Mr. Ambien Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 It would seem Christians are starting to turn a corner in the US (slow progress, but it's something): http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/episcopalians-vote-to-allow-same-sex-weddings-in-churches/ EPISCOPALIANS VOTE TO ALLOW SAME-SEX WEDDINGS IN CHURCHES SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church’s embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining. The Rev. Brian Baker of Sacramento said the church rule change was the result of a nearly four-decade long conversation that has been difficult and painful for many. Baker, chair of the committee that crafted the changes, said church members have not always been kind to one another but that the dynamic has changed in recent decades. “We have learned to not only care for, but care about one other,” Baker said. “That mutual care was present in the conversations we had. Some people disagreed, some people disagreed deeply, but we prayed and we listened and we came up with compromises that we believe make room and leave no one behind.” Baker said the House of Bishops prayed and debated the issue for five hours earlier this week before passing it on to the House of Deputies. The Rev. Bonnie Perry of Chicago, a lesbian married to a fellow Episcopal priest, hugged fellow supporters on Wednesday and said, “We’re all included now.” “For the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in our congregations now know under the eyes of God and in every single state in this blessed country, they are welcome to receive all the sacraments,” she said. The Very Rev. Jose Luis Mendoza-Barahona of Honduras gave an impassioned speech, saying the new church law goes against the Bible and would create a chasm in the church. “The fight has not ended, it’s starting,” he said. “Those of us in the church who are loyal followers of Christ are going to remain firm in not recognizing what happened today.” The vote eliminates gender-specific language from church laws on marriage so that same-sex couples could have religious weddings. Instead of “husband” and “wife,” for example, the new church law will refer to “the couple.” Under the new rules, clergy can decline to perform the ceremonies. The changes were approved 173-27. The deputies also approved a gender-neutral prayer service for marriage on a 184-23 vote. The measures take effect the first Sunday of Advent, Nov. 29. Many dioceses in the New York-based church of nearly 1.9 million members have allowed their priests to perform civil same-sex weddings, using a trial prayer service to bless the couple. Still, the church hadn’t changed its own laws on marriage until Wednesday. The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline Protestant groups that allowed gay marriage in all their congregations: the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings. The United Methodist Church, by far the largest mainline Protestant church with 12.8 million members, bars gay marriage, although many of its clergy have been officiating at same-sex weddings recently in protest. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the Anglican Communion, an 80 million-member global fellowship of churches. Ties among Anglicans have been strained since Episcopalians in 2003 elected Bishop Gene Robinson, who lived openly with his male partner, to lead the Diocese of New Hampshire. Many theologically conservative Episcopalians either split off or distanced themselves from the national U.S. church after Robinson’s election. On the eve of Wednesday’s vote, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans, issued a statement expressing deep concern about the move to change the definition of marriage. Robinson said after the vote, “It’s a day I wasn’t sure I would live to see.” “What we’re seeing I think in the Episcopal Church, and last week with the Supreme Court decision, is an entire culture evolving into understanding that gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender people contribute just as much as anyone else to this society and deserve all the same rights,” Robinson said. After the Supreme Court ruling last week, many conservative churches, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Mormons, renewed their opposition to gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Episcopalians in US = Anglicans in Canada ... here in Vancouver diocese, it's been passed already. Old news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Good to see. Maybe anti theists can turn a corner and stop complaining about the 10 commandments being displayed in a public location - but I doubt that will ever happen - some things change and some things remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Good to see. Maybe anti theists can turn a corner and stop complaining about the 10 commandments being displayed in a public location - but I doubt that will ever happen - some things change and some things remain the same. why not post passages from the Quran instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Good to see. Maybe anti theists can turn a corner and stop complaining about the 10 commandments being displayed in a public location - but I doubt that will ever happen - some things change and some things remain the same. Human rights equality vs religious texts (specifically Christian based no less) in publicly funded spaces is not remotely comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Human rights equality vs religious texts (specifically Christian based no less) in publicly funded spaces is not remotely comparable. I was more referring to how Christians are changing but anti-theists aren't - hypocritical imho. Edit: You don't have to read the religious text - no one's forcing you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I was more referring to how Christians are changing but anti-theists aren't - hypocritical imho. Edit: You don't have to read the religious text - no one's forcing you.... "Anti-theists" have already changed. The more "militant" of them are just less patient while waiting for the rest of you to catch up As for your edit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I was more referring to how Christians are changing but anti-theists aren't - hypocritical imho. Edit: You don't have to read the religious text - no one's forcing you.... Pls explain how not believing in any single deity has any relevance to this. To me this seems like Christians are finally waking up and letting go of archaic ideals and values concerning human love and relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Pls explain how not believing in any single deity has any relevance to this. To me this seems like Christians are finally waking up and letting go of archaic ideals and values concerning human love and relationships. Because Christains (well, some of us) are becoming more and more tolerant/accepting of others - whereas anti theists aren't - they are no different than Westpro baptists... Anti theists are still trying to remove "God" from everywhere they can - so if they don't "believe" in a single deity, then why do they "care" (I use that loosely) to complain so much? They are so against the Bible and what's in it. For example "slavery". I don't see anti theists lobbying to have the following symbols of slavery torn down: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 except the best research to date says that the pyramids werent built by slaves. http://www.news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 except the best research to date says that the pyramids werent built by slaves. http://www.news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.htm Perfect! Kind of like how the Confederate flag isn't really a symbol for slavery. Same as the 10 commandments - so no one should be "offended" right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Perfect! Kind of like how the Confederate flag isn't really a symbol for slavery. Same as the 10 commandments - so no one should be "offended" right? You really are a special kind of person... I must admit though I hate this PC crap.. For example, because of one lone shooter people all of sudden want the Confederate flag down. Rewind to last month and nobody cared about it. Apple even took down American civil war games because it features the flag.. What's next? Ban Islam after another terrorist attack? Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I have no idea what you're arguing. "anti theists" are arguing that the 10 commandments shouldnt be in a PUBLIC place, and you equate that with displaying the confederate flag? people ARE offended by the 10 commandments because not everyone follows your book. If passages from your book are there, why not put passages from some other holy book? I get the feeling you already knew that tho since you're not stupid. Display whatever you want in your private residence, but not in public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I have no idea what you're arguing. "anti theists" are arguing that the 10 commandments shouldnt be in a PUBLIC place, and you equate that with displaying the confederate flag? people ARE offended by the 10 commandments because not everyone follows your book. If passages from your book are there, why not put passages from some other holy book? I get the feeling you already knew that tho since you're not stupid. Display whatever you want in your private residence, but not in public... Some people are "offended" by homosexuality - yet it's okay for government buildings to display rainbow flags? Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of it all and the HATE anti theists have - has absolutely nothing to do with being offended. You know that as well as I do. What next? Ban dogs on leashes from public places because some people don't like dogs? What about children? As drummer4now said, this PC crap has gone too far and people are now using it for their own agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 You really are a special kind of person... I must admit though I hate this PC crap.. For example, because of one lone shooter people all of sudden want the Confederate flag down. Rewind to last month and nobody cared about it. Apple even took down American civil war games because it features the flag.. What's next? Ban Islam after another terrorist attack? Good luck They shouldn't be flying it on government buildings though. That really shouldn't even be debated. Fly it on your truck and look like an idiot by all means. As with the monument in Oklahoma - that conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Constitution: The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to find these things out yourself. If it was the Islamic equivalence, you know the shart storm this would cause. Christianity shouldn't get unlawful favors just because its the dominant faith there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbyNucksFan Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Some people are "offended" by homosexuality - yet it's okay for government buildings to display rainbow flags? Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of it all and the HATE anti theists have - has absolutely nothing to do with being offended. You know that as well as I do. What next? Ban dogs on leashes from public places because some people don't like dogs? What about children? As drummer4now said, this PC crap has gone too far and people are now using it for their own agendas. dogs on leashes and children (and even homosexuality) aren't forbidden in the constitution. again, if passages from your book are up, why cant there be passages from all the other holy books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 They shouldn't be flying it on government buildings though. That really shouldn't even be debated. Fly it on your truck and look like an idiot by all means. As with the monument in Oklahoma - that conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Constitution: The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to find these things out yourself. If it was the Islamic equivalence, you know the shart storm this would cause. Christianity shouldn't get unlawful favors just because its the dominant faith there.. I agree with this.. Just the ripple effect of PCness is annoying and unnecessary. Some people take things too far if you know what I mean. For example, if Apple actually cares about Human rights and equality then shouldn't they stop exploiting slave labour sweatshops in Asia? Hypocrisy at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouvercanucks2010 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 My exact reaction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 They shouldn't be flying it on government buildings though. That really shouldn't even be debated. Fly it on your truck and look like an idiot by all means. As with the monument in Oklahoma - that conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Constitution: The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to find these things out yourself. If it was the Islamic equivalence, you know the shart storm this would cause. Christianity shouldn't get unlawful favors just because its the dominant faith there.. Good find. Like I said....PC....technically, they broke the law by allowing it in the first place, now tasking it down is also breaking the law....for they are showing preference to non religion... What a mess... Why can't we all just get along.... Your race, colour of skin, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs shouldn't be a concern.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.