Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So you argue that we don't have the right to agree to disagree. That, I don't have the right to bow out of a increasingly pointless debate. Why, because I haven't converted to your way of thought? That is very dangerous territory.

Every christian sect currently as far as searches have gone uses the term convervting or conversion as the act of dropping an old belief structure in favor of a new one.(usually theirs). Once again right to free speech and working from common usage. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on that, seems like your really stretching to split hairs.

Sorry dropped a word or two on the moral code thing. (as its related to their personal moral code)You seem to be of the opinion that they are not related. I believe they are, in that a lot of a persons belief structure will only take hold if their moral code supports such. And it is "possible" to change both in that beliefs support the moral code. You change someones fundemental belief to the point they beleive that something that was ok before is now immoral.


Dogma,
Yes there "is" something fundamentally wrong with this country.

We already covered our views on the possibility of a church making a "political statement" by refusing to marry thus losing its status as a non-profit entity. I, again ask that we agree to disagree.

Once accepted as the new term Civil Unions, with supreme court backing and one pen stroke your argument falls. Again, offering to agree to disagree.

But once notarized its a legal doc and in some areas ,I beleive because its been so in the past, and some areas have allowed that document to be filed. All I ask is to pull the word marriage off of the county document and the rest will follow. Again, offering to agree to disagree.

There are moderate bi-partisan groups moving toward this end(removing the word). There numbers are strong but they don't make for good news as to they aren't playing into the conflict. You have extremists on both sides shouting that they are right. Its easier to explain in example.
:example: There is a freedom of speech demonstration at which some one burns a flag. They are then arrested which makes for good news. What if the cop just cited them for burning without a license. The extreme action and reaction make for headline news. the moderate action never gets mentioned.
But if you wish to disagree thats ok. this is just my take on the problem.

And, yes a bigot can change. I try to always remeber this quote from a lady I know "everyones a little bigotted at some point". Keeps the human tendency for self-rightiousness in check. Also not everything percieved as bigoted is and vise versa.

And no such luxury, the fight will continue, most likely escalating. And Again I offer to agree to disagree.

Finally some food for thought. We have a modern concept of separation of church and state. The founders felt this ammendment necessary or it wouldn't have figured so prominently. It was that the church and state had for a long time been synomous in Europe. What with state religions, nobility crowned by the church, Divine right of Kings. There was no distinction of marriage in church and state because the two were considered irrevocably intertwined.
Wasn't till the thought of constitutional monarchy that this slowly began to change. Took about two hundred years for the first ratifications and laws on marraige. It, also, was the time that spanned the hundred years war, the war of the roses, and Henry VIII. So they, probably, should be pardoned as to the tardiness of their actions.

Even as this country was being settled the Protestants were being pesecuted by the state religions of England and France. The church and the royalty both ruled together. With religion used to control & subjugate the masses far more cost effectivley than constantly keeping the army on guard for revolt. Agree or disagree Its history(oh no it rhymed, you may apply demerits as you see fit)

I'm waiting on sebters reply to witch there my replies will be personalized and specific to the dicussion which we have engaged. I beleive the debate is starting to go round robin. Both sides entrenched. Just because someone is a moderate or centrist does not make them a Chamberlain, Many of us are much more tenacious like Winston. If you continue push with a one sided perspective, you will continue to silence the voices of reason and close the hearts and minds of the people willing to work with you to a common good. So I'm withdrawing

focusedfire wrote:So you argue that we don't have the right to agree to disagree. That, I don't have the right to bow out of a increasingly pointless debate. Why, because I haven't converted to your way of thought? That is very dangerous territory.

That is a great strawman you are building there. I never said you didn't have the right to disagree, I stated that relativism isn't a good argument for making defacto second class citizens.

focusedfire wrote:Every christian sect currently as far as searches have gone uses the term convervting or conversion as the act of dropping an old belief structure in favor of a new one.(usually theirs). Once again right to free speech and working from common usage. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on that, seems like your really stretching to split hairs.

I suppose you are right if we are using laymans terms and not theological terms. Of course in laymens tems conversion means more then what you are saying as well.

focusedfire wrote:I believe they are, in that a lot of a persons belief structure will only take hold if their moral code supports such. And it is "possible" to change both in that beliefs support the moral code. You change someones fundemental belief to the point they beleive that something that was ok before is now immoral.

You can believe that, but believing something doesn't mean it is true. Anyone trained in Theology, Philosophy, or Religious Studies can tell you that belief and moral code are seperate things.

Polonius wrote:It is possible that it could be proved that homosexuality is equally immutable, and thus there could be an interesting legal fight there. 20 to find the gay genes

Presuming that there is a "gay gene", then genetic screening for this gene will be made available, possibly mandated.

As a consequence, I would expect the RCC to issue a stand supporting unfettered abortion rights in cases of genetic abnormality.

That's just dumb. The RCC doesn't condemn gay people, only their activities.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

This has degenerated into two very divided sides just 'baaaaaawww!'-ing at one another. But must we continue this



?

WHOOSH!!! That's one for me!

Are you saying you were trying to make a joke?

If so, I find your jokes about aborting gay people as genetic abnormalities highly offensive.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What's the current RCC stand on abortion, and when was it promulgated?

If the RCC were to make such an exception in contradiction to the weight of years of preaching, what once single word would you use to describe the change?

C'mon, it's not difficult...
____

Also, it's not too hard to see the RCC actually going through with the above.

John, what the hell are you talking about? Why are you bringing up abortion and the Roman Catholic Church in a thread about gay marriage and the Mormon Church.

I don't know much about the RCC and abortion cause I'm not Catholic and frankly don't care what they're position is. But to make a stupid comment then make an even stupider comment like "Whoosh, that's one for me." and then to continue with the above post makes me wonder what you are smoking right now.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

@Ozy: As I see it, this whole thread is stupid and pointless, so I might as well treat it as the joke that it is, rather than something of any significance or importance.

Polonius got the ball rolling with the gay gene thing, so I ran with it.

But if it offends you, I'm very sorry.

focusedfire wrote:Sebster, before I reply, a quick off-topic question. Do you support Hate crime legislation?

I'm not a huge fan of it. I can see the merit in adding additional penalties when a crime is committed with a racial intent, because it doesn’t just affect the victim but the whole of that community. However, from the cases I’ve seen it doesn’t appear limited to just those cases.

I’m guessing I’ve now wandered into some kind of clever logical trap, and am quite keen to see what it is.

Ozymandias wrote:That's just dumb. The RCC doesn't condemn gay people, only their activities.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

They're already using psychological screening to identify and remove potentially homosexual candidates for priesthood.

http://www.zenit.org/article-24170?l=english


The bigger issue is not that gene screening won't be used to identify homosexuality, but that such a test is unlikely to ever be reliable. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than a gene or combination of genes, as a variety of environmental factors, especially in the womb, also factor in.

focusedfire wrote:
We already covered our views on the possibility of a church making a "political statement" by refusing to marry thus losing its status as a non-profit entity. I, again ask that we agree to disagree.

I'm not sure churches should not be permitted to incorporate to begin with, but that is an altogether much more complicated matter.

focusedfire wrote:
Once accepted as the new term Civil Unions, with supreme court backing and one pen stroke your argument falls. Again, offering to agree to disagree.

The trouble is the acceptance of the legislation.

focusedfire wrote:
But once notarized its a legal doc and in some areas ,I beleive because its been so in the past, and some areas have allowed that document to be filed. All I ask is to pull the word marriage off of the county document and the rest will follow. Again, offering to agree to disagree.

But pulling the word marriage off the county document would be just as traumatic as simply giving homosexuals access to it. After all, it wouldn't be that hard for the gay marriage opposition to simply sell the legislation as prohibition of marriage. Not to mention that the passing of such a law would lead to an even more drawn out legal battle as the gay marriage opposition would contest each and every change made to the legal code which previously featured the term 'marriage'.

A similar issue arises from the manner in which the clergy is permitted to function as an agent of the state in that it is very clearly Unconstitutional, but if the Supreme Court were to pronounce it so any marriage license bearing the signature of a clergyman would be invalidated.

focusedfire wrote:
There are moderate bi-partisan groups moving toward this end(removing the word). There numbers are strong but they don't make for good news as to they aren't playing into the conflict.

I've never heard of such groups; care to enlighten me?

focusedfire wrote:
Finally some food for thought. We have a modern concept of separation of church and state. The founders felt this ammendment necessary or it wouldn't have figured so prominently. It was that the church and state had for a long time been synomous in Europe.

They weren't really synonymous, the closest they ever came to that was in the Anglican Church. But even there the matter was one of state approval of any given religion, rather than state dictation of a single religion.

focusedfire wrote:
What with state religions, nobility crowned by the church, Divine right of Kings. There was no distinction of marriage in church and state because the two were considered irrevocably intertwined.
Wasn't till the thought of constitutional monarchy that this slowly began to change. Took about two hundred years for the first ratifications and laws on marraige. It, also, was the time that spanned the hundred years war, the war of the roses, and Henry VIII. So they, probably, should be pardoned as to the tardiness of their actions.

Really it was because the idea of the state, as we understand it, did not exist until well after the foundation of the Constitutional Monarchy; which was itself still dependent on divine sanction in its first few incarnations. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia there was no state in terms of a contiguous territorial holding, or a truly centralized government. Rather, there was the Church, and those people whom were blessed to act in its name through the application of hereditary title.

focusedfire wrote:
Even as this country was being settled the Protestants were being pesecuted by the state religions of England and France. The church and the royalty both ruled together. With religion used to control & subjugate the masses far more cost effectivley than constantly keeping the army on guard for revolt. Agree or disagree Its history(oh no it rhymed, you may apply demerits as you see fit)

Of course, what is frequently ignored is the extent to which Puritan beliefs called for a similar persecution of 'deviance' from explicit Biblical text. They required literacy amongst their membership so that all men might gain insight from the inner depths of the Bible, but heavily regulated what forms that insight would take. Indeed, they practiced a kind of evidential conversion process which worked in almost the exact same way as the right of hereditary succession which they meant to protest. Their argument wasn't so much that the state should not sanction the church, but that the church and the state should be one and the same as extensions of the individual.

sebster wrote:They're already using psychological screening to identify and remove potentially homosexual candidates for priesthood.

Wouldn't it be more useful to screen for pedophiles first considering that is actually a much bigger problem?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Ozy: As I see it, this whole thread is stupid and pointless...

Then why do you continue to post in it?

Ahtman wrote:Wouldn't it be more useful to screen for pedophiles first considering that is actually a much bigger problem?

Without knowing for sure, I’d guess that some factions in the Catholic Church probably fall into that old line of thinking that ties homosexuality and paedophilia closely together. So they assume if they can filter out the homosexuals they’ll also filter out the paedophiles. They’re wrong, of course, but I’d guess that’s at least part of their thinking.

Well, and that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn’t be in their church, so they’ll keep them out as well.

dogma wrote:I'm not sure churches should not be permitted to incorporate to begin with, but that is an altogether much more complicated matter.

Incorporation is just the process of creating separate legal entity, protecting members from losing any assets above and beyond those put directly into the new body. I’m not sure members of a local church should be exposed to losing their houses because the church leader had a gambling problem.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Ozy: As I see it, this whole thread is stupid and pointless...

Then why do you continue to post in it?

Because it amuses me.

Pedophilia also was not an official Catholic sin until March of this year.

dogma wrote:Pedophilia also was not an official Catholic sin until March of this year.

We know.

It used to be the official Catholic hobby of the priesthood.

JohnHwangDD wrote:We know.

It used to be the official Catholic hobby of the priesthood.

Careful mate. There have been well documented problems, certainly, and the cover up is disgraceful, but the overwhelming majority of clergy are not paedophiles. If you’ve ever known clergymen, it can be quite offensive to here them called paedophiles.

dogma wrote:Pedophilia also was not an official Catholic sin until March of this year.

In all fairness, the catholic church is pretty clear on when it's ok to have sex: once married, with no birth control, hoping to make babies. Listing every possible variant of "not that" may not have seemed necessary. I'm sure "Fisting" isn't a specific sin, but it's probably covered somewhere.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:We know.

It used to be the official Catholic hobby of the priesthood.

Careful mate. There have been well documented problems, certainly, and the cover up is disgraceful, but the overwhelming majority of clergy are not paedophiles.

Perhaps not in your country.

In mine, it's a fact that there's a large number, who operated with the literal blessings of their superiors, shuffled off onto unsuspecting congregations when hush money payments got too high, with almost nothing done until lawsuits reached a fever pitch (over 500 victims in LA alone).

But hey, if you can't joke about the easiest way to get a nun pregnant...

Meh.

Polonius wrote: I'm sure "Fisting" isn't a specific sin, but it's probably covered somewhere.

Thank God I'm not Catholic.

Um...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps not in your country.

In mine, it's a fact that there's a large number, who operated with the literal blessings of their superiors, shuffled off onto unsuspecting congregations when hush money payments got too high, with almost nothing done until lawsuits reached a fever pitch (over 500 victims in LA alone).

I said it earlier, the cover-up and willingness to move offenders on to new areas to reoffend was a disgrace. But the number of offenders was a very small portion of the total number of clergymen. Even with 500 victims, assuming a very conservative number of 10 victims per offender, you’re looking at a minutely small portion of the total clergy.

But hey, if you can't joke about the easiest way to get a nun pregnant...

Meh.

You can get away with anything, as long as it’s funny.

sebster wrote:
Incorporation is just the process of creating separate legal entity, protecting members from losing any assets above and beyond those put directly into the new body. I’m not sure members of a local church should be exposed to losing their houses because the church leader had a gambling problem.

I should have been more specific. As it stand churches are accorded a special status under NPO taxation laws such that they have to jump through far fewer hoops than other NPOs. I would prefer if that special status were done away with.

Polonius wrote:I'm sure "Fisting" isn't a specific sin, but it's probably covered somewhere.

Sadly this isn't a joke: Fisting and Gods Will. A guide to how a husband can use The Fist of Might on his wife to better understand God.

dogma wrote:I should have been more specific. As it stand churches are accorded a special status under NPO taxation laws such that they have to jump through far fewer hoops than other NPOs. I would prefer if that special status were done away with.

Fair enough, I apologise for my pedantry.

Ahtman wrote:Sadly this isn't a joke: Fisting and Gods Will. A guide to how a husband can use The Fist of Might on his wife to better understand God.

Plus lesbian threesomes (gay threesomes aren't allowed, of course), BSDM, and, of course, mandatory swallowing.

Awesome.

Proof that, when you've got enough source material to work with, you can apparently justify pretty much anything.

Modquisition on:
This thread has wandered into territory inappropriate for Dakka. As such we're shutting 'er down.


Modquisition off: