TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Never had a doubt
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Never had a doubt - Page 2

post #31 of 54
11/22/09 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
Because the Church is not there solely as a place to "service people who want to get married." Can you see a young Christain couple going to a Rabbi and demanding that he marry them in his synagogue? No, they can't. That Rabbi can turn down ANYONE he doesn't want to marry. Even Jewish couples if he has reasons.
And that is exactly why there are still churches who will not marry black couples. There are still churches with all white membership and all black membership. So, there really is no difference between the two scenarios that she described.
What I find most ironic is that this group of christians has absolutely no scriptural evidence to oppose abortion and stem cell research. At the time the bible was written, the technology was not there for anyone to have to define when life begins, so to everyone life began as soon as a baby comes out...And now all of a sudden churches have become experts at pointing to when life begins, because science provided the technology for them to do so...
Reply
post #32 of 54
11/22/09 at 9:35pm
So you think that there should be a law that says that Rabbi has to marry that Christain couple in his place of worship just because they like the look of it? Because they want to be married there? And he should no say so in who he marries in his place?
Reply
post #33 of 54
11/22/09 at 9:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
It seems to me that your beef is with "conservative Christians." FYI Christians come in various political persuasions. I think you are trying to make Christians out to be bad guys as if they are all lumped together in one belief system, and that simply is not the case.

MLK, after all, was a Baptist preacher, aka CHRISTIAN!
Actually, that view is almost totally backward. It is the drafters and signers of this "declaration" that are doing the "lumping together in one belief system". Our issue stems from being, in fact, VERY aware of the difference.

They seem to have the idea that MLK being a christian, and they being christian, puts he and they on equal ideological footing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They represent the mindset of the very christians that fought MLK tooth and nail. The issue we are pointing out is that we are quite aware of the difference, while the declarers seem to think "MLK=hero...MLK=christian...We=christian...We=hero". Sorry, but that's just self deluding poppycock.
Reply
post #34 of 54
11/22/09 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
So you think that there should be a law that says that Rabbi has to marry that Christain couple in his place of worship just because they like the look of it? Because they want to be married there? And he should no say so in who he marries in his place?
No, not at all. I see no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple- they voluntarily attend the church and participate- if they don't like it they are welcome to leave and go to another church that accepts their choice of marrying someone of the same sex. That is how my atheist mind sees it, maybe because I didn't like my religion and chose to leave it so I have a hard time seeing how it can be problematic for others to do the same...
That is not what worries me in this case, but this group of Christians does say they will not mind the law- that is what worries me. I was simply pointing out though that refusing to marry a homosexual couple isn't any different than refusing to marry a black couple.
Reply
post #35 of 54
11/22/09 at 9:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
And that is exactly why there are still churches who will not marry black couples. There are still churches with all white membership and all black membership. So, there really is no difference between the two scenarios that she described.
What I find most ironic is that this group of christians has absolutely no scriptural evidence to oppose abortion and stem cell research. At the time the bible was written, the technology was not there for anyone to have to define when life begins, so to everyone life began as soon as a baby comes out...And now all of a sudden churches have become experts at pointing to when life begins, because science provided the technology for them to do so...
Actually, no one that I know of is trying to get anyone to do anything they don't want to do. There are also gay (and gay friendly) churches and religious institutions that would gladly perform wedding ceremonies. (Don't tell anyone, but it is, in fact, done all the time...they just don't get the benefits from the legal side). The issue is, always has been, still is, to get the states to recognize the marriage.

The only ones that may be required to perform a marriage would be something along the lines of a Justice of the Peace or County Clerk. They would either be have to marry anyone and everyone with legal standing, OR, no one at all.
Reply
post #36 of 54
11/22/09 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, no one that I know of is trying to get anyone to do anything they don't want to do. There are also gay (and gay friendly) churches and religious institutions that would gladly perform wedding ceremonies. (Don't tell anyone, but it is, in fact, done all the time...they just don't get the benefits from the legal side). The issue is, always has been, still is, to get the states to recognize the marriage.

The only ones that may be required to perform a marriage would be something along the lines of a Justice of the Peace or County Clerk. They would either be have to marry anyone and everyone with legal standing, OR, no one at all.
If the county clerk decides to refuse a marriage, then I do think it's very wrong, provided that the law makes it legal for homosexuals to marry. I thought the issue was a church marriage, which means nothing to the law so I don't think it's wrong for the church to refuse to marry someone for any reason.
Reply
post #37 of 54
11/22/09 at 11:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
If the county clerk decides to refuse a marriage, then I do think it's very wrong, provided that the law makes it legal for homosexuals to marry. I thought the issue was a church marriage, which means nothing to the law so I don't think it's wrong for the church to refuse to marry someone for any reason.
Actually, religious marriages have never been the issue. Honestly, gays get married in gay and gay friendly religious institutions all the time. One of the prettiest weddings I've ever been to was for a lesbian couple, both stage actresses. Everyone that attended held a colored creek stone through the ceremony, and then all those stones were put into a vase that is now on their coffee table. And they also had a sand ceremony, where they mixed the sand from both their home towns...it was so sweet.

The issue is recognition of the marriage by the state(s), so that legal benefits extended to married couples would apply as well, such as insurance for spouses, end of life abritrations for partners, etc.
Reply
post #38 of 54
11/23/09 at 4:41am
Separation of Church and State.

Equal rights for all.
Reply
post #39 of 54
11/23/09 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
Because the Church is not there solely as a place to "service people who want to get married." Can you see a young Christain couple going to a Rabbi and demanding that he marry them in his synagogue? No, they can't. That Rabbi can turn down ANYONE he doesn't want to marry. Even Jewish couples if he has reasons.

Hi,

I believe a rabbi should marry any couple in his synagoge if they are of jewish faith- regardless of their colour or political beliefs or wether they are homosexual or not. The jewish rabbi should be able to refuse a christian couple because that's not what he was trained in, it's not his profession.

Similarily a christian priest should marry all christian couples without prejudices. And of course a christian priest should only be required to perfirm christian marriages.

Because that is what this is about- denying marriage services to couples based on prejudieces concerning their sexual preferences which are non of the churches business in my opinion.

If a priest denied performing a wedding service to a mixed race couple there would be an outcry- but denying it to a same sex couple is OK? That doesn't make any sense to me.

regards,

Christinr
Reply
post #40 of 54
11/23/09 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
And that is exactly why there are still churches who will not marry black couples. There are still churches with all white membership and all black membership. So, there really is no difference between the two scenarios that she described.
What I find most ironic is that this group of christians has absolutely no scriptural evidence to oppose abortion and stem cell research. At the time the bible was written, the technology was not there for anyone to have to define when life begins, so to everyone life began as soon as a baby comes out...And now all of a sudden churches have become experts at pointing to when life begins, because science provided the technology for them to do so...
You've mentioned stem cell research twice now, and I can't let you perpetuate this falsehood. Most rational people (including Christians) are NOT opposed to stem cell research. They ARE opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Not all stem cells come from embryos and there is no problem in researching those that do not involve an embryo!

As someone pointed out, a minister or a church can deny marriage to anyone based on any reason they so choose. I'm sure that some black churches may not want to marry a white couple either. It cuts both ways, and it is part of our rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Just because you may think it is not politically correct doesn't erase those first amendment rights.

Abortion is a touchy issue. You can't tell me that a full term fetus should have absolutely no rights, but that all changes upon descending the birth canal! The problem for people against abortion is the knowledge that a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks gestation, and any way you cut it, abortion is painful to the fetus.
Reply
post #41 of 54
11/23/09 at 6:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
Hi,

I believe a rabbi should marry any couple in his synagoge if they are of jewish faith- regardless of their colour or political beliefs or wether they are homosexual or not. The jewish rabbi should be able to refuse a christian couple because that's not what he was trained in, it's not his profession.

Similarily a christian priest should marry all christian couples without prejudices. And of course a christian priest should only be required to perfirm christian marriages.

Because that is what this is about- denying marriage services to couples based on prejudieces concerning their sexual preferences which are non of the churches business in my opinion.

If a priest denied performing a wedding service to a mixed race couple there would be an outcry- but denying it to a same sex couple is OK? That doesn't make any sense to me.

regards,

Christinr
I guess we should throw away the first amendment then?

What you are discussing is a whole bunch of hypotheticals. I personally don't know of a single case where a mixed race couple has been denied marriage. But many churches have a requirement of pre-marital counseling, and therefore many ministers may not marry anyone who didn't go through counseling first. That is the RIGHT of that church and that minister.

As to same sex marriages, that is entirely within the right of a church and it's clergy to make that decision. Again, it is GUARANTEED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION. And whether I agree or disagree with that position is irrelevant, but I sure as hell don't want the First Amendment repealed!
Reply
post #42 of 54
11/23/09 at 6:56am
Quote:
Redefining marriage "would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."
Huh. I didn't know that love between two consenting adults who want to get married is destructive. You learn something new every day.
Reply
post #43 of 54
11/23/09 at 7:08am
To be clear, here is the part of the declaration that was quoted in Mike's original link:

Quote:
"[W]e will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act," the statement says, "nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
Mike seems to think that MLK would not support such a statement if he were alive today. I don't believe with any degree of certainty that he would or would not support such a statement. After all, he was a Baptist, and many Baptist leaders support this doctrine. MLK has been dead for over 40 years, since 1968, and many changes in our society have taken place since then. How can anyone alive now say what position MLK would take if he were alive today?

It is the doctrine of many (but not all) Christian denominations that sex before marriage is wrong, and/or homosexual relationships are against Biblical teaching. From that context, they are reaffirming the separation of church and state. They cannot be forced to bless any relationship they feel goes against their teachings. If you don't agree with them, then you don't belong in their church membership. Very simple. But if a law passes legalizing homosexual marriage, then they still have every right to not bless that union. What is the problem with that, and how does that affect YOU???
Reply
post #44 of 54
11/23/09 at 7:27am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
But if a law passes legalizing homosexual marriage, then they still have every right to not bless that union. What is the problem with that, and how does that affect YOU???
How very odd that question would come up. That's the very question the gay community has been asking for over a decade. How would giving legal status to their marriages affect anyone but them? Why is it so important to deny them this that the christians have resorted to lying and bearing false witness? How can they see a perceived sin as being so bad that it justifies sinning to stand against it.

No one knows what MLK would say today. The point being made is that these declarers, with their eagerness to control the lives of those "not worthy", would not have been among the marchers back in the day. They would have been just as eager to support the status quo then as they are now; the status quo that now is considered evil and unjust. I wouldn't mind them just trying to deny that their ilk were the very problem facing the civil rights movement, it's the fact that they are using the legacy of the brave people that stood for what they believe in to further the agenda of the very same bigotry those people stood against. Disgusting.
Reply
post #45 of 54
11/23/09 at 7:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
How very odd that question would come up. That's the very question the gay community has been asking for over a decade. How would giving legal status to their marriages affect anyone but them? Why is it so important to deny them this that the christians have resorted to lying and bearing false witness? How can they see a perceived sin as being so bad that it justifies sinning to stand against it.

No one knows what MLK would say today. The point being made is that these declarers, with their eagerness to control the lives of those "not worthy", would not have been among the marchers back in the day. They would have been just as eager to support the status quo then as they are now; the status quo that now is considered evil and unjust. I wouldn't mind them just trying to deny that their ilk were the very problem facing the civil rights movement, it's the fact that they are using the legacy of the brave people that stood for what they believe in to further the agenda of the very same bigotry those people stood against. Disgusting.
You can't know that as a certainty. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these signers actually marched with MLK! They have every right to practice and defend their religion, and I just don't understand how it affects YOU.

ETA: Giving legal status to a gay relationship is not the issue for these members of the clergy. Most don't care one way or the other about gay legal status. They are just saying they can't perform the ceremony because it goes against their church doctrine.

Seems to me you are making lots of assumptions that can't be authenticated based on one paragraph in a news article.
Reply
post #46 of 54
11/23/09 at 7:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
You can't know that as a certainty. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these signers actually marched with MLK! They have every right to practice and defend their religion, and I just don't understand how it affects YOU.

ETA: Giving legal status to a gay relationship is not the issue for these members of the clergy. Most don't care one way or the other about gay legal status. They are just saying they can't perform the ceremony because it goes against their church doctrine.

Seems to me you are making lots of assumptions that can't be authenticated based on one paragraph in a news article.
It's the nature of a bigot to be a bigot. If God can't change his nature, then mortal bigots certainly cannot change theirs. And if legal status is not the issue that concerns them, then why did they include all this;

Quote:
It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and redefine to please those who are powerful and influential.
No one has a civil right to have a nonmarital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.
It looks as though the law is all they are truly concerned about. Like I said, marriages are being performed, by clergy, and have been for years.
Reply
post #47 of 54
11/23/09 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It's the nature of a bigot to be a bigot. If God can't change his nature, then mortal bigots certainly cannot change theirs. And if legal status is not the issue that concerns them, then why did they include all this;



It looks as though the law is all they are truly concerned about. Like I said, marriages are being performed, by clergy, and have been for years.
"Bigot" is a word thrown around all too frequently without anything substantiating that allegation. Just because a clergyperson doesn't marry a specific couple, for whatever reason, doesn't make him/her a bigot.

First of all, the second paragraph you are quoting is not a part of the article you linked in your OP. However, this article is an interpretation of the declaration as written by the authors by Tom Strode & Michael Foust. This is an op-ed piece, not a manuscript of the Declaration.

Yes, marriages have been performed by clergy for centuries, but marriages don't have to be performed by clergy. If a clergyperson doesn't want to marry a specific reason, that doesn't deny a couple the ability to get married. They just have to find someone else to do it. As has been stated previously, there are many reasons that a particular clergy may not want to marry a particular couple:
1. Couple is not a member of that religion or congregation
2. Couple may not have attended premarital counseling.
3. Couple may not be legally divorced, or annulled in the eyes of the church (Catholic).
4. Or the clergy may just feel that the couple are incompatible to the point of not likely to have a lasting marriage.

Any of these reasons are legitimate reasons for that clergy not to perform a marriage ceremony. It has nothing to do with bigotry.
Reply
post #48 of 54
11/23/09 at 9:01am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
"Bigot" is a word thrown around all too frequently without anything substantiating that allegation. Just because a clergyperson doesn't marry a specific couple, for whatever reason, doesn't make him/her a bigot.
Agreed. But insisting that laws be created to oppress others they express hatefulness toward, even while claiming the freedom to ignore laws themselves, DOES make them a bigot.

Quote:
First of all, the second paragraph you are quoting is not a part of the article you linked in your OP. However, this article is an interpretation of the declaration as written by the authors by Tom Strode & Michael Foust. This is an op-ed piece, not a manuscript of the Declaration.
Uh no, it comes directly from their declaration itself, that I have posted a link for the .pdf of 2 times already. But, here it is again, so that no one has to go back looking for it.

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decd...eclaration.pdf

Quote:
Yes, marriages have been performed by clergy for centuries, but marriages don't have to be performed by clergy. If a clergyperson doesn't want to marry a specific reason, that doesn't deny a couple the ability to get married. They just have to find someone else to do it. As has been stated previously, there are many reasons that a particular clergy may not want to marry a particular couple:
1. Couple is not a member of that religion or congregation
2. Couple may not have attended premarital counseling.
3. Couple may not be legally divorced, or annulled in the eyes of the church (Catholic).
4. Or the clergy may just feel that the couple are incompatible to the point of not likely to have a lasting marriage.

Any of these reasons are legitimate reasons for that clergy not to perform a marriage ceremony. It has nothing to do with bigotry.
Marriage has been performed by clergy for gays for years, in gay and gay friendly places of worship. No one can tell them they can't, and they are married in the eyes of whatever deity they call their own. And those that don't want to perform such ceremonies, don't have to. But these people, with their insistence that laws be passed against it (from their declaration, verbatim, linked above) are going well past declining their services. They are seeking to either oppress others, or to jealously guard something they consider exclusively theirs.
Reply
post #49 of 54
11/23/09 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Agreed. But insisting that laws be created to oppress others they express hatefulness toward, even while claiming the freedom to ignore laws themselves, DOES make them a bigot.



Uh no, it comes directly from their declaration itself, that I have posted a link for the .pdf of 2 times already. But, here it is again, so that no one has to go back looking for it.

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decd...eclaration.pdf



Marriage has been performed by clergy for gays for years, in gay and gay friendly places of worship. No one can tell them they can't, and they are married in the eyes of whatever deity they call their own. And those that don't want to perform such ceremonies, don't have to. But these people, with their insistence that laws be passed against it (from their declaration, verbatim, linked above) are going well past declining their services. They are seeking to either oppress others, or to jealously guard something they consider exclusively theirs.
I completely agree with this paragraph:

Quote:
"[W]e will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act," the statement says, "nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
After reading the entire Declaration, there are parts of it I may not agree with, but I recognize the rights of the signers who do agree with it in its entirety to decline to participate in any practice they find that conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, I do agree with your statement regarding the insistance on the passage of laws.

It may surprise you that though I was raised as a Lutheran, I do not currently hold to the belief that Christianity is the only true religion, or even that religion is something other than a belief system created by man, though I do believe in intelligent creation.

I am against labeling people as "bigots" without a clear and definite proof of a belief system that examplifies that definition.
Reply
post #50 of 54
11/23/09 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
You've mentioned stem cell research twice now, and I can't let you perpetuate this falsehood. Most rational people (including Christians) are NOT opposed to stem cell research. They ARE opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Not all stem cells come from embryos and there is no problem in researching those that do not involve an embryo!

As someone pointed out, a minister or a church can deny marriage to anyone based on any reason they so choose. I'm sure that some black churches may not want to marry a white couple either. It cuts both ways, and it is part of our rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Just because you may think it is not politically correct doesn't erase those first amendment rights.

Abortion is a touchy issue. You can't tell me that a full term fetus should have absolutely no rights, but that all changes upon descending the birth canal! The problem for people against abortion is the knowledge that a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks gestation, and any way you cut it, abortion is painful to the fetus.
Yes, I meant embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can only be differentiated into the type of tissue that they came from: bone marrow, brain, blood, while embryonic stem cells can be differentiated into any type of tissue. So, while adult stem cells are used for research, that doesn't mean they replace the usefulness of embryonic stem cells. This is just semantics, and not essential to the point I was trying to make, which was, if a woman wants to sell her eggs she should have the right to, because an egg is a part of a woman, not a separate being, just like an embryo is still part of a woman and not a separate being and I am not sure how some people think they have the knowledge of when life begins to define it differently..shouldn't God be the only one with this kind of knowledge, since he is the only one who creates life?
Reply
post #51 of 54
11/23/09 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Yes, I meant embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can only be differentiated into the type of tissue that they came from: bone marrow, brain, blood, while embryonic stem cells can be differentiated into any type of tissue. So, while adult stem cells are used for research, that doesn't mean they replace the usefulness of embryonic stem cells. This is just semantics, and not essential to the point I was trying to make, which was, if a woman wants to sell her eggs she should have the right to, because an egg is a part of a woman, not a separate being, just like an embryo is still part of a woman and not a separate being and I am not sure how some people think they have the knowledge of when life begins to define it differently..shouldn't God be the only one with this kind of knowledge, since he is the only one who creates life?
My understanding is that cord blood is even better than embryos for stem cells, and it is routinely discarded. I would like to see cord blood collected and stored.

As to the part I bolded, you just made my argument for me. Since we don't know when life begins, why shouldn't we protect all embryos as a matter of precaution? Certainly we know that a 36 week fetus is viable, and with each passing day we can protect earlier premies, now as early as 25 weeks and maybe earlier. There may come a day when a uterus isn't necessary at all. Frankly all of this scientific "progress" frightens me. But I would argue in favor of protection rather than distruction.
Reply
post #52 of 54
11/23/09 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
My understanding is that cord blood is even better than embryos for stem cells, and it is routinely discarded. I would like to see cord blood collected and stored.
They actually have that option for parents to have the cord blood stored in case of a future illness and it costs like $2000..I saw a brochure like that in my doctor's office..But I agree they shouldn't be discarded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
As to the part I bolded, you just made my argument for me. Since we don't know when life begins, why shouldn't we protect all embryos as a matter of precaution?
My reason why, is because an embryo to me is part of a woman, so it's no different than a kidney she wants to donate or a lung...because IMO giving rights to an embryo is like taking away rights of a woman to her own body. It's just my opinion though...
Reply
post #53 of 54
11/23/09 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
"Bigot" is a word thrown around all too frequently without anything substantiating that allegation. Just because a clergyperson doesn't marry a specific couple, for whatever reason, doesn't make him/her a bigot.

First of all, the second paragraph you are quoting is not a part of the article you linked in your OP. However, this article is an interpretation of the declaration as written by the authors by Tom Strode & Michael Foust. This is an op-ed piece, not a manuscript of the Declaration.

Yes, marriages have been performed by clergy for centuries, but marriages don't have to be performed by clergy. If a clergyperson doesn't want to marry a specific reason, that doesn't deny a couple the ability to get married. They just have to find someone else to do it. As has been stated previously, there are many reasons that a particular clergy may not want to marry a particular couple:
1. Couple is not a member of that religion or congregation
2. Couple may not have attended premarital counseling.
3. Couple may not be legally divorced, or annulled in the eyes of the church (Catholic).
4. Or the clergy may just feel that the couple are incompatible to the point of not likely to have a lasting marriage.

Any of these reasons are legitimate reasons for that clergy not to perform a marriage ceremony. It has nothing to do with bigotry.

Exactly!

My brother was raised Catholic. But before he got married he hadn't been to mass in years. Then he pops up and wants married in the Catholic Church he grew up in. The priest almost didn't let him get married there. My mom had to do some strong convinceing. But it did work out and he does go to church regularly now (amazing how having children will get your butt back to church). Sure he would have not been happy if denied a wedding in that church, but really, no one to blame but himself. That priest had every right to deny it.

Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments. And the church doesn't go throwing their sacraments out to everyone regardless.
Reply
post #54 of 54
11/24/09 at 12:14am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I completely agree with this paragraph:



After reading the entire Declaration, there are parts of it I may not agree with, but I recognize the rights of the signers who do agree with it in its entirety to decline to participate in any practice they find that conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, I do agree with your statement regarding the insistance on the passage of laws.

It may surprise you that though I was raised as a Lutheran, I do not currently hold to the belief that Christianity is the only true religion, or even that religion is something other than a belief system created by man, though I do believe in intelligent creation.

I am against labeling people as "bigots" without a clear and definite proof of a belief system that examplifies that definition.
Oh cool. So we've actually been agreeing all along. I also feel they are entitled to their beliefs, and to express them. I draw the line at impressing them on others.

Not far from here at all is the international headquarters of the KKK. So, I hear bigot speech all the time, and once you've been exposed to it for a time, it becomes very easy to spot subtle, but clear bigotry in their messages, even in written word. And, I stand by my assessment of this declaration group.

It was a fun back n' forth though. I was ready to start using my big words.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Never had a doubt