Where are we going?

[Shubunkin]

but there's no liturgy for a gay marriage so i don't think that can be possible for the churches to marry them.

I'm saying the government will force the churches to marry them. Liturgy or not, that's what is coming about next. It's already happening in Canada.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah I heard that in Canada somewhere that a preacher or priest was preaching against homosexuality and was convicted of a hate crime.

 

[Julina]

seperation of church and state?

 

[rusmeister]

Not sure what you're trying to say there, Julina.

Now the Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and state is taught by Christ in Matthew...wait, maybe Mark...
Well, I guess it's in Romans, or Ephesians, or...
Hmmm. can't seem to find it anywhere.

How about how that principle operated in the ancient kingdom of Israel? Hmmm. Whaddya mean, prophets and judges ruled?

Forgive the tongue in cheek approach. It's just that that principle goes much further than "render unto Caesar..." and is not an Orthodox teaching. Indeed, Byzantine Christianity ran on a principle called "symphonia" (between secular government and the Church cooperating).

I think I should just reiterate the key point that everyone should turn to their priests and official statements of their Church on this matter. Once we all understand what that is, other dialog will be much more fruitful.

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed, Byzantine Christianity ran on a principle called "symphonia" (between secular government and the Church cooperating).

I've heard two interpretations of the Byzantine two-headed eagle. One interpretation is that the two heads represent East and West. Another says the two heads represent the Church and the State of the Empire.

 

[Julina]

Not sure what you're trying to say there, Julina.

Now the Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and state is taught by Christ in Matthew...wait, maybe Mark...
Well, I guess it's in Romans, or Ephesians, or...
Hmmm. can't seem to find it anywhere.

How about how that principle operated in the ancient kingdom of Israel? Hmmm. Whaddya mean, prophets and judges ruled?

Forgive the tongue in cheek approach. It's just that that principle goes much further than "render unto Caesar..." and is not an Orthodox teaching. Indeed, Byzantine Christianity ran on a principle called "symphonia" (between secular government and the Church cooperating).

I think I should just reiterate the key point that everyone should turn to their priests and official statements of their Church on this matter. Once we all understand what that is, other dialog will be much more fruitful.

what i mean is that the government shouldn't be telling the curches what and what not to do. is that too unreasonable?

 

[rusmeister]

what i mean is that the government shouldn't be telling the curches what and what not to do. is that too unreasonable?

Not at all. But it doesn't have to recognize what they do, either.

You should, however, consider the difference between a union which will produce children and one which will not. Nations generally find that they have an interest in having future generations, and therefore encouraging/protecting the ones that produce them. This is OBVIOUSLY true in Russia, where the 'demographic crisis' (falling population) has the government shelling out large lump payments and offering other subsidies to families that have 3 or more children.

Thus, we have an objective case can be made for a special interest to protect/support marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Julina]

Not at all. But it doesn't have to recognize what they do, either.

You should, however, consider the difference between a union which will produce children and one which will not. Nations generally find that they have an interest in having future generations, and therefore encouraging/protecting the ones that produce them. This is OBVIOUSLY true in Russia, where the 'demographic crisis' (falling population) has the government shelling out large lump payments and offering other subsidies to families that have 3 or more children.

Thus, we have an objective case can be made for a special interest to protect/support marriage between a man and a woman.

yes i do realize the difference between a marriage that can and can't produce children. but there are some straight couples who can't have children, either.

 

[rusmeister]

yes i do realize the difference between a marriage that can and can't produce children. but there are some straight couples who can't have children, either.

But they are a clear exception, not the rule. The overwhelming majority of what you call "straight (which I accept, as opposed to "bent") couples" deals with the real possibility of pregnancy.

(Not trying to be offensive - just want to point out that language you take for granted, I do not.)

 

[Orchids]

I've known some couples that it took a long time, like ten years, to conceive. Then I've known couples that were meant to adopt, but later conceived. At least the prospect was always there. To equate childless couples with homosexual couples is reaching, and probably offensive, at least to a degree.