• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) Approves Gay Marriage

SkinsNDeacs said:
You know what will lead to an even bigger exodus? Continue to push views and ideas that are out of tune with the majority of America while making a false claim to divinity. The American Christian Church continues to be a gigantic echo chamber. Go to most conservative Evangelical American churches and you will see a group of people that all look alike in an America that continues to diversify. An even more narrow group are the ones that buy into the hard line moralistic stances that the right wing evangelical christian church stands for...old white people. The ironic beauty is that these moralistic views stand in direct contrast to the man they supposedly follow.
Click to expand...

Your post is what one might expect, but I was actually reading an article today (can't find the link now) about this decision by the PCUSA that had numbers indicating the churches going outwardly progressive are actually the ones becoming old and white...Episcopal, United Methodist, PCUSA. The more conservative evangelical churches (Anglican, PCA, etc) are those drawing young people and minorities, even those with more liberal political convictions who don't want to be "pandered to" by the church.
 
RacerDeac said:
Your post is what one might expect, but I was actually reading an article today (can't find the link now) about this decision by the PCUSA that had numbers indicating the churches going outwardly progressive are actually the ones becoming old and white...Episcopal, United Methodist, PCUSA. The more conservative evangelical churches (Anglican, PCA, etc) are those drawing young people and minorities, even those with more liberal political convictions who don't want to be "pandered to" by the church.
Click to expand...

This.

Also, there is a vast difference between believing the state ought to permit homosexual unions/marriages and believing the church ought to perform them.
 
Junebug said:
This.

Also, there is a vast difference between believing the state ought to permit homosexual unions/marriages and believing the church ought to perform them.
Click to expand...

Who has ever said that the church should or have to preform any marriage it does not want to? That is such a Strawman.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Who has ever said that the church should or have to preform any marriage it does not want to? That is such a Strawman.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. I'm just saying that I believe the church should not perform homosexual unions/marriages as a matter of ecclesiastical policy, even though I think the state should recognize homosexual unions.

As to your point, I'm confident the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment would permit churches to continue to refuse to perform homosexual unions/marriages even if the state passed a law putatively requiring them to do so. I don't even see that as debateable.
 
Junebug said:
You misunderstand me. I'm just saying that I believe the church should not perform homosexual unions/marriages as a matter of ecclesiastical policy, even though I think the state should recognize homosexual unions.

As to your point, I'm confident the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment would permit churches to continue to refuse to perform homosexual unions/marriages even if the state passed a law putatively requiring them to do so. I don't even see that as debateable.
Click to expand...

So it is a non-issue
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
PCUSA lost a few congregations after the last assembly when they allowed gays to administer communion. There's already a pending class action suit in North Carolina that Amendment One denies religious freedom to religions, ministers, and congregations who are prevented from performing same-sex marriages. Now add a few North Carolina-based PCUSA ministers and congregations to the mix. Hobby Lobby decision is expected later this week and the NC case will provide an interesting contrast to conservatives' view of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Wait a second--are people interpreting Amendment One to prohibit churches from performing homosexual unions? As in, more than just saying the state won't recognize any homosexual union performed by anyone, including a church? Actually banning them from being performed?
 
No people are responding to the conservative boogeyman that the government will force them to perform gay marriages.

I am for government getting out of marriage entirely. Tax benefits for married couples are antiquated in an era where 50 percent of those married get divorced. Why do we need the government acknowledging or incentivizing a private contract between two individuals who wish to live together?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
No people are responding to the conservative boogeyman that the government will force them to perform gay marriages.

I am for government getting out of marriage entirely. Tax benefits for married couples are antiquated in an era where 50 percent of those married get divorced. Why do we need the government acknowledging or incentivizing a private contract between two individuals who wish to live together?
Click to expand...

Ok, so the response to the conservative bogeyman is to raise a liberal one? Seems legit.

Also, by defining marriage as between "two people," as you do, you understand that is regulation, right? I'm not disputing that is a valid line to draw, but let's not pretend that somehow represents "government getting out of marriage entirely."
 
bobknightfan said:
Ironically, I thought about mentioning Unitarians as being "left" of Episcopals, but decided not to because I didn't really know how many Unitarians there were or if it was really considered a significant denomination.

Adlai Stevenson was a Unitarian, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who's Unitarian. It seems a little weird to me.
 
Junebug said:
Wait a second--are people interpreting Amendment One to prohibit churches from performing homosexual unions? As in, more than just saying the state won't recognize any homosexual union performed by anyone, including a church? Actually banning them from being performed?
Click to expand...
That is the correct/only interpretation. It is illegal to perform a marriage without a marriage license in NC (regardless of the gender of couple). So by making it impossible to get a license for a same sex couple, it becomes illegal to have a church (and non-secular) wedding for them. You can bless a relationship, but can't not call it marriage (or claim any of the legal benefits thereof) unless there is a license present. That's the basis of the recent lawsuit by the UCC.
 
RacerDeac said:
Your post is what one might expect, but I was actually reading an article today (can't find the link now) about this decision by the PCUSA that had numbers indicating the churches going outwardly progressive are actually the ones becoming old and white...Episcopal, United Methodist, PCUSA. The more conservative evangelical churches (Anglican, PCA, etc) are those drawing young people and minorities, even those with more liberal political convictions who don't want to be "pandered to" by the church.
Click to expand...

That's a big claim to cite without a source. Not refuting you, but would like to see that data.
 
RevDeac06 said:
That is the correct/only interpretation. It is illegal to perform a marriage without a marriage license in NC (regardless of the gender of couple). So by making it impossible to get a license for a same sex couple, it becomes illegal to have a church (and non-secular) wedding for them. You can bless a relationship, but can't not call it marriage (or claim any of the legal benefits thereof) unless there is a license present. That's the basis of the recent lawsuit by the UCC.
Click to expand...

But the law doesn't prohibit a church from conducting a "sacrament of marriage" (or whatever they might call it), it just denies that ceremony from having any legal effect, right?
 
Junebug said:
What does this even mean? Do you want no regulation at all?
Click to expand...

Outside of abusive situations (ie pedophilia, increased risks of birth defects via inbreeding, etc.), why should there be?
 
Junebug said:
But the law doesn't prohibit a church from conducting a "sacrament of marriage" (or whatever they might call it), it just denies that ceremony from having any legal effect, right?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, it's never been tested. But, in my understanding, calling it marriage w/o a license is illegal.

Here are the basics http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5232355
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top