S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Yes. She’ll be a Methodist Bishop by years end.
- Status
T
Trelow
Guest
And **** such as this is what led me to investigate the Catholic Church.
L
legeorge
Guest
Then it is an evil that God is using for Good! Hopefully this will cause many other Methodists to follow you Home!
God Bless Trelow!
S
snowman10
Guest
I have a question: If based on strictly secular premises, and on the basic freedoms set forth by the USA, shouldn’t civil unions be allowed?
I personally disagree with it because it is unnatural and an abomination towards God, but we are/supposed to be, a secular nation, devoid of Christian, Muslim, Jewish laws. I will never agree with homosexual marriage or behavior, but what about civil rights? It seems as if we are caught in a catch-22. But for a true Christian, they would say God first…nation second, or third after family…whatever. How should I feel about this?
DU
I personally disagree with it because it is unnatural and an abomination towards God, but we are/supposed to be, a secular nation, devoid of Christian, Muslim, Jewish laws. I will never agree with homosexual marriage or behavior, but what about civil rights? It seems as if we are caught in a catch-22. But for a true Christian, they would say God first…nation second, or third after family…whatever. How should I feel about this?
DU
W
wabrams
Guest
I think this is going to be the straw that broke the camels back regarding me switching to Catholicism.
S
snowman10
Guest
Ditto!
DU
S
snowman10
Guest
I just talked to a UMC pastor and asked him if he felt that the reversal of the conviction would open the doors to homosexual ordination and blessings of homosexual marriages and his answer was “NO” based on the Book of Discipline. He stated that the reason the conviction was overturned was on technicality becuase the Eastern PA conference did not define “self avowed practicing homosexuals”.
So what really happened was the UMC did not define a very obvious and clear statement, therefore causing a reversal. It seems awfully funny though and here is why:
The Book of Discipline says NO to self avowed practicing homosexuals in the clergy. And they stood by that during her first hearing and for that I applaud the UMC. However, now they have reversed it based on a technicality.
The UMC has now let a moral and ethical and theological law, no practicing homosexuals in the clergy, be overturned like a law in the US Courts. Since when does this type of law take a higher value than basic morality and laws previously stated?
DU
So what really happened was the UMC did not define a very obvious and clear statement, therefore causing a reversal. It seems awfully funny though and here is why:
The Book of Discipline says NO to self avowed practicing homosexuals in the clergy. And they stood by that during her first hearing and for that I applaud the UMC. However, now they have reversed it based on a technicality.
The UMC has now let a moral and ethical and theological law, no practicing homosexuals in the clergy, be overturned like a law in the US Courts. Since when does this type of law take a higher value than basic morality and laws previously stated?
DU
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
I don’t know how you should feel about about this, but there are good secular reasons not to allow civil unions–at least as they are commonly defined (basically an equivalent alternative to marriage). All societies establish normative institutions–that is why there are laws regulating the age of individuals getting married, the closeness of their relationship (no incest), and the number of spouses. By allowing civil unions/gay marriage, a society is redefining an institution that normalizes a number of functions (sexual relations, property rights and inheritance, population regeneration, child rearing, definition of family, etc.) and reduces it to one thing, sexual relations. This is problematic.
Now, if civil unions were defined as something COMPLETELY separate from marriage, a sort of strong legally binding buddy system with certain economic and legal privileges attached (the partners would be considered next of kin, would be given preference in legal decisions involving the other partner, etc.) and not intrinsically linked to intimacy (in other words, two sisters could form a civil union), that might be OK.
I’ve probably stirred up a hornets’ nest–this question and my response should probably be on another thread.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
You know walks like a duck, looks like a duck, probably IS a duck. Ms Stroud TOLD the Bishop she was a practicing homosexual in a ‘covenental’ relationship. The report on the case specified that they had genital sexual relations. Is that not enough?
As I said, hair splitting raised to an artform. Yes Ms Stroud not only admitted she was a lesbian but also said she knew this was against the rules in the Book of Discipline AND she knew she risked her position as ordained clergy. But they don’t think there is enough of a definition of ‘self avowed practicing homosexual’ to decide the case?
Quite honestly, I think they were looking for a reason to reinstate her. I understand this Methodist church was subject to some kind of PBS program where they followed the church over a period of time. For all we know Ms Stroud timed her ‘coming out’ to coincide with getting her cause the most coverage for a sympathetic audience.
Sadly I think this will have a schismatic effect on the church. The previous case ALMOST split them. Do you recall reading the Genreral Conference report on the Daumond (sp?) case? Same song difference verse.
Snowman, that church has lost its way. Come Home!
Lisa N
S
snowman10
Guest
Lisa N:
DU
I do not remember the General Conference on Karen Dammonn. Could you enlighten me a little please. Also, when do you see a schism? Does it seem the pastor I talked to was just trying to find a way to justify the action, even though he stated this was wrong and on our side as far as no homosexual clergy.
DU
- Status