Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 61 of 153 (697174)
04-22-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Phat
04-22-2013 9:51 AM


Re: Another Christian Viewpoint
quote:
There is no need for two people of the same gender to get married apart from non love reasons. Just as there is no need to marry your sister if by some strange reason you were attracted to her.
You think that love isn't a reason for marriage ? I would say that society disagrees. And isn't there a huge difference between ruling out marriage to a few people and ruling out marriage to EVERYONE that a person might reasonably fall in love with ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 9:51 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 153 (697176)
04-22-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
04-22-2013 9:36 AM


Re: Another Christian Viewpoint
Phat writes:
And I figured that you would take liberty to define what is and is not relevant. That's so you, jar.
I'm not defining what is and is not relevant, simply pointing out the obvious FACT that my church is irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage.
Marriage is broader than the position of any Chapter of Club Christian.
Phat writes:
Lets talk about chapters of Club Christian for a moment. Should they base their bylaws on the Bible or if not, what should they base them on?
By now I would have thought you would understand that there is no such thing as "The Bible".
The Bible (whichever bible that the Committee of Canon for that Chapter of Club Christian chooses) should be one base for bylaws but hopefully not the only one.
There are only two "Sacraments" mandated in the Bible and marriage ain't one of them.
As usual, there is not one position on marriage found in any of the various bibles but rather many and many of them are mutually exclusive.
John is not the Bible, nor is Paul. They only express there opinion as it existed in their time, era, milieu, mythos.
In the Book of Common Prayer, something that predates even the Authorized (politically correct) King James Bible, there is no sacrament of marriage. There is a marriage service which is a celebration and blessing of a marriage. The marriage though is separate from the church or the service and it is totally secular.
In the US, churches are an excepted and privileged group. If they should choose not to sanction a marriage, admit people of color, our take any other such stance within their communion, they are within their legal rights.
But that does not mean that the rest of society shouldn't look at and label their behavior as bigoted and exclusionary. In the US there is no means of forcing a church to perform same-sex marriages other than public opinion.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 9:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 63 of 153 (697192)
04-22-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
04-22-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Gay marriage will bring God's judgment
The attitude on this thread is already a form of persecution, Dr. A. It always starts with the namecalling.
But unless it moves on to the actual sticks and stones, it's not persecution. You have been known to call people names yourself, but that falls short of burning people at the stake; nor do I believe that that's what you're going to move on to next.
Really, Faith, persecution? St. Peter was crucified upside down. There are people in the world right now being killed for their faith and lack of it. And you're being persecuted because people disagree with you on a debate forum which you choose to post on as a hobby? Because they have an attitude different from your own?
The martyrdom of St. Faith of the Holy Keyboard
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 04-22-2013 9:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2982 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 64 of 153 (697193)
04-22-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
04-22-2013 9:25 AM


There is no argument. Discrimination is wrong, Phat
There is no argument, Oni One Way
Why would you take to argue for discrimination? Have you not learned anything about discrimination from the past history of America?
Attraction, like skin color, is inborn. Sexuality is a choice.
This is absurd! I can't believe in 2013 you still hold this opinion. Sexuality is not a choice. I didn't choose to be straight. I didn't choose to be attracted to women; I just am.
We are under no obligation to allow your social or ideological preferences redefine our club bylaws. You are not God.
God did NOT define your clubs by-laws. Men did. Your club once didn't allow interracial couples to get married, and now it does. Did God come down and re-write the rules? No. You realized you were being a bunch of racists and changed the rules yourselves.
Have you been smoking too much pot again? You may have overdid it on 4/20.
I stand by what I said. Any church discriminating on the basis of sexuality is a shit church and fuck anyone who attends that church. More than likely, it doesn't stop at the members just being bigots and homophobes - they're probably sprinkled in with a little racism too if they're already being discriminatory toward any one group.
Oh? Am I ordered to acknowledge your significant other in any greater capacity or homage than anyone else?
I don't know what you mean by this. All I'm saying is don't discriminate someone on the basis of their sexuality just as your church has made the shift of not discriminating on the basis of race.
The church can change, it has done it before. They just don't want to which makes them a shitty institution. As always. But they will change, eventually. Then hopefully no one else will feel different or like an outcast just because they were born the way they were born.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 9:25 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 1:56 PM onifre has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 65 of 153 (697201)
04-22-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
04-21-2013 6:06 PM


I would take the opposite view - that churches shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. They can perform whatever cermeonies they like and call them whatever they like but there should be no legal implications. The legal state of "marriage" should be the business of the people through their government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 04-21-2013 6:06 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 3:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 66 of 153 (697202)
04-22-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-22-2013 1:33 AM


Re: Gay marriage will bring God's judgment
Faith writes:
Already some pastors have run afoul of Canada's "hate speech" laws for preaching that homosexuality is sin, which is simply preaching God's word.
If "God's word" is hate speech, then I for one have no problem with passing laws against "God's word".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-22-2013 1:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 67 of 153 (697205)
04-22-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Phat
04-22-2013 8:42 AM


Re: Another Christian Viewpoint
I am in favor of civil unions, because we live in a secular society and because the church has no right to legislate morality. By the same token, you, Onifre or anyone else has no right to force the church to adapt to your emotionally immature arguments concerning what love is and what marriage is.
Well, a couple of things you may not have thought of.
First of all, no-one is forcing the churches to adapt to anything. The Catholic church, for example, is free to consider that two gay people aren't married, or that someone who's divorced and remarried is really still married to her first husband, or that anyone married by a Protestant minister rather than a Roman Catholic priest isn't married, etc, etc. According to them, I'm not married to my wife, they can think that if they like. They can take whatever attitude they please, no-one's stopping them.
Second, if marriage is a matter for the church, well, there are lots of churches. If, for example, a Unitarian Universalist minister marries two men in Texas, then according to Texan law they are not married. The UU minister is being told that a sacrament that s/he chose to administer is invalid. It would be a lot more reasonable to say that in that case the church is being regulated by other people's opinions "concerning what love is and what marriage is".
Now, if marriage is a matter for the churches, then the UU minister should be able to marry a gay couple. And if it is a matter for the State, then the State, being secular, shouldn't show partiality by adopting one sect's concept of marriage over that of another sect, and the UU minister should still be able to marry a gay couple. But the opponents of gay marriage want it both ways. They want marriage to be a secular matter so that the state should regulate it, and a religious matter so that it should be regulated according to their religious opinions.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 8:42 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 68 of 153 (697206)
04-22-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
04-22-2013 9:25 AM


Re: There is no argument, Oni One Way
Phat writes:
Sexuality is a choice.
Personally, I couldn't care less if (homo)sexuality is a choice or a hard-coded impossible-to-resist genetic compulsion. Somebody else's choice is none of your business or mine. If it is a "sin", then that's between them and God and you and I can keep out of it.
Phat writes:
Attraction, like skin color, is inborn.
"God's word", as I recall, has something to say about "mixed marriages" too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 9:25 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18354
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 69 of 153 (697218)
04-22-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by onifre
04-22-2013 11:52 AM


Re: There is no argument. Discrimination is wrong, Phat
Theodoric writes:
Sexuality is a primary and basic human behavior. Repression of sexuality can result in all sorts of behavioral issues. But it seems you are ok with people suffering as long as they adhere to your "moral" ideals.
Onifre writes:
This is absurd! I can't believe in 2013 you still hold this opinion. Sexuality is not a choice. I didn't choose to be straight. I didn't choose to be attracted to women; I just am.
You both still don't get it. Sexual attraction is not a choice. Sexual behavior is a choice. The mistake that the church made (and still makes) is in vilifying people for their sexual attraction. Sexual behavior, on the other hand, is fair game.
Sexuality can be expressed in ways that are not harmful to society...be you gay or straight.
I understand that some of us are born with an attraction and emotional predisposition towards either (or both) genders.
The problem that you guys seem to be having is in confusing attraction and sexuality.
The problem that the church has had is in thinking that same sex attraction was wrong and could be cured. In most cases it cannot.
(add by edit) The cure is for everyone to expand their attraction to include everyone else. We can learn to be attracted to each other as humans. We can learn to be attracted to the world.) We all know this. Same sex attraction is not a sin. The sin ...for either orientation...occurs when people glorify the human over the sacred. I'm not picking on either orientation.
Discrimination takes on many forms.
If you allow humans to glorify human wisdom and potential above the sacred, you will in fact discriminate.
Edited by Phat, : added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 04-22-2013 11:52 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 2:16 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 2:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 04-23-2013 8:18 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 04-23-2013 11:20 PM Phat has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 153 (697219)
04-22-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-22-2013 1:33 AM


Re: Gay marriage will bring God's judgment
If the culture forces churches to perform gay marriages, we'll just have to go to jail or whatever penalty is coming down the pike against Christians
Seriously, Faith
A few Churches still refuse to perform interracial marriages. Many pastors will refuse to perform marriage if they get the hint that the couples involved haven't thought things through. What makes you think that there will be legal penalties for refusing to perform same sex marriages?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-22-2013 1:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 71 of 153 (697220)
04-22-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-22-2013 1:33 AM


Re: Gay marriage will bring God's judgment
Already some pastors have run afoul of Canada's "hate speech" laws for preaching that homosexuality is sin, which is simply preaching God's word. It could come here soon, and by the sound of the hate against us on this thread VERY soon.
Canada is completely politically separate from the US. What happens there has little bearing on what's "coming here." The First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Speech, and indeed it is controversial and offensive speech that requires the most protection, else the freedom would be meaningless.
So long as the First Amendment is not overturned (and that, of all of them, would be the least likely to go) your preachers will be able to say whatever they want short of inciting violence. The absolute worst thing that could happen to your churches would be the loss of tax exempt status, which isn't exactly the end of the world for faith groups. Even that would require new legislation and would face massive opposition and would likely never pass for the foreseeable future.
The only people who will be "forced" to allow gays to marry will be the various County clerks and justices of the peace - as representatives of the State, they'll have to act as such regardless of any personal beliefs they may or may not have on the matter, in exactly the same way that they'd have to allow interracial marriages even if they personally were racist. If they're morally opposed to doing their paid jobs, then they can find new jobs.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-22-2013 1:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 153 (697221)
04-22-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
04-22-2013 8:34 AM


Re: Another Christian Viewpoint
To desire a communion with only one person is selfish and irresponsible to the community.
So no one should be monogamous let alone married? I have to admit, such sentiment is a great defense against being called a bigot.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 8:34 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 2:15 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18354
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 73 of 153 (697222)
04-22-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NoNukes
04-22-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Another Christian Viewpoint
So no one should be monogamous let alone married? I have to admit, such sentiment is a great defense against being called a bigot.
You are starting to get it. (hint: We are all the Bride) I believe in monogamy.
On one level, we are monogamous to our partner of choice.
On the next level we are monogamous towards Jesus.
And for those of you who dont believe in Jesus? I guess you are still "single" spiritually.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 2:10 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 74 of 153 (697223)
04-22-2013 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
04-22-2013 1:56 PM


Re: There is no argument. Discrimination is wrong, Phat
quote:
Sexuality can be expressed in ways that are not harmful to society...be you gay or straight.
That would seem to be more a condemnation of adulterers than of gays.
quote:
I understand that some of us are born with an attraction and emotional predisposition towards either (or both) genders.
The problem that you guys seem to be having is in confusing attraction and sexuality.

Seems to me that the problem is that they're not nearly as distinct as you would like to make out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 04-22-2013 1:56 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18354
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 75 of 153 (697225)
04-22-2013 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
08-18-2005 2:33 PM


Re: First, a compliment
jar writes:
The issue of homosexuality is one that our current culture needs to deal with.
While many Christians may see it as a sin, there are also many Christians that see it as no more a sin than eating shrimp, cutting your hair, wearing WoolRich clothes or working on the Sabbath. There is little support in the Bible, the most often cited examples being the Pauline passages. But they are ambiguous at best and many Christians acknowledge that Paul was being hypocritical when he spoke on homosexuality.
The origin of the Biblical proscription on homosexuality is in the same set of laws that Paul fought to have overturned. Paul was anxious to expand the church and so he willingly took the stand that Laws such as circumcision, dietary restrictions and dress should be set aside as null and void. He was more than willing to resort to most any subterfuge, such as the classic example of the unnamed God, if they helped build his communities.
But regardless of whether or not homosexuality is considered a sin or not, the current social contract needs to be changed.
If homosexuality is a sin, then it is between the individual and God.
Proscribing the social contract relating to homosexuality should not be based on whether or not it is a sin, but on our duty to Love our Neighbor as Ourselves. As Christians we should be working to remove those portions of the social contract that adversely affect homosexuals. We should be opposing the Defence in Marriage Act, limitations on access to health care, inheritance rules, rights of adoption, safety and protection, and seeing that homosexual couples receive all the societal benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual couples.
Some questions:
1) Why was Paul being a hypocrite?
2) Are you inferring that Paul had an agenda that was itself arguably a sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-18-2005 2:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 04-22-2013 4:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024