Christianity in the Queer World

[Darth Denkay]

Absolutely not. I believe in the separation of Church and State, which means whether or not a city/county/state what-have-you legalizes same-sex marriage should have no bearing on a church's position. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Ozio

Then you do not see the threat to cease humanitarian aid by the church in regions that enact same sex marriage laws as condemnation?

[Ozio]

Originally Posted by WicketWWarrick

Absolutely not. I believe in the separation of Church and State, which means whether or not a city/county/state what-have-you legalizes same-sex marriage should have no bearing on a church's position. Plain and simple.

I agree that it should not have a bearing on a churches stance, however the cessation of humanitarian aid by a church due to the enactment of same sex marriage laws certainly does constitute condemnation of homosexuality by that church. I see no way that it could be construed as tolerance or acceptance.

[Hudson]

Originally Posted by Ozio

I agree that it should not have a bearing on a churches stance, however the cessation of humanitarian aid by a church due to the enactment of same sex marriage laws certainly does constitute condemnation of homosexuality by that church. I see no way that it could be construed as tolerance or acceptance.

Agreed. And I agree with apretty, revoke tax-exempt status from churches engaging in political (and I feel your example is/can be) action.

[Ozio]

Originally Posted by Ben-Her

Agreed. And I agree with apretty, revoke tax-exempt status from churches engaging in political (and I feel your example is/can be) action.

I agree with that whole heartedly. I would further state that NO church should withold humanitarian aid in any region for any reason, political or theological in nature. That changes the nature of the aid from humanitarian
to extortionary.

I will attempt, once again, to bring the discussion back to the original subject matter. Should a denomintion tolerant/accepting of homosexuality in a region with no same sex partnering/marriage law disallow it's homosexual clergy to cohabitate with their partners while allowing it's congregates to do so?
Would you lose faith in a pastor's ability to minister if they did so?

[Hudson]

Originally Posted by Ozio

I agree with that whole heartedly. I would further state that NO church should withold humanitarian in any region for any reason, political or theological in nature. That changes the nature of the aid from humanitarian
to extortionary.

I will attempt, once again, to bring the discussion back to the original subject matter. Should a denomintion tolerant/accepting of homosexuality in a region with no same sex partnering/marriage law disallow it's homosexual clergy to cohabitate with their partners while allowing it's congregates to do so?
Would you lose faith in a pastor's ability to minister if they did so?

I'm not a Christian nor religious but I will say yes, they should. In fact, if they truly are tolerant/accepting of homosexuality perhaps they could provide some 'humanitarian aid' to promote legislation that would allow their clergy to marry in their regions.

[Diva]

Originally Posted by Ozio

I agree with that whole heartedly. I would further state that NO church should withold humanitarian aid in any region for any reason, political or theological in nature. That changes the nature of the aid from humanitarian
to extortionary.

I will attempt, once again, to bring the discussion back to the original subject matter. Should a denomintion tolerant/accepting of homosexuality in a region with no same sex partnering/marriage law disallow it's homosexual clergy to cohabitate with their partners while allowing it's congregates to do so?
Would you lose faith in a pastor's ability to minister if they did so?

Paragraph I. No church SHOULD withhold humanitarian aid, but they WILL and DO. At this point, a church ~ or body of congregants ~ ceases to be humanitarian, and become hypocrites.

Paragraph II. I believe tolerance should be equal or both congregants and clergy in the areas of marriage.

And no, I would not lose faith in my pastor's ability to minister were he/she to marry.

Additionally ~ and perhaps this is a "whole 'nother can o' worms" ~ perhaps if a certain Pope~led religion were to allow said marriages, there would not be such a high incident of sexually inappropriate behavior within its ranks.'


~Diva

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Diva

Additionally ~ and perhaps this is a "whole 'nother can o' worms" ~ perhaps if a certain Pope~led religion were to allow said marriages, there would not be such a high incident of sexually inappropriate behavior within its ranks.

The incidence of pedophilia among clergy in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with their inability to marry.

And absolutely, churches should be taxed. It's positively obscene, the amount of wealth 'churches' (and not just the Catholics) are able to amass, primarily because of their tax-exempt status. Want to make money fast? Start your own quasi-Christian feel-good Joyce Meyer-esque 'church'.
Considering the amount of politicking going on from the pulpit, they should be viewed as political organizations with a thin veneer of questionable Christian theology.

[Ozio]

Originally Posted by Ben-Her

I'm not a Christian nor religious but I will say yes, they should. In fact, if they truly are tolerant/accepting of homosexuality perhaps they could provide some 'humanitarian aid' to promote legislation that would allow their clergy to marry in their regions.

I don't believe any organized church should become involved in politics for any reason. When they do, I feel they should have their tax exempt status revoked as they have ceased to be worship based and moved toward becoming a political organization.

Originally Posted by Diva

Paragraph I. No church SHOULD withhold humanitarian aid, but they WILL and DO. At this point, a church ~ or body of congregants ~ ceases to be humanitarian, and become hypocrites.

Paragraph II. I believe tolerance should be equal or both congregants and clergy in the areas of marriage.

And no, I would not lose faith in my pastor's ability to minister were he/she to marry.

Additionally ~ and perhaps this is a "whole 'nother can o' worms" ~ perhaps if a certain Pope~led religion were to allow said marriages, there would not be such a high incident of sexually inappropriate behavior within its ranks.'


~Diva

A pedophile will not stop offending because they have married, and many of them (protestants and non clergy) are married. Reassigning them to duties that don't involve contact with children will not necessarily protect any child from them. It is my personal belief that they should be expelled from the clergy, and criminally prosecuted. Their church should be obliged to aid in that prosecution

Originally Posted by Bob

The incidence of pedophilia among clergy in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with their inability to marry.

And absolutely, churches should be taxed. It's positively obscene, the amount of wealth 'churches' (and not just the Catholics) are able to amass, primarily because of their tax-exempt status. Want to make money fast? Start your own quasi-Christian feel-good Joyce Meyer-esque 'church'.
Considering the amount of politicking going on from the pulpit, they should be viewed as political organizations with a thin veneer of questionable Christian theology.

The purpose of tax exempt status for organized churches is to promote their humanitarian efforts. To tax all churches would leave many unable to render much needed humanitarian aid abroad and to their communities. However, if they become involved in politics, then they should be taxed and listed as a ministry, not a church, and as a political organization.