Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

lucrezaborgia · 08-03-2012, 06:36 PM

(08-03-2012 05:57 PM)WanderingTraveler Wrote: I don't see just homosexuality mentioned in that verse. I see "sexual immorality", which includes a number of things, such as premarital sex and adultery.

Don't forget that whole RAPE RAPE RAPE fest that the city pulled whenever strangers came to town. God angry about rape? Fancy that...

Trapped Pentecostal · (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 06:44 PM by Trapped Pentecostal.)

(08-03-2012 05:38 PM)greg Wrote: "Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. IN A SIMILAR WAY, SODOM AND GOMORRAH AND THE SURROUNDING TOWNS GAVE THEMSELVVES UP TO SEXUAL IMMORALITY AND PERVERSION. THEY SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO SUFFER THE PUNISHMENT OF ETERNAL FIRE." ....Jude 5-7

There is no ambiguity regarding the sin of homosexuality in the Word of God.

HEY LOOK! IT'S A BIBLE VERSE! YOU HAVE NOW TOTALLY CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT THIS SUBJECT! PRAISE THE LORD! HALLELUJAH! I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

Greg, if you don't believe that homosexuals should have sex, then don't have sex with homosexuals. You don't get to outlaw someone else's behavior just because you follow an ancient Hebrew book of laws that the Constitution of our nation was in no way based upon.

By the way, there's all sorts of other sexual immorality that is perfectly legal in this country, but you don't say a single word about it. Why are you so hung up on homosexuals, greg?

Trapped Pentecostal · 08-03-2012, 06:40 PM

(08-03-2012 05:57 PM)WanderingTraveler Wrote:
(08-03-2012 05:38 PM)greg Wrote: "Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. IN A SIMILAR WAY, SODOM AND GOMORRAH AND THE SURROUNDING TOWNS GAVE THEMSELVVES UP TO SEXUAL IMMORALITY AND PERVERSION. THEY SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO SUFFER THE PUNISHMENT OF ETERNAL FIRE." ....Jude 5-7

There is no ambiguity regarding the sin of homosexuality in the Word of God.

I don't see just homosexuality mentioned in that verse. I see "sexual immorality", which includes a number of things, such as premarital sex and adultery.

And ritual prostitution.

fundyvangelicalcatholic · 08-03-2012, 07:33 PM

(08-03-2012 04:52 PM)DaisyDeadhead Wrote:
(08-03-2012 11:17 AM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote: Churches come under fire for not performing a same sex marriage.

The Catholic church still does not ordain women, and nobody can legally sue them for that, or believe me, I would have already.

Nobody can force any church to do anything, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Catholic Church still does not marry HETEROSEXUAL people if they have been divorced, without obtaining a church-approved annulment first.

And its all perfectly legal and always will be.

Perfectly legal? HHS birth mandated the Catholic Church provide birth control for all employees. If government could do that, wouldn't they be able to enforce civil rights if marriage is defined as such?

dramaturge · 08-03-2012, 07:45 PM

(08-03-2012 07:33 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote:
(08-03-2012 04:52 PM)DaisyDeadhead Wrote: The Catholic church still does not ordain women, and nobody can legally sue them for that, or believe me, I would have already.

Nobody can force any church to do anything, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Catholic Church still does not marry HETEROSEXUAL people if they have been divorced, without obtaining a church-approved annulment first.

And its all perfectly legal and always will be.

Perfectly legal? HHS birth mandated the Catholic Church provide birth control for all employees. If government could do that, wouldn't they be able to enforce civil rights if marriage is defined as such?

Except there's that part where many Catholic institutions (namely hospitals and universities) hire non-Catholic employees. This is why they're required to submit to the ACA provision--not doing so would discriminate against their non-Catholic employees who do not have religious convictions against contraception. They were also offered a compromise wherein they wouldn't have to pay for contraceptive coverage and rejected it "on principle." If they don't want their money going to things the Catholic Church doesn't approve of, perhaps they shouldn't hire non-Catholics, since I guarantee salary money was already going toward contraceptive purchase anyway. They're not suffering from religious discrimination or oppression--they're just being gooses for the sake of flexing their muscles and trying to prove they're still relevant. And by "they," I mean the administration/bishops, since the average Catholic is pretty cool with birth control.

fundyvangelicalcatholic · 08-03-2012, 08:00 PM

(08-03-2012 07:45 PM)dramaturge Wrote:
(08-03-2012 07:33 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote: Perfectly legal? HHS birth mandated the Catholic Church provide birth control for all employees. If government could do that, wouldn't they be able to enforce civil rights if marriage is defined as such?

Except there's that part where many Catholic institutions (namely hospitals and universities) hire non-Catholic employees. This is why they're required to submit to the ACA provision--not doing so would discriminate against their non-Catholic employees who do not have religious convictions against contraception. They were also offered a compromise wherein they wouldn't have to pay for contraceptive coverage and rejected it "on principle." If they don't want their money going to things the Catholic Church doesn't approve of, perhaps they shouldn't hire non-Catholics, since I guarantee salary money was already going toward contraceptive purchase anyway. They're not suffering from religious discrimination or oppression--they're just being gooses for the sake of flexing their muscles and trying to prove they're still relevant. And by "they," I mean the administration/bishops, since the average Catholic is pretty cool with birth control.

The point is that the Federal Goverment intervened in a non-profits benefit allocation. You can unequivocally say that the same Federal Government will not intervene when someones civil rights (now defined as marriage) is infringed upon? That is a pretty bold statement based on recent precedent.

elfdream · 08-03-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:the average Catholic is pretty cool with birth control

Most people don't understand why the Church has the stance it does on birth control but I don't know if it can be explained it in a way that would make sense to non-Catholics. It would come across to as Catholic babel...and I understand why most cradle Catholics may not get it either. The only reason I do is because like most converts I studied the heck out of everything before I joined up and my catechism teacher covered this subject very carefully.

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 08:21 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

(08-03-2012 08:00 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote: The point is that the Federal Goverment intervened in a non-profits benefit allocation. You can unequivocally say that the same Federal Government will not intervene when someones civil rights (now defined as marriage) is infringed upon? That is a pretty bold statement based on recent precedent.

A non-profit that runs a business that not only serves the public, but hires a large number of non-Catholics.

There is a huge difference between a health concern and marriage. Not being married isn't going to kill someone. Not having access to hormonal contraceptives can be extremely damaging to a woman's health. The government isn't picking on the Catholic church and actual churches are still exempt. When you enter into a business that serves the public, you have a whole different set of rules to adhere to...or do you want to live in a world where hospitals can declare anything not covered based on religious beliefs?

Not being able to be married in a church doesn't keep one from getting married. Just like how the current church standards don't stop people from getting married.

We live in a country where benefits are tied to our jobs, for better or worse, which makes employees health care providers in some strange convoluted fashion. Catholic hospitals are definitely health care providers. They don't get a free-pass due to religion. This isn't rocket science.

Trapped Pentecostal · (This post was last modified: 08-03-2012 08:20 PM by Trapped Pentecostal.)

Fundyv, should we also ban heterosexual marriage since a heterosexual non-Catholic couple wishing to get married in a pretty cathedral could potentially sue for discrimination and violation of their civil right to get married, leading to the government forcing the church to marry anyone who asks? Because that's what your argument boils down to.

lucrezaborgia · 08-03-2012, 08:24 PM

You know what would be a great way around this? Single-payer health care...but then people would bitch endlessly about something else.