You philistines.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:well, for point 1 they could go to a Liberal Church.

but point 2 does not stand up because a church may turn someone away if their beliefs do not fit in.

This comes down to religious freedom and private property laws.

Until churches pay their fair share of taxes, private property laws shouldn't come into play. Until they do that, I am paying for them, so it is partly MY property.

I wonder, though, would you be trying to defend slavery if it was being justified as part of religious freedom (the Bible advocates it)? And before protesting that example as non-realistic, that was one of the arguments against Abolition.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:This thread is about attempting to force the church to change its 2000 year old traditions in the name of 'equality'.

Kind of like its 2000 year old tradition of slavery?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:
That is not a matter of the Church just foloowing its own traditions.  That is the Church trying to force EVERYONE ELSE to abide by them.

It's not the Church saying, "We're not going to do this", it is the Church saying, "NOBODY is allowed to do this."

The issue is that some people believe the Church should be forced to allow same-sex marriages on its premises.

This is clearly wrong as the idea goes against the beliefs of the religion.

So let's say your church wouldn't be forced to allow same-sex marriages on its premises. Given that, you'd be ok if gays could be married elsewhere (e.g. another church, a civil ceremony)? And have those marriages be recognized as real marriages and be identical in legal standing to those performed in your church?

Animavore wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:just basic grammar - The Church refers to the Christian religion as a whole.

Incorrect. When it comes to prods they generally only capitalise the word 'church' when it is in their title, ie. Lutheran Church. They do not collectively call themselves 'The Church' because that title is only given to one church which is the one and only true church, The Church, the Catholic Church.
How can you call a bunch of fragmented heretics believing in different and even contradictory things 'The Church'? It doesn't make sense.

Fragmented it is more than 34,000 different belief systems.

Animavore wrote:
You don't know your history very well. Christianity has changed many times and there are and have been many forms of Christianity many of them with opposing views. But of course, as I've stated above, only the Catholic Church is the true Church. I take it you're a prod so you probably believe in things that go against tradition like, say, divorce and priests marrying?

So how would you feel if the Catholic Church were forced to allow same-sex marriages?

Would you accept that?

Btw: first time I've been called a prod , ha ha!

double post - deleted

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

Animavore wrote:
You don't know your history very well. Christianity has changed many times and there are and have been many forms of Christianity many of them with opposing views. But of course, as I've stated above, only the Catholic Church is the true Church. I take it you're a prod so you probably believe in things that go against tradition like, say, divorce and priests marrying?

So how would you feel if the Catholic Church were forced to allow same-sex marriages?

Would you accept that?

Btw: first time I've been called a Prod , ha ha!

I would be against it.
Gay marriage is on the cards here in Ireland. Given the support it has I'd say it'll pass referendum. The Church are against it but my view is it's none of their business, they don't have to accept it, they can condemn and blast and hold demonstrations. Only thing'll happen is it'll make them more unpopular than they already are. Pews will continue to empty. And gay people will get secular marriages without them.

MrFungus420 wrote:
Until churches pay their fair share of taxes, private property laws shouldn't come into play. Until they do that, I am paying for them, so it is partly MY property.

Utter bull!

so, do you think that you should be allowed to join the military even if you don't meet the entry requirements?

because, as you say, you do pay taxes 'n all.......

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:
Until churches pay their fair share of taxes, private property laws shouldn't come into play. Until they do that, I am paying for them, so it is partly MY property.

Utter bull!

so, do you think that you should be allowed to join the military even if you don't meet the entry requirements?

because, as you say, you do pay taxes 'n all.......

No your analogy is wrong - joining the priesthood would be the equivalent of joining the military. Using a church equally would be same as having the army protecting you equally.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:So how would you feel if the Catholic Church were forced to allow same-sex marriages?

Would you accept that?

I would suppose that it depends on what you mean by "forced to allow".

If you mean that the Church should be forced to give its sanction to marriages that run counter to its doctrines - to perform marriage ceremonies that church dogma regards as invalid - then no. I certainly think they should change their views on this matter, but I cannot think of a way of forcing them to do so that I would be comfortable with.

If you mean that the Church should be told to keep its mythology out of the public discourse and restrict the enforcement of its dogmas to members of the faith, then yes it should be. The Church should be "forced to allow" secular society to make laws based upon principles that grant equality to all of its members. If a representative or member of the Church has a rational, non-religious objection to same-sex marriage, then of course they are as free as any other member of society to voice that objection.

Given the number of discussions that I have participated in on this subject over the last couple of years with people - including yourself, Kenny - throwing every objection they can think of on the table however, I am fairly sure that if such a rational, non-religious objection existed then I would have heard it by now. I am therefore as confident as I can be that such a rational, non-religious objection does not exist.

Nicko wrote:
If you mean that the Church should be forced to give its sanction to marriages that run counter to its doctrines - to perform marriage ceremonies that church dogma regards as invalid - then no. I certainly think they should change their views on this matter, but I cannot think of a way of forcing them to do so that I would be comfortable with.

you say that you think the Church should change its views.

well, that is just absurd because if you were a budding Christian you would realise that your views would need to change to fit in with God's designs.

If you don't like the views of the Church , or the theology, then find another religion or remain an atheist.

Not the other way around.

anyway, this can be the Ken bashing thread for all those who wish - I'm done with the other one......

bring it on my friends, bring it on!

Animavore wrote:

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:This thread is about attempting to force the church to change its 2000 year old traditions in the name of 'equality'.

doing this would be defeating the very notion of tolerance and religious freedom.

PC, liberal ideology is just as much a form of social engineering as any other political method of the past.

2000 year-old tradition!

You don't know your history very well. Christianity has changed many times and there are and have been many forms of Christianity many of them with opposing views. But of course, as I've stated above, only the Catholic Church is the true Church. I take it you're a prod so you probably believe in things that go against tradition like, say, divorce and priests marrying?

There's even a study that found that the Church™ codoned homosexual relationships in the past.

what study would that be then?

and of course, I've never bashed homosexuality itself, only the marriage concept.

It's clearly not the same thing.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:and of course, I've never bashed homosexuality itself, only the marriage concept.

It's clearly not the same thing.

So it wasn't you off there using the words "disordered" "unnatural" etc. etc.

That was some other Kenneth-Kaunda?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:and of course, I've never bashed homosexuality itself, only the marriage concept.

It's clearly not the same thing.

Bollocks! You've implied comparison of homosexuality with incest & bestiality. You've mentioned 'disorder', 'perversion' & so on. Sounds like bashing to me.

Just shows you he forgets what he says.

well, there are a fair few people on the other thread who think that incest is fine anyway.

so I take it you disagree with them on this issue?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:well, there are a fair few people on the other thread who think that incest is fine anyway

I assumed you were fine with it too, since God's plan was for Adam and Eve's children to have incestuous sex.

Imagine my surprise when you described your God as "perverted" in that other thread!