Gay Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. From one of the links:



It sounds like LDS are doing what is prescribed by some on this thread: Having civil marriage be a thing done by courts, with such a marriage enacted by a wedding, but possibly by a civil ceremony, and having an extra religious type of marriage (a Celestial Marriage, in the LDS terminology), which has much deeper religious significance, and having a different ceremony (a Sealing) to enact. From the small reading that I did, a marriage may or may not be at the same ceremony as a sealing, and very possibly is done in different ceremonies.

I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?


TomB

The first presidency has released a letter that will be read to each congregation this coming Sunday http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...fter-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision
 

log in or register to remove this ad


For those keeping score:

http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html

With this vote, I believe the Episcopalians become the largest Christian denomination to endorse SSM. More importantly, they're one of the historically more politically powerful Christian denominations in the USA.

Combined with certain other Christian & Jewish denominations, Wiccans, some Native American religions, and about a dozen other faith traditions practiced in the USA, this makes revocation of SSM increasingly unlikely on the precise grounds that most opponents cite: religious freedom.

Battles still remain, but the trend is definitely going a certain way with a sense of final inevitability.
 

Combined with certain other Christian & Jewish denominations, Wiccans, some Native American religions, and about a dozen other faith traditions practiced in the USA, this makes revocation of SSM increasingly unlikely on the precise grounds that most opponents cite: religious freedom.

Simply for the sake of perspective, I would like to remind everyone that not all members of a religion adhere to official opinions of their religious leaders.

I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage. Religious institutions are administered by people, and people (even the best of us) are flawed and make mistakes. I have been very happy to see Pope Francis' softening of the church's objection to homosexuality, including when he said the following, "if someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."

That sentiment from the pope summed up how I have felt about gays (and about people in general if you cut the gay part out) for decades, despite other popes and bishops having taken hard-line stances against homosexuality.
 


Simply for the sake of perspective, I would like to remind everyone that not all members of a religion adhere to official opinions of their religious leaders.

I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage. Religious institutions are administered by people, and people (even the best of us) are flawed and make mistakes. I have been very happy to see Pope Francis' softening of the church's objection to homosexuality, including when he said the following, "if someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."

That sentiment from the pope summed up how I have felt about gays (and about people in general if you cut the gay part out) for decades, despite other popes and bishops having taken hard-line stances against homosexuality.

It's been my experience, that for any church with X quanity of members inside, there are X variations on the religion that they all claim to be following. Each person will have some detail wrong that the rules lawyers of the church would call heresy or some official position they disagree with.

I've met plenty of catholics who believe in birth control for instance.
 


Not as far as I am aware. The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.

And I didn't mean to side track the gay rights to snowden.

I was only using it as an example where a person thought they were doing right, and will likely have negative legal consequences for their action, regardless of whether their were correct or not.
 

I was only using it as an example where a person thought they were doing right, and will likely have negative legal consequences for their action, regardless of whether their were correct or not.

It is a fact of life that sometimes, in order to be right, you have to be incorrect. Correctness is a matter of rules, and the rules as written may not match moral, right action.


Or...

We can bring this back to gaming! Good and Evil are about being "right". Law and Chaos are about being "correct" :)
 

It is a fact of life that sometimes, in order to be right, you have to be incorrect. Correctness is a matter of rules, and the rules as written may not match moral, right action.


Or...

We can bring this back to gaming! Good and Evil are about being "right". Law and Chaos are about being "correct" :)

You don't have to tell me that twice. A certain technical qualification, that's supposed to demonstrate a baseline of knowledge in desktop based computing, involves a pair of tests. After a quarter century in the industry I quickly realized that I had to answer a large number of those questions wrongly, from my practical experience, in order to be "correct."

Not agreeing with a religion's "laws" tends to result in a new religion, or so history would tend to indicate.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top