[Closed] The church and homosexuality

So, the Christian faiths either need to update their doctrine to reflect modern values, or they need to educate their followers as to where they're going wrong.

History would suggest that the latter is more likely to happen

I would definitely disagree.

Church doctrine has changed beyond recognition in the last 1800 years. Tremendously. Seriously look at your history, there are too many examples for me to quote here.

it does, because if it didn't then ignoring it would make the ceremony meaningless

To whom?

I mean, if you're a splinter of a religion going against established doctrine, the ceremony might be 'meaningless' to the parent religion, but might mean quite a lot to everyone else.

Here's a question. If a Catholic church were to defy his Papalness and marry a same-sex couple, would it be legally binding?

Here's a question. If a Catholic church were to defy his Papalness and marry a same-sex couple, would it be legally binding?

No, but then no 'union' in the Catholic church is legally binding. The church only provides a blessing, the legal bit is the registry stuff, which is where the law says you cannot marry same sex, the church at lest has scope to bless the union, even if the law won't allow it

Church doctrine has changed beyond recognition in the last 1800 years. Tremendously. Seriously look at your history, there are too many examples for me to quote here.

You may well be right, but there are also many examples of churches playing hardball with people who disagree them. Ascertaining which scenario was / is ultimately more common is more work that I'm prepared to put in just to point-score on a forum, but my gut feeling is that the genocidal approach probably trumps it.

Anyway, that wasn't really the crux of what I was getting at. Point is, I'd like to think that it happens in this case.

To whom?

I mean, if you're a splinter of a religion going against established doctrine, the ceremony might be 'meaningless' to the parent religion, but might mean quite a lot to everyone else.

sure, but then the ceremony is not performed within the parent church. That's what i meant by meaningless. if you ignored what the parent church told you, doctrinally, but went through the motions in a church. It wouldn't be a union within the church

Ascertaining which scenario was / is ultimately more common is more work that I'm prepared to put in just to point-score on a forum,

then you lose!!!! 😀

.

.

Sorry, glitchy glitchy ya ya

I think we would have more faith in the integrity of churches if they did the latter, even if it went against our own views, rather than change their teachings to ingratiate themselves with the masses (npi)

Absolutely right.

MT - being against marriage for same sex marriage couples does not mean you are homophobic, but I appreciate that self-styled liberals are prone to name calling.

no 'union' in the Catholic church is legally binding. The church only provides a blessing, the legal bit is the registry stuff,

Ah, good point well made.

the ceremony is not performed within the parent church. That's what i meant by meaningless. if you ignored what the parent church told you, doctrinally, but went through the motions in a church. It wouldn't be a union within the church

then you lose

Battles and wars, my friend.

being against marriage for same sex marriage couples does not mean you are homophobic

Perhaps not. It just means that you don't think equal rights are important.

Actually - in many cases it means people think that the definition of the word 'marriage' is heterosexual.

I think a lot of people object to use of the word 'marriage' rather than anything else like equal rights. I do not know if they are the majority.

singletracked - Member

It's utterly ridiculous to claim that, in general, Christians as a single group, share very much in common at all. And you know it.

Did you see the survey a while back that found that of the 53% of british people that identified themselves as Christian in the census, only 48% believe in god? With a starting point like that, no wonder they can't agree on anything else.

Actually - in many cases it means people think that the definition of the word 'marriage' is heterosexual.

I think semantically at least, they may be right. Though I imagine dictionary definitions may have been updated recently to reflect the [i]vox populi
[/i]

in many cases it means people think that the definition of the word 'marriage' is heterosexual.

It's time they updated their definition then, cos it's wrong.

It just means that you don't think equal rights are important.

Not at all, Rowan Williams gave a lecture on this subject in Geneva. As with all his speeches there is no soundbite that neatly summarises his point so I suggest you read it in full [url= http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/other-meetings/visits/lecture-by-archbishop-of-canterbury-on-human-rights-and-religious-faith.html ]here[/url]

Really? Wow.

I thought the whole point of Christianity was because it provided a moral compass on how to live your life (as has been asserted on STW previously). If the whole thing is ultimately pointless than that would seem to be something of a contradiction?

Yeah, there seems to be a consensus among non-christians that to be a Christians you have to be very goody-two-shoes, never do anything wrong sort of thing. Now, 100%, part of the Christian doctrine is to love and care for others, but this is not something that is exclusive to being a Christian - as has been mentioned many times before, there are plenty of amazing people out there doing amazing things and they don't believe in God. In a lot of cases, sadly, there are more people doing good 'Godly' things who don't believe in God than there are those who do. So the doctrine is there that as a Christian you should help others etc, but the big big caveat is that whether you do so or not does not affect your reconcilliation with God through Jesus. So someone who is the most caring generous Christian is viewed equally in God's eyes in terms of salvation as someone who is 100% a Christian but does nothing 'good'. It is one of the trickier bits of doctrine to get your head around, but it is there as a core belief.

It's not a union within the Church, but it is within that church, is it not? So if ultimately it's not legally binding but just a blessing, and if the couple recognise the church and the church the couple, what more 'meaning' is required here?

Yeah, i only mean that if it's approved by the folks you want to approve it then it, then that's fine. but if the folks whose approval you want, don't approve it, but you find a loophole, you still know it doesn't count, for yourself

It's time they updated their definition then, cos it's wrong.

Alternatively we as a society could be a bit creative and come up with a form of union, that would grant exactly the same rights as married couples have, that same sex couples could be joined in - we could call it something like "civil partnership" - not very catchy - maybe we should get an ad agency involved.

maybe 'manriage' ?
better create a similar one for women too, 'cos dem bitches be crazy

Alternatively we as a society could be a bit creative and come up with a form of union, that would grant exactly the same rights as married couples have, that same sex couples could be joined in - we could call it something like [s]"civil partnership"[/s] marriage

😉

no 'union' in the Catholic church is legally binding. The church only provides a blessing, the legal bit is the registry stuff,

Whereas a CofE one is legally binding. Re: the Catholic Church, I think it can be but there is no automatic right to register marriages for Catholic priests whereas there is for CofE priests.

But it is a serious point that your objections seem to be based on assumptions which seem to be based on prejudice.

I have loads of these then btw i think cyclists cycle more than folk who just own a cycle.

Its not prejudice and you are getting ever more desperate to suggest the argument is borne of prejudice - i believe you made some points about not being offensive could you follow your own advice?
Prejudice
Jesus wept

Alternatively we as a society could be a bit creative and come up with a form of union, that would grant exactly the same rights as married couples have, that same sex couples could be joined in - we could call it something like "civil partnership" - not very catchy - maybe we should get an ad agency involved.

We already have that, it's called "marriage." It's just that some people can't get married because some men in frocks in Italy don't tolerate homosexuality unless it's between themselves and small boys.

Why should we treat people differently? Moreover, why should we prejudice against a group of people by denying them the same rights we do? Why are we [i]allowed[/i] to prejudice against people? Why is this even a bloody issue in the modern world?

By that argument, you might as well suggest that if women want to work we can find them some typing or cleaning or something.

Jesus wept (John 11:35)

FIFY

shortest verse in the Bible
I was aware

we as a society could be a bit creative and come up with a form of union

Actually, I've a better idea.

Let's do away with "marriage" altogether and just give civil partnerships the same legal status currently applied to marriage. We've already established that Catholic marriage isn't legally binding but just a 'blessing', so it seems wholly irrelevant outside of religion.

That way, people can be legally joined whether they're straight, somewhere within LGBT, or something else; the churches can stick their institutional homophobia up their chuff, and anyone who still wants a religious ceremony can do all their genuflecting under their own steam after they've had their civil partnership signed off.

I wonder how well that would go down.

Why should we treat people differently?

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can't you be tolerant of that? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom? Does even the majority have such a monopoly or are we tending to ochlocracy?

MT - being against marriage for same sex marriage couples does not mean you are homophobic, but I appreciate that self-styled liberals are prone to name calling.

I'd define homophobia as an irrational hatred or dislike of homosexuals. I'd class denial of equal rights are a homophobic act.

If you think that's name-calling, fair enough.

How would these generate money for the church?

Like I said I'm very cynical

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can't you be tolerant of that?

Nobody is forcing those people to get married to someone of the same sex. But those people are preventing people who want to get married from doing so.

Nobody is forcing those people to get married to someone of the same sex.

But you are redefining something that they may be party to as something they don't believe in.

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can't you be tolerant of that?

Some people believe that brown people are second-class people to white ones. Should I be tolerant of that too?

I'm not tolerant of it because it's wrong. Not in the sense of 'incorrect', but in the sense of being morally bankrupt.

But you are redefining something that they may be party to as something they don't believe in.

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to 'em, they're not people I want to share an island with.

We have to choose which is best here
Discrimination or not discrimination

its not a tough decision for me if I am honest

What if I decide religious folk blessing marriage offends me can we stop that - would that be reasonable of me or discrimination

They're defining something that others want to be a part of in such a way as to deny them access.

It is Prejudiced to think a person who has dedicated to their life to god and risen to serve the church within the house of lords and be an archbishop is more likely to have views based on religion than a lay person.

I'm not at all desperate, I have a point.

You seem to be assuming that the bishops are not capable of making an objective decision independent of their personal beliefs. I don't know if they vote on religious grounds or not, but I suspect many of them are intelligent enough to know the difference. That is just a hunch though, and I'm not going into any internet arguments armed with just that 🙂

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to 'em, they're not people I want to share an island with.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

You should read Williams's speech I linked earlier, you would learn alot.

mefty - Member

Why should we treat people differently?

Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can't you be tolerant of that? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom? Does even the majority have such a monopoly or are we tending to ochlocracy?

Mefty, I am tolerant of their views.
I don't agree, but I understand that they believe this.

However, we live in a democracy and our democratically elected government have decided that same sex marriage is to happen.
In this case, this makes me happy.

They have also decided to implement many other policies that I don't agree with.
I accept these things as part of the democratic process, as my opinion is no more valid than anyone elses.
Religious belief is an opinion and deserves no more respect or special considration than any other.

mefty - Member

Sucks to be them. Bollocks to 'em, they're not people I want to share an island with.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

I'm intolerant of prejudice. If that offends your sensibilities, I suggest you stop reading speeches on the Internet and have a look at yourself.

You should read Williams's speech I linked earlier, you would learn alot.

I will when I've got time. Cooking tea ATM.

Glitch bump.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

Are you tolerant of racists or paedophiles? Why/why not?

"Everyone is different, there are some people who believe that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman, why can't you be tolerant of that?"

I am absolutly tolerent of your belief "that marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman" You can believe that all you want you can even live by your belief and not marry someone of the same sex if you want . I will not tolerate the extension of that belief to say you can dictate the lives of others and prevent those who do wish to enter into same sex unions a marriage ceremony and an equal right to marry.

In the modern world marriage ceremonys are not a religious monopoly and religion should not dictate terms for any who do not wish to play by their rules.

As night follows day, you always know it is going to come the intolerance of the self-styled tolerant. Well done.

this is always used but it is pointless and lazy. I am tolerant but i wont tolerant sexism. homophobia, racism etc.

I would not tolerate folk burning churches either or shooting the believers either

There is a limit to tolerance where your freedom to believe impacts on someone else freedom to be do as they please.

What I am intolerant because i imprison rapists and child abusers - how daft d o you wan to go ?