• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ordained Lesbian Ministers

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
32,061
Reaction score
21,046
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wilmington church to ordain first married lesbian couple

On Sunday, less than a week after the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved allowing same-sex marriages in its congregations, Kaci Clark-Porter and her wife, Holly, will walk down the aisle of Wilmington's First and Central Presbyterian Church to be ordained as ministers.It's a history-making moment for the historic church off Rodney Square, and is possibly the first joint ordination ever of a same-sex couple. National church officials don't keep such statistics, but they couldn't point to other examples.
As for the couple, married three years, Sunday is the culmination of years of self-examination and intensive training side by side. Both were raised in conservative Texas households, divorced their husbands and came out in their twenties during seminary.
"Knowledge of ourselves begins with knowledge of God," explains Kaci, 33, who begins a new job today as associate pastor at First and Central. She is the church's first openly gay pastor.
"It's believing with your whole heart that God has made you who you are," adds Holly, 29. "I felt that I was dishonest and separated from God before I came out."

Delaware - in this case - ROCKS !!!!

Religion and organized religion can, and will evolve.
 
Reform Judaism has been supportive of gay rights for quite a while.

That was my first reaction, but being "the largest Jewish movement in America with 1.5 million adherents", that is a rather big deal nonetheless
 
They're braking the rules of their faith. But then the very existence of Saints brakes the first commandment. Remember, "evolve" just means 'change', not 'improve'.

true but in this case and even in the case of Christianity as a whole this rule braking evolution seems to be an improvement
 
true but in this case and even in the case of Christianity as a whole this rule braking evolution seems to be an improvement
Denying evolution was always a minority view within Christianity. Stop believing everything the media tells you. The Christian leadership wanted to acclimate the population to a fringe take on scripture, this way as the false negative of YEC is slowly dropped, Christianity seems more appealing to potential converts the faith wouldn't have otherwise had.

It's one of many head games the major religions play.
 
Last edited:
Denying evolution was always a minority view within Christianity. Stop believing everything the media tells you.

um that's not what I was saying at all

I was using evolution in the sense that you wear

but noting that this change to Christianity seems to be for the better in spite of any rule braking

and that the Christian religion while braking Judaism rules also has its good points
 
um that's not what I was saying at all

I was using evolution in the sense that you wear

but noting that this change to Christianity seems to be for the better in spite of any rule braking

and that the Christian religion while braking Judaism rules also has its good points
Christianity can brake all the Judaism rules it wants because Christianity is not Judaism, it's Christianity. The problem is when Christianity starts braking Christianity's rules. Someone once said something about 'a house divided against itself'...I wonder who that was...
 
Christianity can brake all the Judaism rules it wants because Christianity is not Judaism, it's Christianity. The problem is when Christianity starts braking Christian rules.

its the same new practices growing out of the old even opposing it

its not a problem necicerily depending on if what's new is good or bad or if the old rules were good or bad
 
its the same new practices growing out of the old even opposing it

its not a problem necicerily depending on if what's new is good or bad or if the old rules were good or bad
Good or bad are subjective moral judgments.

The problem I point to is of braking down cohesion.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses the ordination of women and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, women clergy are against Christianity's rules.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses the ordination of unrepentant sinners (homosexuals in this case) and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, gay clergy are against Christianity's rules.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses same-sex marriage and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, gay-marriage is against Christianity's rules.
To ignore the Churches ruling on a given issue is to divorce yourself from the Church and thus Christianity. You might dress your actions in the clothing of the faith but what you're doing is not the faith.
 
Good or bad are subjective moral judgments.

The problem I point to is of braking down cohesion.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses the ordination of women and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, women clergy are against Christianity's rules.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses the ordination of unrepentant sinners (homosexuals in this case) and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, gay clergy are against Christianity's rules.
  • Unless and until the Pope himself blesses same-sex marriage and gives sound reasoning based on scripture in support of it, gay-marriage is against Christianity's rules.
To ignore the Churches ruling on a given issue is to divorce yourself from the Church and thus Christianity. You might dress your actions in the clothing of the faith but what you're doing is not the faith.

yes morality is subjective and while giving up on a faith rather then reforming it might make more sense the reform can still be better then what's old

your faith has done everything you mentioned and it doesn't matter to the faithful follower of Judaism's child
 
yes morality is subjective and while giving up on a faith rather then reforming it might make more sense the reform can still be better then what's old

your faith has done everything you mentioned and it doesn't matter to the faithful follower of Judaism's child
My faith? This thread isn't about Buddhism, and even if it were Buddha had no beef with gays. You should learn something about the person you're talking to before trying to make it personal.

An institution has to follow it's own rules, or it will fall apart.
 
My faith? This thread isn't about Buddhism, and even if it were Buddha had no beef with gays.

You should learn something about the person you're talking to before trying to make it personal.

fine but don't go dragging the pope into this then
 
My faith? This thread isn't about Buddhism, and even if it were Buddha had no beef with gays.

You should learn something about the person you're talking to before trying to make it personal.

and any way the point applies to the faithful Catholics and you offshoots of Hinduism apparently to

Buddhism's mutated into a nice array of forms as well
 
Evolve into what? You either believe the Word, or you don't.

false you might believe its something else you might believe only parts of your word are the word you might add extra to your word
 
fine but don't go dragging the pope into this then
The Pope is entirely relevant to the topic and so I will continue to do so.


and any way the point applies to the faithful Catholics and you offshoots of Hinduism apparently to

Buddhism's mutated into a nice array of forms as well
Perhaps, but this thread isn't about Buddhist monks or priests. This thread is about Christianity and to my knowledge unrepentant sinners can't be ordained, they can barely even be laity.
 
false you might believe its something else you might believe only parts of your word are the word you might add extra to your word
If you do that, you are no longer believing the Word. That was kinda my point.
 
false you might believe its something else you might believe only parts of your word are the word you might add extra to your word
It's difficult to take criticism of one's word when the speaker has errors in their own; like trusting a dentist who has bad teeth.
 
The Pope is entirely relevant to the topic and so I will continue to do so.



Perhaps, but this thread isn't about Buddhist monks or priests. This thread is about Christianity and to my knowledge unrepentant sinners can't be ordained, they can barely even be laity.

if your catholic he is but that's just more faith based self consistency its not worth a thing

1 mans sinner is another's saint and all you have is peoples word to go by
 
If you do that, you are no longer believing the Word. That was kinda my point.

and my point is the word is apparently whatever any 1 believes it to be your faith is just a bastard corruption to others now that doesn't matter to you but its the same for any 1 who changes yours
 
Why do people insist some elements of religion are stagnant and intended to never change, when it's beyond obvious that all aspects of religions and belief systems do in fact change over time?
 
It's difficult to take criticism of one's word when the speaker has errors in their own; like trusting a dentist who has bad teeth.

and yet the criticism cans till be true so deal with that difficulty
 
and my point is the word is apparently whatever any 1 believes it to be your faith is just a bastard corruption to others now that doesn't matter to you but its the same for any 1 who changes yours

No, it's not. It's spelled out clearly. Not sure what you're talking about. Your post is difficult to read. Do you speak in text lingo as well? :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom