Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Rotku

Tradition? Social conditioning? I've heard far too many people with the opinion that if you're not married in a church it's not a proper wedding.

But if you think that the only proper weddings are the ones held in churches, then chances are that religion holds are least some value in your life. You may not be a weekly church goer, but you would have some knowledge of some faith, and chances are you would be married in the religion you're familiar with. People who strongly disagree with religion - or those who are simply ambivalent about it - probably don't think that the only proper weddings are the ones performed in churches, because chances are religion plays little to no role in their lives.

Originally Posted by Chandos the Red

I think it's fair to say that people of the same faith may disagree, even those who attend the same church ... I'm sure in the Catholic Church one is not supposed to use birth control but many Catholics do anyway and still receive the sacraments.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but actually the Catholic Church bans all forms of contraception, so even something like a condom is against the rules. However, it is one thing to disagree with a point on a religion, rather than disagree with a basic principle of a religion. The reason I don't think that your example is a particularly good one is because the Catholic Church prohibits contraception, but does not prohibit heterosexual sex. That would be the equivalent comparison. (And technically the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality is it's OK to be homosexual, it's just not OK to engage in any homosexual behavior - which is kind of like saying it's OK to be a fish, but not OK to swim.)

Anyway, my larger point was simply this: If you want separation of church and state, then that has to cut both ways. That means that if you are a public official you have to marry anyone who wants to get married and who also meet the marriage laws of the state. On the other hand, churches are free to impose rules above and beyond the state regarding who they will and will not marry. If a particular person has a problem with that, then perhaps that person should seek out a church more in line with their views.

[Chandos the Red]

NOG - Now you are saying something completely different than the issue I addressed in my post. If you go back, you will see that the issue I commented on was "attending" the church, not if a priest should perform the ceremony. Like you, I believe it should be up to the individual church whether or not to perform the ceremony of a gay marriage. The priest can work it out with the Pope later, or expain to the couple why he would not perform a marriage.

[Saber]

I'm sorry, but you can't have a gay wedding in a church and not be said to be flaunting your relationship

Because gay people who are religious and want a regular old marriage don't exist?

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Saber

Because gay people who are religious and want a regular old marriage don't exist?

No, it's because from the church's perspective regular old marriage doesn't exist for homosexual couples.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

No, it's because from the church's perspective regular old marriage doesn't exist for homosexual couples.

While this may be true, it still doesn't mean that having a gay marriage in a church is equivalent to flaunting your relationship. A gay couple married in a church no more flaunts their relationship than a heterosexual couple married in a church.

[T2Bruno]

While this may be true, it still doesn't mean that having a gay marriage in a church is equivalent to flaunting your relationship. A gay couple married in a church no more flaunts their relationship than a heterosexual couple married in a church.

Ummm... most religions view homosexual intercourse as a sin, even an abonimation. Having a gay couple married in the church would be akin to having a prostitute working in the rectory.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

It is flaunting the relationship to the Church. And yes, I agree it's just as much a flaunting as a heterosexual couple doing the same, but the Church has no objection to a heterosexual couple.

Basically, it's about akin to you 'flaunting' your existence to Tal by posting here. Since Tal has no objection to your existence, it's meaningless. On the other hand, if Tal strongly objected to your very existence, your posting here may be somewhat troublesome.

Looking back, I think our problem may be a disagreement on the definition of "flaunting". To avoid further confusion, I'd define "flaunting" here as making something blatantly obvious, not necessarily doing it in a way intended to cause objection.

[Chandos the Red]

It is flaunting the relationship to the Church.

It depends on the Church. Not every church is like the Southern Baptist Church.

would be akin to having a prostitute working in the rectory.

Now what do you have against prostitutes? IMO, prostitutes should be able to attend church just like anyone else.

Ummm... most religions view homosexual intercourse as a sin, even an abonimation.

There are some religions that view ANY kind of sexual intercourse as a "sin." Look at the example of the Shakers. How many are left today? 4. That's what happens in a sexually repressive religion. But the Catholics are smart in that that they don't allow birth control. They know how to build a church membership. If you were to say that in a mostly gay church it's hard to build the base (for obvious reasons), it would be easy to see why it would be discouraged.

[T2Bruno]

I didn't say "attending" Chandos -- I said "working." Now, granted, the number of young males attending church may go up and, if the church gets a cut, the revenues may improve for the church.

... this reminds me of the Fosterites in Stranger in a Strange Land.

[Chandos the Red]

Now, granted, the number of young males attending church may go up

...especially Congressmen and Senators. Governors probably hang out in eHarmony, looking for "soul mates" instead.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Originally Posted by Chandos the Red

It depends on the Church. Not every church is like the Southern Baptist Church.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How is it less flaunting in a northern Protestant church? Either way, you're asking the Church to host and officiate a ceremony entirely dedicated to the recognition of the relationship. That's just about as flaunting as you can get and avoid criminal charges.

[Chandos the Red]

What I meant was, it depends on the church (I meant exactly that):

On a range of policy issues, Mainline Protestant clergy are generally more supportive of LGBT rights than the general population," according to a report released last week from the progressive think tank Public Religion Research.

The report says that 67 percent of Mainline clergy support hate crimes legislation; 66 percent support workplace protections for gays and lesbians; 55 percent support gay and lesbian adoption rights; 45 percent support the ordination of gays and lesbians with no special requirements (like celibacy). One third support same-sex marriage and another third support civil unions, meaning that only a third doesn't think that gays and lesbians should have full civil partnership rights.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennif..._b_207068.html

Religion" is not a monolith, especially in the United States. There are religious leaders who are for gay and lesbian rights and they are voicing their support in the pulpit.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennif..._b_207068.html

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Maybe you missed the sentence after the one you quoted:

And yes, I agree it's just as much a flaunting as a heterosexual couple doing the same, but the Church has no objection to a heterosexual couple.

My point with that is that the act flaunts the relationship whether it's approved of or not. It's just that approved of relationships don't cause any controversy when they're flaunted.

[Chandos the Red]

It's just that approved of relationships don't cause any controversy when they're flaunted.

Now, I'm not sure what you are saying. Maybe neither of us are sober.

[Saber]

To flaunt something is to show it proudly in order (usually) to contradict something... so a heterosexual couple would not flaunt their marriage if it were an accepted thing.

–verb (used without object)
1. to parade or display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly.
2. to wave conspicuously in the air.

(from dictionary.com)

Unless the heterosexuals are waving each other in the air when getting married, they are not flaunting their marriage.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

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.

[T2Bruno]

We had a blue moon last night....

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

Having a gay couple married in the church would be akin to having a prostitute working in the rectory.

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

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

[Chandos the Red]

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.

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?

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

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.

[T2Bruno]

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

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Chandos the Red

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?

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

Originally Posted by Chandos the Red

And is that a valid question that a clergyman would ask himself?

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.

[Chandos the Red]

Surely the religious community would be a better gage than a gamers site.

Wow, that was informative.

[pplr]

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).

[Saber]

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

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?