Jump to content

Menu

.


Scarlett
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/15/2019 at 1:08 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

Oh  I don't know.  You seem pretty black and white about whether relatives should attend a gay wedding against their beliefs.  😊

That aside, I find the concept of a gay wedding equally bizarre and being Catholic, can't imagine anyone close to me inviting me to one and would have profound sadness at the state of their situation if they did have one to invite me to.

 

Nm

Edited by Frances
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there-In our Episcopal marriage service, the congregation does vow to support the couple in their marriage. 

 

"Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your
power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?"

I suppose you could just not say the above, if you didn't want to support the marriage. It is kinda assumed that you want to, if you are there. 

I'll bow out now. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

As just one example, people on this board who oppose sex before marriage often say they attend baby showers for children born out of wedlock to support the parents and celebrate the new life. 

 

Um.  Having a baby is not a sin?  All for supporting babies.  Big fan of that. 🎉

However, I wouldn't go to a house warming party for a couple moving in together without marriage.  Does it help to know I'm usually consistent?  I also wouldn't support them having sex outside marriage via any other means such as supplying birth control, looking the other way for sleep overs, or what all else.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I'll take your word for that sense you know your people better than I do.

But for me, that makes no sense that people expect others to be "supporting" of them doing something viewed as a sin by those others as a requirement of love.  Does this apply to all possible sins or just this one?  What other sins should people be supporting of as a requirement of love?

But if the person knows your view of same sex marriage, and God knows your view of same sex marriage, and they know that you attending doesn't mean you support same sex marriage, then attending the marriage would not be seen by God or the grandson as supporting the sin. There are ways to communicate your beliefs on the matter and still attend. Similar to how a person can attend a pig roast on a Friday and lent and as long as they themselves don't eat the meat, they are not participating in the sin of violating the fast. 

(and I do get that others see that differently, but there is a logical argument to be made that going doesn't mean participating or even supporting. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Frances said:

As just one example, people on this board who oppose sex before marriage often say they attend baby showers for children born out of wedlock to support the parents and celebrate the new life. 

Sex outside of marriage and the birth of a baby, while certainly related, are entirely different things.

I would attend a baby shower. I would not attend a "we're moving in together without getting married" celebration.

(Cross posted with Murphy 😄 )

Edited by maize
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Um.  Having a baby is not a sin?  All for supporting babies.  Big fan of that. 🎉

However, I wouldn't go to a house warming party for a couple moving in together without marriage.  Does it help to know I'm usually consistent?  I also wouldn't support them having sex outside marriage via any other means such as supplying birth control, looking the other way for sleep overs, or what all else.  

The baby is a result of having sex outside of marriage and the party is celebrate the result of parents doing that and to support the parents who did it and are likely continuing to do it. I’ve certainly heard of people refusing to attend or refusing to host a shower for such a situation, just as some will not attend a gay marriage. I’m not just making up a random example.

Edited by Frances
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example would be people attending a second marriage when in their faith that would constitute committing adultery on the part of those getting married. Some might apply their beliefs and standards to any couple, some only to couples who share their faith, and some only to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But if the person knows your view of same sex marriage, and God knows your view of same sex marriage, and they know that you attending doesn't mean you support same sex marriage, then attending the marriage would not be seen by God or the grandson as supporting the sin. There are ways to communicate your beliefs on the matter and still attend. Similar to how a person can attend a pig roast on a Friday and lent and as long as they themselves don't eat the meat, they are not participating in the sin of violating the fast. 

(and I do get that others see that differently, but there is a logical argument to be made that going doesn't mean participating or even supporting. 

 

I'm interested in reading that argument.

Let's apply that logic to other sins.

I go into store with a person knowing they are going to steal because that's what they told me they were inviting me to see -  but if I tell them how much I don't think it's right, wellll I'm not really supporting them by going there knowing that's the point of the trip, watching them do it, and hugging later saying how much I love them.  I hate shoplifting but it's more important I support the person or I must not really love them.  I mean, they obviously don't agree with me and think what they are doing should be okay, who am I to hold them to my beliefs by deciding I can't go to this event? Would anyone legit buy that argument?

 

 

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

The baby is a result of having sex outside of marriage and the party is celebrate the result of parents doing that and to support the parents who did it and are likely continuing to do it. I’ve certainly heard of people refusing to attend or refusing to host a shower for such a situation, just as some will not attend a gay marriage. I’m not just making up a random example.

 

The party is to provide care for the new life.  I have not celebrated any except for those where the couple is planning marriage shortly or they have broken up.  To be honest, those are the only outcomes I've seen of these situations.  

1 minute ago, Frances said:

Another example would be people attending a second marriage when in their faith that would constitute committing adultery on the part of those getting married. Some might apply their beliefs and standards to any couple, some only to couples who share their faith, and some only to themselves.

 

I would not and have not attended such weddings.  *shrug* Can't explain other people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

He is that upset about something that isn't even sinful?  That's.... rather drastic a reaction isn't it?  I'm trying to fathom something that difficult that isn't also a sin and honestly coming up blank.

yes it is drastic.  And he is wrong.  I will elaborate in a bit.  

Does his new wife feel the same way about this issue? Were you able to attend the wedding?

His new wife does not feel the same way about the original issue. 

 

How, exactly, is he demanding you turn from your faith? I honestly don't think you will get much help here without that information.

He isn’t asking me to completely...he just anted his way on one specific issue. 

 

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I'm Roman Catholic.  There's plenty of folks who think no one should be Catholic these days thanks to evil doers in our apple barrels.  Thankfully, none of my kids think that.  However, if they had qualms about our parish that were legit I would and have had to seriously consider that.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

The party is to provide care for the new life.  I have not celebrated any except for those where the couple is planning marriage shortly or they have broken up.  To be honest, those are the only outcomes I've seen of these situations.  

 

I would not and have not attended such weddings.  *shrug* Can't explain other people.

As to your comment about not attending a wedding of a divorced person.....I was divorced and remarried.  I don't believe that was a sin because I believe my xh’s adultery released me from my vow to him.   However, I FULLY comprehend that some people DO believe it to be a sin, so if I invited you and you did not attend, I would not be mad at you.  That is the point here.  Not whether details involved were right or wrong, but that I felt them to be so and so why is he angry.  And as to the argument that I should have compromised for my child....no.  I don't compromise on religious issues for anyone.  Not even my beloved only child.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I'm interested in reading that argument.

Let's apply that logic to other sins.

I go into store with a person knowing they are going to steal because that's what they told me they were inviting me to see -  but if I tell them how much I don't think it's right, wellll I'm not really supporting them by going there knowing that's the point of the trip, watching them do it, and hugging later saying how much I love them.  I hate shoplifting but it's more important I support the person or I must not really love them.  I mean, they obviously don't agree with me and think what they are doing should be okay, who am I to hold them to my beliefs by deciding I can't go to this event? Would anyone legit buy that argument?

 

 

Would you ever support or at least not condemn or report someone for stealing to provide food for their starving child if neither you nor they could provide food in any other way? People have certainly found themselves in that situation before throughout time and place and likely still do today. Otherwise, I think your example is so contrived as to be meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

As to your comment about not attending a wedding of a divorced person.....I was divorced and remarried.  I don't believe that was a sin because I believe my xh’s adultery released me from my vow to him.   However, I FULLY comprehend that some people DO believe it to be a sin, so if I invited you and you did not attend, I would not be mad at you.  That is the point here.  Not whether details involved were right or wrong, but that I felt them to be so and so why is he angry.  And as to the argument that I should have compromised for my child....no.  I don't compromise on religious issues for anyone.  Not even my beloved only child.  

 

I guess I’m having trouble understanding what kind of “religious issue” would be so important to you that you wouldn’t compromise on it for your son. People have brought up the topic of gay marriage, but that certainly wouldn’t apply to your son, nor would living together outside of marriage (because they are married,) and they didn't have a baby together before they got married, either... so I am even more confused now than I was when I first started reading this thread. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

Would you ever support or at least not condemn or report someone for stealing to provide food for their starving child if neither you nor they could provide food in any other way? People have certainly found themselves in that situation before throughout time and place and likely still do today. Otherwise, I think your example is so contrived as to be meaningless.

 

Well I think your example is contrived and meaningless too.  People have the option to not have sex with others and to not marry others.  Are you suggesting they don’t? I mean sure I know some folks think humans are basically lower level animals who just can’t help acting on base instinct. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

With JW?  It could be transfusions or vaccines, though the latter seems to have been allowed in recent decades.  There’s any number of smaller church polity things too.  And, uh, the whole cult-y thing. I mean, potentially if her son converted to a mainline or evangelical Christianity there is much concern then for some of the doctrinal positions and eschatology of his Mom’s church.

Without knowing more specifically what the concern is this is all just speculation of course.

 

 

I was also wondering if maybe it was related to the military or politics/voting?  But I might be totally off base.  I’m really confused by the thread, and I’ve read the whole thing.  (I know it’s hard to get complicated situations across on a message board, especially if you’re trying to be vague.) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I'm interested in reading that argument.

Let's apply that logic to other sins.

I go into store with a person knowing they are going to steal because that's what they told me they were inviting me to see -  but if I tell them how much I don't think it's right, wellll I'm not really supporting them by going there knowing that's the point of the trip, watching them do it, and hugging later saying how much I love them.  I hate shoplifting but it's more important I support the person or I must not really love them.  I mean, they obviously don't agree with me and think what they are doing should be okay, who am I to hold them to my beliefs by deciding I can't go to this event? Would anyone legit buy that argument?

 

 

I think we all sometimes make compromises depending on the type of sin. Would I go to a dinner party of someone who I know engages in gluttony? Etc etc etc. One could make the argument that they did not provide transportation or help to the person stealing, and spent the time there trying to convince them to not do it. Is it still sinful? Is it participation? 

Also, the long history of nuns who have worked with and helped prostitutes, etc, even those still in the business...there is just a lot of grey area in when compassion should trump doctrine. No idea if Scarlett's issue is one of those. And clearly people of good hearts will differ as to which situations  they think compassion should trump doctrine, but I don't think an argument can be made solely on scripture that it should never trump doctrine. 

2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The Bible doesn't really provide "unless, of course" clauses to get out of sins that I've come across.

well, there is the bit about it being okay to break the law on the Sabbath if you are doing good. And feeding one's family is doing good. Human life is valued over material goods, so stealing to feed one's family and preserve life might be a case of that. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Well I think your example is contrived and meaningless too.  People have the option to not have sex with others and to not marry others.  Are you suggesting they don’t? I mean sure I know some folks think humans are basically lower level animals who just can’t help acting on base instinct. 

So people didn’t really have to steal food to stay alive during the German occupation of many countries during WWII? Some people today in warn torn countries don’t have to choose between stealing food or their children dying?

Of course people have choices when it comes to marriage and sex, just as people have a choice to hold others to their beliefs or allow others to believe differently while loving and supporting them and holding steadfast to their own beliefs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

The Bible doesn't really provide "unless, of course" clauses to get out of sins that I've come across. It's actually pretty straightforward that we are to trust in the Lord to provide for all of our needs. It doesn't give an "unless you're really hungry, then stealing is okay," clause. Proverbs 6:30 talks about how it is understandable if someone steals out of hunger, however they are still required to repay what was stolen 7-fold. Of course, if you aren't a Christian then there is a different moralistic compass there that may vary. 

Maybe another example would be attending a KKK rally with a child, even though you aren't a racist, and find the whole concept of the KKK morally reprehensible. But they asked you to as a show of support for their belief system. Is that okay then to attend? 

So then why do Christians differ on whether or not killing is ok during war or for capital punishment?

As for your last example, see my article linked toward the very beginning of this thread where a dad doing something very similar helped to bring about profound positive change for a young man.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scarlett said:

They aren’t too far away but we definitely aren’t talking.  Space is required for sure.  

I will be ok.....I have good friends, a great husband  and I have peace that I did the right thing.  If he never comes around I will be sad but I am not going to let it ruin the rest of my life.  

 

HUGS

space and time are the key.

it will get better in time - maybe several years.  but it will get better

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ktgrok said:

I think we all sometimes make compromises depending on the type of sin.

Mercy and compromise on morals are not the same thing.  My goodness, what you talkin ‘bout, Kate?😦

Would I go to a dinner party of someone who I know engages in gluttony?

Sure. But would you cheer him on and congratulate him? I would hope not.

Etc etc etc. One could make the argument that they did not provide transportation or help to the person stealing, and spent the time there trying to convince them to not do it. Is it still sinful? Is it participation? 

Oh come on now.  Really? So let’s ask how people would react to grandma showing up at her grandson’s gay wedding and spending the entire time saying how awful a sin it is and how hey shouldn’t go through with it and how it’s not a valid sacrament so they can change their mind any time and grandma will support them in ending things? And be sure to give a toast to that affect!

Come on.  They are invited specifically to CELEBRATE and SUPPORT that choice.  You and I both know what they would do if they knew they were going to spend that time dissuading  - they wouldn’t invite them.

Also, the long history of nuns who have worked with and helped prostitutes, etc, even those still in the business...there is just a lot of grey area in when compassion should trump doctrine.

What in the world?  Yes, the beatitudes say to help many.  Even prostitutes.  We don’t ask about sex or work before offering to feed clothe give medical care or pray or educate or many other forms of corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  What are you suggesting? That the nuns had open house parties celebration event for the local  whore house or what? I don’t know what kind of help you are referring to but if you are suggesting they supported prostitution then I sure hope those nuns aren’t around anymore!

No idea if Scarlett's issue is one of those. And clearly people of good hearts will differ as to which situations  they think compassion should trump doctrine, but I don't think an argument can be made solely on scripture that it should never trump doctrine. 

Ahhh. Doctrine IS compassion.  Can you point me to which doctrines you think are not compassionate? Feel free to PM if you’d rather. 

well, there is the bit about it being okay to break the law on the Sabbath if you are doing good. And feeding one's family is doing good. Human life is valued over material goods, so stealing to feed one's family and preserve life might be a case of that. 

Indeed.  We do adjust actions to fit situation.  It’s okay for a person to kill another to defend themselves. It’s not considered wrong for a pregnant or ill person to eat on a fasting day.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Frances said:

So people didn’t really have to steal food to stay alive during the German occupation of many countries during WWII? Some people today in warn torn countries don’t have to choose between stealing food or their children dying?

Of course people have choices when it comes to marriage and sex, just as people have a choice to hold others to their beliefs or allow others to believe differently while loving and supporting them and holding steadfast to their own beliefs.

 

We are talking a question of sin.

Surviving is not a sin.

if I think someone is committing a sin, I’m not going to show up for a party to support them in that just because they are happy sinning.

If they don’t have a choice in their sin, then I have an obligation to do what I can to help. A starving person doesn’t need me to judge them for surviving - they need me to spare any food I can. If it matters I’m against forced marriages and rape and I’m pro feeding the hungry.

I don’t think your argument of supporting the person doing something viewed as wrong bc it’s not actually the event that you are showing up to celebrate that you are supporting holds up to reasoning. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

We are talking a question of sin.

Surviving is not a sin.

if I think someone is committing a sin, I’m not going to show up for a party to support them in that just because they are happy sinning.

If they don’t have a choice in their sin, then I have an obligation to do what I can to help. A starving person doesn’t need me to judge them for surviving - they need me to spare any food I can. If it matters I’m against forced marriages and rape and I’m pro feeding the hungry.

I don’t think your argument of supporting the person doing something viewed as wrong bc it’s not actually the event that you are showing up to celebrate that you are supporting holds up to reasoning. 

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Unless/until Scarlet specifically addresses this question, I’m going to assume that’s exactly what happened. 

At the current level of vagueness, this thread is meaningless, to me, anyway, and leaves me no way to offer advice or comfort. 

Oh no - I very much hope that Scarlett did not miss her son's wedding. Something like that can't be taken back - it can't be done over. I really hope that's not it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

It is entirely possible to love someone while not celebrating choices we morally disagree with. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

 

Because people talk about all kinds of things. To be fair. I never said anything about our nation. In fact, I have not even said they can’t make those choices. 

The thread evolved to why would a parent not attend a wedding. I’m sure there’s other reasons other people have. 

Someone else mentioned the KKK. There’s a demographic I hope none of my kids marry into.  A legal active group  

I also mentioned living together outside of marriage in general being a sin, that’s certainly a large demographic. Most doing so legally.  

I also mentioned shoplifters, that’s no small demographic either.  Not legal though.

I think you are naive if you think those people aren’t on this board or reading it.  I’m sure here’s plenty of them.

I also discussed that my main point was that love doesn’t equal giving people what they want just because it makes them unhappy if we don’t.  It’s very possible to love people we strongly don’t agree with.  Most of us love people that we strongly disagree with on many things.

It’s okay to discuss these things because that’s part of freedom of speech and a requirement of any reasoned debate.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

This looks like an attempt to impose one's own morality on others by shutting down points of view one disagrees with...

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

It is entirely possible to love someone while not celebrating choices we morally disagree with. 

And it is entirely possible to attend an event you believe is wrong (gay marriage) and not engage in sin or condone what you believe to be sin. It’s even possible to attend and not say things like “congratulations”, but rather “I love you”. It’s also entirely possible to love someone but still do harm to them and sin against them, even when you may not think you are doing so. And I too believe in right and wrong, although I think many things are more gray, as maize stated earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Because people talk about all kinds of things. To be fair. I never said anything about our nation. In fact, I have not even said they can’t make those choices. 

The thread evolved to why would a parent not attend a wedding. I’m sure there’s other reasons other people have. 

Someone else mentioned the KKK. There’s a demographic I hope none of my kids marry into.  A legal active group  

I also mentioned living together outside of marriage in general being a sin, that’s certainly a large demographic. Most doing so legally.  

I also mentioned shoplifters, that’s no small demographic either.  Not legal though.

I think you are naive if you think those people aren’t on this board or reading it.  I’m sure here’s plenty of them.

I also discussed that my main point was that love doesn’t equal giving people what they want just because it makes them unhappy if we don’t.  It’s very possible to love people we strongly don’t agree with.  Most of us love people that we strongly disagree with on many things.

It’s okay to discuss these things because that’s part of freedom of speech and a requirement of any reasoned debate.

 

I didn't say you were the one who said all the things. You are the one who just listed the KKK, people living together outside of marriage, and shoplifters as being in the same category as the gays, as far as being undesirable wedding parties or otherwise socially unacceptable to some people, but you weren't the one who said that gay marriage is destroying the nation, which is why I didn't name you. 

I am not naively thinking "those people" aren't reading this board. My point was that all people are.

But if you feel my post didn't apply to you, and you think these comments are a requirement of reasoned debate, I'll leave you to it.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maize said:

This looks like an attempt to impose one's own morality on others by shutting down points of view one disagrees with...

 

I am not an administrator nor moderator here. I have no power to shut down your point of view that gay marriage is destroying the nation. If you want free speech, I've exercised mine, no more than you have. Less, actually. The heavier comments, and the majority opinion shutting down the minority view (that all are equal legally and gay people are not immoral), are coming from your side.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that conversations about people who are sinning and in a sad situation and "destroying society" (which is a very strong perspective) should be a little more in-house? I mean, when the people being discussed are (so far and mostly) part of our community, part of every nation, part of humanity, and legally marrying, living, raising children, and working in the civilized nations of the world?

In other words, why is it okay on these forums to talk about the legal activities and life experiences of gay people being the end of society and a sin, when no other demographic would be discussed in that manner? No matter the demographic, is it not bigotry? No matter the demographic, is it not discussing people as if their identity and lives may be freely censured, and discussing that as if it doesn't matter that they are here and reading these condemnations?

Or is it OK because this is a thread about hurting people in the name of religious freedom, so that's why it's fine to keep doing that right here in this thread. As long as it's someone's religious belief that another person's law abiding activities are destroying the nation and worthy of hell, it's fine to express that thought in a very matter-of-fact way. Is that right? It's not hurting anyone because it's religion?

It is interesting to me, but it’s also why I now hesitate less to state when I think some people’s religious views and practices are doing harm, on both an individual and global level. Now not nearly to the extent I actually feel that way, but for a long time I held way back. And in general, I think it’s good to actually know what is in people’s hearts and how they put their believes into practice and to put them out there to see the light of day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

You are correct in that I believe in right and wrong.  You are in error in that I believe anyone has to agree with me, the RCC or God.  You are in error that showing love means showing public acceptance of someone’s sin. 

 

Does the public's opinion matter if the grandson and God both know you disapprove, and do not accept it? Because I would imagine both God and the grandson would know you don't. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Frances said:

And it is entirely possible to attend an event you believe is wrong (gay marriage) and not engage in sin or condone what you believe to be sin. It’s even possible to attend and not say things like “congratulations”, but rather “I love you”. It’s also entirely possible to love someone but still do harm to them and sin against them, even when you may not think you are doing so. And I too believe in right and wrong, although I think many things are more gray, as maize stated earlier.

 

No. YOU think it is entirely possible for YOU to engage in an activity supporting a sinful act you disagree with without it meaning anything about what you think of the event and YOU think you would do it because that’s what love is to YOU. 

Obviously we disagree.

I agree people who love each other commit sins that hurt each other all the time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Frances said:

But they don’t think they are sinning because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I think your not attending the marriage is you playing God and saying you know definitely what is right and wrong and you expect others to do the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they are harmed, rather than showing love. And for me, that is a greater wrong. But a I think ultimately we have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure I'm going to regret even wading in here. (I've deleted this post a couple of times.)

You can turn this argument around, too. A couple (same sex or otherwise) says they definitely know what is right or wrong and expects others to feel the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they (the other person) are harmed,* rather than showing love.

I think that's what makes these conversations so hard. It does cut both ways. Murphy isn't telling anyone else to believe anything. She's saying what she would feel obligated to do personally. Everybody else gets to do what they like. Isn't that what people were saying earlier about religion needing to guide your OWN actions? She's not imposing anything on anyone else. Support can manifest itself in many ways.

I had a fairly close family member refuse to attend my wedding because she believed my church was wrong. While I disagreed with the basis for her decision, I respected her right to make it. That one day did not prevent her from showing her love and support for me outside of my wedding day. And that one day did not define our relationship going forward because relationships are built over time and on many experiences. (I realize that's slightly different from the specific example being discussed, but I think the principle is similar.)

This thread has gone way off track. Best wishes to Scarlett and her family.

*on a spiritual level

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doctrine I was quoting was the Jewish doctrine (law) of not doing work on the sabbath, and yet Jesus said that it was okay to break that rule for a good reason. 

A modern example would be the advice that it if a Catholic is served meat at someone's home on a Friday it is better to eat the meat and avoid offending the host than to keep one's dietary rules and follow the doctrine of abstaining from meat. That interpersonal relationships are more important than the doctrine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Does the public's opinion matter if the grandson and God both know you disapprove, and do not accept it? Because I would imagine both God and the grandson would know you don't. 

 

Yes. I refer you to the CCC to reference scandal and complicity to wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand how one continues to have a relationship with their child/grandchild/etc if they feel that way about their spouse. i mean, if you can't attend the wedding, can you acknowledge that they are married at all? Do you have to pretend they are not? It seems pretty complicated as to where that line would end up being drawn. 

And I do get that people could draw it in different places, but what I was trying to say was that is where the surprise/hurt would come from - if grandson and grandmother draw that line in different places. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Yes. I refer you to the CCC to reference scandal and complicity to wrong.

Which goes back to the idea of when is it okay to choose the greater good. 

1 minute ago, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

Which goes right back around to the question of is observing/attending something the same as committing sin oneself? It is when the two people in question disagree on that question that I think the hurt happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Selkie said:

I find it pretty mind boggling that someone wouldn't go to a same sex wedding, and especially for their own child!

 

I'm not sure about the own child thing, but again, people here have said they wouldn't attend the wedding of something they consider grossly immoral (say a wedding between a child bride and a grown man, or a father and daughter).  So obviously people can understand the idea of not attending a wedding because you find the nature of the wedding seriously unacceptable.  And if you're surprised that there are people in the world who think homosexuality is immoral, or that homosexual marriage is immoral, I just don't know what to say.  There are entire nations where being gay is illegal, and entire religions where it is a sin.  And certainly the vast majority of even the West across history (even fairly recent history) were not as accepting of homosexuality as people in the West are today, so I just can't see it as all that mind boggling.

  • Like 6
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frances said:

For me, getting divorced when you have children (obviously abusive situations accepted) or having (not adopting) children when single and not in a stable relationship do far more to undermine the basic structure of our society than a gay couple committing to love and support each other for the rest of their lives (which I actually view as contributing to the stability and health of our society). That being said, none of these beliefs would cause me to not attend a wedding.

 

I agree with you about divorce and single parenting/ child creation (which is part of why I find gay marriage anathema) and I don't know that I'd attend that wedding either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2019 at 4:13 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

No. YOU think it is entirely possible for YOU to engage in an activity supporting a sinful act you disagree with without it meaning anything about what you think of the event and YOU think you would do it because that’s what love is to YOU. 

Obviously we disagree.

I agree people who love each other commit sins that hurt each other all the time. 

No

 

On 9/15/2019 at 4:14 PM, Valley Girl said:

I'm sure I'm going to regret even wading in here. (I've deleted this post a couple of times.)

You can turn this argument around, too. A couple (same sex or otherwise) says they definitely know what is right or wrong and expects others to feel the same regardless of their different religion or beliefs, so what if they (the other person) are harmed,* rather than showing love.

I think that's what makes these conversations so hard. It does cut both ways. Murphy isn't telling anyone else to believe anything. She's saying what she would feel obligated to do personally. Everybody else gets to do what they like. Isn't that what people were saying earlier about religion needing to guide your OWN actions? She's not imposing anything on anyone else. Support can manifest itself in many ways.

I had a fairly close family member refuse to attend my wedding because she believed my church was wrong. While I disagreed with the basis for her decision, I respected her right to make it. That one day did not prevent her from showing her love and support for me outside of my wedding day. And that one day did not define our relationship going forward because relationships are built over time and on many experiences. (I realize that's slightly different from the specific example being discussed, but I think the principle is similar.)

This thread has gone way off track. Best wishes to Scarlett and her family.

*on a spiritual level

Nm

Edited by Frances
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

No

 

How is the gay couple getting married harming anyone? They are simply doing a legal thing and committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And I never said others have to feel the same way. In the example I gave, the gay grandson had no problem with his grandma thinking gay marriage was wrong due to her Catholicism and not choosing one for herself. But she also isn’t going to expect her gay grandson to follow her Catholic beliefs because he is not Catholic, so she will of course attend the wedding of her beloved grandson. They are both demonstrating mutual love and respect for each other’s beliefs.

The point is that the choice to attend a wedding and what that means is an individual one. The relationships involved are between those individuals. The fact that you don't see anything immoral about it or grandma doesn't mind attending has nothing to do with anyone else's personal decisions on the matter or their personal moral beliefs about any given issue. 

Mutual respect could also be to decline to accept an invitation to any given event and the hosts being okay with the invitee having different beliefs about weddings, celebrations, ceremonies, religion, sacraments, or any number of issues.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

 

100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frances said:

No

 

How is the gay couple getting married harming anyone? They are simply doing a legal thing and committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. And I never said others have to feel the same way. In the example I gave, the gay grandson had no problem with his grandma thinking gay marriage was wrong due to her Catholicism and not choosing one for herself. But she also isn’t going to expect her gay grandson to follow her Catholic beliefs because he is not Catholic, so she will of course attend the wedding of her beloved grandson. They are both demonstrating mutual love and respect for each other’s beliefs.

And where does it end? If a parent or grandparent won’t attending the wedding, is the married couple not welcome in their home? Will they not visit them in their home? Will they not recognize the spouse as part of the family?

 

Idk where it ends for other people. Does it matter? Are they not free to decide where their personal boundaries are for themselves? They might not ever speak to each other again.  Or maybe they do but it’s neutral conversations.  Maybe they chat just like before bc the concern was a question of sacrament and the gay couple had a civil wedding. I have literally no idea. But I think any of the parties can make those decisions and I won’t judge them for it.  Maybe the child is furious the parents would keep a faith that calls their lifestyle a sin and cuts the ties. I have no idea.  I hope whatever they decide they need to do - they can remember that they still love each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2019 at 4:18 PM, maize said:

And we are here circling around the heart of Scarlett's original question: what are the appropriate limits between my morality and yours? Can you rightfully and morally tell me I am wrong to try to live in accordance with my own morality? People often harp on not imposing religious morality on others but in that very act they are attempting to impose their own morality on another.

This is not a realm of black and white.

Nm

Edited by Frances
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to take a guess here but I think it has something to do with the current abuse scandal that your religion is facing and the lack of handling it.  If so, I understand your son’s reactions to it and would want heads to roll.  If it is more of, for example, Bishop Peter played the lotto and I want him publicly shamed and wearing a scarlett letter in church, he just needs to grow up more and realize that is not how you handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, itsheresomewhere said:

I am going to take a guess here but I think it has something to do with the current abuse scandal that your religion is facing and the lack of handling it.  If so, I understand your son’s reactions to it and would want heads to roll.  If it is more of, for example, Bishop Peter played the lotto and I want him publicly shamed and wearing a scarlett letter in church, he just needs to grow up more and realize that is not how you handle it.

Could you please pm me what the abuse scandal is. As a non practicing JW I would be very interested to know. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...