"When a Christian enters a marriage, he should be doing so for life "for better or for worse". There is no limitation on the "worse" there. Your argument only holds for a non-Christian value of marriage. The man made a commitment and promise before God and chose to abandon it."
This also happens in other cases of separation and divorce, yet I don't hear much about this when it's a heterosexual affair. Furthermore, I have to ask you whether you consider marriage to be a sacrament, because you ascribe great weight to how this affects someone's relationship with God. If it isn't (and the Anglican teaching is that it isn't), then marraige is a symbolic gesture. We can consider the failure of a marriage to be disappointing, but it's certainly possible to consider mitigating factors and apply compassion in a fashion one wouldn't extend to sacramental affairs.
"Again, you're using sex as the sole defining aspect of a person."
No, I'm just saying it's a rather important part of marriage.
"That would certainly be the case if the church ever decided to legitimise gay marriage, certainly."
I hope so.
"What do you mean by "social prescription"? If you mean that the church should be dictated to by society's current set of morals, well, I couldn't disagree with you more."
Oh no; my wording was obviously un clear. What I'm saying is that, implicitly at least, church teachings are also the community's statement on how people who aren't a part of that body ought to behave. Thus, even if you say that this is simply what you need to do to be a good Christain, it is implicit that this is what you feel a person of any religious persuasion should do.
All the same, social change allows us to examine what details are consistent with the message of the faith. For instance, a growing social consciousness about the status of women allows the church to find a context to examine whether its own positions on women are coherent parts of the religion. This sort of examination has borne positive fruit without forcing the church to obey social trends.
"If a faith has value, it is working to a set of value assigned by an external entity, God, and must always pursue those, not society's approval. What you're advocating is not a faith, but a mutable set of moral values."
I like to think I'm advocating a refinement of moral values that becomes ever more consistent with Jesus' command to love others as oneself and to respect gifts of God such as (homo)sexuality, even if some of those gifts are disliked by the wider culture.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-17 06:56 pm (UTC)This also happens in other cases of separation and divorce, yet I don't hear much about this when it's a heterosexual affair. Furthermore, I have to ask you whether you consider marriage to be a sacrament, because you ascribe great weight to how this affects someone's relationship with God. If it isn't (and the Anglican teaching is that it isn't), then marraige is a symbolic gesture. We can consider the failure of a marriage to be disappointing, but it's certainly possible to consider mitigating factors and apply compassion in a fashion one wouldn't extend to sacramental affairs.
"Again, you're using sex as the sole defining aspect of a person."
No, I'm just saying it's a rather important part of marriage.
"That would certainly be the case if the church ever decided to legitimise gay marriage, certainly."
I hope so.
"What do you mean by "social prescription"? If you mean that the church should be dictated to by society's current set of morals, well, I couldn't disagree with you more."
Oh no; my wording was obviously un clear. What I'm saying is that, implicitly at least, church teachings are also the community's statement on how people who aren't a part of that body ought to behave. Thus, even if you say that this is simply what you need to do to be a good Christain, it is implicit that this is what you feel a person of any religious persuasion should do.
All the same, social change allows us to examine what details are consistent with the message of the faith. For instance, a growing social consciousness about the status of women allows the church to find a context to examine whether its own positions on women are coherent parts of the religion. This sort of examination has borne positive fruit without forcing the church to obey social trends.
"If a faith has value, it is working to a set of value assigned by an external entity, God, and must always pursue those, not society's approval. What you're advocating is not a faith, but a mutable set of moral values."
I like to think I'm advocating a refinement of moral values that becomes ever more consistent with Jesus' command to love others as oneself and to respect gifts of God such as (homo)sexuality, even if some of those gifts are disliked by the wider culture.