Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Finally, some good news on gay marriage

ham_man said:
Opposition is present as well. I will most definately be following this closely over the next few days, as I am a confirmed member of the UCC...
Click to expand...

Yes- I noticed that too. But I think it's a move in the right direction. This might help heal some wounds inflicted on me by the Methodist church, which told me I was going straight to Hell.
 
Opposition is present as well. I will most definately be following this closely over the next few days, as I am a confirmed member of the UCC...

EDIT - crap, I think I hit a wrong button or something...
 
I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:
 
mymemory said:
I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.
Click to expand...

Each to their own. From a legal point of view marriage is a fairly good protector for both people involved should the relationship break down. The Church may have a different view.
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.
Click to expand...

I could go on at length on trying to correct you on this one m8y, but I've gotta cook Zoë some pancakes :) . The modern Bible has been changed, chopped, edited for political, social reasons since it was first introduced. Whole sections edited, moved and even removed for a multitude of reasons. The same goes for most of the mainstream Religions, in a contant state of flux.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.
Click to expand...

Marriage in our modern world is based upon rituals that had very little to do with the Christian God, more to do with the pagan gods of old. The Christan movement adapted those rituals to their own ends. Most of the first churches were built on Pagan worship sites so as to enable the conversion of the Pagans who needed to visit the gound within the Church itself.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As long as it gets cleaned who cares?

Fyi I'm not a Pagan, a Christian, Gay, probably agnostic, who knows...things change and so do my opinions, moment by moment, I will not be told how to think by any organisation beit Church or Government or Media...I'd rather make my own mind up. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do...I here to be told I'm wrong. :)
 
The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.
 
good news indeed, but how much of an impact will this really have?

i am all for gay-marriage, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it should be provided for long ago in a legal sense, i just don't undersand why so many people are against it. but then again i am an ultraliberal too ;)
 
mymemory said:
I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list…

…I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related…
Click to expand...

Is not the feeling of being closer to each other not the best reason to marry?
Does the Churches point of view dictate that the only reason to marry should be God related?
What does that even mean?
Do I need a sign from heaven before I can marry?
Is it part of the non-democracy of the Church that should the elders decide that I be married to please God then so be it, no question of my love for my partner?
 
MacNut said:
The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.
Click to expand...

Hi MacNut.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying? Can't someone disagree with some aspects of a relgion's dogma without having to leave that religion? In other words, shouldn't someone be able to be pro gay marriage (or pro birth control or pro death penalty or whatever) and still be Catholic? Maybe you could explain to me more clearly what you mean?

You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?

All in conversation, of course!
 
thedude110 said:
...You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?...
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on 'the bunch of people' but yeah I'd agree that one group should'nt have to change their beliefs just because another group tell them to.

Of course a group should change their beliefs if they're obviously wrong and to the detriment to others.

For example if someone is a witch and is putting hexes on you and is evil and a danger to mankind it's reasonable that a group should take action and burn the witch. However if that group has absoulotly no proof that the person is a witch or evil or a danger to mankind they must change their beliefs.

Where to draw the line? Any belief held by a group that impacts on the human or civil rights of another unfairly or unjustly, that's fairly straight-forward.
 
MacNut said:
The Catholic church can have whatever rules it wants, if you don't want to agree to those rules you don't have too, either go to church and not be bothered by it or find another religion. A religion is not to change its beliefs because some people say it should.
Click to expand...
Although I agree with the general sentiment of your post, its literal interpretation would mean that the Catholic Church would still be burning Witches, engaged in the Crusades, and condoning the Holocaust through inaction.

IMHO, the real problem is that the Christian cult in general seems to believe it has a monopoly on public policy in the United States. I don't really give a damn whether or not any Church in the U.S. would care to marry me and my partner - however, I do when a significant number of Christian Churches want to amend the Constitution to make it a literal legal impossibility. This, of course, has nothing to do with Church at all, and in ordinary circumstances would be considered a gross violation of separation of Church and State. However, the Christian Right at large has become so filled with hubris over the past 10 years that somehow it has become their right and entitlement to tell me how to live my life.

Which, of course, returns us to your original premise to which I would respond: "Well, if you don't like gays and lesbians getting married, then go find a nice little theocracy that agrees with you."

...Is it "Politics" yet?

[Edit]: Spelling errors.
 
I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion, (I was in one earlier), but there are a few misconceptions I want to clear up.

1)
crap freakboy said:
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?
Click to expand...

No, you did not miss anything about the forgiveness, but since when does forgiveness mean "say it's okay to do immoral things"?

2)
thedude110 said:
But religions DO change their beliefs (I'm thinking Galileo most obviously here), so I wonder where you think that line gets drawn?
Click to expand...

This is not a "change of religion." Some Catholics in power thought, "The sun must surely go around the earth because in part of the Bible, God commands the sun to stop, not the earth." They started telling it to other people and Galileo came around and said they were wrong. Then the Catholics in power thought, "If we admit we're wrong, we might lose face and therefore power. We had better persecute him." Then many years later the Catholic Church remembered the awful thing some members had done and apologized. The point is, the belief that the sun goes around the earth and not the other way around is in no way religious and does not "indicate a change of religion." Same goes for the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. They were mostly political or misguided, but never an actual part of the religion, if you get my meaning.

3)
crap freakboy said:
Marriage in our modern world is based upon rituals that had very little to do with the Christian God, more to do with the pagan gods of old. The Christan movement adapted those rituals to their own ends. Most of the first churches were built on Pagan worship sites so as to enable the conversion of the Pagans who needed to visit the gound within the Church itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, most Christian rituals have pagan origin, but rituals are very different from beliefs. Just because pagan rituals were incorporated doesn't mean beliefs were. It just caused different movements to go with those beliefs.

Now that I have that out of the way, have at it everyone! :)
 
Tell you what, lets just say theres no God.
Then all religions can close shop, they'll be no interfaith violence, no guilt for Catholics and Gays can marry as they please. Surprised no-one thought of it before. :D
 
FoxyKaye said:
IMHO, the real problem is that the Christian cult in general seems to believe it has a monopoly on public policy in the United States. I don't really give a damn whether or not any Church in the U.S. would care to marry me and my partner - however, I do when a significant number of Christian Churches want to amend the Constitution to make it a literal legal impossibility. This, of course, has nothing to do with Church at all, and in ordinary circumstances would be considered a gross violation of separation of Church and State. However, the Christian Right at large has become so filled with hubris over the past 10 years that somehow it has become their right and entitlement to tell me how to live my life.
Click to expand...

I very much agree with you, but if you remember, this discussion is about a church granting gay marriage, not government.
 
thedude110 said:
You're absolutely right that a religion shouldn't change its beliefs because a bunch of people tell that religion to change their beliefs. But religions DO change their beliefs...
Click to expand...

You are quite right. Some might describe the Catholic Church (of which I was raised) as having a severe directional problem right now. Fact is, the whole basis for belief is a series of decisions based not on the Bible, but on the times. For instance, why can't priests marry? All the apostles were. Why can't women become priests? Think that was in the bible? Nope, "invented" in the 1800's.
Sorry, but they are, in my opinion, mistaken on almost every point. The Prince of Peace, in all his teaching, did not endorse the Crusades, and he did not give the current leaders of our country permission to use his good name to screw us and kill inocent people in Iraq. But I digress...
In some compelling words, Barny Frank said of the pending legislation banning all gay "marriages", "Who does it hurt?"
Live and let live, and keep the church OUT of my life, thank you.
 
Les Kern said:
... and he did not give the current leaders of our country permission to use his good name to screw us and kill inocent people in Iraq. But I digress...
Click to expand...

Umm...the Catholic Church was very against the Iraq war...
 
mymemory said:
I do not see the sense of the gay marriage. Not from the church point of view at list. In such case poligamy should be accepted as well by the church. In that case crhistian churches would loose a big chunk of it institutionality.

Religions are not democracy that changes with times, people does not undertand that. A religion is one thing created by a person or a groud of them and that is it.

I understand why a gay couple would like to marry, is an impulse of feeling even closer to each other. But is not God related so far until some one discovers some sort of document written by the apostols or something but that is just Sci-Fi.

Is like (as a friend of mine was suggested the other day) to take the motorbike to the carwash :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

marriage != religion
 
Hector said:
marriage != religion
Click to expand...
this is false. Marriage in the Christian world has its roots in civil society. Marriage is about money and taxes and property.
Marrige became a sacrement after 1400 years of Christianity.
This tradition was so widespread in what came to be known as Western Europe that for the first 1400 years of its existence the Catholic Church decided it could not enforce any demand that couples be married in a church or by a priest. If a young couple claimed to have exchanged vows of consent -- out by the woddpile, or wherever, with or without witnesses, blessing or whatever -- they were married.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this argument holds no water.
Marrige didn't become a sacrement till the 1400's
 
you see the ! before the = it means it dose not equal religion in response to mymemorys posr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back