| Ethics & Morality A forum for the discussion and debate of ethics & morality open to all members. |
 | | 
14th June 2012, 03:00 PM
|  | Contributor
29      
| | Join Date: 21st February 2003
Posts: 7,485
Blessings: 77,503,736 My Mood 
Reps: 216,390,250,992,884,000 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Rothen 
Well it should. Afterall, the Church itself ordained same-sex marriage as a Christian Rite for hundreds of years.
But one actor's opinion doesn't mean the Church will or have to. |
14th June 2012, 03:04 PM
|  | Senior Member
60  
| | Join Date: 16th January 2008
Posts: 9,122
Blessings: 16,278,313
Reps: 184,755,664,281,318,720 (power: 184,755,664,281,333) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child To be fair, he never actually said the Church must accept gays. He said:
"If the Church is going to move forward and remain relevant, it has to move with the times"
Emphasis mine. He never issued a decree ordering a change in the church's position. Rather, he pointed out a fact: the church can't move forward if it drags its heels on this issue. You might disagree with that assessment, but even so, he never made a demand.
Glad I'm not the only one to notice that.
I disagree with him however. to me reading between the lines he seems to be saying the Church should FOLLOW the current trend. Any group that always follows soon becomes irrelevant.
The Church has a hard task here. Either staying in the past or following the trends of the times create problems for them. |
15th June 2012, 02:15 AM
|  | Senior Contributor
36   
| | Join Date: 10th May 2006 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,957
Blessings: 52,687,656
Reps: 546,238,496,450,605,696 (power: 546,238,496,450,624) | | Originally Posted by MAS0N Is the church allowed to disagree with marriage between 3 guys?
Of course they are. And they're free to disagree with marriage between two guys. But they shouldn't use said disagreement to influence secular law, and they are hurting their future membership by doing so. Where exactly is the line where the church is or isn't allowed to inject it's opinion?
At the boundary between church and non-church. Is the church allowed to speak out on issues relating to family and morality?
Speak, yes. Influence secular law, no.
__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"Skaloopdidit" - Keeping Skaloop as the first cause until science can rule him out.
"I'd be a theist if it weren't for God." - Me
|
15th June 2012, 04:13 AM
| | Senior Contributor
  
| | Join Date: 6th July 2004 Location: A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
Posts: 31,022
Blessings: 340,420
Reps: 686,314,855,663,773,952 (power: 686,314,855,663,814) | | | Why is an actor's opinion on anything particularly interesting?
__________________
"Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us."
(+Desmond Tutu) |
15th June 2012, 07:09 AM
|  | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 26th May 2012 Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 43
Blessings: 1,003,676
Reps: 161,254,479,754,336 (power: 161,254,479,755) | | Originally Posted by Skaloop Of course they are. And they're free to disagree with marriage between two guys. But they shouldn't use said disagreement to influence secular law, and they are hurting their future membership by doing so.
At the boundary between church and non-church.
Speak, yes. Influence secular law, no.
What's the point of speaking if you're not supposed to influence?
This issue should raise questions about USA homosexuals' sincerity for so-called "equality," but it doesn't because of the media. When Obama got elected, he proposed federal legislation regarding civil unions which would bring "equality" according to tax laws, hospital visitations, etc. The gay community quietly opposed him and the media never reported. If gays really wanted "equality" in the US, they could've had it already. Instead though, they're now just fighting over semantics, aka the word "marriage."
FYI Secularism is a worldview. Just like Christianity. Why does one worldview automatically have the moral high ground over another just because it's devoid of God? In the USA, people don't understand pure democracy. They shove separation of church and state (which isn't in our constitution) down our throat and dismiss voting and representation.
We voted on this issue in CA and because gays didn't like the results it's being appealed to the Supreme Court. What's the point of voting on it then? Other states voted on it and passed it with no appeal: that's called democracy with no bias towards a worldview.
Again, if gays wanted the same rights, they could have had it by now. Say Obama loses in Nov, they may have gotten greedy and missed their window of opportunity.
Last edited by MAS0N; 15th June 2012 at 07:17 AM.
|
15th June 2012, 07:47 AM
|  | Contributor
  
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 19,017
Blessings: 50,360,740 My Mood 
Reps: 381,969,691,137,393,984 (power: 381,969,691,137,422) | | Originally Posted by MAS0N What's the point of speaking if you're not supposed to influence?
He means church declarations should have no legal weight, or no more weight than anyone else making declarations. The church can say what it likes, but parliament doesn't have to listen. Originally Posted by MAS0N This issue should raise questions about USA homosexuals' sincerity for so-called "equality," but it doesn't because of the media. When Obama got elected, he proposed federal legislation regarding civil unions which would bring "equality" according to tax laws, hospital visitations, etc. The gay community quietly opposed him and the media never reported. If gays really wanted "equality" in the US, they could've had it already. Instead though, they're now just fighting over semantics, aka the word "marriage."
Different words for the same thing is not equality. Can you imagine the furore if interracial couples couldn't get 'married', but could get a civil partnership? You don't think civil rights activists would protest to change the name? Originally Posted by MAS0N FYI Secularism is a worldview. Just like Christianity. Why does one worldview automatically have the moral high ground over another just because it's devoid of God?
Because it's in your constitution - no religion gets to dictate politics. 'Secularism' isn't a worldview, it's the idea that churches and mosques and things don't get to overrule or dictate legislation simply because they're religious. The idea is that religion doesn't get special treatment. Originally Posted by MAS0N We voted on this issue in CA and because gays didn't like the results it's being appealed to the Supreme Court. What's the point of voting on it then? Other states voted on it and passed it with no appeal: that's called democracy with no bias towards a worldview.
Err, not quite. It doesn't get appealed to the Supreme Court because "gays didn't like the results" - it gets appealed because it fulfils the criteria for appeal. The appeal is based on the alleged illegality of the vote, the unconstitutionality of the legislation.
Democracy is not as simple as "majority rules". Your country has constitutions and other things going on that take precedence.
__________________ I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.. |
15th June 2012, 08:46 AM
|  | Veteran
44 
| | Join Date: 23rd March 2005 Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,800
Blessings: 16,246,860 My Mood 
Reps: 69,503,807,972,925,104 (power: 69,503,807,972,936) | | Originally Posted by keith99 Glad I'm not the only one to notice that.
I disagree with him however. to me reading between the lines he seems to be saying the Church should FOLLOW the current trend. Any group that always follows soon becomes irrelevant.
The Church has a hard task here. Either staying in the past or following the trends of the times create problems for them.
But many Churches that are holding to strict views on homosexuals are losing large portions of the younger generation. If they continue on their path they will become reduced in influence.
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't for them.
__________________
Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good. -- Robert A. Heinlein |
15th June 2012, 09:15 AM
| | Regular Member
39
| | Join Date: 18th April 2007
Posts: 1,735
Blessings: 707
Reps: 38,166,984,654,728,096 (power: 38,166,984,654,736) | | Originally Posted by MAS0N Is the church allowed to disagree with marriage between 3 guys? Where exactly is the line where the church is or isn't allowed to inject it's opinion?
In the US (not sure about other country's tax laws), when that injecting of opinion changes the church from a non-profit to a political lobbying organization. Or at least that would be the case if laws were applied equally to churches as they are to other non-profit charities. Is the church allowed to speak out on issues relating to family and morality?
Of course. They just need to be cognizant of the damage they do to their image when doing so. |
15th June 2012, 08:39 PM
|  | Have Courage to Trust God Mod of the Month
44   
| | Join Date: 17th March 2005 Location: WV
Posts: 20,057
Blessings: 10,016,705 My Mood 
Reps: 258,593,679,013,238,336 (power: 258,593,679,013,267) | | MOD HAT ON
Thread will remain closed for this RV:
Topics Requiring Special Consideration:
Abortion; Adultery or Premarital Sex; Homosexuality; Illegal Activity; Other Religions; On-Line Deliverance; Professional Counseling; Prophecy ● Abortion may only be discussed in the Ethics & Morality forum, the Christian Philosophy and Ethics forum, and the Congregation and Recovery categories within the limits of the rules for those areas. ● Do not promote or encourage adultery or premarital sex. ● Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues. ● Do not promote illegal activity. ● Do not promote or proselytize religious beliefs or religions (including Satanism or Occultism) other than Christianity. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith. ● Do not make posts which attempt to exorcise or bind demons, or post instructions on how to complete deliverance. ● Do not give professional legal, financial, medical, or other counseling. Do not direct, imply, or suggest that others should disregard doctors' orders regarding medical diagnosis and/or treatment. ● Personal Prophecy (prophetic utterance) will be considered off-topic to all site forums. These may be posted in your own personal Blog.
**Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity. MOD HAT OFF
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.In Loving Memory of Mom Peguino (AdJesumPerMarium).
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Philothei; 19th June 2012 at 04:18 PM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
