[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=7359.msg97592#msg97592 date=1227640338] Responding to godislove's claim that "[gays] are deprived of their civil right to get married to whomever they would like, this right, is a right they should have because they are civilians."
You are basing this right on the assumption that people can marry whomever they wish and the state should not get involved in the matter whatsoever. Then following this premise we should allow polygamy, we should also allow allow marriage between lets say a 17 year old teen and 40 year old homosexual, after all the teen is mature enough. Why do we not also allow beastiality..."I can eat a cow but not sleep with it!" As you can see if we allow homosexuality we are heading down a slippery slope. Even if we disregard The Bible in our arguments you can see that the whole fabric of society is destroyed if you allow immorality. The fact is that homosexuality is against morals in the same way beastiality is. Morals are implanted in us by God, and no matter how hard people try to suppress the fact that homosexuality is wrong and everyone knows it. They might try to reason with themselves and justify it but the state should never allow it to be permissible. What is happening is people are trying to remove God and Christianity as much as they can from the state that we are missing the fact that they are adding in the devil and lawlessness in His place. If we do not even abide by the laws of nature what will distinguish us from animals?
Bravo Unworthy1. Very well phrased and thought out...
By the way, I would love to here Sayedna's take on this whole scenario...
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97484#msg97484 date=1227439378] I believe homosexuality is a sin and it will lead to death (just as lying, stealing, etc is a sin) I don't ecourage homosexuality I do encourage freedom (freedom to believe in whatever you want, and freedom to have the sexual orientation you want/ think you were born with without having the state take your rights away)
Allowing homosexual marriage or not allowing it has nothing to do with the acutal homosexuals who are practising the sin anyway...
You are a Coptic Orthodox Christian. That means, when looking at any issue, whether it be homosexuality or aliens for that matter, you are supposed to take a BIBLICAL-ORTHODOX standpoint on the issue...not a liberal one.
It is a big problem these days...liberalism slowly creeping into the church.
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97593#msg97593 date=1227642274] Thus from a purely objective and secular point of view I don't see any argument (non religious) why it shouldn't be allowed.
Why exactly are you taking a purely objective and secular point of view? You're Christian! You know the TRUTH of LIFE! Fight for it!
When OKeen posted the link, you were the first one who assumed the mantle of critic (Mina's post was first,but he was only musing and scratching his head as to how some people got hold of something that he recorded). This means that you should expect to be chaIlenged if the need to do arises. I had 2 choices. To keep quite ,ignore the issue and move on.The only positive result of this choice would be, you will not be ticked off .Nothing more. Or to challenge your position and set the record straight.I chose the latter one,because I felt the person of a Bishop and the dignity of his Episcopal office was unfairly humiliated.Your response is full of emotions rather than rebuttals and If I were in your position and someone would write me what I wrote, I would make an effort to go back and listen to the whole sermon once again in order to find out why and where I went wrong. Apparantly, you have not done that.For heavens sake, Mina has bothered himself to google part of His Grace's speech and has posted the verbatim transcript and you have not commented on that yet.Why not? You should!
Many of us like GodHelpMe, worthy1, Krillyos etc who find faults with your comments are not attempting to sideline ,insult your intelligence or take away your rights to voice opposing opinion.As far as I am concerened,my problem is not with your stand on the issue of gays rights, but with your wrong approach on dealing with the issue. Now, let me have a look at some of your replies.
Now, under normal circumstances, you saying that I don't come across as a christian or an orthodox would be the absolute worst thing anyone could say to me. Depending on who the comment came from, it would not only bother me, but brake my spirit in a way that is very difficult to mend.
I take full responsibilities for evey word I write for they are mine, but where did I say such a thing? Could you please post the entire sentence that even hints something like that so that I and others take a look at it?? Now, I said that "I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for". I still stand by it.This does in no way mean that you are not a chrisitian or Orthodox.I am not talking about your faith but about your unfair judgement and the unwarranted comments that you made about a Bishop. I think, they are insulting and degrading. If what I think is wrong, the field is yours to show me that I erred big time. Please do so!
still, I don't view journalism as my most trusted source, and who knows if there were other articles written that were completely different?
As you know by now, I do not get this one either. What are you saying? I may perhaps have symphaticised with your view had the article come solely from an Orthodox sourcethat known for its bias, but do you doubt the contents of an article that was written by the stakeholders, the Angelican church in their own Journal? The Ecunemical discussion did not take place behind closed doors.It was conducted in public in broad daylight.The probability that they would misconstrue the true outcome of the discussions to suit their agenda is virtulally NIL. Why would you find the article as an untrustworthy source? Why would they report something false about the activities that took place in their own diocese in the presence of the multitude? to benefit whom? You need to think about that!
And as I didn't like the way he portrayed gays
And I am attaching few lines from your last post "
I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity"; “if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred” ;” So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous”; “ he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”; The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”.
I have a question- How did he portray gays ?What words did he use, I mean his very own? What did he say to portray them as nature freaks,paedophiles? What exact words did he use to equate HS to paedopiles? These are my core questions that will not go away.So would you care to post it here?
Regardless, I don't know HG personally and I don't have anything against him
That is not the point. I do not know him either.I should not know him to defend him against false label. The congregations of St Mark church in Jersey do not know him either,but yet he crossed continents to bring them the peace and blessings of Christ, because He is the brother and father in the Lord Christ. I know these facts: that one of his missions in life is defending the one and true church of St Athansius that had been handed down from generation to generation unscathed. I know that he is making sure that the coming generations enjoy the true Orthodox faith that we are enjoying. I Know that He a God elect, who has a lot of struggles and strifes in this life. I do know that he would be there for me and for you when ever we need his spritual guidiance and God's help, regardless of where we are,whether we know him physically or we hate his guts.
Hey, Hezekiel, I think you should be more precise. I never said HG literally said that pedophiles where monsters and pedophiles in that I never quoted him on anything... ..but be fair and don't accuse me of something I didn't do
You said that he referred to HS as freaks and it can not get anymore literal. Here is what you wrote :So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous...
Please do not reply for Part 2 is follwoing tomorrow... Sorry folks for the long post.
A) Separation of Religion and State Your post proved to me, you still don't get it... You speak of God-given rights in a state.. This is where we disagree, no such thing in a state, there shouldn't be mention of God, the God of religion. A state doesn't have a religion nor a God.
It is possible that I did not get it. Nothing is wrong with that. I may get it thru my skull,if you’d help me understand. Comparing the rights of HS with the basic rights of Copts is like comparing an ant with an elephant. I said the Copts have a 'God- given' right to demand things that is rightfully theirs. I used the term “God” because I am a Christian and see God in everything.The Atheist or the non –religious can use other terms when dealing with a state that knows no God and may call it ‘My lawful Citizen rights”. What terms oppressed people use to obtain their rights does not matter as long as their rights are being trampled upon by the state.
Anba Soriel defined the human rights of Copts as legitimate and a just cause.The reason for that obvious.Copts are only asking for EQAULITY.They are not demanding anything more than the Musilms. They also refuse to settle for anything less as well. Let me mention some of the Copts demands that the state should implement without ifs and buts.
1) Young Christian girls are being hijacked , raped and converted by force to Islam by extremists. The state has deliberately turned a blind eye on this savage acts and is giving protection to the perpetrators.Copts demand an end to this barbaric acts from the middle ages.I know what I am talking about for I have been to several demonstrations with many of my friends to protest against this evil thing.
2)Copts demand the abolishing of ID cards that show the religious affiliation of a citizen for the idea 0f doing so is identify and target the non-muslim
3)They want the state to lift off restriction that are imposed upon them to build and repair Churchs.Muslims can build their Mosques without restriction anywhere and at anytime.
4) Copts demand to be have access to schools that are state funded.They want to enrol at Universtities like Al Ahzar, military schools and police academies without discrimination.
5) Copts want equal access to state controlled media outlets such us TV and Radio stations to broadcast the word of God to the faithful.This is a legitimate reason ,because like their counterparts,the Copts do also pay TAX for TV and Radio licences.
6) Copts want their history, language and culture be offered in Egyptian schools and universities.Coptic history must be an integral part of the school curriculum.The safety and greatness of Egypt depends on the acceptance and knowdge of this history.
7)Copts demand equal job opportunities. For example, there are no Christian governors,college deans, mayors, chief of police etc.They demand an end to this restrictions.
The list goes on....How on earth could you compare the demand of HS to that of the CITIZENARY RIGHTS of the Copts??
These are all ,if not God given- rights, then they are NATURAL RIGHTS of A CITIZEN..
You wrote:
he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”;‘The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”...but they are not infalliable..
I tried to tell you that it is unwise to question the wisdom of religious figures.They never claimed to be infallible. They know their human weaknesses.However,you may have not understood what I mean. Let me be blunt:Neither You nor I as lay people have the right to disagree with the church clergy. You are no wiser than your teacher! if you think you are, then you should know better.Our teachers are the elect of God who have abandoned wordly riches for the sake of Christ.Their constant struggles and pain is written in their faces.They wake up at 3 am to pray ,to raise the incense and to be in communion with their God.Their life long experiences , tough asectic life and knowledge in matters of faith and God puts us in no position to question them.Could you go up to Pope Shenouda and tell him that you disagree with him or that one of his bishops exaggerated as you said here?? His Holiness wrote countless books, is there anything that you found disagreeable in his books? Think about it.
Finally I asked you 2 questions last time. I would like to include them here..for I expect an answer to all my questions, if possible.
1)If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
2)Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me put your shoes in a similar situation and ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your adopted country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
Hezekiel, I didn't see much new in your posts, and honestly I'm really tired of repeating the same thing over and over again...
As far as I am concerened,my problem is not with your stand on the issue of gays rights, but with your wrong approach on dealing with the issue.
Khalass if you don't have a problem with my stand, why the long posts???
I didn't compare the suffering of the copts with whatever gays go through, I said that before, I compare the principal of us claiming something that in other people's eyes might be illigit based on their religion, also I didn't read your list of things Copts go through, for I do know what my people go through in Egypt, and I think it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.. I brought Egypt up when I could have said Algeria, Marocco or any other muslim state where there are christians...
I answered before and said I don't want the church to be quiet, it should do as Christ said at all time, but this is a state matter and a matter of equal rights (equal judicial rights to all citizens) let me explain:
HG, 3ala 3eny we rasi, really, if you think my way of approaching the issue (and it seems to me especially my words about HG's sermon) are the things bothering you most, I already said I know my words can be harsh sometimes and hurtful, but my point still stands, HG was speaking about homosexuals but while he was supposed to be speaking about this particular issue, he talked only about pedophiles, schools in America with their wrong approad to sexuality, extreme homosexual groups who claim wrong things are right... Not all homosexuals agree with those extreme things and not all of them have an 'agenda', I think that's the word HG used... He never literally said it and I never claimed he did, but we all know, things don't have to be said but can be understood nontheless, and this is what I understood: HG giving a picture of homosexuals in general that does not correspond with reality, agreeing with me is only optional...
Also, I did not disagree with HG on theology where he undoubtadly knows more than I do, and where I wouldn't open up my mouth even... I disagree with the way he approached the issue, as simple as that...
I didn't listen to the sermon again because the discussion went from being purely about the sermon to being about rights of homosexuals, and I didn't feel it necessary to listen to the sermon again when discussing this issue because I felt I backed my arguments enough already...
If I was deported to Egypt, as I said before, I would want a democratic, objective state to be the one to protect my civil rights, and not the church... However the state is neither democratic nor objective, so I would count on God as I should always do
Btw, if you don't agree with me, I should mention this is also the position of the pope, who whenever there is a problem, goes through the state's way, which is the judicial way to solve it and doesn't solve it himself
And if sometimes he has to solve it himself (thus interfere with state matters), then it's because it's a necessity (like with Mario and Andrew) because it's a fact that Egyptian gov doesn't always abide by its own laws but his interference is not the preferred path nor is it the path that should normally be taken...
In the end, church and state should not interfere for we have seen examples in the past of how this is the ruin of both the church and the state..
Can I ask you one question though?
What do you want to achieve? What is your goal from posting these posts? You already made your point, you defended what you thought should be defended, what more do you want now?
The discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I stand by my point of view that homosexuals should not be deprived of their civil right to have a civil marriage for I see no reasons (apart from religion) why that would be wrong...
Marriage is not a State issue- it's a Social obligation and commitment- the fruit of which is a family- the core unit of society. To allow Homosexual marriage is to allow the disintegration of the social fabric. The only reason this is being considered, is that with the prevalence of contraceptive use, sexuality has become divorced from childbirth- as well as the high incidence of premarital sexual intercourse.
it also has reverberating effects on the Church- already the State is imposing on Churches and other Institutions where such marriage is allowed, and forcing them not to discriminate against homosexuals.
To allow homosexual marriage, is to allow them to full rights to adopt children (though I understand that right is afforded to Civil homosexuals and singles in some states). Psychoanalytical theory attests that this is destructive to the upbringing of children. Current studies are biased, done by lobbyists and thus its validity is difficult to determine. Not on our favour is the endorsement of APA for reform, however, I think they are overreaching. I think more clinical studies need to be done, by non-biased and controlled means.
However, I share some of the resistance godislove260 has regarding H.G. sermon. I think he several points- too bad this interface is too restricting.
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7359.msg97509#msg97509 date=1227483977] [quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=7359.msg97505#msg97505 date=1227482748] I dont know how things are organised in the states, but where I live (and in belgium, my neigbour country ;)), civil marriage doesnt mean anything close to our sacramental marriage. Civil marriage is some kind of contract that gives two people who share a living some legal advantages, and they are registered as living together etc. In our view, marriage is the unity of two people through the grace of the Holy Spirit, its a holy thing, a mystery, something divine. Not simply a contract between two people, deciding to live under one roof. So basically, civil marriage in the church view is not valid as a marriage in the first place. Two christian people living together as being married, while only having a civil marriage are considered unmarried by the church, and therefore in a state of sin right? In that case, does it matter who is joined in this civil marriage? Whether its a male and female, two males, two jellyfish even? It's all not considered a lawfull marriage anyway!!!!!! For that reason, i think debating this whole issue is not relevant. Here in my country by democratic laws, the majority of the people approved of same sex marriage...what do we do? Go yell in front of the parlement and say all these people will go to hell? I don't think that's the way a democracy works. I can disagree with the majority, but i live in peace with those who think otherwise. The majority of the people here don't believe in God, but as we live in a democracy i'm granted the right to worship as i like, to believe in God, to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, but I cannot force this upon anyone. In that sense i agree with godislove on most of what she said, its too long to mention all the seperate points, so i'll just the post nice and short ;)
I don't know if you realise, but just by disagreeing with the majority, you are doing something.
Exactly. That's how the Homosexuals and their sympathisers got to this position.
Comments
Responding to godislove's claim that "[gays] are deprived of their civil right to get married to whomever they would like, this right, is a right they should have because they are civilians."
You are basing this right on the assumption that people can marry whomever they wish and the state should not get involved in the matter whatsoever. Then following this premise we should allow polygamy, we should also allow allow marriage between lets say a 17 year old teen and 40 year old homosexual, after all the teen is mature enough. Why do we not also allow beastiality..."I can eat a cow but not sleep with it!" As you can see if we allow homosexuality we are heading down a slippery slope. Even if we disregard The Bible in our arguments you can see that the whole fabric of society is destroyed if you allow immorality. The fact is that homosexuality is against morals in the same way beastiality is. Morals are implanted in us by God, and no matter how hard people try to suppress the fact that homosexuality is wrong and everyone knows it. They might try to reason with themselves and justify it but the state should never allow it to be permissible. What is happening is people are trying to remove God and Christianity as much as they can from the state that we are missing the fact that they are adding in the devil and lawlessness in His place. If we do not even abide by the laws of nature what will distinguish us from animals?
Bravo Unworthy1. Very well phrased and thought out...
By the way, I would love to here Sayedna's take on this whole scenario...
But in the meantime i see the discussion has really developed (or stagnated).
Would it be arrogant of me to ask Godislove or Hezekiel to give me a quick 10 line summary of the developments???
It seems so so sosooooo long to read all that i've missed.
I believe homosexuality is a sin and it will lead to death (just as lying, stealing, etc is a sin)
I don't ecourage homosexuality
I do encourage freedom (freedom to believe in whatever you want, and freedom to have the sexual orientation you want/ think you were born with without having the state take your rights away)
Allowing homosexual marriage or not allowing it has nothing to do with the acutal homosexuals who are practising the sin anyway...
You are a Coptic Orthodox Christian. That means, when looking at any issue, whether it be homosexuality or aliens for that matter, you are supposed to take a BIBLICAL-ORTHODOX standpoint on the issue...not a liberal one.
It is a big problem these days...liberalism slowly creeping into the church.
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97593#msg97593 date=1227642274]
Thus from a purely objective and secular point of view I don't see any argument (non religious) why it shouldn't be allowed.
Why exactly are you taking a purely objective and secular point of view? You're Christian! You know the TRUTH of LIFE! Fight for it!
When OKeen posted the link, you were the first one who assumed the mantle of critic (Mina's post was first,but he was only musing and scratching his head as to how some people got hold of something that he recorded). This means that you should expect to be chaIlenged if the need to do arises. I had 2 choices. To keep quite ,ignore the issue and move on.The only positive result of this choice would be, you will not be ticked off .Nothing more. Or to challenge your position and set the record straight.I chose the latter one,because I felt the person of a Bishop and the dignity of his Episcopal office was unfairly humiliated.Your response is full of emotions rather than rebuttals and If I were in your position and someone would write me what I wrote, I would make an effort to go back and listen to the whole sermon once again in order to find out why and where I went wrong. Apparantly, you have not done that.For heavens sake, Mina has bothered himself to google part of His Grace's speech and has posted the verbatim transcript and you have not commented on that yet.Why not? You should!
Many of us like GodHelpMe, worthy1, Krillyos etc who find faults with your comments are not attempting to sideline ,insult your intelligence or take away your rights to voice opposing opinion.As far as I am concerened,my problem is not with your stand on the issue of gays rights, but with your wrong approach on dealing with the issue. Now, let me have a look at some of your replies. I take full responsibilities for evey word I write for they are mine, but where did I say such a thing? Could you please post the entire sentence that even hints something like that so that I and others take a look at it?? Now, I said that "I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for". I still stand by it.This does in no way mean that you are not a chrisitian or Orthodox.I am not talking about your faith but about your unfair judgement and the unwarranted comments that you made about a Bishop. I think, they are insulting and degrading. If what I think is wrong, the field is yours to show me that I erred big time. Please do so! As you know by now, I do not get this one either. What are you saying? I may perhaps have symphaticised with your view had the article come solely from an Orthodox sourcethat known for its bias, but do you doubt the contents of an article that was written by the stakeholders, the Angelican church in their own Journal? The Ecunemical discussion did not take place behind closed doors.It was conducted in public in broad daylight.The probability that they would misconstrue the true outcome of the discussions to suit their agenda is virtulally NIL. Why would you find the article as an untrustworthy source? Why would they report something false about the activities that took place in their own diocese in the presence of the multitude? to benefit whom? You need to think about that! And I am attaching few lines from your last post
" I have a question- How did he portray gays ?What words did he use, I mean his very own? What did he say to portray them as nature freaks,paedophiles? What exact words did he use to equate HS to paedopiles? These are my core questions that will not go away.So would you care to post it here? That is not the point. I do not know him either.I should not know him to defend him against false label. The congregations of St Mark church in Jersey do not know him either,but yet he crossed continents to bring them the peace and blessings of Christ, because He is the brother and father in the Lord Christ. I know these facts: that one of his missions in life is defending the one and true church of St Athansius that had been handed down from generation to generation unscathed. I know that he is making sure that the coming generations enjoy the true Orthodox faith that we are enjoying. I Know that He a God elect, who has a lot of struggles and strifes in this life. I do know that he would be there for me and for you when ever we need his spritual guidiance and God's help, regardless of where we are,whether we know him physically or we hate his guts.
You said that he referred to HS as freaks and it can not get anymore literal. Here is what you wrote :So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous...
Please do not reply for Part 2 is follwoing tomorrow... Sorry folks for the long post.
This is part 2..
You wrote: It is possible that I did not get it. Nothing is wrong with that. I may get it thru my skull,if you’d help me understand. Comparing the rights of HS with the basic rights of Copts is like comparing an ant with an elephant. I said the Copts have a 'God- given' right to demand things that is rightfully theirs. I used the term “God” because I am a Christian and see God in everything.The Atheist or the non –religious can use other terms when dealing with a state that knows no God and may call it ‘My lawful Citizen rights”. What terms oppressed people use to obtain their rights does not matter as long as their rights are being trampled upon by the state.
Anba Soriel defined the human rights of Copts as legitimate and a just cause.The reason for that obvious.Copts are only asking for EQAULITY.They are not demanding anything more than the Musilms. They also refuse to settle for anything less as well. Let me mention some of the Copts demands that the state should implement without ifs and buts.
1) Young Christian girls are being hijacked , raped and converted by force to Islam by extremists. The state has deliberately turned a blind eye on this savage acts and is giving protection to the perpetrators.Copts demand an end to this barbaric acts from the middle ages.I know what I am talking about for I have been to several demonstrations with many of my friends to protest against this evil thing.
2)Copts demand the abolishing of ID cards that show the religious affiliation of a citizen for the idea 0f doing so is identify and target the non-muslim
3)They want the state to lift off restriction that are imposed upon them to build and repair Churchs.Muslims can build their Mosques without restriction anywhere and at anytime.
4) Copts demand to be have access to schools that are state funded.They want to enrol at Universtities like Al Ahzar, military schools and police academies without discrimination.
5) Copts want equal access to state controlled media outlets such us TV and Radio stations to broadcast the word of God to the faithful.This is a legitimate reason ,because like their counterparts,the Copts do also pay TAX for TV and Radio licences.
6) Copts want their history, language and culture be offered in Egyptian schools and universities.Coptic history must be an integral part of the school curriculum.The safety and greatness of Egypt depends on the acceptance and knowdge of this history.
7)Copts demand equal job opportunities. For example, there are no Christian governors,college deans, mayors, chief of police etc.They demand an end to this restrictions.
The list goes on....How on earth could you compare the demand of HS to that of the CITIZENARY RIGHTS of the Copts??
These are all ,if not God given- rights, then they are NATURAL RIGHTS of A CITIZEN..
You wrote: I tried to tell you that it is unwise to question the wisdom of religious figures.They never claimed to be infallible. They know their human weaknesses.However,you may have not understood what I mean. Let me be blunt:Neither You nor I as lay people have the right to disagree with the church clergy. You are no wiser than your teacher! if you think you are, then you should know better.Our teachers are the elect of God who have abandoned wordly riches for the sake of Christ.Their constant struggles and pain is written in their faces.They wake up at 3 am to pray ,to raise the incense and to be in communion with their God.Their life long experiences , tough asectic life and knowledge in matters of faith and God puts us in no position to question them.Could you go up to Pope Shenouda and tell him that you disagree with him or that one of his bishops exaggerated as you said here?? His Holiness wrote countless books, is there anything that you found disagreeable in his books? Think about it.
Finally I asked you 2 questions last time. I would like to include them here..for I expect an answer to all my questions, if possible.
1)If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
2)Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me put your shoes in a similar situation and ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your adopted country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
so long for now
As far as I am concerened,my problem is not with your stand on the issue of gays rights, but with your wrong approach on dealing with the issue.
Khalass if you don't have a problem with my stand, why the long posts???
I didn't compare the suffering of the copts with whatever gays go through, I said that before, I compare the principal of us claiming something that in other people's eyes might be illigit based on their religion, also I didn't read your list of things Copts go through, for I do know what my people go through in Egypt, and I think it's completely irrelevant to the discussion..
I brought Egypt up when I could have said Algeria, Marocco or any other muslim state where there are christians...
I answered before and said I don't want the church to be quiet, it should do as Christ said at all time, but this is a state matter and a matter of equal rights (equal judicial rights to all citizens) let me explain:
HG, 3ala 3eny we rasi, really, if you think my way of approaching the issue (and it seems to me especially my words about HG's sermon) are the things bothering you most,
I already said I know my words can be harsh sometimes and hurtful, but my point still stands, HG was speaking about homosexuals but while he was supposed to be speaking about this particular issue, he talked only about pedophiles, schools in America with their wrong approad to sexuality, extreme homosexual groups who claim wrong things are right...
Not all homosexuals agree with those extreme things and not all of them have an 'agenda', I think that's the word HG used...
He never literally said it and I never claimed he did, but we all know, things don't have to be said but can be understood nontheless, and this is what I understood: HG giving a picture of homosexuals in general that does not correspond with reality, agreeing with me is only optional...
Also, I did not disagree with HG on theology where he undoubtadly knows more than I do, and where I wouldn't open up my mouth even... I disagree with the way he approached the issue, as simple as that...
I didn't listen to the sermon again because the discussion went from being purely about the sermon to being about rights of homosexuals, and I didn't feel it necessary to listen to the sermon again when discussing this issue because I felt I backed my arguments enough already...
If I was deported to Egypt, as I said before, I would want a democratic, objective state to be the one to protect my civil rights, and not the church...
However the state is neither democratic nor objective, so I would count on God as I should always do
Btw, if you don't agree with me, I should mention this is also the position of the pope, who whenever there is a problem, goes through the state's way, which is the judicial way to solve it and doesn't solve it himself
And if sometimes he has to solve it himself (thus interfere with state matters), then it's because it's a necessity (like with Mario and Andrew) because it's a fact that Egyptian gov doesn't always abide by its own laws but his interference is not the preferred path nor is it the path that should normally be taken...
In the end, church and state should not interfere for we have seen examples in the past of how this is the ruin of both the church and the state..
Can I ask you one question though?
What do you want to achieve? What is your goal from posting these posts?
You already made your point, you defended what you thought should be defended, what more do you want now?
The discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I stand by my point of view that homosexuals should not be deprived of their civil right to have a civil marriage for I see no reasons (apart from religion) why that would be wrong...
God Bless you
Please pray for my weakness
it also has reverberating effects on the Church- already the State is imposing on Churches and other Institutions where such marriage is allowed, and forcing them not to discriminate against homosexuals.
To allow homosexual marriage, is to allow them to full rights to adopt children (though I understand that right is afforded to Civil homosexuals and singles in some states). Psychoanalytical theory attests that this is destructive to the upbringing of children. Current studies are biased, done by lobbyists and thus its validity is difficult to determine. Not on our favour is the endorsement of APA for reform, however, I think they are overreaching. I think more clinical studies need to be done, by non-biased and controlled means.
However, I share some of the resistance godislove260 has regarding H.G. sermon. I think he several points- too bad this interface is too restricting.
[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=7359.msg97505#msg97505 date=1227482748]
I dont know how things are organised in the states, but where I live (and in belgium, my neigbour country ;)), civil marriage doesnt mean anything close to our sacramental marriage. Civil marriage is some kind of contract that gives two people who share a living some legal advantages, and they are registered as living together etc.
In our view, marriage is the unity of two people through the grace of the Holy Spirit, its a holy thing, a mystery, something divine. Not simply a contract between two people, deciding to live under one roof. So basically, civil marriage in the church view is not valid as a marriage in the first place. Two christian people living together as being married, while only having a civil marriage are considered unmarried by the church, and therefore in a state of sin right?
In that case, does it matter who is joined in this civil marriage? Whether its a male and female, two males, two jellyfish even? It's all not considered a lawfull marriage anyway!!!!!! For that reason, i think debating this whole issue is not relevant. Here in my country by democratic laws, the majority of the people approved of same sex marriage...what do we do? Go yell in front of the parlement and say all these people will go to hell? I don't think that's the way a democracy works. I can disagree with the majority, but i live in peace with those who think otherwise. The majority of the people here don't believe in God, but as we live in a democracy i'm granted the right to worship as i like, to believe in God, to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, but I cannot force this upon anyone.
In that sense i agree with godislove on most of what she said, its too long to mention all the seperate points, so i'll just the post nice and short ;)
I don't know if you realise, but just by disagreeing with the majority, you are doing something.
Exactly. That's how the Homosexuals and their sympathisers got to this position.