New Marriage designations?

DaveW-Ohev said:

OK - maybe it was a regional thing. I grew up in the upper great lakes/Michigan/Chicago area.

Click to expand...

We had Navy there (2 winters at Great Lakes).

BryanW92 said:

We had Navy there (2 winters at Great Lakes).

Click to expand...

Yeah - my son took his basic there last winter.

But on base you have people from all over, not just Chicagoans or Midwesterners.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Yeah - my son took his basic there last winter.

But on base you have people from all over, not just Chicagoans or Midwesterners.

Click to expand...

Right. It's a great cross-section of America and we are extremely well-versed in all the uses of the f-word. It's a Navy specialty.

I am sure it is.

Tallguy88 said:

I don't understand what you mean. What does the bold mean? If you are married, you can use the married tag. No one said otherwise.

Click to expand...

Unless you're married to a person of the same Gender. Not recognizing them as married is unnecessary. You can recognize them as 'married', allowing them the fruits of Pastoral and congregational care that can come in the 'married' forum, without 'promoting' it. Adding a 'male/female' segment and a 'partnered' segment to exclude same-sex couples is unnecessary. Why be Christian? Why evangelize? Why be anything if we're going to exclude and forbid folks with whom disagree!

And that is precisely, unequivocally, and unapologetically what you are doing with the M/F marriage tag. Excluding certain individuals from portions of this forum because of their sexual identity. AND excluding those of us who don't want to have some politically loaded and qualified 'marriage' tag in order to participate in those forums. I can't see any genuine objection to the previous 'marriage' tag and not excluding same-sex couples from those forums. Are gays really THAT scary to you? They don't bite, and they aren't going to turn YOU gay.

RomansFiveEight said:

Unless you're married to a person of the same Gender. Not recognizing them as married is unnecessary. You can recognize them as 'married', allowing them the fruits of Pastoral and congregational care that can come in the 'married' forum, without 'promoting' it. Adding a 'male/female' segment and a 'partnered' segment to exclude same-sex couples is unnecessary. Why be Christian? Why evangelize? Why be anything if we're going to exclude and forbid folks with whom disagree!

And that is precisely, unequivocally, and unapologetically what you are doing with the M/F marriage tag. Excluding certain individuals from portions of this forum because of their sexual identity. AND excluding those of us who don't want to have some politically loaded and qualified 'marriage' tag in order to participate in those forums. I can't see any genuine objection to the previous 'marriage' tag and not excluding same-sex couples from those forums. Are gays really THAT scary to you? They don't bite, and they aren't going to turn YOU gay.

Click to expand...

I didn't make that decision. I suggest you take your concerns to the Member Services Center and ask to talk to an Advisor.

Tallguy88 said:

I didn't make that decision. I suggest you take your concerns to the Member Services Center and ask to talk to an Advisor.

Click to expand...

I'm aware it wasn't your decision and appreciate your response; but my reply was in reply to your defense of the decision, a decision that was ultimately reactionary and fear-based and not in any way focused on advancing the Kingdom.

To simply say "Well you can just choose the marriage option" completely ignores the very group of people this decision set out to very specifically exclude.

RomansFiveEight said:

I'm aware it wasn't your decision and appreciate your response; but my reply was in reply to your defense of the decision, a decision that was ultimately reactionary and fear-based and not in any way focused on advancing the Kingdom.

To simply say "Well you can just choose the marriage option" completely ignores the very group of people this decision set out to very specifically exclude.

Click to expand...

I haven't been trying to justify the change, only trying to explain it. My previous post was based on not understanding the original question.

But you are right, those in a SSM have to choose "legal union" or "private" per the rules.

circuitrider said:

No matter what we are or are not allowed to discuss in this forum it is always clear that the forum leadership has already taken sides.

Click to expand...

Yes they have. Every single staff member rejected same-sex marriage here. One of the Admins in OBOB stated that only the M/F Catholic designation of marriage is correct, and nobody else is married, even if they think they are or legally are. He says all those people are wrong. When you have admins making such absolute, incorrect statements, it's obvious how much right wing bias exists in the staff here. It's no wonder this board is losing members quickly.

Marius27 said:

Every single staff member rejected same-sex marriage here. One of the Admins in OBOB stated that only the M/F Catholic designation of marriage is correct, and nobody else is married, even if they think they are or legally are. He says all those people are wrong.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

When you have admins making such absolute, incorrect statements, it's obvious how much right wing bias exists in the staff here. It's no wonder this board is losing members quickly.

Click to expand...

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

Marius27 said:

Yes they have. Every single staff member rejected same-sex marriage here. One of the Admins in OBOB stated that only the M/F Catholic designation of marriage is correct, and nobody else is married, even if they think they are or legally are. He says all those people are wrong. When you have admins making such absolute, incorrect statements, it's obvious how much right wing bias exists in the staff here. It's no wonder this board is losing members quickly.

Click to expand...

I didn't see that. I think Mark gave his personal opinion on marriage, but the decision on the marriage and homosexuality rules came from higher up the ladder than either of us. It was an owner/advisor level decision.

I mean, this forum is going to allow discussion and promotion of homosexuality and SSM, if the current votes hold until the poll closes. But are you really surprised Catholics and LCMS Lutherans disagree?

seekingsolace said:

Absolutely correct.

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

Click to expand...

This really isn't the appropriate place to debate "Catholic vs Protestant" but it's important to understand that there is more than one version of understood Church history, including a commonly held understanding that the RCC is not the church Jesus formed but something that very quickly grew out of that ancient church; and by that time there were already other churches. It's difficult to reconcile any sort of concept that 1 John 2:19 was talking about ANY denomination, much less the RCC. ESPECIALLY when talking about marriage, which didn't become a part of the church for a few hundred years after that was written. Even in Judaism, Priests were rarely present at weddings, it was entirely civil and social including in early Christianity. Even up through the middle ages in some cases, churches were not performing weddings and Clergy were not involved in them. They certainly happened and often the church would bless them after-the-fact, but they were not the 'place' that weddings happened. (Fun fact: In the early days of specifically Christian weddings, they often happened during the normal worship time and not at any sort of seperate 'wedding'. They were done much the same way as joining the church, baptism, and other rites in those early days; all a function of the regular worship service.)

Tallguy88 said:

I didn't see that. I think Mark gave his personal opinion on marriage, but the decision on the marriage and homosexuality rules came from higher up the ladder than either of us. It was an owner/advisor level decision.

I mean, this forum is going to allow discussion and promotion of homosexuality and SSM, if the current votes hold until the poll closes. But are you really surprised Catholics and LCMS Lutherans disagree?

Click to expand...

Of course not. The issue at hand (that you are graciously taking the chaff for, and we recognize that; we know it's not all you) is the marriage designation. We're fine with certain faith forums having restrictions on dialogue, whatever. I'm a little perturbed that marriage has to be a part of any sort of statement of faith (The Nicene and Apostles Creed went on fine without statements about marriage), but it is what it is. I'm certainly okay with Catholics, Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and others opposing SSM. Just like I am okay with certain faith groups opposing interracial marriage. I don't have to agree, whatever, they can believe what they choose to believe.

Where a line has been crossed is in eliminating and removing SSM couples from the marriage forum and forcing the rest of us to make a political statement with our marriage icon. We can't simply be "married" we have to be "male/female married", placing us on some separate pedestal we don't want to be on. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing on the issue of SSM OR about whether or not individual forums will be permitted to discuss the issue in a positive light. It's about deciding for ALL of us, in a space that is shared (the marriage forum), despite several denominations (PCUSA, LCA, Episcopal, UCC) affirming, others wrestling with the issue. Which means Christ-centered, affirming gay Christians may come on to this forum seeking Christ-centered fellowship and marriage advice, which they are not permitted to receive because the administrators have decided for ALL of us that NONE of us are permitted to be in Holy Conversation with them in the marriage forum. (Omitting us as well as we don't want to be placed on the "Male/Female Married" pedestal).

In fact, it would even be okay (even if still an overreach and unnecessary) to maintain some sort of official stance against SSM but permit SSM couples to discuss their faith and their marriage openly if they wished to do so.

An atheist couple can (and do) talk in the marriage forum, as can wiccan couples, and they SHOULD be able to. Couples dealing with divorce, affairs, inappropriate contentography addictions, I've seen discussions about 'swinging' and other such ideologies, couples where one or both are previously divorced; an endless supply of couples who someone, somewhere on this forum opposed their marriage; but they are allowed to participate, (as they should be). Drawing this line on homosexuality alone is a reactionary approach to controversy in American politics, it's fear based, and it's inconsistent with what is normally an open policy elsewhere on other issues. It's inconsistent with this forums policies on all other faith traditions, sins, and theological issues. Where's the "M/F married formerly divorced" option so we can exclude them? "M/F Married, have been involved in an affair"? Again, probably half or more of those folks posting in the marriage forum have a marriage that would be forbidden in at least one of the denominational forums (Roman Catholics viewing all non-Catholic marriages as void is a great example). So why is THAT the line?

There's the question that isn't getting answered. Why is THAT the line that's drawn? Why is it that any married male and female can participate no matter what, provided a penis and vagina are involved, no matter what the circumstance, faith tradition, lack of faith, prior marital action, etc., but not a same sex couple?

I'll pass along your concerns, but I can't make any guarantees. These decisions are made higher up, like I said.

RomansFiveEight said:

Roman Catholics viewing all non-Catholic marriages as void is a great example

Click to expand...

Actually, a marriage between two baptized Christians, even if non Catholic, is considered a valid marriage in the Catholic Church.

RomansFiveEight said:

This really isn't the appropriate place to debate "Catholic vs Protestant" but it's important to understand that there is more than one version of understood Church history, including a commonly held understanding that the RCC is not the church Jesus formed but something that very quickly grew out of that ancient church; and by that time there were already other churches. It's difficult to reconcile any sort of concept that 1 John 2:19 was talking about ANY denomination, much less the RCC. ESPECIALLY when talking about marriage, which didn't become a part of the church for a few hundred years after that was written. Even in Judaism, Priests were rarely present at weddings, it was entirely civil and social including in early Christianity. Even up through the middle ages in some cases, churches were not performing weddings and Clergy were not involved in them. They certainly happened and often the church would bless them after-the-fact, but they were not the 'place' that weddings happened. (Fun fact: In the early days of specifically Christian weddings, they often happened during the normal worship time and not at any sort of seperate 'wedding'. They were done much the same way as joining the church, baptism, and other rites in those early days; all a function of the regular worship service.)

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure how your comments are relevant to what I said. I think you may have misinterpreted it.

Thank you for your time nonetheless.

Tallguy88 said:

I didn't see that. I think Mark gave his personal opinion on marriage, but the decision on the marriage and homosexuality rules came from higher up the ladder than either of us. It was an owner/advisor level decision.

Click to expand...

That wasn't his personal opinion, he spoke with absolute authority than anyone who disagrees with him is wrong and they're marriage isn't real if it doesn't match his view of it. I found his post truly unbecoming of an Admin.

But are you really surprised Catholics and LCMS Lutherans disagree?

Click to expand...

Well, more than half of Catholics in this country support SSM, so yeah I am kinda surprised most of them here are such right wingers.

seekingsolace said:

Absolutely correct.

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

Click to expand...

Sounds awfully like claiming people who don't accept the Catholic view aren't Christian. Might want to watch it.

RomansFiveEight said:

There's the question that isn't getting answered. Why is THAT the line that's drawn? Why is it that any married male and female can participate no matter what, provided a penis and vagina are involved, no matter what the circumstance, faith tradition, lack of faith, prior marital action, etc., but not a same sex couple?

Click to expand...

For the same reason we discussed in the other thread. Gays are a scapegoat for conservatives to ignore their own sins. They're easy for people to hate and be prejudiced against. The amount of hate and obsession conservatives have over gays is truly astounding. On the Messianic board, a poster linked The Pink Swastika, written by an Evangelical who advocates exterminating all gays and helped create the Uganda Kill the Gays bill. The Pink Swastika book blames gays for the Holocaust. You honestly can't get more evil and hateful than that. And last I checked, despite numerous reports, that post was allowed to remain in the thread.