Gay church leaders

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"Homosexuals want to occupy the "ladies room" of marriage."


I think you are under the highly mistaken impression that Gay Men "want to be women."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Acumen]

Acumen--none of what you say in your post 87 in any way "disproves" anything that I have said.


And yes--keep saying I "don't know the Bible" while I am referencing Bible stories to you.


That doesn't make any sense either.

You're missing MY point here.  It's really a word of caution.  On this forum, we know our bible quite well.  Don't expect to use what you think Jesus was or wasn't doing to illustrate your point without also expecting to be corrected -- even if the correction is failing to address the real issue of this thread.

[WorldWarrior]

Acumen says--

"  Don't expect to use what you think Jesus was or wasn't doing to illustrate your point without also expecting to be corrected -- even if the correction is failing to address the real issue of this thread."


What is this--a den of inerrancy?

[SquirleyWurley]

I'm not a believer so I didn't take the poll.

In any case my answer depends on the faith community.  I have no reason to ask Wiccans to allow a man to stand in the place of a high priestess representing the goddess while performing some special consecration, and likewise I have no reason to ask a Catholic to allow a woman to stand in the place of a priest representing Jesus during the Eucharistic ritual, and if a faith community feels that it's leaders for certain ministries shouldn't have been divorced or shouldn't ever have been a wife-beater well that makes sense to me, and for that matter if they insist the person needs to have freckles and drink only coca-cola, well that's the way religion can be.

Re: marriage.  I don't see why marriage among a particular group of people shouldn't be called marriage (or whatever else they want to call it), as they see fit, so long as no one is being harmed, so long as it is adults we are dealing with.  If the state has some interest in licensing it and it's for the sake of households with children, then I think all benefits could be limited to ANY household with children, instead of calling it a marriage license or getting into the religious connotations.  If the state has some interest in licensing two-person household partnerships and having certain benefits and responsibilities, then so be it, it can be done objectively and again I don't see why religious language has to be used.

I mean why should the state become an arbiter or licensing instition of religious ritual anyhow?

I don't care whether your religion accepts gay marriage or not.  I only care about whether or not the benefits to households with children are reasonable, fair, and equitable, and consequently, whether contractual partnerships between two adults, with all the responsibilities and benefits under the law, are done fairly and equitably and reasonably.

There is a bit of unreasonableness about homosexuality, when it comes to the transfer of property  and the taxes on it, on a partner's death, for example, and when it comes to hospital visitation, etc.  If some people don't care about those issues, they are being callous and I'll call them on it.  If they really have a problem with taking adequate action to deal with those issues, I might call them a bigot, sure.