It feels like you're saying that "This is the sacrifice you make to be a part of the faith" and claiming that it's a Christian practice that need not be a moral obligation for others, but on the other hand, the evangelical side makes it implicit that even if you aren't in the club, you're doing something wrong for not following the code
First of all, a disclaimer: I distrust mortal institutions, and divorce my personal religious/spiritual opinions from them entirely, so don't claim to be Christian.
That said, surely one of the whole points of the evangelical side of Christianity is that it delineates right and wrong, and that doing any of the things on the wrong side is to place yourself in the wrong, in the club or out of it? I don't read what Adders is saying as suggesting that celibacy outside marriage is a price you have to pay, more that it's just part of of way it is.
The debate, to my mind, should be on the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. If a priest of any church that requires marriage before sex is is having sexual intercourse outside wedlock, that should be disqualificatory -- in the same way that worshipping, oh, Vishnua and Shiva would be, or being a drug-smuggler would be -- on the grounds that the person is obviously not a devout member of the faith, no more, no less.
Who or what he's actually shagging is totally irrelevant.
Personally, I'm far more interested in the quality of someone's personality than in what they find erotic, and I think it's a mistake to ban gay marriage on such a flimsy basis.
Then again, as I said above, I'm not much into having other people interpret my faith for me!
no subject
First of all, a disclaimer: I distrust mortal institutions, and divorce my personal religious/spiritual opinions from them entirely, so don't claim to be Christian.
That said, surely one of the whole points of the evangelical side of Christianity is that it delineates right and wrong, and that doing any of the things on the wrong side is to place yourself in the wrong, in the club or out of it? I don't read what Adders is saying as suggesting that celibacy outside marriage is a price you have to pay, more that it's just part of of way it is.
The debate, to my mind, should be on the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. If a priest of any church that requires marriage before sex is is having sexual intercourse outside wedlock, that should be disqualificatory -- in the same way that worshipping, oh, Vishnua and Shiva would be, or being a drug-smuggler would be -- on the grounds that the person is obviously not a devout member of the faith, no more, no less.
Who or what he's actually shagging is totally irrelevant.
Personally, I'm far more interested in the quality of someone's personality than in what they find erotic, and I think it's a mistake to ban gay marriage on such a flimsy basis.
Then again, as I said above, I'm not much into having other people interpret my faith for me!