The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:39 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Müs wrote:
be...cause Gay Marriage is being legalized?


You're not really paying attention, are you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hurray!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Diamondeye wrote:
Beryllin wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I don't quite see how the adoption issue pertains to charity in general. Care to explain? Or were you talking only about adoption?


I don't recall that I said charity, but providing adoption services is "help", which is what I said. An article I read on this said that the Roman Catholics may have to stop providing "adoptions and other services".


Ok, so what other services? Do they pertain to adoption?

As for "help", that's pretty much synonymous with charity in this context as far as I can see.


I don't know. I don't speak for them, and they're the ones you'd have to ask. I mentioned what the article said. Here is the full sentence from the article:

"Opponents included the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which said it might have to stop providing adoptions and other services because the law would force it to extend benefits to same-sex couples."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... -marriage/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:03 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Beryllin wrote:
Müs wrote:
be...cause Gay Marriage is being legalized?


You're not really paying attention, are you.


No, I'm not really understanding the withholding of services that people actually need because someone does something you disagree with.

Oh! Sorry family that wants to help out a child that needs a home! The City Council says Gays can Marry! You can't adopt because we're closing our doors!

But then, like I said, I'm not a good Christian.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:11 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
I think Ber means they are against adopting kids to gay people who are married. If the government forces them to adopt these kids then they'll have to close. Correct me if I'm wrong Ber.

Still sounds a little petty to me though. I'm not going to give a kid to gay parents even though its better than keeping the kid here at the orphanage just because they are gay!

I guess it depends on what you value more, the compassion and charity from within or the rules of a book.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Lydiaa wrote:
I guess it depends on what you value more, the compassion and charity from within or the rules of a book.


Having a good conscience before God is of greater value than anything else. Many Christians have paid with their lives rather than violate their conscience before God.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:42 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
So it doesnt matter what you think is right, but what god tells you is right through a book? Are you then not merely a puppet?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Lydiaa wrote:
So it doesnt matter what you think is right, but what god tells you is right through a book? Are you then not merely a puppet?


If you love your father, does that make you a puppet?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:13 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Love and obeying without thought is two different things. My father taught me to think for myself, to develope my own conscience, to learn from my own experiences and to never impose my belief onto others but to give them the opportunity to learn. He did not give me a rule book and tell me if I did not do as he instructs me then he'll put me in an eternal bad place.

Not even close to the same thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:26 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
so essentially it is a matter of the catholic diocese saying "if you let those kids play we will take our ball and go home". Awesome!

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
darksiege wrote:
so essentially it is a matter of the catholic diocese saying "if you let those kids play we will take our ball and go home". Awesome!

Very nice over-simplification. You might try: "If you want me to play, don't change the rules in the middle of the game."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:04 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Beryllin wrote:
Very nice over-simplification. You might try: "If you want me to play, don't change the rules in the middle of the game."


When the rules are over 2000 years old and exclusionary, and one group to another cannot agree on anything but 10 of the rules.. I think it is a perfect time to change the rules. Especially now that I have heard the Episcopal Church has elected a gay bishop (I have not even tried to confirm this though).

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Beryllin wrote:
darksiege wrote:
so essentially it is a matter of the catholic diocese saying "if you let those kids play we will take our ball and go home". Awesome!

Very nice over-simplification. You might try: "If you want me to play, don't change the rules to something we don't agree with in the middle of the game."


Fixed it for ya Ber, cause you obviously don't rail against every law change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
darksiege wrote:
Beryllin wrote:
Very nice over-simplification. You might try: "If you want me to play, don't change the rules in the middle of the game."


When the rules are over 2000 years old and exclusionary, and one group to another cannot agree on anything but 10 of the rules.. I think it is a perfect time to change the rules. Especially now that I have heard the Episcopal Church has elected a gay bishop (I have not even tried to confirm this though).


Two, in fact. Kinda why so many congregations have split away and taken the Anglican name. Also why you'll not see my shadow in the door of an Episcopalian church.

My point still stands, however. The Archdiocese told them what may happen if they changed the rules. Why give the Archdiocese a hard time if they follow through? Is it impossible for the D.C. gov't to find other sources for "adoption and other services"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Ber, explain to me why it is bad for gay people to adopt kids who are obviously in need of a good home? (well apart from the whole god says gays are bad part, but from the kids' point of view.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Beryllin wrote:
darksiege wrote:
When the rules are over 2000 years old and exclusionary, and one group to another cannot agree on anything but 10 of the rules.. I think it is a perfect time to change the rules. Especially now that I have heard the Episcopal Church has elected a gay bishop (I have not even tried to confirm this though).


Two, in fact. Kinda why so many congregations have split away and taken the Anglican name. Also why you'll not see my shadow in the door of an Episcopalian church.

My point still stands, however. The Archdiocese told them what may happen if they changed the rules. Why give the Archdiocese a hard time if they follow through? Is it impossible for the D.C. gov't to find other sources for "adoption and other services"?


No, its probably really not.

And that's a good thing. The further we can marginalize this kind of bigoted thinking, the better.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Lydiaa wrote:
Ber, explain to me why it is bad for gay people to adopt kids who are obviously in need of a good home? (well apart from the whole god says gays are bad part, but from the kids' point of view.)


You'd have to ask an expert on such things. Personally, imo fathers and mothers each bring to parenting certain skills and attitudes and ways of viewing things. Two fathers denies the child of what the mother brings to the relationship; two mothers denies the child of what the father brings. This is just my opinion, but there are others who agree with me. Like I say, ask an expert. But anyone who thinks there are no differences between men and women needs remedial intervention.

Whether you agree, or think my opinion is bunk, that's fine. Go your own way, just don't ask the church to be responsible. Take it upon yourselves, and reap the rewards yourselves.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Regardless of what scientifical papers I've dug up, we'll leave that opinion to ourselves so I wont go into it further.

However the question begs to be asked. Is the church responsible for all kids adopted out into the families now? Do they provide after adoption services or follow ups?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hurray!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
so I looked it up... And along the lines of Hooray that Monte created this thread with:
LA Times Article: Anglican angst
and for the link impaired, I will spoiler the story.
Spoiler:
LA Times wrote:
Anglican angst
The election of a lesbian bishop in L.A. may spark a formal schism in the church.

RELATED
Glasspool is in the eye of an Anglican storm
PROFILE: The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool
L.A. Episcopal diocese's selection of lesbian bishop draws sharp Anglican rebuke
STORIES
L.A. Episcopal Diocese elects openly gay bishop

By Harold Meyerson
December 15, 2009
E-mailPrint
Share
Text Size

Those Angeleno Anglicans are at it again.

For decades, the Episcopal Church in Los Angeles has been home to some of the most liberal pulpits and congregations in town -- and in the worldwide Anglican Communion. A few years back, Pasadena's venerable All Saints Church was investigated by President George W. Bush's Internal Revenue Service after its former rector delivered a vehement antiwar sermon shortly before the 2004 election. Local Episcopal priests have marched for striking janitors and helped organize the poor.

So it should have come as no great surprise when the L.A. diocesan convention recently elected as its new assistant bishop the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool -- the senior assistant to the bishops of the Maryland diocese, the daughter of an Episcopal priest, and an open lesbian. Her ordination must now be confirmed by the U.S. bishops, who have already been told in no uncertain terms by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself to back off.

"The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect," wrote Archbishop Rowan Williams, "raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole."

The archbishop can hardly be blamed if he sometimes shudders at the thought of pesky American progressives. In 2003, the U.S. bishops ordained a gay bishop for their New Hampshire diocese. In 2006, they elevated the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori to the post of presiding U.S. bishop, the first woman to head a national branch of Anglicanism -- and not just a woman but a woman who allowed the blessing of same-sex couples within her diocese.

Within months of Schori's elevation, a number of more traditionalist Episcopal dioceses around the nation announced that they were leaving the U.S. church and affiliating with more conservative dioceses -- in some cases, with African dioceses where the thought of a woman priest, let alone a gay or lesbian bishop, had yet to cross many minds.

The conservative Anglicans, chiefly in Latin America and Africa, vastly outnumber the American Episcopalians -- there are more than 80 million members of the worldwide Anglican Church, while the American Episcopal Church is home to about 2 million members, including the secessionists. And because the conservative wing has made it clear that there's no place for gay bishops and the like in its vision of Anglicanism, a formal schism is at least a possibility.

Even as the archbishop gazes in dismay at the Episco-libs to his left, a meddlesome pope has now popped up on his right. Without any advance notice to his Anglican brother, Pope Benedict XVI recently announced that the Roman Catholic Church would take to its bosom any Anglican clergy or congregations that want to affiliate with a reliably orthodox church in which the pope's word is law. The congregations could keep their liturgy; the priests (the male priests, that is), their wives.

What the archbishop is really up against is the relativism, the historic particularism, of religion itself. It is sheer folly to expect traditionalist African Anglicans and progressive Pasadena Episcopalians to adhere to the same norms of gender equality, absent either a stunning cross-cultural agreement or a top-down Roman Catholic-style structure. Conservative Episcopalians, who decry the increasing egalitarianism of the American church, want traditionalist transnational norms in every Anglican diocese.

But a common complaint of American and European conservatives against Muslims is that Islam itself is a monolithic faith unsuitable for the pluralistic West. We don't have to accept this characterization of Islam to recognize that it is close to what Anglican traditionalists are advocating for their own church.

Besides, if ever a church were rooted less in timeless truths than in historic particularities, it is Anglicanism, and the Episcopal wing of Anglicanism most of all. Anglicanism began, after all, because the pope would not sanctify Henry VIII's divorce, and Henry used the opportunity to seize the church and all its properties. Episcopalianism began when the leaders of the American Revolution (two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were active or, like George Washington, nominal Anglicans) realized they could hardly stay religiously affiliated with a church headed by the very king against whom they were rebelling secularly.

Given the schismatic and distinctly secular nature of Anglicanism's and Episcopalianism's origins, the pending ordination of L.A.'s lesbian bishop seems well within the church tradition. A faith rooted in the denial of papal authority and kingly authority, a faith that in the United States has increasingly championed egalitarian principles, should hardly be cowed by contingent bigotries masquerading as universal truths.

Harold Meyerson is editor at large of the American Prospect and an Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Lydiaa wrote:
Regardless of what scientifical papers I've dug up, we'll leave that opinion to ourselves so I wont go into it further.

However the question begs to be asked. Is the church responsible for all kids adopted out into the families now? Do they provide after adoption services or follow ups?


I don't know. I'm not Roman Catholic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:55 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Oh, i just thought you might thats all... nm.
Moving right along then...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hurray!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:59 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
More evidence for independence of local churches? That way they can do what they feel is right without being affected by other individuals.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Lydiaa wrote:
Oh, i just thought you might thats all... nm.
Moving right along then...


It's ok. My guess is the state is responsible.

The Archdiocese is responsible to God; it's members responsible to not sin. Violating conscience before God is sin.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
My point was, if the church was not involved in any after adoption care, then they weren't really responsible for anything. Thus who they adopt it to isn't on their conscience so much as they obviously don't do anything with their conscience in teh first place.

Quote:
The Archdiocese is responsible to God; it's members responsible to not sin. Violating conscience before God is sin.


Since you don't have to be catholic to adopt, this doesnt pertain to the archdiocese or it's members. Unless there's a specific note somewhere in the bible saying "don't allow gay people to adopt" it's not really breaking a rule of god. It is then merely a person's own moral code wether or not adoption should be allowed. Of course I also have a problem believeing the only person who speaks to god or 'truely' understands him is the pope... Of course my religion teacher hated me... only subject I failed in >.<


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hurray!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
Depends on whether we're talking responsible in the legal sense or responsible in the moral sense, doesn't it.

There are doctrinal reasons I am not Catholic, or Episcopalian. Imo, on this issue the Catholics are right.

Whatever, but if the Archdiocese pulls back on social services in the D.C. area, city gov't made the decision.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:49 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
More so in the moral sense I believe. Regardless, I feel he's doing this just out of spite, rather than doing the best thing for those most needed, the children.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 266 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group