Discussion: New rule - homosexuality & same sex marriage

[Sojourner1]

This is the discussion thread for members to ask questions about the new rule regarding the topics of homosexuality and same sex marriage. You may also have some questions about our new statement on marriage. Please see the announcement thread for reference. I will be posting the process for voting in the polls in the congregational forums soon. Questions about this actual voting process will be welcome at that time. Only the advisors and admins will be answering your questions in this thread. If there are no advisors or admins online, the thread will be closed until someone is back on CF. Thanks!

*This is not a report-free thread, however, violations will be handled primarily by staff editing or removing posts as needed.

 

[crjmurray]

Just curious if homosexuality can be discussed (without promotion) in the physical and life sciences forum.

 

[Sojourner1]

Just curious if homosexuality can be discussed (without promotion) in the physical and life sciences forum.

No, homosexuality cannot be discussed in the physical and life sciences forum.

 

[crjmurray]

No, homosexuality cannot be discussed in the physical and life sciences forum.

10-4

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

To inquire of one particular point. Is it a rule violation then for someone to declare that the word of God scriptures in the Bible that speak of God's judgment regarding homosexuality are not valid? Or saying what they do say in printed form in scripture? Is that then considered, second question as follow up to that first, promoting homosexuality? If someone argues the scriptures don't speak against it?

 

[Red Fox]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, members are allowed to discuss homosexuals being given the same equal rights and civil rights as every other citizen living in the United States, which would be considered a political issue, but members aren't allowed to actually condone the lifestyle of homosexuality and same sex marriage. Is this correct?

 

[DaisyDay]

Is it still against the rules to refer to homosexuals in rude terms?

 

[Sojourner1]

To inquire of one particular point. Is it a rule violation then for someone to declare that the word of God scriptures in the Bible that speak of God's judgment regarding homosexuality are not valid? Or saying what they do say in printed form in scripture? Is that then considered, second question as follow up to that first, promoting homosexuality? If someone argues the scriptures don't speak against it?

In the forums that allow discussion of homosexuality, but no promotion of it (Some Congregational forums, and the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums), to argue that the Scriptures do not speak of God's judgment of homosexuality would be considered promotion of homosexuality. In the Congregational forums that decide by a vote of forum members to open up the discussion of homosexuality to include both points of view, arguing that the Scriptures do not speak of God's judgment of homosexuality would not be a violation of the rules.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

In the forums that allow discussion of homosexuality, but no promotion of it (Some Congregational forums, and the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums), to argue that the Scriptures do not speak of God's judgment of homosexuality would be considered promotion of homosexuality. In the Congregational forums that decide by a vote of forum members to open up the discussion of homosexuality to include both points of view, arguing that the Scriptures do not speak of God's judgment of homosexuality would not be a violation of the rules.

Thank you for that clarification. We can know which is which per the forum rules in each location?

 

[Sojourner1]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, members are allowed to discuss homosexuals being given the same equal rights and civil rights as every other citizen living in the United States, which would be considered a political issue, but members aren't allowed to actually condone the lifestyle of homosexuality and same sex marriage. Is this correct?

They cannot promote homosexuality and same sex marriage as being morally acceptable, they can only promote the idea/argument that same sex marriage is an civil right afforded to every citizen in the US.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

And that in only certain forums, is that correct? (they can only promote the idea/argument that same sex marriage is an civil right afforded to every citizen in the US.)

 

[Sojourner1]

Is it still against the rules to refer to homosexuals in rude terms?

Yes, it would be against the rules to flame a group of members by referring to them in rude terms. However, we will not censor the use of Scriptures that refer to homosexuals or homosexual behaviors in terms that might come across as offensive. It really depends on the context of the post. If someone is using Scripture to support an argument in a way that isn't blatantly flaming or goading a group of members that would be okay. I think everyone realizes that Scriptures can be used to flame other people, and that is not okay.

 

[Sojourner1]

Thank you for that clarification. We can know which is which per the forum rules in each location?

The Statement of Purpose in each Congregational forum will include a statement of how the topics of homosexuality and SSM may be discussed in that specific forum.

 

[Sojourner1]

And that in only certain forums, is that correct? (they can only promote the idea/argument that same sex marriage is an civil right afforded to every citizen in the US.)

Only in the American Politics and Christian Current Affairs forums.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hi,
Since the new rule defines marriage as a sacred joining and something more than a civil contract, do all individuals who only have a civil contract need to refrain from choosing the "Married" option?

 

[Sojourner1]

Hi,
Since the new rule defines marriage as a sacred joining and something more than a civil contract, do all individuals who only have a civil contract need to refrain from choosing the "Married" option?

CF is stating that we only recognize marriages between a woman and a man, therefore, a ceremony which is done in a church wouldn't be considered to be any different from a civil marriage contract between one man and one woman. We do not recognize marriages between two members of the same sex, irregardless of whether the "marriage" was performed in a church or in a non-religious environment.

 

[Cearbhall]

CF is stating that we only recognize marriages between a woman and a man, therefore, a ceremony which is done in a church wouldn't be considered to be any different from a civil marriage contract between one man and one woman.

I guess what I'm asking is whether choosing the married option would imply that I think God blessed the marriage. It seems that the relationship labels are now strictly referring to Christian concepts, even when they don't line up with the legal definitions. While marriage is only a hypothetical for me at this time, I don't identify with Christian marriage, so I wouldn't want to choose that label if that's what it means on this site.

 

[Sojourner1]

I guess what I'm asking is whether choosing the married option would imply that I think God blessed the marriage. It seems that the relationship labels are now strictly going by the Christian definitions in contrast with the legal definitions.

We give our reasoning behind our decision to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. Our reasoning is founded on what the Bible teaches about marriage, however, we do not expect all married couples (one man and one woman) to believe that God has blessed their marriage in order to choose the "Married" option in their profile.

 

[Cearbhall]

We give our reasoning behind our decision to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. Our reasoning is founded on what the Bible teaches about marriage, however, we do not expect all married couples (one man and one woman) to believe that God has blessed their marriage in order to choose the "Married" option in their profile.

Thanks. I guess it will just be a personal decision for each member.

 

[Sojourner1]

Thread is closed until tomorrow.