Taking "Turn The Other Cheek" Too Far

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I think the idea is to remove a law that prevents this kind of union. Would that then gain your support?

Great! A union without a marriage.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by sumydid
Here in the USA, there is a major, heated, disagreement between Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives/Traditionalists. That major disagreement centers around social behavior and values. The hottest topics within that category are abortion-on-demand, and gay marriage.

Forget all the points and counterpoints on both sides; I am focused on something else ...[text shortened]... a blind eye to the evils of this world in order to somehow hasten the end times.

Providing legislation does not force Christians to have abortions or enter into
gay marriage they have nothing to fear. I would not impose my morals on
Christians - why should Christians impose theirs on the rest of society?

Originally posted by twhitehead
To my knowledge that right has never really come up for discussion. Has anyone to your knowledge suggested such a right could be denied?
The usual issue is whether or not the government recognizes gay marriage as a legal equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
I wonder whether or not a Christian Church that refuses to marry mixed race couples would be tak ...[text shortened]... s. Do you think this is a right Churches have, or do you think it could be challenged legally?

I don't know of any but it will come at some point I imagine.

Race should not come into decisions of membership, marriage or anything else of course.

The sexist thing is more unclear as defendants would claim Biblical (or Islamic) scripture supports their position and it is therefore a religious point not a purely sexist point. I can see this cropping up legally too at some time.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't know of any but it will come at some point I imagine.

I doubt it. But it remains largely irrelevant to the current situation where the question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.

Race should not come into decisions of membership, marriage or anything else of course.
Not quite an answer to my question. I am not asking whether something 'should' be the case. I am asking whether it should be enforced by law. I am asking whether Churches should be forced to allow mixed race marriage or membership of any race.

The sexist thing is more unclear as defendants would claim Biblical (or Islamic) scripture supports their position and it is therefore a religious point not a purely sexist point. I can see this cropping up legally too at some time.
No, it is not different. Those who are against mixed race marriage or restricted membership are also capable of claiming Biblical or Islamic scripture supports it. And I am not talking hypotheticals here, I am talking about the actual situation that prevailed here in South Africa for many many years and it wouldn't surprise me if some Churches here still have those rules.

And you haven't actually responded to my question as to whether your would support antisexism in Churches cropping up legally.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I doubt it. But it remains largely irrelevant to the current situation where the question is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.

[b]Race should not come into decisions of membership, marriage or anything else of course.
Not quite an answer to my question. I am not asking whether something 'should' be the case. I am asking whether it sho ...[text shortened]... to my question as to whether your would support antisexism in Churches cropping up legally.[/b]

Firstly kindly remember that am not required to answer of your questions; as usual I find your tone demanding and somewhat irritating, but I will respond anyway.

I think racism in churches should be illegal in all aspects.

I'm not sure on the sexist point, it would probably depend on a number of factors.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have too many laws now. That is the result of the left not the right. The right just want freedom and for everyone to have moral values, but evil and murder can not just be allowed to increase to its maximum potential. So for the good of society, the "religious or non-religious left" must not be allowed to just do as they please. We Christians seem to be the only restraining force against the forces of evil in this world.

This statement is completely ignorant.

The right is NOT for more freedom. Maybe only for themselves. All they are concerned about is the freedom to make as much money off the backs of the poor as they can shove into their pockets. If they were truly all about having freedom for everyone, they wouldn't be all fired up about making a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Constitution is about securing the rights of individuals, not restricting them, but this doesn't sway the conservative right, probably because they consider homosexuals as somehow 'less-than-human'. And to the religious right, who thinks it is their god-given commandment to eliminate abortion in this country, even though it IS legal, what they forget is how many women died to the wire coat-hangar back-alley abortionists in this country when abortion was illegal. These types of people aren't too concerned about the poor in this country at all, and yet they get up on their soapbox and claim that the left is destroying this country. They're nothing but self-serving bigots, in my opinion.

Originally posted by divegeester
Firstly kindly remember that am not required to answer of your questions; as usual I find your tone demanding and somewhat irritating, but I will respond anyway.

I never said you were required to answer my questions, but I don't see why you would not wish to. Is it a secret? I apologize if you don't like my tone, it is not meant to be demanding or irritating and I honestly don't know what I have said wrong. I was merely asking for your view point on the matters.
You seemed concerned that gay marriage might be forced upon Churches, so I thought it reasonable to ask what your views were with relation to forcing other types of equality on Churches.

I think racism in churches should be illegal in all aspects.

I'm not sure on the sexist point, it would probably depend on a number of factors.
Would you be interested in discussing your justification for your stances on the different issues? I am not demanding an answer, but I don't know how to carry out a discussion without asking questions. I am also perfectly happy with you saying you are not decided on an issue.

This is my view: All three issues (sexuality, race, and sex) are issues related to human rights and equality. At the same time, membership of Churches is largely voluntary and the rules are set by their members. So I am somewhat undecided as to whether the law should step in when there is discrimination. I am certain that in the work place, there should be no discrimination.
But what about other organizations? Again, I am undecided. I believe the Rotary Club for example did not allow female members for quite a long time. Should the law have stepped in? I am not sure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said you were required to answer my questions, but I don't see why you would not wish to. Is it a secret? I apologize if you don't like my tone, it is not meant to be demanding or irritating and I honestly don't know what I have said wrong. I was merely asking for your view point on the matters.
You seemed concerned that gay marriage might be for ...[text shortened]... allow female members for quite a long time. Should the law have stepped in? I am not sure.

Don't worry about it, I'm just being grouchy.

I'm definitely against gay Christian marriage, but I'm definitelyfor equality on rights associated with civilly recognised i.e. legal partnerships.

The Christian church has often been labelled as sexist because of the instructions by Paul on women in teaching and leading, however I'm not convinced these scriptures are always taken in full context and much (if I remember correctly) was Paul's own opinion and he said as much. However there examples of female leadership in the early Church, two women in particular are mentioned (without looking them up).

Anyway, there are Churches who hold sincerely to Paul's teachings and their position does not necessarily reflect bad treatment of women in that church per-se (although some would argue that point), just a belief that women shouldn't hold ministerial position over a man. But here's the problem for me, and it goes back to my position on corporate religion, if the role is paid i.e. it is a job whereby the women applying for the role would be financially discriminated against then that must be illegal.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm definitely against gay Christian marriage,

I am curious as to whether you have an argument as to why this is not unfair discrimination.
I guess that one possible argument is that gay marriage is behaviour, whereas race or sex is something you are born with. But this presumably means that being gay, should no lead to discrimination whereas acting gay might?

Anyway, there are Churches who hold sincerely to Paul's teachings and their position does not necessarily reflect bad treatment of women
I am not interested here in whether or not the Church can correctly support their case for discrimination from the Bible (as I am not a Christian and can't really make a judgement, and I suspect Christians would disagree amongst themselves), but rather if they claim that their religion requires them to discriminate, should we let them do it.

if the role is paid i.e. it is a job whereby the women applying for the role would be financially discriminated against then that must be illegal.
I must point out that any role has benefits related to it which might not necessarily be monetary. The person may gain status by taking up the role, or may even feel it is their religious duty. I don't think monetary gain should the the sole reason for deciding whether or not to allow discrimination. For example should Churches be allowed to ban black leadership so long as the post is not a paid one?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to whether you have an argument as to why this is not unfair discrimination.
I guess that one possible argument is that gay marriage is behaviour, whereas race or sex is something you are born with. But this presumably means that being gay, should no lead to discrimination whereas acting gay might?

[b]Anyway, there are Churches who hol ple should Churches be allowed to ban black leadership so long as the post is not a paid one?

[/b]Outside of Biblical scripture I have no argument for it. Inside of scripture (as I stated) I'm undecided.

Yes we should let them do it as long as it the role is not paid (not withstanding the 'status' thing). That's my initial opinion based on thinking about it for a few minutes; I'm open to other opinions.

Please read my comment above regarding race aspects.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is true that Christian Churches today are not filled with people with the wisdom of Solomon.

Especially in your church.

Originally posted by divegeester
Please read my comment above regarding race aspects.

I believe you said racial discrimination in Churches should be outlawed. I am just curious as to how you justify differentiating between the different types of discrimination.
Lets assume there is a religious organisation, lets even make is not a Christian one, so there is no bias, and that organisation claims that its religious books justify discrimination against a particular race, homosexuals, and women. Why should they be taken to court if they discriminated against race, but not if they discriminate against sexual preference or sex?
Just as a note: I am largely undecided, but I think I would probably agree with you that racial discrimination should be outlawed whilst gay marriage should not be forced on Churches, I would just like a second opinion and some analysis as to why the different treatment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe you said racial discrimination in Churches should be outlawed. I am just curious as to how you justify differentiating between the different types of discrimination.
Lets assume there is a religious organisation, lets even make is not a Christian one, so there is no bias, and that organisation claims that its religious books justify discrimina ...[text shortened]... hurches, I would just like a second opinion and some analysis as to why the different treatment.

I think there needs to be an element of freedom of religious preference as long as the 'rules' are published to all members. Discrimination is usually a bad thing but not always something to be concerned about. Consider a woman telling a male gynecologist that she does not want him examining her because he is male. This is sexual discrimination but not something we should be worried about. However, perhaps he is the only gynecologist in the region and will now lose his job; does this situation override the former? I think it does. You?

Originally posted by sumydid
I'm not here to discuss the merits or weakness of each position on abortion and gay marriage but strictly on a "for" or "against" stance, every single Christian should have the same view. Absolutely. Abortion isn't complicated or multi-faceted. It's the ending of the life of an unborn baby.

That's the type of black & white thinking that stunts devel ffort to halt the legalizing of actions that our belief system strictly opposes.

Like I said, you are encouraged to make an effort to bring about policy changes that you feel are right, but only if you bring actual substantive reasons to the table. Worse than silence on the matter is the bringing of non-arguments. If someone holds some belief on the matter on the basis of no good reasons, then that's his problem. But if he tries to impose this belief on others through widespread policy changes on the basis of no good reasons, now it's everyone's problem.

Honestly though, I doubt your willingness to work toward resolution. Your attitudes suggest you are not open to honest debate on the topic aimed at understanding all the relevant considerations and working toward satisfactory resolution. That's the problem with a black & white mindset towards a topic that is decidedly not black & white. If you were actually interested in honest resolution, you would be imploring fellow Christians (and everyone that has a stake) to evaluate the topic honestly; you wouldn't be imploring them to unquestioningly (or at least on the basis of no reasons, or at least none that you are here to discuss) take up your stance.