable career no doubt,lasting well into retirement.
My top bugbear about Politicians is there are far too many of them!
I mean how many does it take to change a lightbulb for goodness sake
Well going on the Australian parliament, the whole lot of them couldn't manage changing a light bulb if they worked for a week on it.
Same everywhere then.
..They need a meeting to decide on the next meeting ?-eh
I think they arrange to meet to decide if they need a meeting, then arrange a meeting to see when they will hold the meeting, then another meeting to decide where to meet for the meeting about the meeting, then.........
Youre so funny
Hence the receptionists spiel-
Im sorry hes at a meeting...one day I swear Im gonna say,does that meeting involve a golf course by any chance lazy buggars
That's a good thing - I love that about you guys.
Homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as Hetrosexuals, it is estimated that 80% of Hetrosexual couples engage in sodomy, so whats the difference
Exactly! Human rights are for humans, nothing to do with their sexuality, it's nobody else's business anyway.
Well how come you dont apply that same principle to beleivers?
You have that wrong Kiwi.
I respond to the believers who want to deny the rights of others by telling them they don't run their own lives cos goddunnit.
Worse, THEIR goddunnit.
I do get that ,and I agree ,I dont like opposing individuals or groups telling me what I should allow either.
I know you respect me and I appreciate that.
I just wondered ,since Homosexuals fall into socially what we may deem as a miniority group ,just like several other groups,then its only fair that one uniform standard should apply to all.
Not saying that you personally do that ,just noticing sometimes an imbalance is evidenced.
I am always amazed at the 'hang and burn them brigade' we had them in Ireland for centuries preaching off their soap boxes, only to discover time after time that the ones on the saop box were the real demons, set the people free from the shakles of hatred and bigotory, let love blossom in all its forms, be gone yee preachers of hate
This thread was quite interesting before it became yet another anti-religion bun-fight.
Better that than the promotion of the perverted idea that any version of the christ figure, real or myth, would condemn homosexuals living a normal life like any other person.
Christianity is no more promoted here than any other point of view.
If the Hubpages had a mood indicator ,it would swing pretty evenly over the course of a week.
In respect to the OP,and this is my own personal opinion. If I were homosexual and wanted to marry in a church ,I would seek out a church that had a homosexual pastor/priest/minister,since I do accept some Homosexuals are religious/spiritual, it stands to reason ,they are more tha capable of supporting their own body of Christ (If thats what they believe in)...
"Promote christianity" is not what I said My comment was about what the christ figure would have said and wanted - nothing to do with christians by definition almost (you excepted of course)
Better that than the promotion of the perverted idea that any version of the christ figure, real or myth, would condemn homosexuals living a normal life like any other person.
I took exception with your statement above-opologies if I misunderstood.
I don't see this so much as an anti-religion deal. Not for me anyway. I do see there are those that despise any form of religion for what-ever reason, but I don't agree with them either. My one and only objection, is when a religion, any religion, attempts to legislate that my life must be lived in a fashion that suits them. I don't object to you or your beliefs personally. If I felt the Buddhists were demanding I become a monk, I would speak out just as much. I believe in the right of religious freedom and will stand with you to defend that right.
There have always been those who preach some form of what they believe is the word of God and some mislead those who listen only for personal gain. It is those type of people who are being requested to either walk the talk or stop talking.
I have no issue at all with sincere people, who live by the code of their God without insisting everyone else attend the same place of worship, on the day or time required.
I think, one of the things that gets many so riled up is, they see Christian's are much more likely to say, 'everyone must become a Christian,' than homosexuals who say, 'everyone must become a homosexual.'
I personally, have no plans on becoming either.
I said it before and will say it again... I believe .....
Anybody CAN get married at anyplace that the owner of that property gives them permission to do so.
If they want to get married at my house I might give permission for one particular couple do so, and I might not let everyone that wants to do so.
The owner of the property can do as they choose.
I might say yes to my cousin and no to another member of the family.
Now is that right for me to be like that? Maybe and maybe not?
That is besides the point.
It is my home therefore, My prerogative.
I think everyone has that same right.
It seems that the homosexuality community doesn't care about religious beliefs. And religious people doesn't care about homosexual actions. The same way you don't like religion pushing their beliefs on you don't put your beliefs on them.
Gay's aren't telling you that you can't disagree, however you are telling them that they can't marry. YOUR viewpoint stops them from living their lives, while getting married wouldn't do anything to your life.
They have civil unions. Why would they want to get married at the church? Surely there are other places.
Civil unions aren't marriages. If the church doesn't have a problem marrying them, why not? If I were to marry a women, I would want to do it in my church.
Where would you get married? How would you feel if you and your spouse had to have a civil union in a restaurant?
I talked to my pastor and I've changed my mind. I think it's unfair to not let people get married especially in the homosexual community. After talking to him I realized that with marriage comes rights from the government. And to not give though rights to anybody is wrong. Even though I don't agree with homosexualality I don't believe they are being treated fairly.
Why not the bible does not condone same sex relationships a church is just nothing more than a building.
bible says this;
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
Folks here don't seem to realize that some churches have not problem with it and do officiate gay and lesbian marriages. Or maybe they want to dictate to a congregation what they are allowed to do in their own church?
My church can't do weddings yet, but we do commitment ceremonies for gays and lesbians.
Marriage | Matrimony is specifically a religious ceremony.
So, should equal genders be allowed to? That would depend on the religion they are bound to and the consensus of the congregation.
Of first hand knowledge: many Full Gospel churches/doctrines will not comply with equal gender requests for matrimonial ceremonies, as it violates their accepted or written doctrine. And even if the Pastor/ess of the chruch agree, the congregation can override their decision.
Also, most require attendance to that church, participation of the doctrine in full and raising offspring in that doctrine. Most noted are Catholicism, Latter Day Saints, etc.
I do not know of Eastern Religious, Judaic or Islamic takes on this, even those practicing their religions in the States.
So you are for the legalization of gay marriage as long as the individual churches can choose whether or not they will perform any given marriage? I am SO behind that opinion.
I crowed about that over and over in the other thread:
marriage | matrimony is a religious ceremony.
marriage | matrimony has nothing to do with civil law.
Hence 'gay marriage' only applies to a religious ceremony of equal genders.
That is the case I was making.
Hence why no religious ceremony can be legally performed in any governing institution.
...And yes, since any person has the right to worship as they prefer, it is up to the religious organization, and its parishioners, to make that determination.
Same as a funeral. It is a religious ceremony.
Oh yeah, you are THAT one... civil union legally the same as marriage (which it isn't) and common law exists everywhere (which it doesn't) but whatever...
It is a government distinction when the word "married" is on every tax form and a ridiculous amount of other forms...
but your definition is what the world runs by... (which it isn't)
Oh yeah, and a pinprick, unitarian perspective is so much better?
--- note the long awkward pause --
but you have spunk & a bit of sarcasm. And that I can appreciate.
Law should not invade nor invite prejudice.
Religion should not invade or invite prejudice.
Law and Religion should not be mixed, conformed, or forced upon the majority of the global population, because a small select few 'feel' they have a 'right' to invade or invite their ideas into the system.
But, as for this thread, again, it is the will of the majority in the theology of binding, regarding matrimony, funerals, birthrights, etc to accept or reject a request for equal gender matrimony. Identically as it pertains to heterosexual religious events, etc.
It is not a legal or law issue. And likewise, a domestic partnership/interdependent relationship has nothing to do with religion.
Neither should invade the others space, 'rights' or 'no-rights', 'warrants' or 'no-warrant' **
[ ** warrant is being used in the context of a securities instrument, often interchanged with a guarantee or 'insurance policy' & rights are being used as voting rights, as in shareholder stock votes ].
If equal genders follow the same rules, than swaying 51% [ 127.5 million] of the Western populous -in either sector variation- shouldn't be a problem, now should it?
Actually, unitarian never came into it. Just education. The laws are the law regardless of what my religion is.
You believe that civil unions are the same as marriages, they are not. Not legally.
You believe that homosexual common law relationships are universally recognized.
They aren't. Only one state recognizes them.
You believe that marriage is a religious term only. It isn't.
I'm sorry for your lack of knowledge, but you aren't unknowledgable because of my religious affiliation. You, however, may be unknowledgable because of yours.
edit: And once again, just because you THINK things work a certain way doesn't mean that they DO.
Technically they are, without the religious tag.
I never said they were 'universally' recognized.
And no State can recognize one as matrimony/marriage is a religious ceremony. They can recognize the signing of the contact of marriage -like all couples do at the court house, certainly.
Perhaps the verbiage they use on official documents and taxes should be changed, but since those documents were originally written by the same writers of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Act, etc they probably won't change. Same as the monetary imprint of 'In God We Trust' will not be removed either.
It is, look up where the word came from and what it really means. It is a right of passage, recognized by the uniting of two persons, bound to each other, their Maker (religious deity in whatever form) and witnessed by their peers.
edit: I never said thought it worked a certain way -that is your ignorance and predisposition to defend your sex and it appears your religion. I made the statement of how it is supposed to work whether you or they like it or not.
And again, I am not opposed to equal gender or opposite gender matrimony/marriages -just keep it out of government/law and where it belongs, among religion -yours or theirs.
Thank you for the definition, however Marriage is a government institution/definition. So yes, they CAN and DO recognize marriage. If you want to say that they SHOULDN'T then maybe you should write SHOULDN'T instead of
"Hence why no religious ceremony can be legally performed in any governing institution"
because OBVIOUSLY, they do.
If you want to argue that the law is wrong, then so be it. However, you cannot argue that the law doesn't exist. Because it does.
And religion has nothing to do with my opinions. Maybe your life is ruled by whatever your religious beliefs are, mine isn't. I converted faiths late in life. My views on gay marriage existed before that point.
You can get married in a religious ceremony but you still need a LICENSE.
The LICENSE is issued by the STATE.
You may choose to have a religious ceremony to witness your binding of you and your spouse by God (or whatever deity you worship).
But that is not a requirement.
You can choose to have the same ceremony performed by a justice of the peace. Non-religious.
What is required regardless is a marriage license.
Why? Because marriage is a legal contract between two people.
Let's start with widening the LEGAL protection of marriage for same sex couples to all 57 states (sorry, couldn't resist a little levity there).
by Julie26 years ago
Such as being married in City Hall. This memory came to surface as I answered a fellow hubbers question on another forum.The first time I got married I was 21 and had little money. My husband and I paid $25.00 and were...
by cooldad5 years ago
My personal opinion is that, YES, most Christians believe in God out of fear. And that starts when they are children. When a child is taken to church and told that he/she will burn eternally in the fiery...
by spellbinderdk5 years ago
If gays and lesbians started their own church, then they could get married.And nobody could stop them, because they would be protected by the first amendment, the freedom of religions act.And of course they would also...
by Sheila Craan2 years ago
All the other churches that are not a Church of Christ teach a damnable doctrine and people ignorantly believe these pastors, evangelists, ministers and elders of these denominational churches. I'll tell you why!For...
by Jenna Ditsch5 years ago
I know this topic has been brought up before, but I recently saw a post on youtube of a young man who claims this is the case and made quite a creative, short video poem/rap to tell why. I've seen it plastered all...
by Charles James6 years ago
If I were to accept God and embrace Jesus, which of the many churches on offer should I join?The Roman Catholic Church is the original and longest lasting. It has a clear perspective but it has to be confessed quite a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.