Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KarenNC said:
Why? That hasn’t happened with interracial marriage, it hasn’t happened with divorcees, and those are both larger groups who have been facing the issue for decades. It hasn’t happened in the case of those churches who refuse to marry heterosexuals for any vast number of reasons including different religions, cohabitation, premarital sex, pregnancy, etc. Such a statement is fearmongering, not based in reasonable reality.
Click to expand...
The same-sex marriage activists seek anti-discrimination status which would put any institution who chooses not to marry them in a position where they might be sued. See the cases of the Catholic Charities Adoption Agnecies which had to close rather than risk litigation. The cases you mentioned are not analogous.
 
KarenNC said:
Why? That hasn’t happened with interracial marriage, it hasn’t happened with divorcees, and those are both larger groups who have been facing the issue for decades. It hasn’t happened in the case of those churches who refuse to marry heterosexuals for any vast number of reasons including different religions, cohabitation, premarital sex, pregnancy, etc. Such a statement is fearmongering, not based in reasonable reality.
Click to expand...
The same-sex marriage activists seek anti-discrimination status which would put any institution who chooses not to marry them in a position where they might be sued. See the cases of the Catholic Charities Adoption Agnecies which had to close rather than risk litigation. The cases you mentioned are not analogous.
 
KarenNC said:
Why? That hasn’t happened with interracial marriage, it hasn’t happened with divorcees, and those are both larger groups who have been facing the issue for decades. It hasn’t happened in the case of those churches who refuse to marry heterosexuals for any vast number of reasons including different religions, cohabitation, premarital sex, pregnancy, etc. Such a statement is fearmongering, not based in reasonable reality.
Click to expand...
The same-sex marriage activists seek anti-discrimination status which would put any institution who chooses not to marry them in a position where they might be sued. See the cases of the Catholic Charities Adoption Agnecies which had to close rather than risk litigation. The cases you mentioned are not analogous.
 
blessedtoo said:
Interracial marriages, divorced folks and the others you mentioned are not seeking special anti-discrimination status like the homosexual lobby is. If same-sex marriage were permitted, this group would be protected and the Church would have a struggle on her hands. Just look at what has happened to the Catholic Charities adoption agencies who had to close their doors to keep from being sued.
Click to expand...
Racial minorities have not sought anti-discrimination status? Has anyone told them, because they certainly believe they have done so? The federal and state governments believe they have done so.

Here is the story that I found on the Catholic Charities boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/25/they_cared_for_the_children/ and boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/

It would seem to indicate that it was actually pressure from within the Church that they not comply with state law in this one instance, not threat of a lawsuit from any external group, that caused the Catholic Charities to end its adoption services. If they were not willing to operate within the law, then they were entirely correct to close their operation. The closure forced by the Church officials was also in direct opposition to the board governing the organization.
 
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But homosexuals sodomizing each other is fine. Sin only applies to heterosexuals. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Can anyone possibly say anything more dumb, more absurd, more ridiculous than two or three on this thread have?

And then someone posts that they have finally found a sane person in this thread? :eek:

Homosexuality is only a sin if they act on it. Being gay (if there is actually an orientation for this disorder) is simply a cross to bear for the individual. We have all been given crosses to bear, some heavier than others.

Beam me up Scotty. There is no intelligent life in this thread! :rolleyes:
 
The cases you mentioned are not analogous.

It was just as illegal in this country at one time to allow an interracial marriage as it currently is to allow same-sex marriage and based on the same reasoning
religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm

Does the following reasoning sound familiar?
*“In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law.” 4 For example, in 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that “moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest arch angel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.” 5 In a most ironically named case “Loving v. Virginia” an inter-racial married couple was convicted of a felony under Virginia’s law in 1958. They could have received a 5 year prison term; instead, they were “merely” exiled from their home state for 25 years. Part of the judge’s ruling was:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.”*

The Catholic Church has not been required to marry individuals who, because of specific handicaps, cannot consumate the marriage and thus don’t meet the Church’s criteria for a valid marriage. People with disabilities have certainly sought anti-discrimination status.

I fail to see how the groups are not analogous for the purpose of this discussion.

The separation of church and state means that it is not up to the state to determine who a clergyperson may or may not unite in a religious marriage ceremony. The state can only determine who may enjoy certain legal rights in the civil contract of a legal marriage. It is not the religious authority that makes a church wedding legal in the eyes of the state–it is the authority vested in that clergy person to act as a representative of the state, not something which is automatically conferred. Conversely, the state cannot forbid any clergy person to unite two individuals in a religious marriage that they so desire, but that does not make it legally binding in the eyes of the state.

Note also that the Catholic Charities agency had already been placing children with gay couples for 8 years and that the board of the agency strongly protested the Church’s actions.
 
Contarini said:
I thought he was clear–but I always think Williams is clear and other people always find him confusing. . . .

His point is that we should not use Scripture to judge others without looking back at ourselves for ways in which we are unfaithful. In this instance, for instance, I as a conservative Anglican would say that the whole debate about homosexuality is an occasion for us to re-examine our views about sexual morality in general, particularly our horrifying tolerance for divorce and serial monogamy and our implicit acceptance of the culture’s lies about the nature of sexual identity and the purpose of marriage.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Did he mention any of that? The article does not relate the man explicitly said his church teaches homosexual acts are always wrong. Is that not the real debate here?
 
shadow_fire said:
Its taken me an unusually long time…but I finally found a sane person on this website 😃

Another thing people miss is that the bible has been translated and manipulated many times. Also I believe if I shared my honest to god no punches pulled opinion of the bible…well most of the users here would try to burn me.
Click to expand...
Come now. You must be too intelligent to think this.
 
KarenNC said:
Racial minorities have not sought anti-discrimination status? Has anyone told them, because they certainly believe they have done so? The federal and state governments believe they have done so.

Here is the story that I found on the Catholic Charities boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/25/they_cared_for_the_children/ and boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/

It would seem to indicate that it was actually pressure from within the Church that they not comply with state law in this one instance, not threat of a lawsuit from any external group, that caused the Catholic Charities to end its adoption services. If they were not willing to operate within the law, then they were entirely correct to close their operation. The closure forced by the Church officials was also in direct opposition to the board governing the organization.
Click to expand...
Racial minorities have this status as INDIVIDUALS, not as married couples. Legislation such as this does not give special rights to their unions, nor to the unions between the handicapped or divorced folks, or any other combination of unions you wish to mention.

We are getting off topic here. We can pick up on the Catholic Charities debate here
On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government’s demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as ''gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=103577&highlight=adoption
 
Sorry about all the duplicate posts! I was having problems last night submitting replies! Hopefully the mods will delete the duplicates!
 
It was just as illegal in this country at one time to allow an interracial marriage as it currently is to allow same-sex marriage and based on the same reasoning
Click to expand...
While most of the states had Jim Crow laws forbidding interracial marriage, there was never a federal law enacted to this end.

To get back on topic, these circumstances you cite still maintained the basic definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Race, physical impairments, and divorce status are not in any way analogous to sexual orientation.
 
KarenNC said:
Why? That hasn’t happened with interracial marriage, it hasn’t happened with divorcees, and those are both larger groups who have been facing the issue for decades. It hasn’t happened in the case of those churches who refuse to marry heterosexuals for any vast number of reasons including different religions, cohabitation, premarital sex, pregnancy, etc. Such a statement is fearmongering, not based in reasonable reality.
Click to expand...
Actually, the IRS was very actively going after the Mormon church in the 1970’s because of their racial policies regarding blacks. Several groups, such as the world church of the creator were denied tax and religious status because of their racial policies. Homosexual lobby groups certainly have a history of shrill legal harrassment of their enemies. The problem is your statements are illogical. Pre-martial sex and divorce are chosen behaviors. Homosexuals will go after the IRS to persue the tax status of groups that refuse to preform homosexual “marriages” on the basis of sexual discrimination. Going back to the issue of legal harrassment, homosexual lobby groups have deep pockets. They don’t need to win their discrimination suits, simply pursue small churches without many financial resources in courts until they have no choice but to cease existing. Considering these are the ideological offspring of 1980’s blood terrorism there is absolutely no reason to believe they won’t engage in such behaviors.
 
**Actually, the IRS was very actively going after the Mormon church in the 1970’s because of their racial policies regarding blacks. **

The Mormons don’t think they did lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml

public forum
Distorted History
Thursday, April 5, 2001

It’s one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson (Forum, March 11) claims that the federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the church’s position regarding blacks and the priesthood.

We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.

BRUCE L. OLSEN
Public Affairs Department
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

** Considering these are the ideological offspring of 1980’s blood terrorism there is absolutely no reason to believe they won’t engage in such behaviors.**

Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about?
 
blessedtoo said:
While most of the states had Jim Crow laws forbidding interracial marriage, there was never a federal law enacted to this end.
Click to expand...
Because regulation of marriage is the bthe concern of the individual state, not the federal government.
 
Thanks, blessedtoo.
You have spoken well and truthfully.
God bless you.
 
KarenNC said:
Is this hate group that advocates (and whose members do) killing non-whites the Church of the Creator you mention? adl.org/backgrounders/wcotc.asp
and
splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=219

rickross.com/reference/hale/hale14.html

Or is it this group (which does have 501 (c) 3 status)?
churchofthecreator.org/
Click to expand...
So what your saying is that if you disagree with the tenets of a religion it’s okay to deny it the status of other religions which you disagree with less? I’m not going to debate the merits of world church of the creator (or whatever they call it these days) beliefs. Nor am I going to bother with ideologically driven labels like “hate group” that serve as a bridge to make hypocritical ideals work for some people. The bottom line is that the world church of the creator took an official stand that it did not condone illegal behavior, and applied for religious tax status. The reasons this was not granted was due to their racial views. According to you that’s never happened, what you have presented is obviously false. As such your contention that homosexual lobbies would not attempt to use the IRS and the courts to attack their enemies is equally false. They have clear precedent for such attacks. Furthermore, given the constant attempts of homosexual lobby to use the courts to get around the legislature in their battle to undermind marriage it’s illogical to believe they wouldn’t use the same to continue to force the issue.
 
KarenNC said:
Because regulation of marriage is the bthe concern of the individual state, not the federal government.
Click to expand...
Full faith and credit could certainly turn this into a federal issue, and probably will in very short order.
 
KarenNC said:
**Actually, the IRS was very actively going after the Mormon church in the 1970’s because of their racial policies regarding blacks. **

The Mormons don’t think they did lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml

public forum
Distorted History
Thursday, April 5, 2001

It’s one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson (Forum, March 11) claims that the federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the church’s position regarding blacks and the priesthood.

We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.

BRUCE L. OLSEN
Public Affairs Department
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

** Considering these are the ideological offspring of 1980’s blood terrorism there is absolutely no reason to believe they won’t engage in such behaviors.**

Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...
As I understood the impetus for changing the status of priesthood of those of African decent, was the LDS church was about to open a temple in Brazil…since most of Brazil’s population is very mixed, the LDS church was about to embark on loosing a lot of members at this time…perhaps the dates of opening of the Brazilian temple and the “revelation” opening blacks to the priesthood should be looked at…it might be just another rumor…but it might have a factor.
 
**So what your saying is that if you disagree with the tenets of a religion it’s okay to deny it the status of other religions which you disagree with less? **

No, I am asking if this is the group that you meant. I had never heard of it before.

** Nor am I going to bother with ideologically driven labels like “hate group” that serve as a bridge to make hypocritical ideals work for some people. **

I think the actions of the leader, Matthew Hale, and some of his followers certainly speak for themselves in whether the label is correct. It is not one I made up–the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League certainly label it so, as well as many other things.

**The bottom line is that the world church of the creator took an official stand that it did not condone illegal behavior, and applied for religious tax status. The reasons this was not granted was due to their racial views. According to you that’s never happened, what you have presented is obviously false. **

Excuse me? Where have I said this has never happened? Until I can determine exactly which group you mean, how in the world can I even attempt to verify your statements about it? If you would provide supporting information, that might be helpful.

What I have presented is the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the AntiDefamation League, and an article from the Washington Post. If you would like to show in which particulars those groups are incorrect in their facts in the matter, I am all ears.

I tried to find the group’s website to see if it had any information on their IRS issues or, indeed, what they had to say for themselves about anything, but was unable to find one. As you seem to be much better acquainted with their positions, do you know the web address? The only one I have been able to find is www.wcotc.com, which is referenced in other articles, but is the second group I listed and that group has tax exempt status.

**As such your contention that homosexual lobbies would not attempt to use the IRS and the courts to attack their enemies is equally false. They have clear precedent for such attacks. **

Such as?

** Furthermore, given the constant attempts of homosexual lobby to use the courts to get around the legislature in their battle to undermind marriage it’s illogical to believe they wouldn’t use the same to continue to force the issue.**

And in what way other than the established legal system do you suggest that legal citizens of this country work to achieve political goals?

Perhaps you can answer this question, as I have yet to find someone who can do so. Exactly in what specific way does a monogamous, consenting adult homosexual relationship threaten or undermine any heterosexual marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top