Historic split for U.S. Episcopals

And you just gotta ask . . . why would anyone be against human rights?

 

What would lead you to believe this is about human rights?

 

You don't believe gays and women are human?

 

To say that the homosexual issue is about human rights is to support homosexuality and against the posting rules of this board.

 

Of course, but how is that relevant? Your point seems to be that this Episcopal diocese's stance that homosexuality is wrong and that women should not have positions of leadership in teh church is about human rights. Yet those are two unconnected things. Is this diocese saying that homosexuals and women are not human?

 

Go back and read the quote in the OP. That is what I was responding to.

 

Baloney, Timmy. Go back and read the quote in the OP. Asking why gays and women shouldn't have rights is NOT against any rules, so quit posing it as such. Gay rights ARE human rights. Women's rights ARE human rights. Ignorant redneck rights ARE human rights. Children's rights ARE human rights.

 

I understand that. That's why I was questioning your statement. How is maintaining a biblical position on homosexuality and women in church leadership a matter of human rights?

 

Again, that ain't what I'm sayin'. The quote in the OP frames it in a larger context.

 

Okay, here it is: An entire California diocese of the U.S. Episcopal Church voted to secede on Saturday in a historic split after years of disagreement over the church's expanding support for gay and women's rights.

The Episcopal church has taken a sinful turn on affirming homosexual behavior and on affirming women in leadership in the church.

Seceding from association with sin is hardly an offense against human rights, so far as I can tell. If you have an argument you'd like to make in favor of maintaining ecclesiastical association with those who support sinful behavior, please make it. I would like to be able to interact with it.

 

LOL
The Anglican church itself seceded from the Roman Catholic church.
Thus church leader Ms. Jefferts-Schori carefully uses the euphemism "the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness".

 

I'm not making that point, so you need to find another person with whom to argue. Churches are free to associate and to disassociate with whomever they like.

 

2. Use discretion when posting. Not all topics are beneficial or edifying to the board. Topics and/or posts that would condone racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including but not limited to adultery, homosexuality, and pornography are strictly prohibited.


Gay rights are not human rights and they are an abomination to God. As well as agaisnt the posting rules.

 

You are full of it, Timmy. If gays are human then their rights are human rights. Grow up. I have never condoned anything but equality under the law, as is found in the Constitution. So your feeble attempts at framing my comments as contrary to what I said are fruitless. I have to wonder about your obsession with the subject.

 

I would be interested to see your evidence of my "obsession". Anyway however you choose to spin it gay rights as was discussed in the op means an acceptance of the unbiblical homosexual agenda.

 

Only in your own little mind. I have spun nothing. The OP talked about gay and women rights as if they are separate rights from others.

If you can quote where I ever condoned homosexual behavior, I'll send you $100 bill. Til then, have a nice hot cup of shut up!

 

MP,

In ecclesiastical matters, "gay rights" and "women's rights" are thinly veiled code words for the approval and affirmation of homosexuality and women in authority in the church. Those are not human rights. The OP did not suggest that homosexuals or women should be treated as less than human. It did say that this diocese was taking a stand against sin, not human rights.

Perhaps you should go back and read closer.

 

In post # 2 you said "And you just gotta ask . . . why would anyone be against human rights?"

Then in post # 4 you further stated "You don't believe gays and women are human?"

As everyone knows the term "Gay Rights" isn't about human rights but about making the homosexual agenda acceptable to the world. Since it is a lie and agaisnt God it most certainly is a seperate issue. Since you posted a comment in support of gay rights you have supported acceptance of homosexual behavior.

 

I disagree with you about "code words", but that is alright. My point is that ALL people have the same rights. The story referenced in the OP was about a church, but the reporter erred in referencing rights vis-a-vis gays and women. I know you and I differ on some finer points of this discussion, but churches do have the right, as I already stated, to associate with whomever they like. I will always stand firmly for equal rights for all people. You don't change hearts by taking away rights.

I quote Rev. Martin Neimoller . . .

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945