Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

More definitions. *sigh* We all speak English on SP, you know.

Anyhow, regardless of what your definition of flaunting is, and regardless of whether or not you think it's the same for a heterosexual versus a homosexual couple is really a secondary point.

The point is most of the major world's religions (and by extension most churches and other places of worship) view any homosexual activity to be sinful. Allowing gays to marry would be seen by many to be condoning the activity, because everyone knows newlyweds have sex like bunnies for a couple of years, and then once in a blue moon thereafter.

 

We had a blue moon last night....

 

Actually, isn't working in a rectory what gay guys do?

Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "rectory"?

 

Let me ask you a direct question, since you made a clear and direct statement: From a religous and spiritual standpoint, is it better for gays to attend chruch, or not? And is that a valid question that a clergyman would ask himself?

 

IMO, only insomuch as attending church may lead them to repentance. If they have no intention of changing their lifestyle, then it's worse for them to attend Church.

 

Why don't you ask clergymen that Chandos? Surely the religious community would be a better gage than a gamers site.

 

If the gay person in question is religious, then I suppose, yes, it would.

I don't know. I'm not a clergyman, and I'm unsure what their mindset would be. Can you give me more of a general question? I might be able to answer that.

 

Wow, that was informative.

 

Different clergymen and clergywomen say different things about approving gay relationships.

Doesn't seem surprising to me. Plus issues & discussion of gay relationships may be going through a transition in society, meaning current gages of opinion may change (or may not yet be as fully reflected as they will be).

 

Yes, I do know that... but I was in disagreement over how NOG was using it. Must I not try to come to common grounds with him because you're tired of people trying to make terms more clear?

 

Well, Chandos, what do you expect? You're question appeared to be mainly rhetorical and argumentative in nature. Perhaps I just read it wrong.

 

I agree. But I wonder how they would reconcile the politics, the view of the church members and their own desires to minister to a gay couple in ALL areas of spiritual needs and development and how that would play against each other in a decision to not only allow gays to attend as an open couple but consider a church ceremony for marriage. The reason I added that to the end of my question to Aldeth, was because I was intrigued by notion from the link I posted, that the clergy may be "ahead of the general population" regarding gay rights. It's an interesting notion, but I wonder if politics would cause them too much grief within their own membership.

 

Of course you can, I was just commenting on the growing trend of defining terms in our discussions here. I simply did not think that "flaunt" had multiple interpretations, but I've thought similarly about other words in the past and have found others do not use the generally accepted definitions. So it's more of a personal pet peeve of mine - sorry if you found it insulting.

Do many protestant denominations have ministers that could actually decide to marry a couple if it was not a generally accepted practice for that denomination? Being Catholic, there is a definite heirarchy in the Church, from the Pope, to Cardinals, to Bishops, to Priests. Because the Vatican says no to gay marriage, a Catholic priest cannot simply decide he wants to marry a gay couple.

Is their an authority figure that protestant ministers use? For example, there are Baptist churches all over the US. AFAIK, Baptist ministers will not marry a gay couple. However, if a minister of a Baptist Church decided to do so, is he answerable to anyone outside of the congregation?

 

Aldeth - To be honest, I don't know. I go to a non-dominational church (but 17,000 members). The minister's dad was a Southern Baptist preacher at a fairly large, coventional church on the Northwest side of the city. But his son is quite uncoventional and runs his own church as an independent. But I can't ever imagine an openly gay couple in just about any church in Texas because of the politics. I have to think, in the end, that our pastor would not go for it in our church. Although I would not be opposed to it myself. I'm a "live and let live" kind of person by nature.

 

I'm honestly not sure if "politics" or "theology" is a better term to describe what I think you may mean here. When talking about religious organizations, the two can become somewhat blurred.

I think the issue, though, would most likely not be with their membership by-and-large, but with the other clergy. If a Catholic priest in NY chooses to marry a gay couple, it doesn't mean the Catholic Church has decided to re-write the parts of the Bible that object to it. In fact, said priest may even loose his position.

As for protestant organization, it really depends on the denomination. The Protestants (the denomination) are quite organized, as are the Quakers (yes, they're still around) and others. Baptists are less so, with lots of "independant baptist" churches. Of course, there's the Southern Baptist Convention, but that's more like a loose federal organization of churches than a strict one. I'm not sure what if anything the Northern Baptists have. And then you have pseudo-religious groups like the Salvation Army (who's officers are liscenced to wed in some states), with a para-military organizational structure.

 

I think there are some protestant clergy whom have conducted gay marriages or recognitions (without using the word marriage) for gay couples.

I think there is a big debate/disagreement within some of the Anglicans here in the US because of it-with people on the no gay couple ceremonies side threatening to either leave the Anglican church or join a branch of it that is more in line with their views. The latter is similar to picking your bishops regardless of geographic region. Note in many (most) cases bishops are figures with a recognized role within a specific geographic region.

I know there are Catholic priests sympathetic to gay couples but they likely have to deal with pressure from above as well as the side (priests who aren't). Also keep in mind that the Catholic Church is a large organization and it may take a good deal of time for positions to change worldwide (not just in a nation) and this is something that would likely only happen with much debate & discussion. I see that as just the nature of a large organization/group. And there is both something of a hierarchy and also many points of view.

I believe not all types of Lutherans agree on the topic either.

 

Yes, I can see that. That is exactly why I figured even a pastor would have to be extra careful with the issue, regardless of his own personal desire to minister to anyone who would approach him. I suppose the pastor of a church would have to consider how it would impact his entire membership, rather than just the spiritual needs of just one or two members. Still, it would be difficult.

You have to wonder about this in the larger context of who has rights to the ministry of Jesus Christ and who doesn't. Which "sinners" do we allow within the church membership, and which ones cross the line.

 

A fair point Chandos.

I think this is a situation where both sides (pro- & anti- gay) would say all are welcome. The difference would be if the gay couples were viewed as "sinners" to be reformed or allowed to celebrate their relationship like everyone else.

It really depends on the church/branch of it joined.

If it didn't then this wouldn't be a matter of great disagreement/discussion.

And the fact that there is disagreement means that we shouldn't (at least for the time being) assume every church responses in the same way.

By the way, I do like that you brought up the question of if clergy are ahead of the group of the people they minister to-hadn't thought of the idea.

 

Don't get me wrong Chandos - just because I believe that a priest should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple of it is against their religious doctrine, it does not mean that I have a problem with gays getting married. I just don't think any church should be obligated to do so.

You may well be right, although I am unaware of any Catholic priest actually marrying a gay couple, so I am unsure what the official response would be.

 

No worries; it just seemed your tone was a bit condescending/eyerolly, which peeved me a bit. But I can see where you're coming from, and would agree - it seems like there is a lot of disconnect on words that shouldn't be misinterpreted.