Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

Definitions change, and offspring aren't quite so necessary these days

Non religious gay marriage I think should be allowed, churches don't have to marry them if they don't want

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Definitions change, and offspring aren't quite so necessary these days

Non religious gay marriage I think should be allowed, churches don't have to marry them if they don't want

Mans definitions may change, but God's don't.

The fear of churches is that a gay couple will approach the church for marriage. The minister will refuse on religious grounds and then get sued by the couple for refusing their request.

It has happened in Sweden. We are just waiting for it in Canada. The gay couple will go through the Human rights boards, which are not accountable to anybody.

So much for religious freedom.

John Doe

That is disgraceful. A church, in that situation, is accountable to no-one. If it so chooses I believe a church should have the right not to marry people because they're too hirsute. It just wouldn't be a very popular church, but that's their own business. It's a bit pointless my arguing in favour of gay marriage, because when it comes down to it I just don't have faith in the Bible so I can believe what I want, based on whether or not I think it's dangerous.

Scofflaw

John Doe wrote:

That is disgraceful. A church, in that situation, is accountable to no-one. If it so chooses I believe a church should have the right not to marry people because they're too hirsute. It just wouldn't be a very popular church, but that's their own business. It's a bit pointless my arguing in favour of gay marriage, because when it comes down to it I just don't have faith in the Bible so I can believe what I want, based on whether or not I think it's dangerous.

I would fully concur. It is entirely up to a faith/church to determine who it will or will not marry.

If a person considers themselves to be a member of that particular faith, and wishes to do something against the tenets of that faith, presumably they are no longer members of the particular faith (or at least, not members in good standing, although I don't know if most churches require that members be members in good standing to avail of sacraments).

regards,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

Unfortumately there are radical people within the gay community who hate the church and this is their way of exacting punishment, and maybe get some financial compensation along the way. The gays that I know can't stand the radicals as they cause the radicals on the other side to commit crimes against the gay community.

And on and on it goes. The human heart is the same as it has always been. Just our toys of destruction are more sophisticated.

Scofflaw

hairyheretic wrote:

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

There isn't time for any minister to address all the possible points of disagreement between members of the congregation and doctrine. Many people assume that they are 100% in agreement with their church, and then come up against something like this.

It's next to impossible for a minister to remind every new member of the congregation that should they be gay (for example), they should be aware that their sexual preferences are in conflict with doctrine.

Catholicism handles such conflicts largely by the mechanism of the confessional, but the Protestant sects have generally handled it more directly and somewhat more confrontationally (er, see above).

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> It is entirely up to a faith/church to determine who it will or will not marry.

I think it would be useful to tack on "within that belief system/church" onto the end of that sentence. Meaning that if you wish to undergo a catholic or protestant or muslim or a whatever marriage, the guys running the relevant local religious outlet can reasonably get to select who's going to be permitted to stay in (or join) their club and who, by implication, is going to have to sign up to produce more kids to continue the belief system concerned. I'm not aware of any religions which do not make it a condition of a religious marriage that you must promise to bring up any kids in the religion concerned, though I'm sure there must be some.

However, what I find thoroughly obnoxious is that the concept of "marriage" -- in the sense of a life-long, loving commitment between consenting adults -- has been hijacked collectively by, I think, just about every religion there is. So that the religions, rather than spreading, or even ungrudgingly permitting, the love and concern for fellow human beings that they earnestly declare, with loud hosannahs, is amongst their highest ideals, instead they define a sense of marriage, between a man and {a woman|some women}, which seems to exist simply to produce more little religious believers.

Defining it this way has the additional benefit that anybody who bangs on endlessly about gay marriage and what they're going to do about it if they're re-elected president for another four years, will gather the unconditional support of a large group of wide-bodied voters for whom this, utterly incomprehensibly, is one of the two greatest threats to the stability of society.

> I don't know if most churches require that members be members in
> good standing to avail of sacraments.

Not to my knowledge -- most will, I think, quiet happily forget that you've not shown your face in the place for twenty years, as long as you promise to put your and your kids' names on the books.

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

Can't agree with your presumption here. Surprised?:)

We may allow it with man made laws, but God still condemns it, because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Elected representatives are changing that in many countries, if you don't like it then tough. Accept Democracy or leave-'the times they are a changin'

So much for religious freedom. What about individual freedom, in all rational organisations it is an offence to refuse employment based on religion or sexuality. The people do not accept such discrimination yet religous organisations get away with it.