The first openly gay Episcopal bishop told a Los Angeles gathering yesterday that the church should begin mending divisions over the issue of same-sex marriage by getting out of the civil marriage business altogether.
During a visit to St. Michael and All Angels Church, the Rev. Gene Robinson said he favored the system used in France and other parts of Europe in which civil marriage – performed by government officials – is completely separate from religious vows. In the United States, the civil and religious ceremonies often are combined by the cleric signing the government marriage license.
“In this country, it has become very confusing about where the civil action begins and ends and where the religious action begins and ends, because we have asked clergy to be agents of the state,” said Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire.
[i]”In this country, it has become very confusing about where the civil action begins and ends and where the religious action begins and ends, because we have asked clergy to be agents of the state,”[/i]
That’s because in “God we trust” or something about our history,or somethings having to do with the role of the “Creator” and not just the State, if you remember, Gene.
[blockquote]The church is infringing on the secular society and trying to enforce its beliefs onto the entire culture,” he said. “If we can get these two things separated, we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages.[/blockquote] Well Gene, let’s look at this reasoning.
1. So, it’s not a role of the church to get involved in social issues or is it just allowed to do this when it advocates for liberal ones? Should Integrity have opposed Proposition 8? I think we have a double standard here.
2. Separating civil and religious ceremonies would mean that you could change the BCP to your liking wouldn’t it? It would mean that the sanctions of the church would no longer have an effect on civil marriages and anything folks in society wanted, for example, polygamy ect. could be legislated without “interference” from the meddling church. What you are saying V. Gene is that the church should get out of the morality business and get on with blessing immorality.
Robinson is only suggesting this to keep the peace. He may be hoping for one of the possible unintended consequences: if the roles of the State and Religion are severed, eventually Religion will have no influence on civil marriage at all. That would set the stage for proponents of gay marriage to press their case.
Recently, in another forum I commented on something similar:
[blockquote] Just wanted to mention what should be understood as the central issue in the debate: the State [as an abstraction] needs to sanction marriage (by licensing, etc.) because children born to a marriage (or adopted by a married couple) inherit their parents’ property. The State regulates all inheritance. There is no other reason for the State to be involved, contrary to some of the current arguments being made.
In most Christian denominations deeming marriage a sacrament, the couple (man and woman) being married are considered to give the sacrament to each other (not sure about other religions — maybe someone else can fill that in), but that is separate from the legal marriage.
A clergyperson is usually licensed by the State to officiate at the marriage ceremony, because he/she is a representative of the State with respect to documents declaring the marriage valid. So the clergy actually have a dual role in religious weddings: as representative of the spiritual tradition, and as representative of the State.
In the larger scheme of things marriage is technically neither a “right” nor a “rite”, it is a “regulation”. Here’s the crux of the matter: the State has an interest in regulating heterosexual behavior — by licensing civil marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman — because that’s where babies come from. That is where the inheritance angle I mentioned previously comes in…children, as well as other family members, are automatically defined as heirs.
Since homosexual behavior does not result in babies (babies conceived using turkey basters or acquired by adoptions still involve a child that is outcome of the union of a man and a woman, and do not qualify as products of homosexual behavior), the State has absolutely no interest in regulating the behavior of a homosexual pair, male or female, committed or otherwise.
In our medicalized age, in which adopted children are increasingly asking for information about their birth parents so they can have more understanding of their medical history, biology will most likely ultimately triumph over the attempt to change the culture. [/blockquote]
If I were a pessimist, I would say that secularism wins either way…gay marriage being entirely a concern of the State with no input from Religion, or DNA vs. culture.
#3. New Pilgrim,
[blockquote]Robinson is only suggesting this to keep the peace. He may be hoping for one of the possible unintended consequences: if the roles of the State and Religion are severed, eventually Religion will have no influence on civil marriage at all.[/blockquote]
I belive I stated this in #2. (2). My only disagreement with you here is that the consequences are not unintended they are very deliberate.
#4. Dcn Dale,
Let’s just call it independent invention…I was still composing my comment and didn’t know you had posted one, or I would have backed up your point in writing. I was looking beyond the BCP to the wider society, though. Re your disagreement with me: I only suspect what Robinson has in mind and phrased my thought accordingly, thus appearing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you know something I don’t?
I look at the end result. This is part of an “inch by inch” agenda. In a way, it is like a chess game. V. Gene Robinson is moving his knight with this proposition but he is also uncovering his rook which is the real threat.
#6. Dcn Dale,
Point taken. I think the two of us just have different perspectives. Nominalism/Realism, maybe? (I confess to having an academic background in social science, engineering, and natural science, with a considerable interest in the humanities.)
Ah yes. Because VGR, Susan Russell, etc. cannot be endorsed to their ego’s delight, just, well….just cancel out the meanings and means of marriage that the majority of society has functioned with for over 400 years on this Continent.
Aren’t these whining egomaniacal sorts the same people that you would NOT have hung out with in High School, invited to your wedding, or over to dinner, and yet they want to normalize themselves into your life? Why have we let them take over our Church, then? Because the ego boost of smells and bells Episco-idolatry is a better jolt than the chat stew of UCC and MCC combined.
Is not VGR married? Did not that ceremony take place in a church? Who signed VGR’s marriage license? Did he have his cake and eat it too….now he would deny that privilege to others…my, my……yep – from his mouth to our ears….now we are enlightened….
That’s because in “God we trust†or something about our history,or somethings having to do with the role of the “Creator†and not just the State, if you remember, Gene. M
+Gene may be aware that ‘In God We Trust’ wasn’t put on coins until 1864 and did not become the motto of the U.S. until 1856. He is also probably aware of the meaning of “Creator” in 1776 and the difference that conservatives attach to it today.
Separating civil and religious ceremonies would mean that you could change the BCP to your liking wouldn’t it?
The Church has revised the BCP many times since its 1649 inception.
It would mean that the sanctions of the church would no longer have an effect on civil marriages and anything folks in society wanted,
…
just cancel out the meanings and means of marriage that the majority of society has functioned with for over 400 years on this Continent.
Religious marriage is entirely meaningless in the context of the State. The priest, rabbi, whatever is simply acting as an agent of the State and subject to it’s laws.
Since homosexual behavior does not result in babies (babies conceived using turkey basters or acquired by adoptions still involve a child that is outcome of the union of a man and a woman, and do not qualify as products of homosexual behavior), the State has absolutely no interest in regulating the behavior of a homosexual pair, male or female, committed or otherwise.
A specious argument since the State has established interests outside of childbirth. Otherwise, infertile couples or those beyond the age of fertility could not be married by the State.
Wow. +Gene really brings the haters out. It seems that basic civic, basic logic and even history are rewritten to explain away these screeds.
Is not VGR married?
+Gene entered into a civil union. Gay marriage is not permitted in NH.
Did not that ceremony take place in a church?
It did not.
Who signed VGR’s marriage license?
The license for Civil Union was signed by the Justice of the Peace who conducted the civil ceremony.
Did he have his cake and eat it too….now he would deny that privilege to others…my, my……yep – from his mouth to our ears….now we are enlightened….
Well, I wouldn’t argue that you are enlightened 😉
Aren’t these whining egomaniacal sorts the same people that you would NOT have hung out with in High School, invited to your wedding, or over to dinner
I am glad to see that Choir Stall is applying the same standards used by Jesus to determine whom He would ‘hang out’ with 😉
Brian from T19,
[i]Wow. +Gene really brings the haters out. It seems that basic civic, basic logic and even history are rewritten to explain away these screeds.[/i]
Gene “brings the haters out” because his actions are in defiance of the Church and our creeds. He “brings the haters out” because he is living a life that is not by any means exemplary of the teachings of Christ. Gene Robinson is seen by many to be a “savior” to the Episcopal Church, when in point of fact, his consecration has done more to tear the Church apart.
[blockquote] French marriage rates are 45 percent below U.S. figures. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, the marriage rate in France was 4.3 per 1,000 people, compared with 5.1 in the United Kingdom and 7.8 in the United States. The only European countries with rates lower than France’s were Belgium, at 4.1, and Slovenia, with 3.3.
The Washington Post[/blockquote]
Yeah, that sounds like a great country to emulate.
jric777
Gene “brings the haters out†because his actions are in defiance of the Church and our creeds. He “brings the haters out†because he is living a life that is not by any means exemplary of the teachings of Christ. Gene Robinson is seen by many to be a “savior†to the Episcopal Church, when in point of fact, his consecration has done more to tear the Church apart.
Your post proves my points above. Your statements, while subjective, are based in fact or opinion. The people I mention above all used falsehood to support their arguments. Almost everything they stated was demonstrably false.
I’d like to ask Brian to clarify two things for me – and to use verifiable, cited sources, not opinions.
1) What is the difference between the meaning of the term “Creator” as used in 1776, and as used today? Please explain.
2) How does the fact that the BCP has gone through revisions since 1549 (I presume your “1649” was a typo) (most of which were done by the CofE, the originating jurisdiction) justify making what many consider to be specious changes (by individual provinces, not by assent of the entire Anglican Communion) now?
from [url=http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_fortunato20_04-20-09_LNDVH2F_v9.3e65763.html ]here[/url] in today’s [i]Providence (RI) Journal[/i]:
It is crucial to remember that we are first, last and always a secular state because our Constitution guarantees liberty of conscience and prohibits the establishment by government officials of any religion or any requirement of religious belief to hold public office. Despite this, however, the state has entered into an alliance with appropriately ordained members of various religions to permit them to perform marriage ceremonies that will be considered lawfully valid by civil authorities; but it is more noteworthy that our secular state excludes religious authorities from any role in dissolving a marriage.
When two people divorce, even though their marriage may have been performed by a cleric of some religious organization, only the secular authority in the person of a family court judge can make the significant personal and societal decisions regarding the welfare of any children and the division of property.
Instead of getting the church out of marriage, why not get the state out of marriage?
Brian: Reading this thread, it came to mind a discussion I had with a Muslim woman several years ago. In a class I was teaching, I used a common cliché that mentioned the prophet Mohammad. I realized that I just may have crossed a cultural boundary, so I explained that the saying probably came from Shahrazad. The woman said she knew of a cross cultural saying in her country. It was: Christian Marriage. This meant that the Muslim husband not only had a traditional view of marriage, but it was monogamous and lasted until death do them part. She also expressed the concept of true love, loyalty and devotion and of course procreation. After the class, I happily showed her the text of Ephesians 5:25-33 to explain how I understood Christian marriage to be defined. It is funny that I have more commonality with this woman than the progressive side of TEC. Conservatives are not haters as you may cast them. They just want marriage grounded on reason.
#10, 11,12,13 and 16 Brian from T19,
[blockquote]Wow. +Gene really brings the haters out[/blockquote]
He also brings out the serial posters like you. Wink Wink.
Clint
1. There are many sources for you to look at that show that our nation was not founded on any religion. The idea of a Creator was an idea that Creation was done by a Creator and that that Creator gave us rights (as long as we were white, male and had land). But as for some examples:
1796 Treaty with Tripoli Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
…
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson
…
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson
…
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
…
“We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bands,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.” – Freedom From Religion Foundation
How does the fact that the BCP has gone through revisions since 1549 (I presume your “1649†was a typo)
it was.
(most of which were done by the CofE, the originating jurisdiction) justify making what many consider to be specious changes (by individual provinces, not by assent of the entire Anglican Communion) now?
Times change and the BCP changes. It is different in almost every Province. As for ‘specious changes,’ just speak to any defender of the 1928 BCP
They just want marriage grounded on reason.
Outside of religion/morality, there is absolutely no rational reason for being opposed to same-sex marriage. None.
#23. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]Outside of religion/morality, there is absolutely no rational reason for being opposed to same-sex marriage.[/blockquote]
OK, I’ll go with the religion/morality thingy and I’ll give you the rest.
#19 How about getting the notion of “license” out of marriage and the quaint, European notion of a “notarized contract” back into every civil union, of which marriage would be a sub-set.
#23 Is it fair to restate your post along the lines of: It’s hard to justify opposition to same-sex civil unions. The opposition of many/most concepts of morality/religion to same-sex marriage _is_ reasonable.
Brian,
Outside of religion/morality, there is absolutely no rational reason for being opposed to a marriage of two men, two women and a bird. None.
Brian,
Unless I’m very much mistaken, 1776 is NOT 1796:
“1796 Treaty with Tripoli…..”
And you say “There are many sources for you to look at”, but you don’t cite them. In my experience, this is considered to be making an ad hominem argument. It’s not up to me to provide proofs; you are the one who stated that “He is also probably aware of the meaning of ‘Creator’ in 1776 and the difference that conservatives attach to it today.” Simply saying “There are many sources for you to look at that show that our nation was not founded on any religion” is simply rhetoric, not fact.
And, you state “Times change and the BCP changes” – without providing any factual basis (e.g. cited authorities) for your statement. Again, I call for you to demonstrate that your statement is grounded in historical events and documents, not opinions.
#25 Cole argues that marriage should be based on reason. Wh9le it is not unreasonable for a person of faith to base a decision on religion/morality, it is not a position based on reason.
#26 Really? Are we still stuck on this? The rational reason for being opposed to polygamy and bestiality are legitimate State interests.
You and Br Michael are birds of a feather on this one-pardon the pun 😉
Uh Clint
I don’t have time to research the vast documentation of common knowledge or to provide you with a parallel version of the various BCPs. Please feel free to discount me and every other legitimate source relating to the Founding Father’s Deism. I don’t mind.
#20 Kudos, Cole!
I appreciate your explanation of marriage. It is well thought out and intriguing.
“De-conflating” marriage and civil unions at this point is sort of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Which is too bad.
#28, Yes, probably 2/3 of the American people are still stuck on this.
There are no legitimate State interests in being opposed to polygamy and bestiality.
The interest of the State in promoting a relationship model most closely related to the ideal of raising children in a household with one father and one mother is entirely rational, and backed by extensive sociology.
#28. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]Wh9le it is not unreasonable for a person of faith to base a decision on religion/morality, it is not a position based on reason. [/blockquote]
How can something that is “not unreasonable” not be based on “reason”?
#28, Yes, probably 2/3 of the American people are still stuck on this.
I find it hard to believe that 66% of all Americans are that ignorant of the facts, but you could be right.
Inheritance. That’s the main reason for State interest in polygamy. This is backed by extensive legal opinion.
The interest of the State in promoting a relationship model most closely related to the ideal of raising children in a household with one father and one mother is entirely rational, and backed by extensive sociology.
There are exactly zero sociological studies of raising children in a household with same-sex married parents. In addition, the argument for children is specious as not all marriages have children.
Sorry, Brian, but you need to work on your math – that would be 33% of Americans that are ignorant of the facts.
“Inheritance,” whatever you mean by that, establishes no compelling interest for the State to violate the civil rights of Americans to organize themselves into polygamous unions.
As to your last point, read what I wrote more carefully: the ideal of raising children in a household with one father and one mother is unquestioned (except, of course, for those who think public policy has to validate their sexual peccadilloes). Whether any particular marriage (the real kind) generates children is irrelevant to the general point.
RE: #13:
Brian from T19:
There is surely a difference between the misguided and unenlightened sinners that the Lord graced at a table, and the petulent, self-satisfied sinner types that Jesus called ‘white-washed tombs”, “adulterous generation”, and “blind guides”…all oddly found absent from Jesus’ table while they were busy running the Church into the ground. Do you find any examples of such Jewish Churchmen invited to eat with the Lord…or sought out BY the Lord to eat with?
Thank you #30 jrc777
I also might add that the woman I referred to is now a professor at a Mideast University. I’m sure her exposure to many of my Anglican friends here in Pittsburgh gave her the comfort to preach interfaith understanding and tolerance to her students.
i would be curious briant19 how you feel about polygamy and consenting incest partners being allowed to marry; i assume that you would support these as well? the one thing i hear from the gay supporters is that it is all about love and fairness; if that is true then no type love should be excluded and i really haven’t heard any of these other type relationships being endorsed by those who wish to tear down traditional marriage. i mean what would be the point of marriage at all? it seems to me that allowing everyone to marry who or what they wish would render all marriage meaningless; anyone can leave their belongings to whoever they wish as it is…
i would be curious briant19 how you feel about polygamy and consenting incest partners being allowed to marry; i assume that you would support these as well?
I have no personal problem with polygamy (nor did the OT for that matter), but I believe that the inheritance issues are a valid reason for the State to prevent it. As for consensual incest, I believe that the State also has good reason to prevent that due to blood issues
[blockquote]As for consensual incest, I believe that the State also has good reason to prevent that due to blood issues [/blockquote]
Sort of like AIDS? Your reasoning in your post shows a complete lack of moral compass.
[i]I have no personal problem with polygamy (nor did the OT for that matter)[/i] — please find me that paragon of polygamy that the Bible upholds or defends. What polygamy family does not have their jealousies and envies, their faults, and their failings highlighted. Even the torah contains a criticism of the practice — the bit about firstborn sons inheriting no matter the husbands love of the mother. I think you’ll discover that the OT contains a critical view of polygamy much as it and the New Testament does slavery.
#40
You go, girl.
“In this country, it has become very confusing about where the civil action begins and ends and where the religious action begins and ends, because we have asked clergy to be agents of the state.”
What’s confusing about it?
#36 –
if i’m not mistaken, weren’t the “whitewashed tombs” in matthew’s account describing those who “outwardly appear righteous to others” but “have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness”? i can think of some people like that, who claim to be holding to a strict biblical account, yet neglect these very things; they could use some internal cleaning of their own….
Re: polygamy — the FLDS cult is using their variant of polygamy to oppress women and sexually exploit minors. definitely some state interest in opposing that!
Phil,
There are good reasons to object to both bestiality and polygamy. One is based on mutual consent, and the other is based on property. Until you can convince me that bestiality isn’t a form of rape and coercion, it remains a red-herring. Further monogamy democratizes sex and is a better way of ensuring a non-violent society. The anthropological evidence indicates that polygamous societies tend to be more patriarchal and violent – especially toward women. You may have a different opinion, but I suggest submitting evidence. Evidence in this country (given the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints) seems to indicate a high level of coercion in polygamous societies.
No. 46 et al – Your reasonable points about whether or not the state should permit polygamy and/or bestiality fall into the “public goods” category of arguments for OR against other arrangements such as gay marriage vs. marriage between a man and a woman. Here it is asserted that the state does have the privilege of endorsing and recognizing certain arrangements and not doing the same of others.
Re: #44
Yes, Young Adult. Underline “faithfulness”. That’s faithfulness to the designs of God, not of man. Justice, likewise, is based on God’s designs and priorities rather than the revisions of that design by humanity. And, while we all need mercy, but Jesus did not spill indulgence out as a substitute for mercy.
I was taught in law school that the state’s interest in regulation of marriage was for the support and welfare of children. Inheritance laws were there to regulate devolution of property where no desire of the grantors were expressed before death. But marriage was not regulated by the state for inheritance reasons, per se.
Now, the fact that some marriages are childless and elder marriages are obviously not expected to encompass children is irrelevant. The law is there to take care of possibilities, not just actualities or probabilities. With heterosexuals there is always a natural possibility of children; with homosexuals, there is not. (Modern science has thrown a wrench into that rationale, obviously, except where homosexual men are concerned.) No one wants to think about this rationale, because it harkens back to the days of religion and even some current Roman Catholic dogma that sexual activity is solely for procreation, and otherwise sinful. TEC over the years has adopted the new theology that sex is actually for the comfort and pleasure of couples, and if by chance a child is created from it, then ok, that’s fine.
As a cradle Episcopalian, I’ve never thought sex was only for procreation; but I’ve also thought that TEC has gone over the line with its emphasis on the importance of sex to relationships.
And now, TEC apparently sees sexual activity (regardless of gender) as a God-given right for all to participate in – it is part of respecting “the dignity of every human being,” which came out of the civil rights movement, not our of real theological study, it appears to me.
We might want to re-examine some of these new matters in the BCP: is there dignity in anal sex that needs to be respected? Is there dignity in the spread of AIDS (which is still most prevalent through male homosexual activity) that needs to be respected? Is there dignity in the serial sexual lifestyle of the vast majority of homosexual men that needs to be respected? (Obviously, these questions can also be applied to heterosexuals, but heterosexuals are not lobbying the church to approve of such activity as good and right and to be respected.)
I know we can love the sinner and hate the sin. But can we respect the dignity of the sinner and when we see the heinous conduct – I don’t think so, and I would ask anyone, including our host, to show me where in Scriptures we are to uphold the dignity of anyone who participates in such conduct or supports such conduct – love him/her as a child of God – but call them dignified or say that they have dignity in the face of such conduct? Show me, please.
AND….HELLO TO ALL:
The bickering over who and what should be married ends with Jesus’ blessing of the marriage at Cana, and for the words regarding men and women: “the two shall become one”. The State needs to stay OUT of the meaning of marriage, as should revisionists who look for endorsement of their personal failures.
#48 — that’s why the first of the woes is against those “hypocrites” who “lock people out of the kingdom of heaven,” right? it is constantly surprising to me the extent to which i see some who are against lgbtq people so adamantly seeking to lock them out…. there are plenty “faithful” lgbtq episcopalians, just as there are many “faithful” heterosexual ones. both are equally in need of mercy and both should equally seek justice, and both do in some cases. but that just makes it all the more saddening to see when christians continue to lock others out.
and out of curiosity, which “personal failures” of the “revisionists” might you be referring to?
#49 — “We might want to re-examine some of these new matters in the BCP: is there dignity in anal sex that needs to be respected? Is there dignity in the spread of AIDS (which is still most prevalent through male homosexual activity) that needs to be respected? Is there dignity in the serial sexual lifestyle of the vast majority of homosexual men that needs to be respected? (Obviously, these questions can also be applied to heterosexuals, but heterosexuals are not lobbying the church to approve of such activity as good and right and to be respected.)”
oh please. you are quite right that all those questions can and should easily be turned on heterosexuals as well, but somehow the “serial sexual lifestyle” of heterosexuals or congenital aids given to an infant by drug abusing heterosexual mother or the anal sex (to say nothing of other “non-normative”) practiced by heterosexuals are always overlooked. why waste so much breath relentlessly attacking lgbtq people while at the same time neglecting the log in one’s own heterosexist eyes? i will tell you now, there are plenty of lgbtq people who wouldn’t dream of asking the to “approve of .. as good and right” the spread of aids or seriality, just as there are plenty of heterosexual who wouldn’t either.
what constantly saddens me the most is that most anyone under 30 (myself included) looks at discussions like so many above as little more that raging heterosexism in the guise of religion. want the church to appeal to young people? you don’t need fancy services or music — start by actually loving and not being intolerant of people who differ from you. that’s our biggest turn off, because it belies a different gospel than that of jesus’ love.
#51, sure plenty of those on the side of the world’s values aren’t asking that. What they’re asking, instead, is that the entire moral structure that speaks against those things be jackhammered away so that their own behavior can be exalted, and, if there’s collateral damage, too damn bad.
#51 – “start by actually loving and not being intolerant of people who differ from you.” You are equating intolerance with not approving and lauding homosexual conduct. Like many people below 30, and like most of us when we were below 30, you have not experienced enough to realize the serious and drastic effect that the changing of social mores has on a culture, a country and a people (always unintended consequences are there, as well as intended in this case, which aren’t so hot either). But because you have reached adulthood chronologically, you believe you are qualified and entitled to comment as if you had such experience and to denigrate others who disagree with you.
You will find that there is very little intolerance in this country or in our church for homosexual persons as people. On the other hand, there is very little tolerance for being around anyone who is in another’s face and makes demands for another to accept behavior that the other sincerely believes is wrong, regardless of what that behavior may be. And what is “raging heterosexualism?” Is that supporting marriage as an institution between a man and a woman; is supporting marriage (as defined as a sacrament in our church between a man and woman) disguising “raging heterosexualism” as religion? You do realize that marriage is defined in TEC as between a man and a woman and that it is one of the church’s sacraments? That is a basic tenet of Anglicanism. Or is “raging heterosexualism” just disagreeing with the lgbt agenda for TEC and not being able to see the “dignity” in much of lgbt behavior?
A number of comments and those in reference to them on this thread have been deleted by the Elves.
Please avoid crude or intemperate writing. If it helps count up to ten and preview your comment before posting.
#49, well that is a first for me. I’m not sure what definitions of “crude” or “intemperate” are being used here. But if the two of my comments which were deleted were within those definitions, I certainly apologize. I always re-read my posts before hitting the “submit” button, to ensure they are on point and make sense. So I’m pretty sure I was on point about marriage and the marriage sacrament. So, again, I apologize to all, the elves and especially our host if any of my comments fit within the definitions being used.
#39, i am still confused. it seems to me that you should support both cases and make judgements of neither since you don’t wish for us to make judgements of gay marriage. as far as blood issues, i am assuming you are talking about the likelyhood of birth defects but if that were the case then anyone with a genetic predisposition for any kind of defect would need to be limited as well. beyond that people have been making inheritance provisions for centuries, i would think twould be easy enough to resolve it. i also think that everyone who supports gay marriage should work toward the inclusion of these other arrangements, what makes their relationship type more moral than the other two? absolutely nothing.