Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hvizsgyak

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 28, 2021
586
253
60
Spring Hill
✟94,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And I'll take a shot at this. The correct definition of what is right and wrong as regards Christianity is...the one that you promote?

Which effectively means that if we want to know if something is morally acceptable or not, we can ask you.

How have you been? I see you made the jump from CAF to here too. Quite a lively and enjoyable crowd. Now as for me knowing alot of the moral answers, I'd have to, say no I don't. The Bible and The Catechism of the Catholic Church is where I get alot of my answers and the many issues of "This Rock" I have read.

It's good to see another familiar face here, hopefully one one of these posts we'll be agreeing with one another better. God bless and see you again on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In Christianity, there are some sacred laws we all follow, one of them being our one God is the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). No argument from any true Christian.

Just want to point out that there are some Christian groups who do not believe in a trinity. 9 Faith Groups That Deny the Trinity Doctrine

Not interested in a debate about it, just wanted to point it out.
 
Upvote 0

Hvizsgyak

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 28, 2021
586
253
60
Spring Hill
✟94,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How have you been? I see you made the jump from CAF to here too. Quite a lively and enjoyable crowd. Now as for me knowing alot of the moral answers, I'd have to, say no I don't. The Bible and The Catechism of the Catholic Church is where I get alot of my answers and the many issues of "This Rock" I have read.

It's good to see another familiar face here, hopefully one one of these posts we'll be agreeing with one another better. God bless and see you again on this forum.

Hey, Hv (was that your CA name?). Nice to see someone from the recently departed forum. Yeah, nice crowd here. Plenty of differing views. Hope to see you around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hvizsgyak
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I think a super super majority of the Christians here would disagree that those nine faith groups are considered Christian.
None of them are considered to be authentically Christian by the moderating standards of this forum. As far as the posters themselves go, I have the impression that at least a substantial minority would not even consider Roman Catholics to be Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Hvizsgyak

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 28, 2021
586
253
60
Spring Hill
✟94,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Marital Status
Married
None of them are considered to be authentically Christian by the moderating standards of this forum. As far as the posters themselves go, I have the impression that at least a substantial minority would not even consider Roman Catholics to be Christians.

I agree. Our world is really screwed up and the devil has driven a deep wedge between all of our denominations. We all need to keep trying for more cohesion and better understanding between denominations and less cohesion with this world and its views. If we truly love our God we need to work our differences out peacefully and perfectly. We need God's Grace to grow together.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree. Our world is really screwed up and the devil has driven a deep wedge between all of our denominations. We all need to keep trying for more cohesion and better understanding between denominations and less cohesion with this world and its views. If we truly love our God we need to work our differences out peacefully and perfectly.

Like the man said: 'You can't all be right. But...you could all be wrong'.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The heads of a church made some rules for its members and hierarchy. Membership in a church or it's hierarchy is voluntary. Anyone who does not wish to follow those rules is free to leave. Unless I belong to that church it is none of my business. It is not a freedom of speech issue, not a religious freedom issue, not a constitutional issue.
I was discussing this with Kylie and this situation was not about fre4edom of speech, (Kylie wil like that). It was about a church entity such as church rep or facility being forced to perform SSM. In this case Bishop LOve defied his churches policy to allow SSM and refused to allow it in the churches he was responsible for in his diocese. A Bishop has that authority though they should not go against the official Episcopal church policy. BUt he did because as he said this would be against my conscience to allow anyone I have authority over to perform SSM.

It was a fundemental disagreement about Biblical truth. Bishop Love believed the Episcopal church was wrong and that allowing SSM is a sin and considering that the Episcopal church is a breakaway church who has defied the official consensus including the Popes official statement on not blessing SSM he is right. Bishop LOve has the right to stand up for his beliefs and not to be forced against his conscience to sin even within his own church. It is not just a dispute within the church but also one constitutionally as Bishop LOve has the same rights under the 1st Amendment as anyone else regardless of what his churches position is.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's this sort of rhetoric that I can't take seriously. Comparing policies upholding equality under the law with an authoritarian state is absurd.
You dont understand the issue and the implications for religious freedom and free speech. Let me ask you do you think someone should be forced to promote and celebrate something they think is a sin, would be against their concience to do and is something they are fundelmentally opposed to according to their beliefs.

Even the Supreme court Judges agreed that this situation would be fundementally against the Constitutions 1st Amendment something that the U.S and countries like it put in place to prevent governments controlling and forcing its citizens to conform to their dictates.

"By equating an artist's conscience-driven, message-based objection to creating expressive items that offend his beliefs with person-based discrimination based on sexual orientation, the court places CADA in direct conflict with the fundamental rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and wrongly subordinates these rights to public accommodations law."

Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] fact,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573 (ibid, at 8)
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You dont understand the issue and the implications for religious freedom and free speech. Let me ask you do you think someone should be forced to promote and celebrate something they think is a sin...

I think that you're again doing a diservice to your argument, Steve. The ruling indicated that he should not have to provide a service for a gay wedding which would then imply that he agreed with the fact that it was a gay wedding and that such a wedding was to be celebrated. A finding that he be required to supply the cake definitely would not, as you suggested above, force him to promote the wedding and force him to celebrate it.

That it was a gay wedding and the fact that gay weddings take place is something Phillips needs to get his head around. But I would support him not baving to promote it and obviously not have to celebrate it (an uttely nonsensical suggestion).

As to promoting it, you could draw a very long bow indeed and argue that simply making the cake was actually promoting the wedding. With which I would disagree but which leads me to this. There are various degress by which you could claim to be forced to promote an event.

Let's take a few examples. You might be asked to drive someone to a gay wedding. You might be asked to supply sandwhiches and refreshment to a gay wedding. You might be asked to bake a cake for a party which happens to be the celebration of an anniversary of a gay couple' wedding. You might be asked to supply accomodation for people attending a gay wedding. You might be asked to help build a float for a gay parade. And you might be asked to officiate at a gay wedding.

Now there would be arguments for and against being able to refuse each one. Certainly in the example of the last two. But could a hotel refuse a room to a gay couple on their honeymoon? Could it conceivably be considered 'promoting' gay marriage? Could a cab driver ask if the wedding was straight or gay before taking the fare?

Personally, if I were the baker and had his religious convictions then I would respectfully ask that the couple take their business elsewhere and give my reasons. I might even refuse if a ruling went against me. But I can also say that if I were one of the guys getting married and I was refused then I would not be a happy man and I might well go as far as possible to ensure that I was treated as any other customer.

In other words, this isn't a black and white situation and there are generally no winners.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I was discussing this with Kylie and this situation was not about fre4edom of speech, (Kylie wil like that). It was about a church entity such as church rep or facility being forced to perform SSM. In this case Bishop LOve defied his churches policy to allow SSM and refused to allow it in the churches he was responsible for in his diocese. A Bishop has that authority though they should not go against the official Episcopal church policy. BUt he did because as he said this would be against my conscience to allow anyone I have authority over to perform SSM.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) bishops are first among equals (there is no juridical hierarchy of bishops in the Episcopal Church) and the General Convention provisions for SSM rites had conscience clauses that permitted individual bishops to refrain from implementing those rites. So if conscience were an issue in that case, it's already provided for under TEC's canons.

It was a fundemental disagreement about Biblical truth. Bishop Love believed the Episcopal church was wrong and that allowing SSM is a sin and considering that the Episcopal church is a breakaway church who has defied the official consensus including the Popes official statement on not blessing SSM he is right. Bishop LOve has the right to stand up for his beliefs and not to be forced against his conscience to sin even within his own church. It is not just a dispute within the church but also one constitutionally as Bishop LOve has the same rights under the 1st Amendment as anyone else regardless of what his churches position is.

Episcopalians have the right to disagree on that issue, but if they can't remain in fellowship, they need to hand over church properties that don't belong to them, per the church's canon laws. Conscience only goes so far.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Alright then, in your religion, does it have sacred laws that one follows?

I consider myself a pagan/animist/polytheist.

I don't believe in sacred laws, that's unique to Abrahamic religions. "Don't be a jerk" or "whatever is hurtful to you, do not cause for others" was something that was taught by both the Buddha and Confucius, however.

The same applies to the Pope accepting civil unions. Civil unions between gay couples are between the government and the couple. Marriage between gay couples is what the Pope and all Christians should oppose because God created marriage and it was meant to be between a man and a woman only. So no priest, bishop or pope can bless a gay marriage or civil union because in God's eyes it is an abomination.

Yes, I'm a former Christian and well aware of all that. I don't see it as a good reason to force me or anybody else to accept it, however. I see no evidence any of it is based in reality.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I was discussing this with Kylie and this situation was not about fre4edom of speech, (Kylie wil like that). It was about a church entity such as church rep or facility being forced to perform SSM. In this case Bishop LOve defied his churches policy to allow SSM and refused to allow it in the churches he was responsible for in his diocese. A Bishop has that authority though they should not go against the official Episcopal church policy. BUt he did because as he said this would be against my conscience to allow anyone I have authority over to perform SSM.

It was a fundemental disagreement about Biblical truth. Bishop Love believed the Episcopal church was wrong and that allowing SSM is a sin and considering that the Episcopal church is a breakaway church who has defied the official consensus including the Popes official statement on not blessing SSM he is right. Bishop LOve has the right to stand up for his beliefs and not to be forced against his conscience to sin even within his own church. It is not just a dispute within the church but also one constitutionally as Bishop LOve has the same rights under the 1st Amendment as anyone else regardless of what his churches position is.
Bishop Love's 1st Amendment rights were not violated. The 1st Amendment does not protect a Clergyman from doctrinal disputes within his own church, in fact it prohibits the Government from getting involved at all.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think a super super majority of the Christians here would disagree that those nine faith groups are considered Christian.

But would the people in those groups say they are Christians, that's the thing. Because I'm pretty sure that it's against the rules here for a person to claim that a second person is NOT a Christian if that second person says they are a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bishop Love's 1st Amendment rights were not violated. The 1st Amendment does not protect a Clergyman from doctrinal disputes within his own church, in fact it prohibits the Government from getting involved at all.
It wasnt just about a doctrinal dispute though, it was also a matter of being forced to do something that was against his conscience just like for any person being forced to do something against their conscience regarding religious belief. As far as the Church heads are concerned there was no doctrinal dispute and he broke the Church policy just like a person may brake an organisations policy because of their belief.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No. I asked you specifically to give me examples of churches etc being forced to perform SSM, and you - directly responding to me - gave me a lists of 20 or so, only one of which came close to actually being relevant.

So it was NOT from your responses to Speedwell.
Then why did you include the 17 examples from my conversations with speedwell in posts 833 and #846 well after post 801 using those examples to show that I had posted over 40 examples about people being forced to perform SSM which they had nothing to do with that topic.

And as per what I said in my last post: We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.
Then why did you say the following in post 830 well after your post 801.

Kylie said #830
they have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

And that’s when I posted those examples on free speech in post #833 to you claim that people have the freedom of speech well after post 801.

Now you say you are posting them one at a time. So what about all those others that you posted back in post 801?
I told you I was posting the examples 1 at a time in post #858
So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case.

By the way, I've already addressed both the Bishop Love example and the Oceans Grove example.
OK so that’s 2 examples that support my case. Next is the Itching post example.
City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

He was also responsible for carrying out the instructions that were issued by his superiors.
Actually Bishop LOve had the authority not to make changes as he seen fit as a Bishop.

1) A Episcopal Church Bishop has the authority to change things in his own diocese. Bishops are seen as decendents of Christs Apostles authority wise so there is no higher. In fact the changes Bishop Love made in disallowing SSM in his diocese could not be reversed by the Church heads and remained in place until he resigned. That ‘shows how much authority Bishops have in the Episcopal Church.

2) The Church Hierarchy were wrong in trying to force Bishop Love to perform SSM as their own Book of Prayer forbid it and the church had not yet changed their policy at that stage in the Book of Prayer. So he was actually the only one following the proper Church rules. They still haven’t changed it. The new ruling to allow SSM was called B012.

B012 turns upside down over 2000 years of Church teaching regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and is in direct contradiction of The Episcopal Church’s “official teaching” on marriage as outlined in the rubrics and the opening preface of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer, as well as the Catechism (BCP 861).

The rubric in the marriage service states:
“Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.”(BCP 422). None of this was changed in the Book of Common Prayer at the 79th General Convention; therefore they remain in effect as the official teaching of the Church regarding marriage.

The marriage canon of the Diocese of Albany, recognizes and upholds this traditional understanding of marriage, and as a result prohibits its clergy from officiating at or allowing any marriage to take place on any church property other than that between a man and woman. Thus, to carry out the dictates of B012 would be a direct violation of our own diocesan canons. 4

https://albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/...11/Pastoral-Letter-Regarding-B012-Nov2018.pdf

3) The Episcopal Church was also wrong outside their church as 99% of Churches disagreed with allowing SSM so they were a breakaway church that was considered outside the Christian faith so Bishop Loves belief and conscience that allowing SSM was a sin is correct and therefore he is justified to apply it.
4) Bishop Love had a right to follow his conscience and belief not just because he had a right to follow his conscience and freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment regardless of who was right or wrong inthis matter.
5) Any comparisons to McDonalds managers is not the same as there is no religious rights involved and Bishop LOve unlike a business manager has authority to make changes to his disocese.

I realize that we have debated this several times in this post so I will now refer to this answer for other similar replies.

And if head office told you to put Big Macs on the menu, and you said no because it violated your faith, what do you think Head Office would have done?
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.

But he doesn't get to run it however he wants while answering to no one. He has the responsibility to carry out the instructions given to him by his superiors, which he refused to do.
Yes he does. As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.

That's my point! You are making my point for me.
The McDonald's manager is told to serve Big Macs, Bishop Love was told that SSM was permitted.
The McDonald's manager says no to the Big Macs, despite his superiors telling him to. Bishop Love refused to allow SSM, despite his superiors telling him to.
Head Office takes disciplinary action against the store manager, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church takes disciplinary action against Bishop Love.
If you think it is appropriate for the McDonald's store manager to face discipline, then surely you agree that Bishop Love was also rightfully disciplined for his refusal to follow instructions.
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.

You keep making this claim, yet it would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't started your list of such examples in a post where you were directly responding to me.
Yes I directly responded to you in the next post 833 after you jumped into mine and speedwells discussion on free speech and made your claim that no one was denied freed speech well after post 801 and there was no mention of freed speech before this between posts 801 and post 830. Check it for yourself in post 833.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.
I get that but check out post 833 about 1/3 of the way down where you say They have freedom of speech “. Then I post my list of those denied freedom of speech. You reckon this happened at post 801 but it didn’t. You are getting confused and losing track. You even commented further on the free speech topic in reply to my post 830 in posts 853 and 854.

On top of this after all that discussion on free speech which you intiated between us you then say in post 859, Kylie said:
In post 833, you said: "But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal."
You clearly state that the laws are making traditional marriage illegal.
And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.


So while we were still debating the issue of free speech you decide to not speak about it anymnore because its not relevant. Yet you iniated this and continued to debate it. Thats why I say you are controlling the narrative and dictating what we speak about which is frustrating. What you should have said is "enough on the free speech topic lets get back to the other topic now".

So to say we should only speak about what you say church entities who are forced to peform SSM is hypocritical as you are quite willing to speak about free speech issues in all these other posts.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.
Yeah same as above lol.

I am going to split this post as its quite long.
regards Steve
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have already address Bishop Love and Ocean Grove. They don't count.
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.

That was post 830. However, you started going off topic with me and waffling on about people losing their freedom of speech in post 801, in a direct response to my request that you provide examples of churches etc being force to perform SSM.

Your cries of unfair treatment are not very convincing.
Please refer to other post for this. I have already covered it. If you check there is no mention of freedom of speech from post 801 until post 830 when you jump into my discussion with Speedwell on Freedom of Speech. Then you carry this topic on and then you claim I have changed the topic when it was actually you.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.
As above and in post 996. See now you are dismissing all my posts again because of your own misunderstanding. And you say that I am wasting your time gee. :doh:OK lets just get back to the original topic. If you do jump into one of my discussions with someone else please ensure you relaize this and dont blame me for changing topic.

I've already covered this. Would you like me to cut and paste what I said to you before?
As above and in post 996.

I've already explained this to you. Your example was half an example at best, because it wasn't a church being forced to perform SSM against its will, it was one bishop who didn't want to follow the instructions that his church gave him. Going back to the McDonald's analogy, it's like saying McDonald's doesn't want to serve Big Macs, when it's just one franchise owner who is disagreeing with head office.
As above and in post 996 IE just in case you forgot

1) A Episcopal Church Bishop has the authority to change things in his own diocese. Bishops are seen as decendents of Christs Apostles authority wise so there is no higher. In fact the changes Bishop Love made in disallowing SSM in his diocese could not be reversed by the Church heads and remained in place until he resigned. That ‘shows how much authority Bishops have in the Episcopal Church.

2) The Church Hierarchy were wrong in trying to force Bishop Love to perform SSM as their own Book of Prayer forbid it and the church had not yet changed their policy at that stage in the Book of Prayer. So he was actually the only one following the proper Church rules. They still haven’t changed it.
https://albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/...11/Pastoral-Letter-Regarding-B012-Nov2018.pdf

3) The Episcopal Church was also wrong outside their church as 99% of Churches disagreed with allowing SSM so they were a breakaway church that was considered outside the Christian faith so Bishop Loves belief and conscience that allowing SSM was a sin is correct and therefore he is justified to apply it.
4) Bishop Love had a right to follow his conscience and belief not just because he had a right to follow his conscience and freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment regardless of who was right or wrong inthis matter.
5) Any comparisons to McDonalds managers is not the same as there is no religious rights involved and Bishop LOve unlike a business manager has authority to make changes to his disocese.

I was feeling generous at the time and decided to let you have that point, but then you started annoying me with your claims that I had taken points you raised with Speedwell (which I didn't, because you were making those points with me 29 posts BEFORE your discussion about them with Speedwell). Since I have a low tolerance for people who waste my time with transparent attempts to get out of the truth, my generosity was lost and hence I decided that the Bishop Love example didn't cut it as an example supporting your claim.
As above and in post 996. You have got things mixed up and now it looks like you have punished me for no good reason.

And the sergeant would know that sometimes such orders are required, and that even though a regiment is lost, that sacrifice is what wins the war. And since the sergeant doesn't see the whole picture, he has to trust that his superiors are doing what's best for the overall effort.
As above.

I wonder if you would make the same argument if it was a church coping flack because they decided they WOULD perform SSM even though official church policy was that SSM was wrong.
That would not happen as the reason it is a sin is that it is clearly against Biblical teachings. The Vatican and Pope agree and all Christian churches agree except for only 2 churches who are breakaway churches and seen as out of step with the majority of Christians.

So? Each McDonald's owner has control over his restaurant, but he still has to follow the orders Head Office give. If he decides he no longer wants to follow the rules of the hierarchy, then he's going to have to face the consequences of that. Which he did.
As above
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then why did you include the 17 examples from my conversations with speedwell in posts 833 and #846 well after post 801 using those examples to show that I had posted over 40 examples about people being forced to perform SSM which they had nothing to do with that topic.

You seem to be very caught up on that, despite the fact that you still posted twenty or so examples in post 801 in direct response to my request you give examples of churches etc being forced to conduct SSM against their will, and only 1 of them came close to actually addressing the issue.

Then why did you say the following in post 830 well after your post 801.

Kylie said #830
they have freedom of speech, which means that if someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they have the right to say so. But that same freedom of speech means that anyone else can listen to what they say and then call them out on it. People have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom from consequences of that speech.

And that’s when I posted those examples on free speech in post #833 to you claim that people have the freedom of speech well after post 801.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.

I told you I was posting the examples 1 at a time in post #858
So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case.

Why are you asking me to address the bishop Love case when I addressed that particular case 44 posts EARLIER in post 814?


OK so that’s 2 examples that support my case.

No they aren't. I've addressed both cases and neither of them properly supports your claim that churches etc are being forced to perform SSM against their will.

And all other arguments aside, they don't support your claim because neither of them involved them being forced to a same sex marriage.

If you disagree, please show me that Bishop Love was forced to perform a same sex marriage when he didn't want to. Please show me that a same sex marriage took place at Oceans Grove when they didn't want to.


Was the same sex marriage performed there after all that? No.

Actually Bishop LOve had the authority not to make changes as he seen fit as a Bishop.

1) A Episcopal Church Bishop has the authority to change things in his own diocese. Bishops are seen as decendents of Christs Apostles authority wise so there is no higher. In fact the changes Bishop Love made in disallowing SSM in his diocese could not be reversed by the Church heads and remained in place until he resigned. That ‘shows how much authority Bishops have in the Episcopal Church.

Then how was anyone in a higher position that was able to overrule him?

2) The Church Hierarchy were wrong in trying to force Bishop Love to perform SSM as their own Book of Prayer forbid it and the church had not yet changed their policy at that stage in the Book of Prayer. So he was actually the only one following the proper Church rules. They still haven’t changed it. The new ruling to allow SSM was called B012.

B012 turns upside down over 2000 years of Church teaching regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and is in direct contradiction of The Episcopal Church’s “official teaching” on marriage as outlined in the rubrics and the opening preface of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer, as well as the Catechism (BCP 861).

The rubric in the marriage service states:
“Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.”(BCP 422). None of this was changed in the Book of Common Prayer at the 79th General Convention; therefore they remain in effect as the official teaching of the Church regarding marriage.

The marriage canon of the Diocese of Albany, recognizes and upholds this traditional understanding of marriage, and as a result prohibits its clergy from officiating at or allowing any marriage to take place on any church property other than that between a man and woman. Thus, to carry out the dictates of B012 would be a direct violation of our own diocesan canons. 4

https://albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/...11/Pastoral-Letter-Regarding-B012-Nov2018.pdf

You'll have to speak to the people who actually overruled him, since I am not an expert on these matters and they are.

3) The Episcopal Church was also wrong outside their church as 99% of Churches disagreed with allowing SSM so they were a breakaway church that was considered outside the Christian faith so Bishop Loves belief and conscience that allowing SSM was a sin is correct and therefore he is justified to apply it.

Why is this church required to fit into the beliefs of the other churches that they broke away from?

4) Bishop Love had a right to follow his conscience and belief not just because he had a right to follow his conscience and freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment regardless of who was right or wrong inthis matter.

First Amendment says the government won't pass any law against the free expression of religion. It wasn't the government taking action against Love, it was the church. So this doesn't count.

5) Any comparisons to McDonalds managers is not the same as there is no religious rights involved and Bishop LOve unlike a business manager has authority to make changes to his disocese.

This seems like you are just trying to rehash your first point, a tactic you've used before when you've tried to pass off one example twice. It's not going to work.

I realize that we have debated this several times in this post so I will now refer to this answer for other similar replies.

And I'll refer to this response when you do so.

Yes I directly responded to you in the next post 833 after you jumped into mine and speedwells discussion on free speech and made your claim that no one was denied freed speech well after post 801 and there was no mention of freed speech before this between posts 801 and post 830. Check it for yourself in post 833.

I was talking about the list you started in post 801.

I get that but check out post 833 about 1/3 of the way down where you say They have freedom of speech “. Then I post my list of those denied freedom of speech. You reckon this happened at post 801 but it didn’t. You are getting confused and losing track. You even commented further on the free speech topic in reply to my post 830 in posts 853 and 854.

On top of this after all that discussion on free speech which you intiated between us you then say in post 859, Kylie said:
In post 833, you said: "But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal."
You clearly state that the laws are making traditional marriage illegal.
And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.


So while we were still debating the issue of free speech you decide to not speak about it anymnore because its not relevant. Yet you iniated this and continued to debate it. Thats why I say you are controlling the narrative and dictating what we speak about which is frustrating. What you should have said is "enough on the free speech topic lets get back to the other topic now".

So to say we should only speak about what you say church entities who are forced to peform SSM is hypocritical as you are quite willing to speak about free speech issues in all these other posts.

We are not talking about restriction on people's freedom of speech. We are talking about your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform same sex marriage against their will.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As stated above Bishops has the authority to change things within their own diocese and in fact Bishop Love’s changes to stop SSM in his own diocese remained until he resigned which showed not even the Church heads could reverse his changes. But not just that Bishop Love was justified in not allowing SSM and was actually the only one following the proper rules in the Book of Prayer which is the official rule book on their matters. But most importantly he also had a constitutional right to follow his conscience.

I addressed this in my previous post.

Please refer to other post for this. I have already covered it. If you check there is no mention of freedom of speech from post 801 until post 830 when you jump into my discussion with Speedwell on Freedom of Speech. Then you carry this topic on and then you claim I have changed the topic when it was actually you.

Most of the examples you gave in post 801 were about people's free speech. NONE of them actually involved someone being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

That would not happen as the reason it is a sin is that it is clearly against Biblical teachings. The Vatican and Pope agree and all Christian churches agree except for only 2 churches who are breakaway churches and seen as out of step with the majority of Christians.

Do you understand what a hypothetical is?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,568
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,727.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Episcopal Church (TEC) bishops are first among equals (there is no juridical hierarchy of bishops in the Episcopal Church) and the General Convention provisions for SSM rites had conscience clauses that permitted individual bishops to refrain from implementing those rites. So if conscience were an issue in that case, it's already provided for under TEC's canons.
You have misrepresented the Bishops within the Episcopal Church as far as I understand things. The Bishops are seen as the extentions of Christs Apostles who Jesus said go out into the world and preach the Gospel. So there is no higher authority. They have the authority to make changes within their own disocese and in fact Bishop LOves changes to deny SSM in his diocese remained authoritive until he resigned which shows no one can reverse a Bishops chnages.

Bishop Loves point was that despite the Episcopal Church claiming they had made a policy change to allow SSM according to individual Bishops and priests conscience that policy church was not reflected in the Book of Prayer and therefore was not the official rule of the Episcopal Church. Therefore Bishop LOve was merely inforcing the proper stand of the Episcopal Church which was marriage between a man and a women only.

Even if the rule change was official and individuals had the choice according to their conscience Biship LOve was put in a position where he was the one who had the power to decide whether SSM could happen or not in his diocese. As he believe SSM was a sin allowing it to happen even for other priests to perform SSM would have been against his conscience. So he did the right thing in disallowing it.

Episcopalians have the right to disagree on that issue, but if they can't remain in fellowship, they need to hand over church properties that don't belong to them, per the church's canon laws. Conscience only goes so far.
This can be taken two ways. If Bishop LOve believe that the Episcopal Church was wrong and were not following the Book of Prayers which set out what Marriage was then he was doing the right thing. As mentioned above if he had authority to determine what happened in his diocese (which happened to be around 100 curches and priests) then he was also right in stopping SSM for the entire church as this was against his conscience.

Despite allowing another Bishop to make that decision it still would put Bishop Love in a situation where he was being forced to run a disocese allowing SSM which was against his conscience. He therefore could not stay in that position. Thus as far as the point about whether Biship love or the churches were being forced to go along with SSM it stands either way.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.