BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:38 PM

I dunno. ake... for someone who is caught up in those 'statistics', you sure toss out some dubious ones about 'what the majority of gays do...or do not... want.' If there is only ONE 'serious' study, why is it right? And who did it study? And how were the questions asked?

MY studies indicate that the "gay agenda" is to be as free in what they do and who they associate with... and who they marry...or not... as anyone else. And the 'liberal agenda' is just to allow them that freedom. Pretty durned radical!~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

Well now, I can't speak to churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/oak groves but when it comes to the *legal* parts of marriage...

1) It's a civil contract. Nobody gets to look into anybody's pants when people make a civil contract.

2) (thread creep) I think they should be 7-year contracts, renewable by default (if you do nothing it gets renewed; if you opt out, it doesn't). The 7-year itch has a biological substrate - it takes that long to conceive and raise a child to the point where formal education (in schools or fields, depending) takes over from parenting as the source of primary care- and education giving. As long as all kids keep two supporting parents it isn't critical that they [the parents] live together as long as they get along... which is more likely than after a nasty divorce with lawyers. Kids with multiple homes may actually have an advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:35 PM

The agenda is promoted by a small number of "homosexual activists", most homosexuals simply want to live quietly and deal with the unhappy situation they find themselves in....re horrific health and life expectancy figures.

They also find their predicament made even worse by the really dangerous "liberal agenda", which dictates that society neither comments on, or makes any attempt to understand or improve these statistics. Discussion of the very obvious link between homosexuality and hiv/aids is also considered "taboo".

The facts are that Homosexual Marriage is not wanted by the vast majority of homosexuals....the one serious survey, conducted in Scandanavia proves this conclusively, It is simply a device used by activists and the very powerful "liberal political lobby" to advance their Orwellian agenda.
This thread is full of the "LA LA Landers" and their pink fluffy bunny bullshit.....this is a serious subject with serious consequences not only for homosexuals, but for the whole of society.

But at last the tide is turning against the excesses of the "Human right" laws......Commonsense is returning rights for every criminal and sexual offender are being re-examined.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:21 PM

I counter the idea completely of an 'agenda'. That agenda as posted mentions 5 people's comments and, whilst they have a right to their opinion, I doubt they speak for all gay men and women no more than all feminists activists speak for all women.

The whole idea of this person, that person, the other person trying to take over the world is the type of hype that allows fear to create bigotry and hate. There will always be some whose idea of taking over the world will pervade their every breath but generally speaking most sensible human beings really are far less meglomaniacal. Lets stop the gays trying to take over society, recruiting in schools, etc etc... transposes very quickly into lets give them no right to live, to equality and even to breathe. It's unacceptable.

Speak to gay people and you will find the only agenda that most have is the same as that of hetrosexuals... to live in freedom of oppression, to be loved, to be safe from harm, to just get on with their lives and have the same rights as hetrosexuals. Why is that so bad a thing to want?

One could argue I have an agenda. Most people do. Having an agenda to wanting to take over society is a bit far fetched for most. But having an agenda to want to change some of society's attitudes toward those less favoured by the majority is not a bad thing. I will happily state I am far more relaxed about being part of such and agenda than I would be in having a part in an agenda against fairness and equality.

I do not think I am alone

Inclusion is the agenda. Inclusion and integration. Is that now what most of us all seek?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 03:58 PM

"the gay agenda"

Hahahahahaaaaaaa.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

i think akenaton certainly sticks his neck out,but i dont think i read anyone countering the CONTENT of his post.
there probably are monogomous homosexuals ,but is,nt akenaton correct as regards the gay agenda in general?.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

Excellent idea! That'll stop the buggers enjoying themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:29 PM

There is a discussion on the issue on the Moral Maze Radio 4 tonight.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:59 PM

Sadly, Penny, one of the most common ideas in the nature of humanity is that those who think they are 'morally correct' should judge & control those who think differently.
This is usually, though not 'quite' always, based on presumed religious principles handed down to them by..... well..... purveyors OF religion who had a vested interest in controlling others. The entire system is a house of cards, put together with very strong glue made of prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, clannishness, and a few other revered human traits.

Who me? cynical? nawwwwwww.....

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:29 PM

One of the arguments I have seen against homosexual marriage as opposed to civil partnerships is that it somehow demeans, or denigrates, "real" marriage as defined by the church. It seems to me that the contracting of permanent, monogamous, loving partnerships should not be able to do that.

On the other hand, heterosexual marriages which fail, but lock people (usually the women) into unloving, possessive, controlling, or abusive, partnerships cannot do anything but make marriage seem an abomination. I have known a woman who was so sure that the church taught that her appalling status was indissoluble that she put up with years of behaviour which would have led me to take action, even to murder, if other means in the law failed. (The church, in the end, was wonderfully generous, and she was married in church to a new and loving husband.) I also remember a clergyman and his wife. My parents were explaining how their marriage worked on never letting the sun go down upon their wrath. He was shocked. He and his wife never had any argument. I was watching her as she nodded and smiled. It is always possible that he chose a wife who aleady had no mind of her own, but I had the impression of someone so cowed that she knew no other state than agreement.

I'd rather hold up some of the gay couples seen in the news as models than either of those two. Shakespeare, not holy writ, I know, spoke of the marriage of true minds, and I feel that minds, hearts and souls are more to the point than physical bits and pieces, in the long run.

I also feel that groups who do not want to allow gay marriage in their churches should have that right, but should not seek to control others who do not.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:04 PM

Ok, that's what comes of being smart. It's the post just above that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

And also equally surprised that Gay couples would want to [marry], but that is their choice.

Reread my post above about the legal and financial implications of being married/in a civil partnership. Why should gay couples not want the option of those rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:35 AM

There was a time that living together was frowned on right up until the 60s to 80s in some towns, pre-marital sex, babies born out of wedlock etc. now it is hardly questioned at all except occasionally commented on from perhaps some of the war generation and it surprises that the issue of Gay marriage still goes on. And also equally surprised that Gay couples would want to, but that is their choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:57 AM

"I have read some interesting and well thought through comments in this thread. Mine wasn't.. but there is a reason for that."

I did read it Willie but had no comment to make in return as I thought you expressed what you said in a way that needed no reply from me. I am sorry if you think I never read what you had written

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:38 AM

I have read some interesting and well thought through comments in this thread. Mine wasn't.. but there is a reason for that.

Debating with bigots only encourages them. Akenaton being an excellent example. (Perhaps putting excellent and Akenaton in the same sentence might encourage more hate? ah well.)

Sorry, but true.

Perhaps I am hard wired through my DNA to be partial to beer, pickled eggs and football?

Surprisingly, I don't see my every action as a sin. The word sin is derogatory so perhaps superstitious dudes might want to think that their starting gun point makes me reach for the remote and see what's on the other side.

Let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:22 PM

A little off topic but my sleep genes are telling me I need to find my bed. It has some survival or reproductive advantage I suspect. I further suspect it is the former ;-)

Enjoying the debate and will return tomorrow (later today) for more I hope.

Thanks for all your comments and opinions thus far

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:18 PM

I think Dawkins is in favour of the 'gay gene' theory in any case. I cannot do Youtubes but think this may be his piece on the subject...

Dawkins on the gay gene

Hope this is the right one and that it helps. I know his comments were slain and many objected but what I am saying is that he is in favour so would not have disagreed with you

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:11 PM

Well I am not sure the gene has been found for hetrosexuality but I would acertain it does exist... or a group of genes

Though there are plusses and minuses to the debate a quick precis can be found here about bilology and sexual orientation. I know it's Wiki but there is some good stuff in there for and against.

Lots of links here too

and

Genetics and Homosexuality research

Research is ongoing, as in the case of transsexuality, but there is growing evidence in brain sections, MRI scans, and studies of hormonal effects on gender and sexuality and outcomes on foetuses that are turning up all sorts of evidence for reasons that do not just include nurture, Nature must play a part. Homosexuality is prevalent in animals and is certainly not rare. See list of animals displaying homosexual behavior

There is no doubt whatsoever that research in this field is controversial. That does not make it unneccessary and it is in the interest of all of us for it to be resolved. I earnestly believe that science will eventually turn up unequivocal evidence for some kind of 'gay gene' and thereby vindicate fully it's expression

A caution is fine at this stage. But if scientists were afraid to stick their necks out too far I wonder where we would be as a species today? I think we need to stick our necks out with them too, but that is my unscientific opinion

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 06:43 PM

I should make clear that I was not graced with being flamed by Dawkins himself, you understand; just people who post to that site.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 06:40 PM

mauvepink wrote earlier in the light of all the recent research showing that homosexuality probably has a genetic basis

I offer a warning about this one. I asked a question about the genetic basis of homosexuality about a year ago on one of Dawkin's web sites because it seems to me there is an intellectually interesting problem. A couple that are exclusively homosexual will not have offspring and so at first sight you would expect it to be selected against in evolutionary terms. However, we know that in most species we have studied that it is present. We also know that there are some species in which substantial subgroups have no offspring, but this can be explained mathematically in terms of how closely interrelated members of that group are. So I naively asked for any references to papers where people had studied this, not necessarily in humans.

Well, I was not so much flamed as burned alive. The mere suggestion that it might have a genetic component marked me out as an infidel, and probably some mad creationist with an agenda who would never be able or prepared to take part in a rational discussion ...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM

Thanks again Pete

There is one aspect of this of course that thus far is a puzzlement. They also say they will give heterosexual couples the chance to have civil partnerships (I think in some way toward showing equal treatment). I have not heard any statements from church bosses saying how they will go about saving the souls of all those people not being blessed in the eyes of God nor those who never get married but live together. They do not seem to get turned away from churches (and of course there is totally no reason why they should be either).

It all comes down to sex in the end, it seems, and is quite arbitrary as to who allows what and interprets which scripture. If the church could get past the sex issue they could maybe welcome more souls of which they should be happy about. Their domain should actually be that of souls surely and not sexuality in light of modern developments?

Still, things ARE changing slowly and for that I am grateful as they appear to get more momentum and positive support.

with respect

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:45 PM

Thanks Pete and good luck...

---

Hate them for what?

I think I'm going to leave this thread alone now we are back to having suggestions of hatred...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:44 PM

"So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community."

I do not see where these are mutually exclusive.. Quakers, and most other religions, have been having their own types of gatherings on whatever day they choose for quite a long while. Many members of most religions also are an integral part of the fabric of their worldly community as well. They may hold office, do volunteer work, hold jobs, etc.

"If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities."

This is unclear. I can only speak from my own experience in saying that Quakers are not, traditionally, open to facilitating the marriage any couple without that couple being considered a part of the community of Friends. This community is then expected to support whatever marriage takes place "under the care of the Meeting". This is not possible if the couple is not an integral part of the Meeting community.

Therefore, the couple needs to be known to the community. A Committee for Clearness for Marriage, then, meets with the couple, one or more times, prior to bringing a report to the larger group on how they perceive this couple's readiness for marriage. The Meeting considers this report before approving or not approving, the marriage. Clearly a community can only support a marriage of which it approves.

Approval does not depend on "unity". One or more member may agree to "stand aside" if they perceive the group as a whole feeling clear to move forward. OR, one Friend could stand in the way of the matter proceeding if they cannot in conscience stand aside. In this case, the marriage cannot proceed until that person feels able, perhaps with the support of the Meeting, to stand aside.

This tradition does not prevent any member from participating fully in the "fabric" of their worldly community.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:38 PM

Wow! five people's opinions on the whole of gay society... glad that's sorted then. I almost missed that one was a former homosexual so he must really know the subject well. I think not somehow.

"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society" can be read several different ways and especially when it comes to changing the minds of those in society who bear a grudge against homosexuals for whatever reason. All the things named above would need some change if a different view is to be taken of gay relationships, marriage, family etc.

I'm afraid I do not see what is wriiten as changing my opinion of fairness and equality in all honesty Akeneton

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

"So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community."

I do not see where these are mutually exclusive.. Quakers, and most other religions, have been having their own types of gatherings on whatever day they choose for quite a long while. Many members of most religions also are an integral part of the fabric of their worldly community as well. They may hold office, do volunteer work, hold jobs, etc.

"If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities."

This is unclear. I can only speak from my own experience in saying that Quakers are not, traditionally, open to facilitating the marriage any couple without that couple being considered a part of the community of Friends. This community is then expected to support whatever marriage takes place "under the care of the Meeting". This is not possible if the couple is not an integral part of the Meeting community.

Therefore, the couple needs to be known to the community. A Committee for Clearness for Marriage, then, meets with the couple, one or more times, prior to bringing a report to the larger group on how they perceive this couple's readiness for marriage. The Meeting considers this report before approving or not approving, the marriage. Clearly a community can only support a marriage of which it approves.

Approval does not depend on "unity". One or more member may agree to "stand aside" if they perceive the group as a whole feeling clear to move forward. OR, one Friend could stand in the way of the matter proceeding if they cannot in conscience stand aside. In this case, the marriage cannot proceed until that person feels able, perhaps with the support of the Meeting, to stand aside.

This tradition does not prevent any member from participating fully in the "fabric" of their worldly community.


It is my understanding that Biblical scholars have found NO injunction in the Bible against homosexuality. However, having found several links which might have clarified this,I found it peculiar that none are currently available.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:28 PM

Er...how do you know Adam and Eve were straight? Adam may have looked at Eve and longed for her to be a Dave. Likewise, she may have dreamed of him being an Adamette...

And I don't think gay people think of themselves as er...having 'difficulties' any more than you have.


Holy books have a great deal to answer for at times, especially their unholy sections on sexions..

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:23 PM

good one jon on the unclean foods.in addition,i think that at least one objective of these laws was to markedly differentiate israel from the other nations and their unclean practices.cf deut 14 2.where the food laws follow on.some of these are now known to be health benificial though the main object was the illustration of the higher calling of israel v21.the same i think applies to the otherwise strange laws re mixed clothing.
no part of the bible is to be ignored but some of the OT is fulfilled in the new covenant.but when the teaching is the same in both testaments as regards what is sinful,you can be sure it still applies.

mp-i understand where you,re coming from as Christ certainly presents as forgiving. but he who is recorded as saying"neither do i condemn you" also said"go-and sin no more".he spoke of judgment as being the out come of non repentance and unbelief.
i am not qualified to comment on genetics other than to say that i understand that there is not universal agreement.
hard as it is,i believe that the christian is called to "deny himself"be he homosexual or hetersexual-eg unmarried,unhappy marriage or just plain temptation.
the bible would not support the idea that homosexuality is a design feature as adam and eve were clearly straight.sometimes it is a choice ,though i accept that for whatever reason some have never thought they were anything other than homosexual and i dont wish to make light of their difficulties.
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:02 PM

So, when did all you heterosexual people decide to be heterosexual then? I mean, come on, when did you actually sit down, wonder and ponder, then *decide* to be 'straight'?

What's that? You didn't? You just were born that way? It was a natural occurrence?

Well, did it ever occur to some of you that it's *exactly* the same for gay people? They didn't sit down and decide, they simply were born that way too, naturally, in the eyes of God, in the 'image' of God...whatever and whomsoever their and your God may be.

Of course it's OK for gay people to marry in Church. It's been an abomination for way too long that they've been told God hates them, religious folks hate 'em......

Hate them for what?

For being the same as you?

Natural?


Just another way of looking at things, possibly, maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:51 PM

Statistics Special Report:11.

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE
By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:

· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]

· Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:

For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
· The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., is senior fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Dr. Dailey and Peter Sprigg recently co-authored Getting It Straight: What the Research Says About Homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

John.

Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I'd have to look up the other one.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:16 PM

Jon, you've said that homosexuality is a sin according to your interpretation of the Bible and that you wouldn't support a church that marries homosexuals. Would you support a church that serves food that isn't kosher? What about one that allowed its members to wear clothes made from a cotton/poly blend?

Which parts of the Bible are important and which parts are OK to ignore?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:12 PM

Thank you Jon and Pete for your own gracious way in which you have asked and answered questions. In truth I am far from gracious myself but I do beleive that great things can be acheived when any opposing sides truly delve and discuss their differences.

I respect, for instance, the way you have explained how Christ, being a Jew, would have gone along with the laws the time in respect of his forebears BUT he also said "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" and it is in that respect I see an almost paradigm shift in the presentation of love and forgiveness.

I truly believe that if Christ were alive today... no, allow me to rephrase that as many beileve he is and I respect them their belief... If Christ was here on Earth today he would not condemn gay people or them wishing to be married. I have to believe him to be a compassionate and merciful man if I am to believe of him. How could any omnipotent creator of something come to take aways it's rights when he is said to have designed the very thing himself and yet still love it? The genetics behind homosexuality - if we invoke a creator - have come from that creator. If he made a mistake in design then that would make him imperfect. We are told he is perfect so I have to believe he made homosexuality come about.

I also truly believe, insofar as I believe or want to believe at all, that Christ should be the embodiment of fairness and equality. I cannot see him treating one differently than another. I sincerely hope that is the case but it is not my intention to crush toes by standing on them here, rather to share other's footwear and try to walk a ways in their shoes

Thank you for being open minded within the confines of your own beliefs. It's not easy to take a stretch sometimes in crowded space. I respect that a great deal

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

mauvepink-it is true that jesus is not recorded as addressing the subject of homosexuality directly. however he clearly delineated the boundaries of marriage as being as a "man being joined to his wife".in addition to this he was a practising jew and we know what moses is recorded as writing on the subject.he said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it;admittedly not giving details ,but pauls teaching on the subject tends to confirm the continuation of the OT view of homosexual practise.
i am aware that some interpret scripture to faciltate same sex unions but i dont think that would be the historically understood position.

i would differ from some of your christian friends inasmuch as i do believe there are degrees of sin,though any sin separates us from God but for Christs atonement.
it is worth saying that though same sex is strongly spoken against in the bible,other sins also are;eg adultery/divorce and pride.

though not agreeing with your position ,i appreciate the gracious way that you express it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:29 AM

Thanks for the reply mp. I know that some things are described as an abomination or as being detestable but I believe all sin is sin to God just as your friends explained. I'm better than him because he does this and I only do that does not work.

Complicated? I am. I am not always right. I am fallible. I know I have not always done the right thing too.

I doubt any one of us could truthfully say otherwise...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 10:51 AM

Hi Jon

You mention "If you believed theft was a sin, would you be sitting in judgement by stating your belief? Would you be sitting in judgement by not wanting be an accomplice to theft? " and this is a fair point. I see what you are now getting at.

I have problem with some sins personally. The point I was trying to put across is that according to the bible and church we are all sinners. I personally do not transcribe to the idea in total. I do not think a new born baby can be a sinner simply by being born, as an instance. I also believe being homosexual is not a sin.

I am told by Christian friends though that all sin is sin and I have had a great deal of discussion on topics like murder and stealing a loaf are both equal sins in the eyes of God. So when I say all sin is sin I was not quoting my own belief on that. I personally cannot see how each are in any way equal and deserve the same punsihment or condemnation. But then there am I judging of sorts. I do take your point. I do not deny also I am judgemental in many instances. It is part of the human condition

What I will not do is blame Jesus for being responsible for what I think nor what other people have written about him and his wishes after his ascension. I am not actually Christian myself but I have no problem with Christ's teachings generally.

Complicated? I am. I am not always right. I am fallible. I know I have not always done the right thing too. But that is between my God and I. I judge all the time. We all make assessments every day on people's activities and intent around us. We make mistakes. To err is human, to forgive divine.

Thank you for your peacable example. It's certainly a valid point as much as any I have made from my side of this fence

best wishes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 08:27 AM

What this means is that religion has to decide whether it is an interest club for its' members or a relevant part of civic life for the community at large.

Church of England clerics and their mates are harping on about being marginalised and the likes of Dawkins questioning their relevance. Well, as the examples given by the Bishop I heard are fairly ludicrous, (one where a Bed & Breakfast owner wants to be free to be a bigot and another where a nurse wants to ask vulnerable people to pray with her when she enters their house as part of her role,) I fail to see how they can attempt to join in with grown up debate in any sense.

So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community.

If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities.

Sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 11:13 PM

Quakers in Madison WI
Quakers were one of the denominations from the Madison WI area, which issued a statement in 1997, titled: "Madison Affirmation On Homosexuality and Christian Faith". 3 It states:
"Jesus Christ calls us to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. As Christian clergy we embrace gay and lesbian persons as our neighbors. From our reading of scripture and from our pastoral experiences, we believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that homosexuality is neither sickness nor sin. For too long, homosexual persons have been condemned and mistreated by the followers of Jesus Christ. Sadly, the Bible has been misused in support of this condemnation. This abuse of scripture must end. Heterosexual and homosexual persons are children of God, created in God's image. ...

We believe it is time to eliminate all policies and practices which create barriers and restrictions to the full participation of gay and lesbian Christians in all of the privileges and responsibilities of church membership. Recognizing that our churches still speak and act out of our long-standing prejudices:

        We hope and pray that we will acknowledge our sin and be forgiven for our ignorance, fear, arrogance and self-righteousness; ...
        We rejoice in the refusal of many gay and lesbian Christians to abandon or be forced out of their church homes;...
        We consider these sisters and brothers to be a unique, holy and precious gift to all of us who struggle to become the family of God."

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:52 PM

What the Bible says and means about homosexuality

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 08:56 PM

Sin is sin. and IF being gay is a sin, then no-one who sins is fit to judge on that premise

I may be misunderstanding you but it does seem to me that you do believe there are sins. Let me pick on something I would feel confident that you would believe is a sin and ask you:

If you believed theft was a sin, would you be sitting in judgement by stating your belief? Would you be sitting in judgement by not wanting be an accomplice to theft?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 07:49 PM

Well I do live and let live. I'm all for hetrosexuals being able to get married in a church too ;-)

But to think that ONLY they should have that right, especially in the light of all the recent research showing that homosexuality probably has a genetic basis, how much longer should the church (any religion) discriminate against gay people? Why should it just be a hetrosexual thing? I would have thought that any religion should be welcoming the union of two people who love each other.

Christians especially should not be discriminating because the person who died for them never once made any speech against gay people. His message was one of love and forgiveness for all mankind. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge yea not as yea may be judged. Sin is sin. and IF being gay is a sin, then no-one who sins is fit to judge on that premise. We are all sinners, the bible tells us... so that is how I feel myself about this. If we are made in God's image then surely what we are is in some way sacred and I do believe the bible says that we are all the same in God's eyes?

Live and let live. Everyone should have the same rights and no-one should be able to take the moral high ground on this because being gay could happen to any one of us, our children, our friends, our parents, priests, ministers... whoever.

There but for the grace of God go I... but then again I am lucky that I have the freedom to be able to be who I am, what I am and how I am. None have the right to be better than someone else who is our equal

Jesus never once spoke out against gay people. He lived among twelve men. He had no problem declaring his love for those around him. Does the church think they know better than Jesus? What possible harm can it do to allow gay people to have the right to marry and be bleesed in a church if they wish. In my mind that would really be taking Jesus words in a manner he would be proud of.

I respect opposing views but we have to stop this heterosexual led rule making that excludes gay people the same rights and benefits of the majority. Gay people have hearts and minds to love with...

So would they exclude someone who was bisexual from marrying in church as long as they were opposite genders? Who knows? Who cares? Fact is that if two people wish to commit their lives to each other in the face of God then why not let them? Jesus never said anything to the contrary. Only men have written things since Jesus spoke his message of love and forgiveness.

Sorry to have harped on. But I am passionate about this because I really see no harm being done and certainly nothing in any way pernicious considering all the true evil in this world.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

i identify totally with jons,s sentiments. having a biblically orthodox view regarding homosexual practise does not mean that we hate or despise anyone.perhaps the" live and let live "attitude might be advanced to those whose faith teaches that marriage is a heterosexual union blessed of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:25 PM

Old episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie which viewed today:
two issues
1. gay marriage at the Anglican Church
2. Second wife for Moslem
(Mosque shares premises with its Anglican landlords)
1. Muslim "A" gets upset about the "abomination" and tries to find a new venue for mosque - turned down by everyone
2. First wife leaves home due to husband not saying unalterable "NO" to his mother
1. gay couple decide they prefer to marry in Toronto although a Muslim has agreed to cater reception with the best curry in town
2. Wife goes home; husband says "NO" to mother. Resolved.

1. Muslim and Anglican become new "friends" demonstrating in front of church. When told by the minister and the imam that wedding will not take place, they go off together for a beer - a root beer. Resolved.

What about next time? The community has been softened up. I'll bet a second go will not create a crisis. Or maybe it will and the third go... It is so hard for people to accept change. Second wives? Gay marriage? Finding a place for a mosque? The minister, "I christened him, how can I refuse to marry him?" Change comes hard but it does come, because some people, then more and more, think out of the rigid little box.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 02:50 PM

Hi Penny

It's a good point you make but the hotel would be in breach of current law if they did put their stance. It is simply against the law in the UK to be that discriminatory and offer a service. It is blatatnt discrimination

How odd that a dog would be okay on the premises but they were not welcome as two humans who loved each other. And to show balance a Hotel in the UK has been chided today for putting a notice outside saying "Poofters welcome!". You see even implied bigotry is not okay... ever.

You watch old films and documentaries and you see notices in hotel and B&B windows... no blacks, no Irish, pets welcome, that kind of thing. Heaven forbid we ever see those times return BUT the thinking that underrpins some of those notices is still there. It's wrong and it's illegal. Rightly so too

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 02:14 PM

I think that the gay couple who booked at the B&B that then barred them were unaware of the situation until they turned up. They checked that their dog would be welcome, but did not ask about themselves. If the B&B did not advertise their stance, how were they to know. Churches are a bit more obvious. And if what the couple want is a wedding, rather than a political confrontation, a declaration of their love, I still think they are unlikely to insist on an unfriendly location for it.

Quakers were mentioned on the radio this morning as among those wishing to change the law. In the UK, we are in a special position with regard to marriage. Like the CofE, unlike all other churches, we do not have to have a registrar present. So the legal prohibition on religious marriage for same sex couples does prevent proper Quaker weddings for such couples.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM

I'd not object, Bill. I think upset is rather more personal and I'd guess it would depend on the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:07 PM

This is my dream, my hope - me and MLKjr.

When people learn to be tolerant of each and every other person and realize that we can celebrate our differences rather than fight them.

Then the world can be at peace.

I am there. Those who are not can fight it out with words at 20 paces. Have fun. I realize that at the end of the day, we care for each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

Jon... I am curious to know whether you would object.. or be upset... if that gay couple were legally married in a civil ceremony, no matter what you consider God might think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 11:16 AM

And tbh, for every one church goer I know who would reel at the thought of gay people in church, I know two others who hold the opposite view.

You omit a third category which accounts for most Christians I have contact with these days. They would not reel at the thought of a gay person in the congregation but they would not accept that a same sex couple can be joined by God in marriage.

I'm not overly concerned over numbers though...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

Why should I be offended gnu? If you mean GO GAYS! as in good for you gays! great gays! wish you well and all... then I see no offence to be made. If humour works for support then use it.

And tbh, for every one church goer I know who would reel at the thought of gay people in church, I know two others who hold the opposite view. Not every religious person has a down on gay people having the life they want. Live and let live eh? amen.

The only thing that would offend me is when people tell gays to GO!

I do not think you meant it the latter way somehow

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:55 AM

Very thoughtful words, Dave.

Blessed are the peacemakers....

Thank you.

-Joe-