homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Nightlamp, let me quote more fully from the Punk

quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
-- the authority of the Bible. Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

Perhaps I'm reading an unclear antecedent here but it seems to me from this that "authority of God's Word" was equated with "authority of the Bible". Which seems dangerously like proclaiming that God's Word and the Bible are the same thing. Perhaps I misread that.

Although I concur with Nightlamp's #5, I continue to be fascinated that the discussion of sexuality and relatiosnhips in general is so often tested by the extreme case of homosexuality.

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still I would hold that MarkthePunk would not hold that the does not equal bible =logos.

Considering that Barth developed his theology of the word against what he called liberal protestanism belief. This is what implicitly markthepunk is disagreeing with hence proberly without being to explain it that is what he means.

Intrestingly enough I did meet an evangelical who considered the word of God was how bultmann understood it and that is strange.

maybe I should put a new thread about what we mean by the word of God..

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
God's Word (the Logos) is the Christ. The Bible is not the Logos. Christians worship the Christ. Christians do not worship the Bible

I'm not sure why this is said with such assurance. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but HT is speaking here is though this is an accepted fact, which I don't think it is.

And I am not evangelical or fundamentalist.

It is only relatively recently that ANY Christians have not accepted the Bible as the Word of God.

The Bible universally equates the Law and the Prophets with the Word of God. Jesus repeatedly refers to God's laws as the Word of God. The Gospels, the letters of Paul, and Revelation all refer to the Word as meaning the Gospels.

It is only in John and Revelation that the added mystical quality of Jesus as the Word of God is introduced. It is not a difficult leap to say that God and His Divine Truth are the same entity.

I guess this is off the topic, but I was surprised that HT jumped in on this point with such force.

I think that many, and perhaps even most, Christians regard the Bible as the Word of God referred to in John. After all, Jesus said numerous times that He came to fulfill the Scriptures.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Didn't the Jews always interpret the Torah, and analyze it and evolve in their understanding of it? Wasn't Jesus offering new interpretations of the Torah? So why can't our understanind of the bible similarly evolve?

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure why this is said with such assurance. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but HT is speaking here is though this is an accepted fact, which I don't think it is.

[snip]

I guess this is off the topic, but I was surprised that HT jumped in on this point with such force.


HT is speaking with no more certainty than most who've made their pronouncements on this thread (and in truth, a heckuva lot less).

Carry on...

[typos... *sigh*]

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rob
Apprentice
# 171

 - Posted      Profile for Rob   Email Rob   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nightlite,
You disappoint me. If the bible is God's word without cultuaral bias the why do women cut their hair short and wear makeup, and why don't we stone to death rebellous teenagers and why don't we put women who are menstrating in a seperate residence, obviously these unflabable and infalible words of God were a reflection of their time and culture. Don't you think the bible words on homosexuality is more a reflection of the culture than a word from God. Oh! Nightlite do you wear a beard the bible tells us men we should. Also, Paul tells three differnt times about dead in chris shall rise which one do you believe and are three correct since there is no error in the bible.Shall I go on to point out other cultural things in the bible that reflect the times of the bible, such as pork eating. Oh! By the way if homosexuality is such a big issue how come Jesus did not speak up on the matter. I know it was because he had 12 men following Him around who walked away from their wives and family.
Believe it or not I do accept scripture as God's word. ou know the things that matter like love my enemy, turn the other cheek, don't judge, feed the poor, etc.

Markthepunk,
You are right we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The OT also says,"What is man that you are mindful of him. You created him a little lower than angels". I am a sinner. I fall short. And like Paul am grateful for the grace of God.
Over in Galatians warns Christians about returning to the law,that is looking for litmus test to prove some one is really a christian, which the church is doing with homosexuality. And again most seem to ignorantly believe homosexuality is primarily about sex rather than a God given genetic birthright. The only sexual issue for homosexual is the same for all of us which is are we in a faithful, committed, responsible relationship.

--------------------
booga booga


Posts: 29 | From: Kokomo,IN | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rob said
quote:
Nightlite,You disappoint me. If the bible is God's word without
ect ect
I assume you meant me? but since I never said any of those things you may actually be refering to some one else or maybe you are arguing with some non-existent person.

But more likely I failed to explain Karl Barth he said (any Karl Barth fans very sorry!!)that the Bible is the word of God because it contains God's revelation (sorry I don't know the German). The Logos is Jesus and we receive and understand it through the word of God that is the Bible in other words the Bible contains God's revelation.

When people use the phrase the word of God when refering to the Bible this is almost certainly what they mean they do not mean it is the Logos or something to be worshipped.

You yourself said

quote:
Believe it or not I do accept scripture as God's word

How do you understand this if not the same as Karl Barth?, that the Bible contains God's revelation to us (Not the BibleisGods revelation to us -possiblely a subtle difference that remained unnoticed possibly due to a typo )

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
Nightlite,You disappoint me. If the bible is God's word without cultuaral bias the why do women cut their hair short and wear makeup, and why don't we stone to death rebellous teenagers...

Maybe you mean me. Except that I don't think that it is without cultural bias. I see it as being hugely symbolic and in need of intelligent interpretation to free it from things such as you mention.

But it has to be interpreted in accordance with the repetitive themes of the Bible as a whole, such as loving God and the neighbor, justice, mercy, the beauty of marriage, etc.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
HT is speaking with no more certainty than most who've made their pronouncements on this thread (and in truth, a heckuva lot less).

Yes, I guess you are right. Sorry about that. Got carried away...

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
someone correct me if i'm wrong but...

first off, theres nothing in the old testament that specifically says anything prohibiting two women from having sex. just isn't mentioned at all. so lets leave that aside for the moment.

now as far as i know, the only place that prohibits what we would call male homeosexuality is the line that goes something along the lines of, you shall not lie with a man as with a woman. i take that to mean specifically (sorry going to be graphic here) anal sex. so what we have here is a specific sexual act prohibited. nothing implied about oral sex, or mutual masterbation, or anything else that two men can do together, just one particular act.

now it seems to me that theres a better analogy to be made than with the (yes i'll admit it) overused analogy with pork or shellfish, and thats that it it prohibited for a man to have sex with his wife during the time she is having her period, for a certain number of days afterwards, and until shes had a ritual bath. seems to me that, as far as i can remember, that and bestiality are the only other two specific sex acts forbidden in the old testament.

now, i for one don't really want to know what any of the male gay shipmates here are sprcifically doing, and i'm sure they don't want to go into it. but even assuming that they are engaging in this forbidden activity, welll.....

guys, you staying away from your wives til they've had that ritual bath?

women, found where you can take one?

nope me neither.

(new testament is a whole nother post for another time...)

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Elizabeth
Shipmate
# 207

 - Posted      Profile for Elizabeth   Email Elizabeth   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicole:

Here's a list from Google of the Mikveh (ritual baths) located in your area:

Community Mikveh, 583 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 375-6660

Mivka 18 Avenue-Congregation, 5010 18th Ave, Brooklyn, NY, (718)633-7724

Mikvah Israel-BoroPark, 1351 46th St, Brooklyn , NY (718)871-6866

Mikvah Israel-BrightonBeach, 245 Neptune Ave, Brooklyn , NY (718)769-8599

Mikvah Mayon Of Papa, 115 Rutledge St, Brooklyn , NY, (718)624-9262

Mikvah Of MidManhattan, 234 W 78th St, New York , NY, (212)799-1520

Mikvah Ritualarium, 708 Mace Ave, Bronx , NY, (718)798-6173

Mikvah Of Crown Heights, 1506 Union St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 604-8787

Mikvah Divrei Chaim Inc, 1249 52nd St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 972-9678

Mikvah Yisroel Of Flatbush, 1296 E 10th St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 253-8302

Mikvah Israel Of Bensonhurst, 48 Bay 28th St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 372-9563

Mikvah Israel Of Forest Hills, 6304 Yellowstone Blvd, Flushing, NY, (718) 897-9370

Mikvah Young Israel, 835 Forest Hill Rd, Staten Island, NY, (718) 494-6704

Mikveh Israel-KewGardens Hill, 7111 Vleigh Pl, Flushing , NY, (718)268-6500

Mikveh Of WashingtonHeights, 4351 Broadway, New York , NY, (212)923-1100

Queens Synagogue Mikveh, 7548 Grand Central Pkwy, Flushing, NY, (718) 261-6380

Riverdale Mikveh, 3708 Henry Hudson Pkwy, Bronx, NY, (718) 549-8336

Sephardic Mikvah Israel, 810 Avenue S, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 339-4600

Also, if Chabad is active in your community, they usually have a mikvah nearby.

--------------------
The Hunger Site is back!


Posts: 669 | From: The Place of Knee Deep Leaves | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicole,

Given the cost of Vitabath (Badedas (?) in Europe}, I should think it would provide ritual cleansing.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hooker, I really don't appreciate your twisting my words. Of course, I worship Christ as the Logos, the Word. Referring to scripture as the Word of God in no way negates that.

As part of that, I seek to follow Jesus. Jesus clearly followed the authority of scripture. I seek to do likewise.

I probably should leave it at that. You should know better. Especially since you are a moderator, aren't you?

I've heard the term "Bible worship" before. It generally comes from those who do not respect the Bible's authority. That you choose to use that prejorative term and play semantic games with me does not speak well of you.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I've heard the term "Bible worship" before. It generally comes from those who do not respect the Bible's authority. That you choose to use that prejorative term and play semantic games with me does not speak well of you.

Host hat on ...

Right at the end here it sounds like you're getting ready to descend into personal comment and dispute. Please prove me wrong in your next post.


Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reepicheep
BANNED
# 60

 - Posted      Profile for Reepicheep         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I started this topic to try and get away from the usual arguments about homosexuality and look at the specific topic of marriage and how we perceive it - what makes a marriage?
Homosexuality was chosen because everyone is obsessed with it already, and it would have come up at some point!

Love
Angel


Posts: 2199 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ruth, I appreciate your diligence to keep the level of discourse here at a high level. I share that desire, which is one reason I enjoy this board -- and one reason I was provoked by Hooker's post.

I think if you'll look at past posts I'm not into picking fights. After a night's sleep and a review of Hooker's post, I may have overreacted. But to suggest that a Fundamentalist's respect for the written Word and it's authority is somehow idolatrous and substituting the Bible for Christ -- them's fighting words!

And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.

For the sake of peace, I've leave it at that.

mark

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What makes a marriage?

Shared vision, shared experience, a oneness (that over-used word 'Soulmate' fits here).

Good times, bad times...

Being there for each other. Laughing together.

Sex, I guess... (hard to remember!)

A feeling of togetherness when facing the world and life's triumph's/problems.

Love. Self-giving. Putting the other first. BOTH of you!

Definitely not 'two Halves making a Whole'. Two Wholes (no puns please!) superimposing and fusing (that's partly down to the sex bit, I guess).

And then... well, what Unmakes a marriage is a different thread, I suppose. It's sad to look back on all that and be unable to find any of it any more.

However - it makes me all the happier for couples who are about to get a shot at it! I'm praying for all of you!

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I probably should leave it at that. You should know better. Especially since you are a moderator, aren't you?

and

quote:
And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.

Administrator's notes:

If you have a complaint against a moderator, it belongs in the Styx. Keep it out of the discussions, please. Thank you.

Erin

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reepicheep
BANNED
# 60

 - Posted      Profile for Reepicheep         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What makes a marriage in the eyes of the church? And in the eyes of society? As well as the simple "what makes a marriage"?

So many questions.

Love
Angel


Posts: 2199 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Got it, Erin. Thank you.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
splodge
Shipmate
# 156

 - Posted      Profile for splodge   Email splodge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lets have a snip at the gordion knot here.
As regards the bible, logically it could record the Word of God, logically it could
become the Word of God to us, but the Word of
God (rhema rather than logos - if you like Greek - surely?)can't be tied down to particular paper and print, a particular language or a particular version/translation.
When we are saying the bible is the "Word of God" we are using this phrase surely as short hand for the above, and thus understood we see that the Word of God except Christ himself is always mediated to us through the limits of language and culture.
As regards marriage, I am not married (just yet!) but as betrothed having to think a lot about it include the risks as well as the blessings that might ensue. Marriage is all the things Gill mentioned. IMO also different from just cohabiting by the existence of a public commitment for (intentionally) life together. If the full motive is there , then having had the ceremony is just decoration and a bit of paper.
I have no doubt that homosexuals can make this level of commitment to each other. Love, friendship, intimacy per se is not wrong. It is impossible for me to see how homosexuality can be morally wrong itself (like theft, adultery etc) as it does not transgress the law of love for ones neighbour.
However the greater problem the church has with homosexuality and gay marriage in particular is due to ancient ideas of "Natural Law" (not the T.M inspired UK political party). Amongst catholics blame Aquinas (and thus Aristotle) among protestants blame St. Paul (and also Aristole?)
As I understand it natural law is the idea that for every phenomenon there is a proper nature and purpose of that thing (i.e it has a teleological as well as its essential and accidental and formal nature). For believers this "natural" purpose of a thing is God given.
Applied to sexuality this says that THE (divine) purpose of sexual relations is for men and women to beget children (incidentally this is why catholic dogma has a problem with contraception). Marriage/Sex is Men + Women = Children in natural law. Homosexuality does not fit into this loop.
Arguably biologically only heterosexual sex can fulfill sexes, our reproductive organs, biological function - so biology seems to justify natural law too. Thankfully contra natural law and biology humans actually and rightly elaborate sexual relationships with all kinds of other social, cultural, and legal significances. Presumably gay people simply want their relationships socially and legally legitimised in the same way. On the basis of equality under the law, this is a very strong argument in favour of gay marriages.
However returning to those presumptions based on natural law, and indeed biology, many feel logically compelled to consider the sexual relations aspect (and this after all is what heteros are hung up about not same sex loving friendship per se)as less natural or normal than straight sex in some way. Someone who persists in this view may say that this is not a moral judgement but rather a recognition of one of the many kinds of falleness that human nature has experienced. I am concerned it is painful for some to have the issue raised in this way, but unfortunatley the belief that homosexuality is in some way "unnatural" and "abnormal" is the heart of the matter or of the prejudice if you like. (incidentally I think it is a presumption we take to the biblical text, as much as one found there) But because of this basic philosophical presumption/prejudice there is the unwillingness of many to recgnise an equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual relations. So to consider the possibility of recognising gay marriage seems to some to be like publically declaring that apples are oranges or 2 plus 2 equals 5, i.e accepting a falsehood. I don't know what could challenge this basic philosophical presumption/prejudice against gay marriages but i'd like to hear some more ideas.

.

--------------------
Splodge


Posts: 145 | From: Newport | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No small part of the problem is the fact that the state has gradually intruded into an area that should have been left to the church.

A democratic state should afford its citizens equal protection of the laws. A church is bound by no such requirement and may at will exclude certain people from its rites or sacramets.

In granting special rights to those who are married and in denying marriage to a large class of citizens who differ from the favored group only in the fact that they do not possess the appropriate gender mix, the state now finds itself in the position of either enforcing a religious ("moral"} based discriminatory practice or seemingly repudiating the deeply held religious values of many people, and thus helping to undermine the institution of marriage, which is already in serious trouble.

This difficulty forms the basis of my suggestion that the state should offer a kind of covenant option open to gays and lesbians. My thinking on this is still in flux (as it is in the whole matter of sexuality and Christianity), and I am currently of the opinion that the state should abandon any use of the word 'marriage' and surrender the term to the church. It should be in the business of registering covenants only. This debate would continue, but it would become a purely religions (moral) one, which is perhaps as it should be.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
oooops

Pease add "and in their view" to the phrase "helping to undermine the istitution of marriage..."

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
thus helping to undermine the institution of marriage, which is already in serious trouble.

Not to take Corgi's remarks out of context, but I think the serious trouble that marriage is in is the real point here.

How many people wouldn't give their life to have grown up in a happy home with a mother and a father who loved them and who loved each other?

It is heartbreaking that it is not that way for millions of families. It is no wonder that people look for alternatives. I'm just not sure that the alternatives are an improvement. I imagine that statistics will eventually indicate some kind of answer to that, if they don't already.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've just spent a few hours with a friend whose relationship has broken down. 'He' (her ex) complained to me the other week that 'she wouldn't marry me' (years ago). Now he's found someone else, and she (the ex-partner) is saying to me, "I don't understand - I was committed to this relationship!"

My point being that commitment is not a cut-and-dried thing, and means different things to people at different stages in their lives. There are spouses who are not as committed as 'partners' and vice versa.

I think it is a good point about the state/church divide. I think we are skating very near an Equal Opportunities breach, in fact - because of the State Church. Then no doubt good Christian folk will grumble about 'Europe'. But if a gay person can have a bank account, buy a house, go to University, then why should marriage be denied them?

I should add that ten years ago this would have been unthinkable for me to write. I have thought long and hard and don't see why the genitalia have suchbearing on our ability to make a commitment. I think straights probably project a lot onto gay relationships that perhaps isn't there. And there is some physical revulsion at the thoughts of 'what goes on'. Perhaps it ain't our business???

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am hesitant about posting the following because I am afraid that I shall be vigourously attacked for playing the "race card", and that is certanly not my intention. I do not feel that Fundamentalists, or evangelicals, or orthodox Christians are any more guilty of racism than is anyone else.

That said and hopefully understood, I will now suggest that denying the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples seems to me to be closely analogous poliically to the anti- miscegenation (racially mixed marriage) laws that existed in some parts of the U.S. until well into the 20th century. This is particularly so if we accept as true the testimony of most gays and lesbians that their orientation was not chosen, indeed was often fixed before they even heard the word "homosexual" or had any idea there were any other people who had similar feelings.

I do not dismiss those who claim they did have a choice, nor deny those who claim to have changed their orientation or practices, thruogh religion, or therapy, or any other means.


If we accept the reports of the vast majority of gays and lesbians that their orientation was not chosen, sexual orientation is very similar to race.

As to the argument that gays and lesbians deserve to be victims of discrimination because they choose to act on their orientation, I would suggest if anti-miscegenation laws were re-written to to allow only platonic inter-racial marriages, such laws would be as discriminatory and reheprehensible as the old laws that were on the books. In other words the government says it will not discriminate against you for how you are, it will only discriminate against your actions.

I think analogies to proclivities for temper tantrums or the commission of crimes, et c., are patently off track.


Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
P.S.

And anti-miscegenation laws were strongly defended on the basis of their being clearly Biblical, fulfilling God's intent in creating separate races.


Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415

 - Posted      Profile for gbuchanan   Email gbuchanan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trying to steer clear of diverting sidelines...

More than one poster has commented on the state getting involved in a "Church" activity in the case of marriage. However, marriage existed before and outside of the church for many years, and many atheists get married etc., etc.

Nonetheless, the problem does seem to me, as I've observed before, the differences even within the Christian community as to what marriage is about. Gill's comments most people wouldn't disagree with, but it's interesting how much variation there is in the comprehension of how those different strands are integrated and lived out.

For instance, I know a number of Christians who believe quite seriously that sex is the price you pay for getting married. Others on the other hand see it as a wonderful gift which plays a central role in marriage and through which tenderness and connectedness can be expressed. Although they all superficially would state the latter, there is a clear separation at work.

For many, being loving is sharing a house, making sure it's clean, having your own freedom to make social and work commitments, but having a secure base to come home to. For others, there is a more unquestionable need to centre their lives around each other and for those other commitments to be mutually agreed.

Then, yes, there is the gap between "Christian marriage" and "secular marriage" - though there may be a question as to what that is about.

Finally, and my big beef if I'm honest, is that the Church goes around defending the absoluteness of marriage rather than the quality of marriage - the Church should be supporting good marriage and making war so to speak against bad marriage, but towards the latter it sticks the head in the sand, and gets out the DM's to give those who suffer them a good kicking - the Lord forbid we actually say that good people should not suffer the indignity of being denied a good marriage for the misfortune of being in a bad one.


Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
the Lord forbid we actually say that good people should not suffer the indignity of being denied a good marriage for the misfortune of being in a bad one.

I agree, but I don't think we can blame the church for going along with Matthew 19. It's not their fault what Jesus said.

Greta mentions the comparison to race discrimination. I would guess that this is one of the strongest arguments, and that it hits Christians where it really hurts, because we know how racist our history is. This argument puts Christians who accept the biblical and historic injunctions against homosexuality in the uncomfortable position of being racists.

It is true that laws against miscegenation were justified on biblical grounds. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that this mistaken and wrong justification means that the same is true for the arguments against homosexuality. The point is, if you believe in the Bible, it is important to know what it really does teach about marriage and homosexuality. If the interpretation is wrong then we need to reinterpret it correctly.

The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice. Yet I think it is true that a whole range of problematic behaviors appear to be completely out of the realm of the free choice of many people. This is particularly true of compulsive behavior, and perhaps even more of behavior around sex. Who ever chooses to fall or not fall in love? It just happens. Adulterers often complain that they had no choice, that they were driven by forces beyond their control. The same is obviously tue of pedophiles.

The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.

I accept the testimony of homosexuals that they did not consciously choose their orientation any more than any of us do. I don't think that this necessarily means that there is absolutely no aspect of choice involved, or that there aren't factors that promote or discourage a person from inclining to that orientation.

One thing about sex in general, however, is that in most cultures and for most of history it has been something that is surrounded by prohibitions and laws. The general view has been that happiness results from restricting and controlling it, and that acting on one's desires is the path to unhappiness and degradation.

We don't tend to buy those arguments any more, but I'm not sure that we are any happier because of it.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415

 - Posted      Profile for gbuchanan   Email gbuchanan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree, but I don't think we can blame the church for going along with Matthew 19. It's not their fault what Jesus said.

....Mmm... - I'd actually say it is the Church's (our) fault for interpreting it without love or compassion. I'm not persuaded that there isn't more than a little bit of humanity wanting to have comfortably clear absolutes rather than a proper reaction to the Lord's word in our approach to it.


Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freddy,
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my post. In fact I agree with you. I don't think garden variety homosexuality should be lumped together with comupusions like inability to control temper, child molestation, et c.. More than one post has equated homosexuality with heterosexual sex compulsion, which seems to me to be illogical on its face. Destructive compulsions might be an interesting separate thread. To what extent should such behavior be excused? Can religious faith overcome compulsion?

Greta

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those are very good questions, and I don't know the answers.

The path to happiness is tough to define and even harder to dictate. Luckily, we are all free to pursue our own answers to these questions.

And, Bucky, you are right about the mercy. Sorry to be a little black-and-white there.

Fred

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
elizabeth, very amusing. i think it should have been obvious that my point was none of us non-jewish women are using those ritual baths.

corgigreta, no, its a specific ritual that is called for, simply washing doesn't do it.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freddy, as a host of Purgatory I should mention that in your post earlier today you came quite close to saying something that could be read as "homosexuals have no control over their sexual drives" and also in the same post "adulterers and paedophiles feel they have no control over their sexual drives". Now I'm sure you didn't intend to imply that homosexuality is in any way similar to paedophilia, however what you wrote could be read that way.

In the past we've had serious problems over this issue when people equated homosexuality with paedophilia (or appeared to) and we don't want to see that repeated. Would people please be very careful when discussing this subject so as to avoid any potential unpleasantness due to misunderstandings that may be read into what has been written. It is probably safest not to mention paedophilia in the same post as homosexuality.

Alan

Purgatory host

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.


Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice. Yet I think it is true that a whole range of problematic behaviors appear to be completely out of the realm of the free choice of many people. This is particularly true of compulsive behavior, and perhaps even more of behavior around sex. Who ever chooses to fall or not fall in love? It just happens. Adulterers often complain that they had no choice, that they were driven by forces beyond their control. The same is obviously tue of pedophiles.

The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.


Now then. I want to go very carefully through these 2 paragraphs.

The opening 2 sentences deal with choice.

'The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice.'
I have looked carefully back over the thread and can only find this quote by Greta:

quote:
I think analogies to proclivities for temper tantrums or the commission of crimes, et c., are patently off track.
Greta: would you clarify the behaviour/quality to which you believe this analogy is inapplicable.

Freddy: going by the paragraph immediately above this, you would seem to be referring to homosexual orientation when you mention the 'question of choice' (ie. does one choose to be homosexual). This is further suggested in that you are responding to Greta's post (1st of pg 4) where she firmly states that she understands sexual orientation to be a given. As I read it, her only statement regarding tantrums and criminal acts are that they are inappropriate analogies. But you state: 'Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice.' Yes. She does indeed dismiss the comparison (no-one is clear which comparison it is, but let's soldier on) out of hand, but what is the purpose of those words you have tacked on the end? What is this 'also dismissed' matter of choice that you are referring to? Nowhere have I seen Greta dismissing any thing as 'not a matter of choice'. I have however, seen her stating that she believes sexuality not to be a matter of choice, and appealing to anecdotal evidence (there's that word again).

I think what you have written is obscure. Obscurity in writing is very convenient - in the above case, what is suggested to the reader is: Greta dismisses out of hand that there is choice in sexual orientation. But the writer can always squeal: 'I didn't mean it like that!'

Well. That would be the first 2 sentences.

Just a quick one on Sentence 3: We have now moved to 'problematic behaviours'. Let's jump to my second quoted paragraph. 'The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.' Certainly adultery and paedophilia have victims, and homosexuality does not (in the same sense that heterosexuality does not). A very reasonable statement, or is it? There is a difference between homosexuality; and adultery and paedophilia. Is the lack of victims the only difference? If so, what are the similarities? We need to look back to the paragraph above. But notice. Surprise Suprise. Homosexuality or homosexual behaviour is not even mentioned. Same as before... 'if you do not state it, you cannot be taken to task for it'. But homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are right there implied in that paragraph - because otherwise, how can one talk about difference in the very next breath?

So what else is said without being said in that paragraph about homosexuality and homosexual practice? A quick break down:

-Homosexual practice is a problematic behaviour
-Homosexual practice is 'out of the realm of the free choice of many people'
-Compulsive behaviour is another such problematic behaviour. (Why bother to even mention this, unless you want to make an association?)
-A completely spurious sentence about falling in love
-Adulterers report being driven by forces beyond their control, as do paedophiles.

So what forces drive adulterers? What forces drive paedophiles? And you know what? The difference between homosexuality; and adultery and paedophilia is that homosexuality has no victims. So one could logically conclude that the writer believes something like the same forces that drive adulterers and paedophiles, drive homosexuals. Which are they?

Offensive in the extreme.


quote:
I accept the testimony of homosexuals that they did not consciously choose their orientation any more than any of us do.
So why did you spend the time in the first paragraph undermining Greta's view on 'given' sexuality?

Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Happy Coot,

I am short of time and not fully awake, so I'm not prepared to tackle the analogy with compulsions issues (perhaps it's less patent than I thought). I aepper to have posted something quite ambiguous and Freddy hopefully unintentionally responded in kind.

However, I feel it is imperative for me to immediately respond to THIS statement by Freddy:

"This argument puts Christians who accept the biblical and historic injunctions against homosexuality in the uncomfortable position of being racists."

Here he totally ignores or rejects my first paragraph, which I wrote sincerely, specifically, and (I think there at least) clearly enough so as to avoid any such reading of my argument.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
GorgiGreta said
quote:
Here he totally ignores or rejects my first paragraph, which I wrote sincerely, specifically, and (I think there at least) clearly enough so as to avoid any such reading of my argument.

Unfortunately that is how I read your arguement. To me it reads I am not going to do something and then doing it.

I am sure that is not your intention I think you are simply trying to produce a model from one part of life to another and considering it more accurate than other peoples models.

Unfortunately models can be missunderstood I Hope some one understood this

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
But to suggest that a Fundamentalist's respect for the written Word and it's authority is somehow idolatrous and substituting the Bible for Christ -- them's fighting words!

And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.


Sorry to be late in returning to this. Even civil servant librarians have to work sometimes!

To Freddy and MarkthePunk. Apologies if I provoked you, and thanks for taking time to re-read some of my Hookerisms.

OK, you all guessed it, I am not a fundamentalist (note great self-control and tact in not writing possibly inflamatory term "fundie"). I am interested in the authorities that are appealed to in the various debates on this board. Quite often the Bible is referred to as the definitive authority. Occasionally one might see someone appeal to the Church. And rarest of all someone will describe having struggled prayerfully (good point, frin) -- perhaps one could say one referred a problem directly to his or her relationship with Our Lord.

Obviously, the only infallible source of any knowledge seems to me to be Our Lord himself. So put me down as curious how printed or institutional intermediaries seem to get equal billing with the Divine.

If I'm wrong about the equal-billing part, please feel free to tell me so (I can take being told I'm wrong).

HT [apologies to Angel for de-reailing her thread. If this turns out to be of interest I can post a thread on "Authorities", but I think it's been done to death]

Oh, and in re: hosting. Please note that I do not post here as the Host of Mystery Worshipper Board. Indeed, I don't even generally post on the MW Board as Host. I'm just a normal punter like anyone else unless I explicitly state that I am acting in a Host capacity (clarification for this may be pursued on Styx).


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishop Joe
Shipmate
# 527

 - Posted      Profile for Bishop Joe   Email Bishop Joe       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm gay and if you want to say I'm biased, so be it. I've witnessed twenty years of gay men and lesbians beating on the doors of the "liberal mainline" USA denominations looking for acceptance, and rarely finding it. Oh, we're welcome to play the organ and set up the coffee, and there's no taint on our money, but when it comes to real leadership there are problems. In the Presbyterian Church-USA, for example, gays and lesbians cannot become Deacons or Elders (i.e., church governance) unless they are married (i.e, living a pseudo-hereosexual fraud) or celibate (who would impose that on the majority?).

I've lived through the 1980-2001 period listening to demagogues rant about "homosexual promiscuity"; then those folks are the first people to take arms against any kind of commitment/contract that would keep a gay couple together and prevent/ reduce promiscuous sexual behavior.

Now, when we get to talking about alternative methods of reproduction and so on I think it does get a bit Jesuitical. I myself don't particularly care for the slang term "gay marriage," but certainly there ought to be some sort of civil arrangement for two romantically and financially committed persons sharing a household in the absence of the traditional blessing, marriage.

Why are so many middle-class gay men and lesbians making such a fuss about all this in church?? Probably because it has become a non-issue in most other facets of their lives. There's a difference between maintaining cherished and beloved traditions and stubbornly lagging about thirty years behind the times socially, and I think it's the rank-and-file church membership rather than the church leadership (at least in America) who are most to blame for their ignorance, apathy, stubbornness and (however unintentional) hurtfulness toward homosexuals.

But, for Buddha's sake, can't straight people understand the central irony that church very frequently is the one place we CAN'T be accepted and welcomed??


Posts: 150 | From: Chicago, IL USA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd like to say that freddy's 4th post is to me, something like a smorgasboard after a lenten fast. There are other points I would like to take up after he responds to my above post.

His other posts on this thread are: 3 on biblical authority, 1 of regret at the current state of hetero marriage, and 1 evasive philosophical snippet when asked to elaborate on the pandora's box of destructive compulsions (opened by him).

I am respectful of people who have argued against gay marriage from a scriptural perspective. But freddy's 4th post I will not let past without comment because it does not tackle gay marriage, neither does it appeal to scripture (mentioning Matt 19 is not good enough - I shouldn't have to construct freddy's argument from first principles). In my analysis the whole 4th post contains only one (implied) point regarding gay marriage, which is that it is unacceptable to those that 'accept biblical and historical injunctions against homosexuality'. The rest is a crusade against homosexuality and homosexual expression.


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Happy Coot: give Freddy a chance to respond now, okay?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nightlamp,

You stated:
"I am sure that [labeling opponents of gay marriage as racists] is not your intention I think you are simply trying to produce a model from one part of life to another and considering it more accurate than other peoples models."

Yes, yes, and yes.

Since I reject analogies to obsessions, or disfunctions, I began to think lefthandness might be a closer parallel, but I couldn't think of a basic right that is denied to left-handed people. Then I recalled the anti-mixed marriage laws, and the analogy seemed almost perfect.

While it is true that many of the supporters of those laws were racists (and are undoubltely dead or very elderly),
it does not folow that supporters of a very similar (BUT non-race related)law that is applied to a very similar {BUT not racial} group of people, are racists. The two situatitions, in my view have in common the element of discrimination, not racism.

From the critical standpoint of choice, sexual orientation seems to me to be closely parallel to race. Orientation may not be genetic (like race), but for most people it seems to be determined at a very young age. So, if it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race wouldn't it be wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

Wheeew! I hope I haven't confused things more, and I probably have bored you silly, but I want to make it clear that I had no intent to paint any living person or group as racist.

This is already a tough enough issue for us all.


Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But, for Buddha's sake, can't straight people understand the central irony that church very frequently is the one place we CAN'T be accepted and welcomed??

And it's probably the one place where they should be welcomed. The majority of my gay friends are interested in spiritual things and like what what Jesus had to say but are completely dis-interested in Church as most of the Christians they've meet are so unwelcoming and intolerent.

If you look at the way Jesus treated people in the Bible, he never turned anyone away although he did challenge people about the choices they made. It's a shame that we [self included] don't live up to that.

Tubbs

PS I was watching Jerry Springer last night. [I know] The episode was called "Wild Weddings" and one of the couples featured were lesbians. The chaplin blessed them and pronounced them "partners for life". Does this have any legal vaildity in the US or does it just count as a blessing / sensational thing to show on TV?

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am


Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back on track. Marriage. For a moment I'm going to take as authority the Church, because that's the institution responsible for the administration of the Sacraments, and marriage is a sacramental rite.

So. One. Marriage is a sacramental rite.

Two. What are Sacraments. Outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace. We want to extend signs of God's Grace to all his children, right? We don't deny the Eucharist to homosexuals, so how can we also deny the sacrament of marriage?

Well, because marriage has legal ramifications and the Eucharist doesn't (I don't get special tax status because I am a regular communicant -- more's the pity).

The Church in the US at least can operate with some freedom in terms of the legal definition (in England where the Church is Established this may be harder). But it runs the risk of re-defining marriage altogether.

But I don't think we're all ringing our hands about redefining it in Sacramental terms. I don't think (wait -- I'd LIKE TO HEAR someone defend denying Sacraments to anyone for any reason). So really we're hiding behind the Sacraments, and making the church a stooge for our fears over social change.

Is that it?

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Happy Coot: give Freddy a chance to respond now, okay?

Thanks, Ruth. I am a little surprised that HC took such exception to what I wrote in response to Greta, and I am trying to digest his points. I am very embarassed by the problem that Alan pointed out, and I sincerely apologize.

One problem is that I can't remember what HC said, and the way these boards are constructed I can't refer back to the messages - or at least I don't know how. But I will respond as soon as I figure out how to do that. Maybe they give pointers on that technique in the styx.

Needless to say, HC makes some very good points about what I wrote. It is great to have someone analyze your arguments in such detail! Even looking at my other posts on this thread! A very good deconstruction of the weaknesses of my reasoning.

I really do not want to say anything that is offensive or that sets people off, as I find these discussions very interesting, and feel in harmony with most of my shipmates.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg


Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hooker's Trick said

quote:
So. One. Marriage is a sacramental rite.

In the Roman catholic Tradition it is but formally in the CofE(see BCP)it is not a sacrament although I am aware that some in the Anglican (Episcopal tradition) would hold it be so.
The only two sacraments are formally in the Church of England are Baptism and the eucharist.

I find your use of a sacramental arguement odd (but I am instictively low church)

Hooker's Trick said

quote:
(wait -- I'd LIKE TO HEAR someone defend denying Sacraments to anyone for any reason).

I believe in the RC tradition that Ordination is a sacrament and that only those can be trained for Priesthood can receive it single people cannot receive the 'sacrament' of marriage some who are not dying cannot receive extreme unction.
So I guess some of the 'sacraments' are denied to people.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, the Anglican Communion recognises two Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist, as ordained my Christ himself) and 5 other sacramental rites.

Anyway, Angel asked how we define marriage and what's at stake. One was to define it is as a sacramental rite, and I lay out what's at stake.

Another way to describe it is as a legal contract.

What is the church doing when it performs a wedding ceremony? Saying God's ok with the contract, too? Shedding a little grace on the happy couple? Affirming the analogy between the marriage of Christ and his Church with the marriage of Man and Wife (note who gets to be Jesus in this analogy).

If you don't see marriage as sacramental at all, what could it be? I think this is really one of the essential questions that needs to be answered to meaningfully engage the bigger question of WHO can be married.

Maybe not...

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why are so many middle-class gay men and lesbians making such a fuss about all this in church?? Probably because it has become a non-issue in most other facets of their lives. There's a difference between maintaining cherished and beloved traditions and stubbornly lagging about thirty years behind the times socially, and I think it's the rank-and-file church membership rather than the church leadership (at least in America) who are most to blame for their ignorance, apathy, stubbornness and (however unintentional) hurtfulness toward homosexuals.

HEAR HEAR!!!!

WHY do we have to behave like this? or isn't our mission to homosexuals as well as anyone else?

At the very least, the church surely SHOULD be known for its love and compassion extended to all (oooer Missus, no, don't laugh, really...).

How DARE we presume we can take on judgement?

In fact, how dare we assume that our (as 'the Church') opinion matters a flying... whatever to The World?

Ooh yes, in an ideal world, it SHOULD. But while we're pontificating, people are getting depressed, dying of AIDS and going without the support Jesus would surely give them were He around in person.

?

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hooker's trick said
quote:
Actually, the Anglican Communion recognises two Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist, as ordained my Christ himself) and 5 other sacramental rites.

I don't know where the anglican communion decided this ( it is unusual to for it do any deciding) certainly article 25 (Nightlamp has hurridly rubbed the dust of his BCP) of the church of England makes no such distinction but I accept you may well know more about this (brief search through the net didn't help).

One of my objections to seeing Marriage as a sacrament is that is limiting a sacrament to only a part of the church (ie those who want to be married) along with ordaination.
It seems to imply that an ordained married person is several steps up the ladder than a single lay person.
I expect to be corrected ,oh well

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nightlamp:
In the Roman catholic Tradition it is but formally in the CofE(see BCP)it is not a sacrament although I am aware that some in the Anglican (Episcopal tradition) would hold it be so. The only two sacraments are formally in the Church of England are Baptism and the eucharist.

This is true for the Presbyterian Churches as well, as per the Westminster Confessions.

An interesting side note--the Westminter Confessions also make a clear distinction between the moral laws of the Old Covenant and the Ceremonial laws--only the moral laws are binding upon Christians. A plain-test reading of the Confessions seems to say that the moral laws are contained entirely within the 10 Commandments themselves.

Sieg

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools