Forum menu
Ok Cougar ... you are right
Stupid of me to try and lighten the mood with a friendly post.
I'd like to see stats on that.Christians, church goers, or believers in God? How about broken down by country?
Why don't you look some up then? Here's some for starters.
A new survey conducted by LifeWay Research finds that 44 percent of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin. Meanwhile, 43 percent believe it is not, and 13 percent are not sure.The survey, conducted among a random sampling of 2,144 adult Americans, asked the question: ""Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" Results indicate that gender, education, church attendance, and religious affiliation affect one's views.
According to the survey, 47 percent of men believe homosexuality is a sin while 40 percent of women believe the same.
[b]Seventy-one percent of those who attend a church service once weekly or more believe it is a sin, compared to a mere 8 percent who never attend a church service.
Among evangelical, fundamentalist or born again Christians, 82 percent say homosexuality is a sin while only 14 percent say it is not a sin. This is compared to the 29 percent of those from other religions who say homosexuality is sinful. [/b]
It's not really a "homosexual marriage" issue. It's an equal rights issue.
That summarises in a nutshell the reason why so few understand the CofE's position. They believe a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so by their and they would argue society's definition, it is simply impossible for a marriage between two people of the same sex to exist. Their view is that discrimination under the law has been removed by civil partnerships.
Seventy-one percent of those who attend a church service once weekly or more believe it is a sin, compared to a mere 8 percent who never attend a church service.
A slight point about those stats: presumably a fairly large percentage of the [i]"8 percent who never attend a church service"[/i] don't believe in any kind of sin, so that skews the stats a little.
i.e. if you said to me "Is murder a sin?" I'd say no. Not because I don't think murder is bad, but because I don't believe in the religious concept of sin.
A large percentage of 8% is at worst going to skew the stats by something under eight percent.
Some of the other 92% may have rejected the premise of 'sin' as you suggest, but as you say, that's just a presumption. It's not clear whether it was a leading question or not.
That summarises in a nutshell the reason why so few understand the CofE's position. They believe a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so by their and they would argue society's definition, it is simply impossible for a marriage between two people of the same sex to exist. Their view is that discrimination under the law has been removed by civil partnerships.
My view is that their view shouldn't influence civil law.
I've heard christians say that the purpose of marriage is for the conception and raising of children and therefore only a male-female marriage is a marriage.
This manages to ignore all the married heterosexual couples who can't, or choose not to, have children as well as all the unmarried heterosexual couples who do have children. Plus, the advancements that have been made in fertility medicine.
"When asking questions like this to a general sampling of the population, it is important to note that people's definition of 'sin' may differ based upon their religious background and beliefs. We intentionally used the word, but also know it means different things to different people," said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. McConnell noted that in 2011, Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll approached the question of homosexuality asking if it was "morally acceptable.""While we find 44 percent believe homosexuality is a 'sin,' Gallup reports 56 percent of Americans consider gay and lesbian relations morally acceptable," McConnell said.
As 56+44=100, this would seem to suggest that any bias from use of the word 'sin' would be minimal.
There was a woman on the radio last week who made what I thought was an excellent point - "If you don't believe in same sex marriage" she said "don't marry someone of the same sex".
My view is that their view shouldn't influence civil law.
The problem is we don't have a separate civil law in this country as we have an established church and the canons of that church are incorporated into the laws of this country. You may not like this, but it is the status quo and therefore any change in the law should take this fact into account.
The official CofE position is broader than merely limiting the purpose to procreation.
A large percentage of 8% is at worst going to skew the stats by something under eight percent.
Some of the other 92% may have rejected the premise of 'sin' as you suggest
I think you (or maybe me) are misreading the stats there.
They said that, within the population of people who don't go to church, just 8% of that population felt that homosexuality was "a sin".
But for all we know, 91% of that group might still think homosexuality is "wrong", but just don't believe in "sin".
Meanwhile within the church-going population it is generally taught that wrong = sin = wrong.
Hence why it can skew the poll.
The second Gallup poll seems clearer.
There was a woman on the radio last week who made what I thought was an excellent point - "If you don't believe in same sex marriage" she said "don't marry someone of the same sex".
Or..
Lifeway Research http://www.lifeway.com/LifeWay-Research/c/N-1z13wgl
whose strapline is "Enlightening todays Church with Relevant Insight"
😕
No Singletracked, not an assumption.
you mean you hadn't assumed i was brought up in a Catholic environment?
So you support it, or do you just think it should be legal despite your personal feelings?
I'm not trying to avoid the issue, but I'm not sure those are the only options. I guess I'm not clear on what it means to 'support' gay marriage. But i certainly think it should be allowed, and those [i]are [/i]my personal feelings
How many Catholic churches actually do that? I strongly suspect the number is so few as to make it pretty much irrelevant.
No but it is existence proof that the catholic church will bless same sex unions
The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong.This is based on my experience of being brought up a Christian, in a Christian country, having listened to the pronouncements of various Christian leaders, and knowing a fair bit about Christianity in certain parts of Africa through some work I've done.
No, basing on your experience makes it opinion. Finding and presenting the data on it would make it fact. But of course it would have to be true first.
Yes that doesn't apply to every single Christian but it's a reasonable generalisation to make - otherwise the concept of Christianity at all is meaningless.
No, it is not a reasonable generalisation, because it is not one of the characteristics which unifies that group. Generalisations which reference some unifying definition of the group would be a reasonable assumption
Do you think it's also unfair to generalise that most Christians believe Jesus is the son of God,
No, 'cos that's pretty much one of the things that defines them as Christian.
or that they believe in the concept of hell?
dunno about that one, but i'd be surprised if all Christians had the [i]same [/i]concept of hell
No but it is existence proof that the catholic church will bless same sex unions
Saying 'the Catholic Church will bless same sex unions' (examples please?) rather disingenuously makes it sound like that's the official line of the Catholic Church. Whereas it's actually as follows:
Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So any Catholic Church that does do that is going against mainstream Catholicism.
No, basing on your experience makes it opinion. Finding and presenting the data on it would make it fact. But of course it would have to be true first.
You mean like this data I already posted?
Seventy-one percent of those who attend a church service once weekly or more believe it is a sin, compared to a mere 8 percent who never attend a church service.Among evangelical, fundamentalist or born again Christians, 82 percent say homosexuality is a sin while only 14 percent say it is not a sin. This is compared to the 29 percent of those from other religions who say homosexuality is sinful.
Whatever the flaws in the survey might be, it still clearly shows (as I claimed) that an overwhelming majority of christians (surveyed in America) believe that homosexuality is a sin. This is backed up by own experience. Trying to claim otherwise is really pretty daft.
[b]The problem is we don't have a separate civil law in this country as we have an established church[/b] and the canons of that church are incorporated into the laws of this country.
Exactly my point too 🙂
Whatever the flaws in the survey might be, it still clearly shows (as I claimed) that an overwhelming majority of christians (surveyed in America) believe that homosexuality is a sin.
No that's right, but it's not what you initially claimed is it?
Wikipedia
During the 1990s, a discussion began in the Roman Catholic Church about blessings for same-sex unions. In the Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen in Germany, five same-sex unions received a blessing in German town of Mönchengladbach.[83] In 2007, one same-sex union received a blessing in German town of Wetzlar in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg.
The fact that this can happen shows that there is no Catholic doctrine on this, as such there is no Mainstream Catholicism in this context, there is a 'majority', but so what?
nah but that what they think 🙂 bit woolly on catholic stuff but pretty sure original sin means we're all going to hell by default, you've got to opt out at somepoint. IIRC CoE are more along the lines of "reasonably everyone sins at some point in their life so you are going to the big fire anyway unless you redeem yourself" not a massive difference.Never been told by a Xtian ( of any sort ) that I'm going to burn in hell. Btw
Of course you could turn it all around at the last minute and repent, might be worth a shot. But that brings me to death bed confessions, always seemed a bit crap to me, you can be as much of a git as you want your whole life aslong as you say sorry (and mean it) right at the end. That and the "eye of a needle" thing always struck my cynical mind as a bit of a money earner for the churches.
Exactly my point too
As I alluded to in my post, that doesn't surprise me but it does mean that creating what you want is considerably more complicated than a straightforward change in law as it fundamentally changes the nature of our present constitutional settlement.
But that brings me to death bed confessions, always seemed a bit crap to me, you can be as much of a git as you want your whole life aslong as you say sorry (and mean it) right at the end. That and the "eye of a needle" thing always struck my cynical mind as a bit of a money earner for the churches.
How would these generate money for the church?
.
No that's right, but it's not what you initially claimed is it?
What did I initially claim then?
The fact that this can happen shows that there is no Catholic doctrine on this, as such there is no Mainstream Catholicism in this context, there is a 'majority', but so what?
*sigh* - that's just patently untrue, where do you think this quote comes from? 🙄
Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
A tiny number of isolated cases doesn't change that.
It's utterly ridiculous to claim that, in general, christians aren't at the very least disapproving of homosexuality. And you know it.
What did I initially claim then?
this...
The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong.
It's utterly ridiculous to claim that, in general, christians aren't at the very least disapproving of homosexuality. And you know it.
Oh right, yes that's a much more convincing argument! 🙄
Let me try
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.
*sigh* - that's just patently untrue, where do you think this quote comes from?
Dunno, tradition?
What do they mean by 'natural law'?
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.
How about that they're all.. You know... Christian?
Singletracked.
My quote regarding assumptions didn't relate to you, as you well know.
You accused me of making assumptions - I was relating personal experience.
However I did assume you were a Catholic. Am I wrong?
If so, I apologise.
Adds weight to my argument re sense of humour though. 🙂
I like how the argument is continuing but I am no longer involved.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality ]List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality[/url]
TLDR: Most Christian denominations do not allow gay marriage and consider homosexuality to be sinful.
EDIT: Shall I make a pivot table?
EDIT: Shall I make a pivot table?
DO IT!
A pivotable what?
A pivotable what?
They're more powerful than God. [s]Seriously[/s]. 😉
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.
I found [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/basics_1.shtml ]a list of what christians believe[/url]!
Oooh! look!
A 2011 report based on telephone surveys of American Catholics conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 43% support same-sex marriage, 31% support civil unions, and 22% oppose any legal recognition of a same-sex relationship. 56% believe that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not sinful. 73% favor anti-discrimination laws, 63% support the right of gay people to serve openly in the military, and 60% favor allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.[6][44] A 2012 Pew Forum survey which asked American Catholic respondents if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage found that 52% supported it and 37% opposed it.[45] C[b]atholic support of gay rights is thus higher than that of other Christian groups and of the general population[/b]
As I alluded to in my post, that doesn't surprise me but it does mean that creating what you want is considerably more complicated than a straightforward change in law as it fundamentally changes the nature of our present constitutional settlement.
If the church isn't homophobic, we can change the law.
Can we change the law?
Catholic support of gay rights is thus higher than that of other Christian groups and of the general population
But you can't say that christians aren't homophobic, just because catholics aren't 😉
That survey proves that not only are the church leadership out of touch with the general public, they're out of touch with their members.
Adds weight to my argument re sense of humour though
Perhaps, but then we all look dull and lugubrious when compared to the sparkling wit and repartee you have displayed
Personal Belief ? Religious Doctrine ? Organised Religious Views.
Let's all stop mixing these up.
That survey proves that not only are the church leadership out of touch with the general public, they're out of touch with their members.
True, but I don't think the Catholic church is led by the views of its flock. I'm pretty sure it's not a democracy or run by referendum
Personal Doctrine ? Religious Views? Organised Religious Belief .Let's all stop mixing these up.
Yes, I agree!
Personal Belief ? Religious Doctrine ? Organised Religious Views.
I've been trying for years, but I think some people enjoy the sport too much.
Summary so far:
At least half of the population are in favour of same-sex marriage irrespective of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, at least based on statistics from the US.
However, most organised religions are against it by policy and thus don't accurately represent the views of their respective flocks.
How am I doing so far?
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'd really like it if this weren't the case, which is why we atheists keep raising it as a topic of discussion.
I'm not trying to avoid the issue, but I'm not sure those are the only options. I guess I'm not clear on what it means to 'support' gay marriage. But i certainly think it should be allowed, and those are my personal feelings
"In favour of," maybe. I'm not asking if you're likely to be out on the streets with a harshly worded placard. (-:
Assuming you're not being deliberately evasive then that answers my question I think. Thank you.
The fact that this can happen shows that there is no Catholic doctrine on this
Does it? Or does it just show that some people choose to ignore it sometimes?
If you're looking at Catholicism as a whole, six couples isn't proof of anything, it's statistical error.
I like how the argument is continuing but I am no longer involved.
So do I. (-:
EDIT: Shall I make a pivot table?
Only if it's going to be used by a man and a woman in a consenting, loving relationship.
I found a list of what christians believe!
Hmm, that's a pretty sketchy list (thats a slight on the BBC, not on you by the way!)
Bit on Saints is purely a Catholic belief not a general Christian one.
God loves everyone unconditionally ([b]though people have to comply with various conditions in order to achieve salvation[/b]) - just plain wrong. The WHOLE point of Christianity is that there is nothing WE can do to be saved. Again, this is something that creeps into Catholicism, but not generally Christianity.
Human beings can get to know God through prayer, worship, love, and mystical experiences - Haha, ok, get their point, but apalling wording!
The middle one is the biggy - Christianity is not a salvation by works type deal. This kind of goes with the comment above about deathbed salvation - yes, it is possible that if someone on their deathbed truly repents then it doesn't matter what they have done during their life. A sin is a sin is a sin in God's eyes - one of the slightly more difficult to grasp bits of doctrine, but an important one!
I think you have it,
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.
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)
History would suggest that the latter is more likely to happen. I'd really like it if this weren't the case, which is why we atheists keep raising it as a topic of discussion.
The middle one is the biggy - Christianity is not a salvation by works type deal. This kind of goes with the comment above about deathbed salvation - yes, it is possible that if someone on their deathbed truly repents then it doesn't matter what they have done during their life. A sin is a sin is a sin in God's eyes - one of the slightly more difficult to grasp bits of doctrine, but an important one!
What happens to the eternal souls of all those born pre-Christ?
What happens to the eternal souls of all those born post-Christ who never hear of christianity?
Does it? Or does it just show that some people choose to ignore it sometimes?
it does, because if it didn't then ignoring it would make the ceremony meaningless
The WHOLE point of Christianity is that there is nothing WE can do to be saved.
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?
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
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?
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 - MemberIt'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.
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. It prejudice to think they may have christian view on things. I think you are confusing the blindingly obvious with some bizarre attempt to accuse me of prejudice.
I am vegan what do you think my view is on animals - go one take a wild stab in the dark between me and meat eater.
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.