New Marriage designations?

[circuitrider]

Have you all noticed the new marriage designations? You are forced to pick between "Marriage M/W" and other options not called marriage if your marriage is a same sex marriage.

Unfortunately CF has chosen to single out the who people are married to unless you mark you status as private. It looks like targeting to me people to me. You can't just say you are married.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Frustrating. Even if you are an individual who believes that the Bible prohibits same-sex marriage, why ignore those who are married? This whole concept of acknowledging that something exists being the same as supporting/condoning it is ludicrous.
You can ACKNOWLEDGE a same sex couple is married without condoning, supporting, or promoting that marriage.

CF folks, pretending like it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's going to go away.

So you can mark your religious status as "atheist" or "wiccan" but you can't even admit to being in a same sex relationship? The priorities of CF are pretty clear.

 

[circuitrider]

So you can mark your religious status as "atheist" or "wiccan" but you can't even admit to being in a same sex relationship? The priorities of CF are pretty clear.

And even if we are allowed to discuss homosexuality we aren't actually allowed to express our viewpoint unless it fits the viewpoint of the forum leadership. Real debate on this one issue if locked down tight and forbidden. What are they afraid of? If their view is right the truth should stand against all challenges. Certainly God doesn't need our defense.

It reminds me of the USSR. You can't discuss the laws of the "government" without fear of reprisal.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

And even if we are allowed to discuss homosexuality we aren't actually allowed to express our viewpoint unless it fits the viewpoint of the forum leadership. Real debate on this one issue if locked down tight and forbidden. What are they afraid of? If their view is right the truth should stand against all challenges. Certainly God doesn't need our defense.

It reminds me of the USSR. You can't discuss the laws of the "government" without fear of reprisal.

Yep. It reeks of fear. If we silence and shut it up, it'll go away.

Our Jewish brothers and sisters understand God's law to work in two ways, Moral and Ritual. Jews expect you and I not to kill people, because that's a moral law. Jews expect themselves not to ear pork (if they are a part of a sect that doesn't eat pork), but not you and I, because it's a ritual law. Jews don't demand the shutting down of pork processing plants.

Christians need to re-embrace this concept as well. Marriage is a ritual issue within the church and one that has existed for a few hundred years of the church; it's important (even if the church got along fine for hundreds of years without marriage; when that was purely an issue of the state). But it's ritualistically important. It's not a moral issue. Don't allow gay marriage in your church; fine. Don't allow people to recognize themselves as married on a forum? Yeah, I'm not as sympathetic here.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

As an add; I changed my marriage designation to "Private". I'm not "male/female married", I'm just married. And it shouldn't force me to frame it like a political statement.

 

[Dave-W]

It reminds me of the USSR. You can't discuss the laws of the "government" without fear of reprisal.

Hmmm. The words of the Beatles seem somewhat appropriate:

Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR

When spun backwards it says this:

We need help
said we need help
said we need help

It does seem rather incongruous to allow atheists attack belief in God; but to squelch an honest discussion of same gender marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

As an add; I changed my marriage designation to "Private". I'm not "male/female married", I'm just married. And it shouldn't force me to frame it like a political statement.

Which means you can no longer post in the marriage folder. That discussion has already happened over there.

 

[Nemo Neem]

I say we start a revolution lol

 

[Celticflower]

If I don't care who is married to whom, why should anyone care who I am married to? And to do it without warning is unfair. Changing my status to private as it is no one's business but my own.

 

[Tallguy88]

And even if we are allowed to discuss homosexuality we aren't actually allowed to express our viewpoint unless it fits the viewpoint of the forum leadership. Real debate on this one issue if locked down tight and forbidden. What are they afraid of? If their view is right the truth should stand against all challenges. Certainly God doesn't need our defense.

It reminds me of the USSR. You can't discuss the laws of the "government" without fear of reprisal.

If the poll passes, you will be able to promote homosexuality in this forum. So far, the vote is 6 in favor and 1 opposed

 

[Tallguy88]

If I don't care who is married to whom, why should anyone care who I am married to? And to do it without warning is unfair. Changing my status to private as it is no one's business but my own.

The only way it becomes our business is when you post in either the Singles forum, or the Married forum. If you don't want to post in either of those forums, then you don't have to use any particular relationship status.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nemo Neem]

The only way it becomes our business is when you post in either the Singles forum, or the Married forum. If you don't want to post in either of those forums, then you don't have to use any particular relationship status.

Hope this helps.

This whole business is creating a tyranny.

 

[Tallguy88]

This whole business is creating a tyranny.

Which part? It's always been required to have a married or single icon to post in those forums. If you don't post there, you can use the private option if you don't want to say.

 

[circuitrider]

Tallguy88, I surely then have misread the guidelines. The way the read to me is that even in forums where we can discuss that "promotion" is against the rules. So am I misreading this? Or would any argument for acceptance of homosexuality be considered promotion.

BTW, thank you for responding to my concerns. It is appreciated.

 

[circuitrider]

As an add; I changed my marriage designation to "Private". I'm not "male/female married", I'm just married. And it shouldn't force me to frame it like a political statement.

I did the same thing RF8. Unfortunately the profile has been made to fit a theology rather than allowing us to define ourselves. I see that as an intrusion. I should get to define who I am in my own profile.

 

[Nemo Neem]

Which part? It's always been required to have a married or single icon to post in those forums. If you don't post there, you can use the private option if you don't want to say.

I'm saying this whole homosexual business. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. I mean, we should worry about saving souls instead of focusing on how people identify themselves by gender and who they favor sexually. Christ isn't about that. I just think this whole nonsense should stop and we should be getting back to more serious matters like church attendance declining and changes in worship.

I'm the only one who voted no. I guess I'm a sore loser.

 

[circuitrider]

Nemo, I'd be happy for the whole thing to stop. But once the UMC put a specific rule about marriage in the Discipline in the 1970s the argument was started. If the Discipline was silent we could all be silent. But about 40-45% of United Methodists disagree with the current policy. That is too big a minority disagreement for the policy to stand without a lot of continued disagreement.

Imagine if a church had a pastor that 40-45% of the people thought shouldn't be there. I'm betting the Bishop would move them to avoid the conflict. We need to find some middle ground on the subject and not silence people.

 

[Tallguy88]

Tallguy88, I surely then have misread the guidelines. The way the read to me is that even in forums where we can discuss that "promotion" is against the rules. So am I misreading this? Or would any argument for acceptance of homosexuality be considered promotion.

BTW, thank you for responding to my concerns. It is appreciated.

Basically, if the yes vote passes by 66% or more, this forum will then allow posts that say gay marriage is OK and that homosexual acts are not sinful. You would also be allowed to refute those sorts of posts. If the No vote passes, then it will continue on as it already was, no promotion of homosexuality or SSM in this forum.

 

[Nemo Neem]

Nemo, I'd be happy for the whole thing to stop. But once the UMC put a specific rule about marriage in the Discipline in the 1970s the argument was started. If the Discipline was silent we could all be silent. But about 40-45% of United Methodists disagree with the current policy. That is too big a minority disagreement for the policy to stand without a lot of continued disagreement.

Imagine if a church had a pastor that 40-45% of the people thought shouldn't be there. I'm betting the Bishop would move them to avoid the conflict. We need to find some middle ground on the subject and not silence people.

Thanks, circuitrider. I was talking mainly about the board, here at Christian Forums.

All I see are topics related to LGBT. It's good and all, and they should be accepted in order to worship but for crying out all I don't need to keep visiting here only to see more and more threads on this subject. It's getting ridiculous...

 

[circuitrider]

Basically, if the yes vote passes by 66% or more, this forum will then allow posts that say gay marriage is OK and that homosexual acts are not sinful. You would also be allowed to refute those sorts of posts. If the No vote passes, then it will continue on as it already was, no promotion of homosexuality or SSM in this forum.

Thanks for the clarification!