Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gay marriage 'to be illegal'


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

i'd direct you post to my answer to withbellson before, you are not going to change dinosaurs move on AND CREATE! one would have more of a chance running for Government Leader (Prime Minister, President, Queen/King, ect.) and winning than to change and disprove religion.

More to the point these old scriptures raped and pillaged their way through to be respected and dominate the hemisphers they do. unless you plan to do the same take my advice and create or soul seek for an accepting religion that YOU feel is right. If the homosexuals rape and pillage their way into major religion, I will dispise them as much as the ones they replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are debating two different things. I am not stating there is anything wrong. With homosexuality. I don't think there is. However. You cannot expect a priest. To stand up and join them in a marriage. That is the topic. Not homosexuality. The issue is forcing a priest to join them in union. Debating the abominations is one thing. But asking a priest to announce to the word. That he is blessing. What God deems an abomination. Is completely wrong. I have had premarital sex. I have sinned. But I am not asking a priest to announce in from of everyone. That he is blessing my sin. That he is holding it up in glory. That is what gay marriage in a church is.

You are stating there is something wrong with it, you called it an abomination. You're the one who started the debate about abominations first. Don't deny that. Don't tell me I'm getting off course on a topic YOU started.

My point is, they consider it an abomination right now, but many years ago there were other abominations that are no longer viewed as abominations today. How come they can overlook those but homosexuality is still a big deal to them? Answer that. If God once said all those things are bad, but now they aren't... well, WHY? They USED to be canon, right? Why aren't they anymore, and how long will it take for the homophobia to no longer be canon?

And nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. However, you also CAN'T deny that around every corner some catholic or christian is condemning homosexuals for their behavior, trying to send them off to be 'rehabilitated' and all that bull****. If a homosexual wants to defend him/herself against a larger power like the catholic church who is CONSTANTLY trying to oppress them, then so be it. It's not a one sided battled. It's not "oh the poor church getting picked on by the gays". No. It works both ways.

Also, you said that gay people can just go anywhere else and get married. I'd like to know where you got this information. In the US, out of our 50 states, we have 10 that allow gay marriage. You make it sound like they can just run around to the nearest church/justice of the peace and get married. Like there is just a plethora of options, but that's not the case. They've had to fight for what they have, which isn't much. And the religious entities don't even want them to be able to get married at all. At ANY church. In ANY state. They'd rather send them to camps to be rehabilitated, or pray that the gay demon leaves them alone.

So yeah. Don't tell me I'm getting off topic or missing the point because these are ALL things you've said and I'm responding to them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote this a little while ago:

If Mosaic laws were later replaced with Christ's laws ("love thy neighbor"), why are so many Christians homophobic on the premise of the Bible?

Leviticus is the laws of Moses, directed at the Jewish people. Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Some Christians don't believe in the last part, but still think it is a horrible sin, even though, as already said, Leviticus is directed at the Jews. ("Say to the Israelites" is mentioned over ten times in Leviticus.)

Furthermore, supersessionism states that the Law of Christ "replaces", "completes" or "fulfills" the previous Laws of Moses of the Hebrew Bible. (Dual-covenant theologians don't accept this, however.)

The Law of Christ is mentioned only twice in the Bible. It is first mentioned in Galatians 6:2: "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." Also in 1 Corinthians 9:21: "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."

The only indication of what the philosophy of the Law of Christ is is from Galatians 6:2. However, "New Testament law" is also mentioned in the Bible, which could be synonymous with the Law of Christ. For example, in James 2:8, it says: "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself' you are doing right." Most theologians interpret the meanings of the Laws of Christ and New Testament law to "love thy neighbor".

So, shouldn't Christians who follow the New Testament accept gays?

In relation to that, I found this essay...

YOU CAN’T QUOTE LEVITICUS TO PROVE GOD HATES HOMOSEXUALITY

Friends, the standard Biblical case against homosexuality is not as air-tight as many people seem to think...... There are many points people bring up routinely, and it's amazing how the attacks don't hold up--if you look at their Biblical "evidence" carefully.....In their denunciations of homosexuality, I'm sure you have heard people quote the following verses..... When you hear these verses, it sounds like it is pretty open and shut.

There is a problem, however. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

There's a big problem with quoting Leviticus, however. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. This is from the Apostle Paul. It is not something made up, manufactured or fabricated. It is from God's Word. The Apostle Paul wrote it in Galatians.

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law'" (Galatians 3:10).

If we rely on following the Law (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse. ....That quote is from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13).

It was Jesus' death on the cross that rescued us from the curse of the Law. If we insist on preserving the Law, we negate the cross of Christ, Christ's death on the cross.

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1).

If we measure ourselves by how well we follow the Law, we have returned to our slavery to sin. We are "justifying" ourselves with the Law. Precisely what is meant by "a dog returning to its own vomit." And if we put other Christians under the Law, we are subjecting them to that very same yoke of slavery. We force them to return to their own vomit as well.

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Galatians 5:18).

We cannot be led by the Spirit and follow the Law at the same time. It's either one or the other. The Bible tells us to walk in the Spirit, to be filled with the Spirit, to keep in step with the Spirit.

We can't do these things if we are stuck under the Law.

The people who would return you to slavery to the Law, slavery to sin, will say, "Paul was talking about the ceremonial law, not the moral law. He abolished the ceremonial law, but we are still under the moral law."

Sorry. That distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law is a man-made excuse to keep themselves and others under bondage to the Law. It is not a Biblical distinction.

Paul never makes any distinction between the so-called ceremonial law and the so-called moral law. The Bible does not make that distinction. The Law is the Law. And Paul says we are delivered from the Law.

So just remember this: anyone who uses the Law in Leviticus to prove that God condemns homosexuality is abusing Scripture —- totally misusing Leviticus. We cannot use any verses from Leviticus to determine what God's will is.

If someone uses Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 to prove that God hates homosexuality, challenge them on it. Tell them, "In Galatians Paul says we are no longer under the Law."

When they say, "God was talking about the ceremonial Law, not the moral Law," ask them, "Where in the Bible does it say there's a difference between moral law and ceremonial law? That distinction was made up by men. Show me in the Bible where it says that.".........They won't be able to.

Simple truth: You cannot quote Leviticus to prove God hates homosexuality. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.

Notice, I didn't say anything about the "Old Testament." And I don't believe that the Law is irrelevant to us.

The WHOLE Bible is relevant.

All I said is that you can't quote Leviticus to prove that God hates homosexuality. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians. http://www.myspace.c.../blog/430519084

I have seen this same essay posted on other sites

Edited by Beckys_Mom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are stating there is something wrong with it, you called it an abomination. You're the one who started the debate about abominations first. Don't deny that. Don't tell me I'm getting off course on a topic YOU started.

No I stated that the Church. The Church considers it an abomination. I have been talking about the Catholic Church. And the priests.

My point is, they consider it an abomination right now, but many years ago there were other abominations that are no longer viewed as abominations today. How come they can overlook those but homosexuality is still a big deal to them? Answer that. If God once said all those things are bad, but now they aren't... well, WHY? They USED to be canon, right? Why aren't they anymore, and how long will it take for the homophobia to no longer be canon?

They are still canon. That issue is debating the idea of homosexuality. This topic is not. This topic is about gay weddings in the Church. Not the idea of homosexuality. Those are two different discussions.

And nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. However, you also CAN'T deny that around every corner some catholic or christian is condemning homosexuals for their behavior, trying to send them off to be 'rehabilitated' and all that bull****. If a homosexual wants to defend him/herself against a larger power like the catholic church who is CONSTANTLY trying to oppress them, then so be it. It's not a one sided battled. It's not "oh the poor church getting picked on by the gays". No. It works both ways.

No. Some crazy places try to have them rehabilitated. Most don't. You are exaggerating. You are using extreme language.

Also, you said that gay people can just go anywhere else and get married. I'd like to know where you got this information. In the US, out of our 50 states, we have 10 that allow gay marriage. You make it sound like they can just run around to the nearest church/justice of the peace and get married. Like there is just a plethora of options, but that's not the case. They've had to fight for what they have, which isn't much. And the religious entities don't even want them to be able to get married at all. At ANY church. In ANY state. They'd rather send them to camps to be rehabilitated, or pray that the gay demon leaves them alone.

No I did not say that. I said they can find some place to get married. The same way a Catholic woman, can find a nondemoninational church to remarry her after a divorce. Religious weddings are not the same as civil weddings. Please stop equivocating the two. It is ignorant to do so. 50 states offer a place to have a religious wedding. That doesn't mean they will be legally married. These are two completely different issues.

http://en.wikipedia....istian_churches

So yeah. Don't tell me I'm getting off topic or missing the point because these are ALL things you've said and I'm responding to them.

You are getting off the point.

1. Church weddings have nothing to do with civil marriage laws.

2. Church canon has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

3. Priests might not condemn acts. But they don't glorify them either.

4. Asking a priest to perform a gay marriage. Violates the priests duties.

5. Churches are being attacked by gay marriage advocates

6. Churches are being sued.

7. This law doesn't prevent gay marriage. It doesn't make it illegal. It makes it illegal in the Church.

8. This doesn't apply to every church.

9. This is protecting the Church.

10. The church and the Church have two different meanings.

Edited by Cassea
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are stating there is something wrong with it, you called it an abomination. You're the one who started the debate about abominations first. Don't deny that. Don't tell me I'm getting off course on a topic YOU started.

My point is, they consider it an abomination right now, but many years ago there were other abominations that are no longer viewed as abominations today. How come they can overlook those but homosexuality is still a big deal to them? Answer that. If God once said all those things are bad, but now they aren't... well, WHY? They USED to be canon, right? Why aren't they anymore, and how long will it take for the homophobia to no longer be canon?

And nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. However, you also CAN'T deny that around every corner some catholic or christian is condemning homosexuals for their behavior, trying to send them off to be 'rehabilitated' and all that bull****. If a homosexual wants to defend him/herself against a larger power like the catholic church who is CONSTANTLY trying to oppress them, then so be it. It's not a one sided battled. It's not "oh the poor church getting picked on by the gays". No. It works both ways.

Also, you said that gay people can just go anywhere else and get married. I'd like to know where you got this information. In the US, out of our 50 states, we have 10 that allow gay marriage. You make it sound like they can just run around to the nearest church/justice of the peace and get married. Like there is just a plethora of options, but that's not the case. They've had to fight for what they have, which isn't much. And the religious entities don't even want them to be able to get married at all. At ANY church. In ANY state. They'd rather send them to camps to be rehabilitated, or pray that the gay demon leaves them alone.

So yeah. Don't tell me I'm getting off topic or missing the point because these are ALL things you've said and I'm responding to them.

Because your a small minority group of the population and are being disbenefitted of not being able to share the same rights as everyone else. -_- *sighs* and here we go again at least it's not about colour these days I don't think I can handle too much more of that **** in my lifetime. TBH i think my point are quite relavent people should stop arguing about the basis of religion. NO ONE ******* WINS! GTF over it and move on and make it a better situation by doing something. at no point of time has there been a mass lobby or even a boycott, to initialise a plan to move on. Protests yes, but really anyone can kick and scream, you don't stop and listen to every homeless man's story do you because they are apparently hard done by themselves.

Back to the churches choosing on wherer they allow it or not, screw if they don't, a group that couldn't care for every person interests is not a group at all but a invested gathering.

You make your cause seem pathetic by screaming bloody murder at the churches. It's plain and simple as not liking someone where shoes in your house. What you believe has caused this prejiduce. It is your house, enforce your own.

As for saying that I'm leaving this topic as it's starting to frustrate me and is not healthy for my mindstate/chi.

Too much helplessness, hatemongering and uninpinionated structure of YOUR WRONG CHANGE IT!, boarderline terrorism really by the deffinitions of what they claim al qida/misc. extremist threats to the world. Just because you aren't destroying physical objects and tbh if any major religion fell there would widespread panic, for the point of family/ancestors/friends that now lay in hell because of someone having the wrong story told to them whilst growing up.

It is that type of thinking that has lead to religion being a war point nothing more from my personal view of todays current events.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I don't get either. I'm not a member of the Catholic Church. I don't like their stance on gay marriage, abortion, birth control (especially birth control), pedophiles in the priesthood, women. Etc. So I wouldn't want to get married. In a Catholic Church. If anyone will every have me anyway. So why not go to a church that welcomes you. I don't get it. Why would people want to force the Church to change. Instead of changing churches?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are still canon. That issue is debating the idea of homosexuality. This topic is not. This topic is about gay weddings in the Church. Not the idea of homosexuality. Those are two different discussions.

They are NOT still canon. I am referring to the old testament. It's no longer a sin for Catholics to eat shellfish. It used to be. Now it's not. IT changed. My point was, how come that can change, but not how the church views homosexuality?

No. Some crazy places try to have them rehabilitated. Most don't. You are exaggerating. You are using extreme language.

I am not exaggerating. I have a gay brother. I have SEEN what he has been through. I have talked him out of killing himself. I have argued with people who think he "just has the devil inside of him". I have argued with people like you who don't see the battle from the other side because you're perfectly safe on your high horse and don't have to deal with it first hand. I know of churches and political leaders wanting to set up gay rehabilitation camps. If they did that for any other group, would you be so quick to dismiss it as an exaggeration or no big deal?

No I did not say that. I said they can find some place to get married. The same way a Catholic woman, can find a nondemoninational church to remarry her after a divorce. Religious weddings are not the same as civil weddings. Please stop equivocating the two. It is ignorant to do so. 50 states offer a place to have a religious wedding. That doesn't mean they will be legally married. These are two completely different issues.

We can argue this one all night. You just contradicted yourself in your own paragraph. At the beginning you said they can find some place to get married, then you say that doesn't mean they will be legally married. So then, they can't find a place anywhere to get married if they won't be legally married? Right? It's much easier for a heterosexual woman to find somewhere to get married than a man and his male fiance or a woman and her female fiance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know what canon means?

http://en.wikipedia....Catholic_Church)

Also. MOO. But I feel sorry for your brother. That his parents allowed him to be treated this way. I would not be a member of a church. That treated my son this way. My child would matter more.

I didn't contradict my own sentence. I said find a place to get married. You do know that churches don't legally marry people. You know that I hope. A person doesn't get married legally in a church. It is a ceremony. The legal aspect must be done via paperwork with the city. Or State. You are talking about two entirely. Different things.

Edited by Cassea
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make your cause seem pathetic by screaming bloody murder at the churches. It's plain and simple as not liking someone where shoes in your house. What you believe has caused this prejiduce. It is your house, enforce your own.

It's not that simple when you have religion and its followers making a point at every turn to tell you you're wrong and you're going to burn in hell. For family members to tell you to stop being gay if you don't want to go to hell. To log onto a website or turn on the radio and have someone ranting about how homosexuals are gross and a bad influence and genetic mistakes. Not so easy to ignore that.

Once my brother was walking through the park with his boyfriend and three men stopped them as they passed. The tried to force Christian Pamphlets in my brother's hands and tell them both they needed to hear the word of God and rethink their decisions. I told them to leave him alone.

If religion and its followers would leave him alone, I wouldn't care what they do. So you can't get married in a Catholic church. Fine. But what about when you're not even near a church and you have people harassing you about it. Or what if you don't even WANT to get married at a church but you can't because the church has still butt its nose in and stopped laws from passing that would allow you to get married wherever you want? It's a different story then.

It's not a "if you go in their house you can expect things their way" issue. It's a "I have nowhere to go because they keep forcing their way into MY house" issue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I don't get either. I'm not a member of the Catholic Church. I don't like their stance on gay marriage, abortion, birth control (especially birth control), pedophiles in the priesthood, women. Etc. So I wouldn't want to get married. In a Catholic Church. If anyone will every have me anyway. So why not go to a church that welcomes you. I don't get it. Why would people want to force the Church to change. Instead of changing churches?

Can you imagine living in a world where a church was the sole dictator of law. For one man to dictate to all people of one faith of over a billion is not right. The church and religion for that mattter do evolve and change all the time. Look how far religion or more specific the Catholic faith has change since the dark ages 400 yrs ago.

Edited by The Silver Thong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know what canon means?

http://en.wikipedia....Catholic_Church)

Also. MOO. But I feel sorry for your brother. That his parents allowed him to be treated this way. I would not be a member of a church. That treated my son this way. My child would matter more.

I didn't contradict my own sentence. I said find a place to get married. You do know that churches don't legally marry people. You know that I hope. A person doesn't get married legally in a church. It is a ceremony. The legal aspect must be done via paperwork with the city. Or State. You are talking about two entirely. Different things.

Yes i understand it is a ceremony. But it is still not allowed in most states for them to get married at all, church ceremony or not. They just CAN'T do it. It's illegal.

BTW his dad kicked him out when he came out to him. For a long time our other sister and I were all he had.

Edited by RockabyeBillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again. This is not a civil issue. This is not about legalizing gay marriage. It is about protecting the Church from lawsuits. Please read the articles again. It clearly states this. I do not know why you keep. Bringing up legal issues. This is not about legal marriage. And I would bet that in every single state. A gay person can find a church. To perform a gay marriage. This doesn't mean they can expect their church to do it. Just like a Catholic woman will have to find. Another church. To remarry her after a divorce.

Edited by Cassea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again. This is not a civil issue. This is not about legalizing gay marriage. It is about protecting the Church from lawsuits. Please read the articles again. It clearly states this. I do not know why you keep. Bringing up legal issues. This is not about legal marriage. And I would bet that in every single state. A gay person can find a church. To perform a gay marriage. This doesn't mean they can expect their church to do it. Just like a Catholic woman will have to find. Another church. To remarry her after a divorce.

So you are saying gay catholics have to find another church and abandone there beliefs in doing so. I billion plus followers, I doubt they are all streight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I don't get either. I'm not a member of the Catholic Church. I don't like their stance on gay marriage, abortion, birth control (especially birth control), pedophiles in the priesthood, women. Etc. So I wouldn't want to get married. In a Catholic Church. If anyone will every have me anyway. So why not go to a church that welcomes you. I don't get it. Why would people want to force the Church to change. Instead of changing churches?

As I have explained, no one wants to force any church to do anything! Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? The church is afraid of being forced into doing it, but their fears are baseless and have only served to make the issue more difficult.

There is absolutely no reason for their fears.

1: No one in the uk has said that they would sue churches to force them to marry them. In fact the only talk of legal action was to make sure that churches that wanted to would be able to.

2: In every country that has had gay marriage laws a protection has always been built in that means no church is forced to marry anyone (similar to laws that mean the catholic church doesnt have to marry divorced people)

The fear that that any church would be forced to do anything has come from the oe place, the church themselves. No self respecting gay person would want to get married in the catholic church anyway (because of how hateful it is). Would a gay person want to get married in the church of england? That's more likely but the problem there is the leadership. Recently there was a campaign in the church of engand for women bishops. The vast majority of people in it supported the measure... and yet the leadership rejected it. The same is the case here. The majority of church of england people are for same sex marriage (some priests even WANT to do it), but the leadership has just made it more diffcult because they have baseless fears and are ultimately selfish and shortsighted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? Where have you been? The Church of England is officially sanctioned by the government. This is different from the American separation of church and state. It is important to point that out.

The leadership is bound by the canon, the Bible and the word of God. Not the fleeting opinions of the populous. To suggest that they should change. Based on what the popular opinion is. Is absurd. What is the point of the hierarchy. And the leadership. If they are going to cave in to popular pressure.

Edited by Cassea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again. This is not a civil issue. This is not about legalizing gay marriage. It is about protecting the Church from lawsuits. Please read the articles again. It clearly states this. I do not know why you keep. Bringing up legal issues. This is not about legal marriage. And I would bet that in every single state. A gay person can find a church. To perform a gay marriage. This doesn't mean they can expect their church to do it. Just like a Catholic woman will have to find. Another church. To remarry her after a divorce.

Maybe it's not about homosexuals wanting to get married in a Catholic church. Maybe it's about the catholic church always beating them down and treating them like lesser beings? Maybe the church isn't the thing that needs to be protected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not about homosexuals wanting to get married in a Catholic church. Maybe it's about the catholic church always beating them down and treating them like lesser beings? Maybe the church isn't the thing that needs to be protected.

Nail meet hammer.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again. This is not a civil issue. This is not about legalizing gay marriage. It is about protecting the Church from lawsuits. Please read the articles again. It clearly states this. I do not know why you keep. Bringing up legal issues. This is not about legal marriage. And I would bet that in every single state. A gay person can find a church. To perform a gay marriage. This doesn't mean they can expect their church to do it. Just like a Catholic woman will have to find. Another church. To remarry her after a divorce.

The ironic thing is you (and the church) have it backwards. The church has been trying very hard to stop civil marriage altogether and now that it can't get its way it's trying to play the victim card. In other words the church wanted it to be illegal for a gay couple to marry ANYWHERE, but now they can't get back, they cry about make believe attempts to force them. Sorry, but that doesn't work with me.

At the end or the day marriage is really decided by the state. It's time religion remembered that and stopped trying to force everyone to play ball its way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument is going in circles though. We've covered numerous topics and always end up back at the church is the victim PFFT so I'm just gonna call it quits and be done with this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not about homosexuals wanting to get married in a Catholic church. Maybe it's about the catholic church always beating them down and treating them like lesser beings? Maybe the church isn't the thing that needs to be protected.

That's not the issue being discussed. That is a different issue. Who cares if someone beats you down. People beat me down all the time. What they think. I don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic thing is you (and the church) have it backwards. The church has been trying very hard to stop civil marriage altogether and now that it can't get its way it's trying to play the victim card. In other words the church wanted it to be illegal for a gay couple to marry ANYWHERE, but now they can't get back, they cry about make believe attempts to force them. Sorry, but that doesn't work with me.

At the end or the day marriage is really decided by the state. It's time religion remembered that and stopped trying to force everyone to play ball its way.

You missed the distinction. The Church of England is sanctioned by the government. Religion isn't trying to force everyone. They are honoring their traditions, rules and rituals. You must have a history. With these churches or you wouldn't care. The same way you don't seem to care. That Jews do the exact same thing. Never is it mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the issue being discussed. That is a different issue. Who cares if someone beats you down. People beat me down all the time. What they think. I don't care.

The problem is that the church is beating down there own members. Or is it gays can`t be Catholic period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the issue being discussed. That is a different issue. Who cares if someone beats you down. People beat me down all the time. What they think. I don't care.

Oh my god... see? Back again to square one.

You missed my point entirely and I'm tired of trying to explain because every time I reply to something you say it's always "That's not the issue that's not the issue".

I'm not getting anywhere with you. It's like trying to haul a heavy wagon with square wheels. Eventually you just have to give up and go have a drink.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? Where have you been? The Church of England is officially sanctioned by the government. This is different from the American separation of church and state. It is important to point that out.

The leadership is bound by the canon, the Bible and the word of God. Not the fleeting opinions of the populous. To suggest that they should change. Based on what the popular opinion is. Is absurd. What is the point of the hierarchy. And the leadership. If they are going to cave in to popular pressure.

You may as well say that about the government. It's bound by laws, that are codified and protected. The government is also run by a heirachy and a leadership. BUT at the same time it is bound by the people. It represents the people and anything that the people decide's is wrong, it changes due to pressure from theose people.

The same is true of the church. When it first began a large group of people were treated as second class citizens: women. Over time the church has changed due to internal pressures and it doesn't treat women as second class anymore. Same with black people. They were originally treated as a lesser race (sanctioned by the church) but it changed its tune. The church is by no means static. It changes just like any other system and its bound by what people think. The only difference is it takes longer to catch up than governments will. In 100 years people will look back on thiss whole thing with the same shame we look back at the churches treatment of black people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the church is beating down there own members. Or is it gays can`t be Catholic period.

I wouldn't want to be a member of a church. That considered me an abomination in the eyes of God.

Oh my god... see? Back again to square one.

You missed my point entirely and I'm tired of trying to explain because every time I reply to something you say it's always "That's not the issue that's not the issue".

I'm not getting anywhere with you. It's like trying to haul a heavy wagon with square wheels. Eventually you just have to give up and go have a drink.

You aren't. Because you want to complain about the treatment. Of homosexuals. Or complain about the church not allowing gay marriage. That is not the issue at hand. Go start another thread. I'm not engaging in that long boring discussion. It has been had forever. Believe me. However. In this case the Church feels the need to protect themselves against law suits. This is being blown off by shadowhive. As if it is inconceivable that someone will eventually. Sue the Church for not performing gay marriages. If gay marriage is legal. The Church has a legal obligation to perform the marriage. Or be sued. Right now it's not legal everywhere. So it is a different issue. They are being proactive. They are protecting the rights of the priests. Although I don't agree with them. They have exactly the same right to their belief. As gay people do to theirs. They should not be forced to perform gay marriage. That is what this topic is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.