Gay Marriage and the Churches

Isgrimnur
Isgrimnur
BBC

The largest Presbyterian denomination in the US will formally recognise same-sex marriages after decades of debate.

With nearly 1.8 million members, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the biggest Protestant group in the US to endorse the ceremonies.

The move was supported by the church's top legislative body last year, but required approval from a majority of the denominations' regional districts.

A New Jersey district delivered the critical vote on Tuesday.

The new church policy reads: "Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives."

But the denomination has included a provision that no clergy would be compelled to preside over a gay marriage or host such a ceremony on church property. A number of districts have voted against the rule change.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved the ordination of gay pastors, elders and deacons in 2011, which led to many conservative congregations to leave the denomination.

Comments

  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    Dragging them into the 21st century. Gotta love the "traditionally a man and a woman" inclusion. ::)
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    I've come to the conclusion that "ripping the bandage off" is not the way to go about change in our society. It happens gradually. Hopefully they'll (and others) will continue to grow in the direction that I think any just and compassionate God would approve.
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1426699090:

    I've come to the conclusion that "ripping the bandage off" is not the way to go about change in our society. It happens gradually. Hopefully they'll (and others) will continue to grow in the direction that I think any just and compassionate God would approve.

    My relatives from the South said the same thing about slavery. It was being phased out and not economically viable, therefore the The War really was about the invaders from the north lead by the tyrant Lincoln trying to take away their state's rights.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    They're partially right. Slavery was only part of the reason for the Civil War. I do have to add I'm not sure how you can draw a comparison between what I wrote and what they believe. I'm not saying that gay rights were coming anyway and we shouldn't have done anything to help it along.

    If you look back at Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage, etc., they all gradually came into being (and I might add, through the work of great individuals). At no point was there an overnight proclamation from the general populace supporting these things. Change that happens quickly has a tendency not to last, I believe. Change needs to gradually work its way into the public consciousness. I wish that wasn't the case and we could accept such things quickly, but the first impulse by most is to kick back against societal changes that they don't initially agree with.

    Real change takes time. Period.
  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    on 1426699258:

    on 1426699090:

    I've come to the conclusion that "ripping the bandage off" is not the way to go about change in our society. It happens gradually. Hopefully they'll (and others) will continue to grow in the direction that I think any just and compassionate God would approve.

    My relatives from the South said the same thing about slavery. It was being phased out and not economically viable, therefore the The War really was about the invaders from the north lead by the tyrant Lincoln trying to take away their state's rights.


    Was that before or after they seceded and tried to seize federal military installations? ::)
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1426699613:

    on 1426699258:

    on 1426699090:

    I've come to the conclusion that "ripping the bandage off" is not the way to go about change in our society. It happens gradually. Hopefully they'll (and others) will continue to grow in the direction that I think any just and compassionate God would approve.

    My relatives from the South said the same thing about slavery. It was being phased out and not economically viable, therefore the The War really was about the invaders from the north lead by the tyrant Lincoln trying to take away their state's rights.


    Was that before or after they seceded and tried to seize federal military installations? ::)


    Thanks Lincoln!
Sign In or Register to comment.