Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 29, 2015, 07:57:57 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/us/with-same-sex-decision-evangelical-churches-address-new-reality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
A look at how some evangelical churches are dealing with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.
-
Mr. Brown said that his local pastor had described homosexuality as a sin, but that “he doesn’t make you feel hell-bound.”
Then you have a complete lack of understanding of the nature of sin.
The result has been an obvious change in tone and emphasis — but not teaching or policy — at many churches. Almost all evangelical churches oppose same-sex marriage, and many do not allow gays and lesbians to serve in leadership positions unless they are celibate. Some pastors, however, now either minimize their preaching on the subject or speak of homosexuality in carefully contextualized sermons emphasizing that everyone is a sinner and that Christians should love and welcome all.
The New York Times is delving into a world they clearly do not understand, and I would venture to guess, cannot comprehend.
I have been an evangelical Christian my whole life. The number of "sermons" on homosexuality I have heard? Zero.
The number of sermons that included the sin of homosexuality amongst the context of the passage? Several, but, as we tend to preach from the bible, our pastors cover that when it comes up in the bible. So, I'm guessing it's around 5% of the sermons that have mentioned homosexuality. And, it is in the context of other sexual sins, because in almost all places where homosexuality is mentioned, other sins are as well.
It's hard to "minimize preaching on the subject" when it was already one sin amongst others. Christians do not "preach" about homosexuality per se, as I'm sure the Times expected one sermon a month about this great evil.
Christians have been politically active on this subject, because this is the current immorality pushed by the culture. Thus, politically and culturally, we fight the defensive battle where the enemy has taken ground. Within our churches, our pastors preach as they always have: from the Word, and we tend to cover sins about as often as they come up within the Word.
-
Let the sinners in or die off?
All the rhetoric about being "made" to perform marriages and the "sacrament of marriage" are red herrings and I'm pretty sure they know it. Any prosecution for refusing to perform the ceremony is going to ultimately fail because it is not the ceremony that makes the marriage but the state license. Bakers can be charged with discrimination for refusing to make a cake because all they are going on is a personal belief. Churches will be protected because not sanctifying the behavior is a fundamental element of religious belief.
stay safe.
-
Let the sinners in or die off?
All the rhetoric about being "made" to perform marriages and the "sacrament of marriage" are red herrings and I'm pretty sure they know it. Any prosecution for refusing to perform the ceremony is going to ultimately fail because it is not the ceremony that makes the marriage but the state license. Bakers can be charged with discrimination for refusing to make a cake because all they are going on is a personal belief. Churches will be protected because not sanctifying the behavior is a fundamental element of religious belief.
stay safe.
You severely underestimate the goals of the cultural conquest. The first step against the churches will be if they offer their sanctuary to anyone not of their congregation, then they will have to for every one.
Next move will be that if a pastor is licensed by the state to marry people, he will be required to marry any two eligible people or lose said license.
After that will be the non-profit status of churches and beginning to assess property taxes against them.
Somewhere amongst all of this will be the hate speech regulations, as we have seen in Canada already.
-
You severely underestimate the goals of the cultural conquest. The first step against the churches will be if they offer their sanctuary to anyone not of their congregation, then they will have to for every one.
Next move will be that if a pastor is licensed by the state to marry people, he will be required to marry any two eligible people or lose said license.
After that will be the non-profit status of churches and beginning to assess property taxes against them.
Somewhere amongst all of this will be the hate speech regulations, as we have seen in Canada already.
Based on past performance, I have to agree with this assessment.
-
All the rhetoric about being "made" to perform marriages and the "sacrament of marriage" are red herrings
Roman Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. Others, no. If an evangelical is talking that way, they're being sloppy. If a newsie is talking that way, they don't know what they're talking about.
-
Based on past performance, I have to agree with this assessment.
In Iowa anyone can perform the marriage ceremony and no license to perform the ceremony is required. I have my name on several marriage licenses as the officiant in Iowa and one in Indiana.
-
You severely underestimate the goals of the cultural conquest. The first step against the churches will be if they offer their sanctuary to anyone not of their congregation, then they will have to for every one.
Next move will be that if a pastor is licensed by the state to marry people, he will be required to marry any two eligible people or lose said license.
After that will be the non-profit status of churches and beginning to assess property taxes against them.
Somewhere amongst all of this will be the hate speech regulations, as we have seen in Canada already.
Oh, hey, look at that:
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/
The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits
I love how not taxing money that's already been taxed is "subsidizing."
-
Oh, hey, look at that:
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/
I love how not taxing money that's already been taxed is "subsidizing."
I'm shocked! Who can have seen this coming! :O
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/us/with-same-sex-decision-evangelical-churches-address-new-reality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
A look at how some evangelical churches are dealing with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.
Yet another bicoastal "conservatives in the mist" article. The ignorance of rather large swaths of American culture is impressive--yet expected--from the NYT as such a provincial newspaper.
I am not surprised that some of the footloose evangelical & cult of personality churches are going wobbly. They have no accountability, have a pietist orientation, and were theologically wobbly from the get-go. They arose as artifacts of contemporary culture and seek to appeal to the contemporary culture. Not too surprising that they follow the culture's lead.
I read a rather starling message from Matthew Harrison, President of the LCMS. Historically, the LCMS has made it its practice to vigorously stay out of political issues. Many of its early leaders recall nasty gov't interference back in the Old World and sought to erect their own wall of separation. The LCMS may favor some particular outcome from a moral point of view, but did not engage with the political apparatus of the USA. Abortion is a prime example. Steady opposition to issues on moral grounds, but LCMS has only engaged politically when the political apparatus imposes itself on the LCMS. The first time in memory was Obamacare, with its abortion and abortifacient mandate on non-church religiously-affiliated institutions.
SCOTUS, pseudo-marriage, and the easily foreseeable knock-on consequences is the second.
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.
The LORD of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress (Psalm 46:1–7).
A one-person majority of the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong – again. Some 40 years ago, a similarly activist court legalized the killing of children in the womb. That decision has to date left a wake of some 55 million Americans dead. Today, the Court has imposed same-sex marriage upon the whole nation in a similar fashion. Five justices cannot determine natural or divine law. Now shall come the time of testing for Christians faithful to the Scriptures and the divine institution of marriage (Matthew 19:3–6), and indeed, a time of testing much more intense than what followed Roe v. Wade.
Like Roe v. Wade, this decision will be followed by a rash of lawsuits. Through coercive litigation, governments and popular culture continue to make the central post-modern value of sexual freedom override “the free exercise of religion” enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The ramifications of this decision are seismic. Proponents will seek to drive Christians and Christian institutions out of education at all levels; they will press laws to force faithful Christian institutions and individuals to violate consciences in work practices and myriad other ways. We will have much more to say about this.
During some of the darkest days of Germany, a faithful Lutheran presciently described how governments lose their claim to legitimate authority according to Romans 13.
The Caesar cult in its manifold forms, the deification of the state, is one great form of the defection from the [true] idea of the state. There are also other possibilities of such defection. The government can forget and neglect its tasks. When it no longer distinguishes between right and wrong, when its courts are no longer governed by the strict desire for justice, but by special interests, when government no longer has the courage to exercise its law, fails to exercise its duties, undermines its own legal order, when it weakens through its family law parental authority and the estate of marriage, then it ceases to be governing authority.
Raising such a question can lead to heavy conflicts of conscience. But it is fundamentally conceivable, and it has time and again become reality in history, that a governing authority has ceased to be governing authority. In such a case there may indeed exist a submission to a superior power. But the duty of obedience against this power no longer exists. [Hermann Sasse, “What Is the State?”(1932)]
As faithful Christians, we shall continue to be obedient to just laws. We affirm the human rights of all individuals and the inherent and equal value of all people. We respect the divinely given dignity of all people, no matter their sexual preference. We recognize that, under the exacting and demanding laws of God, we are indeed sinners in thought, word and deed, just as are all (Romans 3:9ff.). We confess that the “blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses us from all our sins” (1 John 1:7). We confess that God’s divine law of marriage and the entire Ten Commandments apply to all, and that so also the life-giving sacrifice of Christ on the cross is for all. It is a “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:22).
However, even as we struggle as a church to come to a unified response to this blatant rejection of the entire history of humankind and its practice of marriage, “We shall obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Christians will now begin to learn what it means to be in a state of solemn conscientious objection against the state. We will resist its imposition of falsehood upon us, even as we continue to reach out to those who continue to be harmed by the ethic of radical sexual freedom, detached from God’s blessing of marriage. And we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Christians, churches and people of good will who are resolute on this issue.
God help us. Amen.
Pastor Matthew C. Harrison
To sum up:
1. Legitimate authority as described in Romans is owed obedience from Christians as a duty. [This is very much a part of what has made Christians good citizens and has helped them build countries in which they reside.]
2. Governments that neglect the duties of legitimate authority and/or impose immorality on its citizenry or the church lose their legitimacy.
3. Thus, Christians no longer have a duty to obey the illegitimate gov't beyond just laws. What obliges the Christian obey the gov't will no longer be duty to a legitimate authority, but mere acquiescence to a gov't's propensity to impose obedience via violence.
I would reiterate that is is a rather startling document, as the LCMS has not a history of political involvement or being at all excitable. It was the religion of sober solid-citizen yeomen and still is, for the most part. Some congregants may do better than others, but there is a strong culture of respectable "middle classedness" holding them together beyond the lower-case "o" orthodox theology.
Also, during the prayers of the church Sunday, the ruling was mentioned. It was called (in not so many words) a judgment of God against America and referenced the end of Romans Chapter 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
-
I have been an evangelical Christian my whole life. The number of "sermons" on homosexuality I have heard? Zero.
Yep. Sermons dedicated to the subject, zero. No, we're not the ones obsessing about it.
The number of sermons that included the sin of homosexuality amongst the context of the passage? Several, but, as we tend to preach from the bible, our pastors cover that when it comes up in the bible. So, I'm guessing it's around 5% of the sermons that have mentioned homosexuality. And, it is in the context of other sexual sins, because in almost all places where homosexuality is mentioned, other sins are as well.
Yep. Not many. I can remember it coming up once. (By a pastor who later came out as gay, long after both we and he were gone from that church).
Pastor here and now has been preaching through Genesis. If it's there in the text, it will be addressed. He's getting up towards Abraham, so I expect it might be. Lot, Sodom and all that. Though if someone thinks that situation was "they practiced buggery, therefore God fried them", you need to look harder.
-
I am not surprised that some of the footloose evangelical & cult of personality churches are going wobbly. They have no accountability, have a pietist orientation, and were theologically wobbly from the get-go. They arose as artifacts of contemporary culture and seek to appeal to the contemporary culture. Not too surprising that they follow the culture's lead
Any bets on who's going to cave first? (Tony Campolo was expected. "I thought he did that years ago.." -- someone on the internetz.)
-
Oh, hey, look at that:
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/
I love how not taxing money that's already been taxed is "subsidizing."
Oh, they've done that bit of slight of hand for decades. As long as I can remember.
-
...
I read a rather starling message from Matthew Harrison, President of the LCMS. ...
I would reiterate that is is a rather startling document, as the LCMS has not a history of political involvement or being at all excitable. ...
Startling indeed!
About 5 years ago I rejoined fellowship in church after having been out of regular fellowship with believers for over a decade.
The next step I took was reexamining my beliefs and just how orthodox I really was in my heart of hearts.
Admittedly there has been an ebb and flow and some wobbliness as I worked through these issues.
Yet the center has held.
Orthodoxy is so much more rational and stable than the emotionalism running rampant through so many churches.
-
Any bets on who's going to cave first? (Tony Campolo was expected. "I thought he did that years ago.." -- someone on the internetz.)
Heh.
All of those claiming to get new extra-Biblical revelations/visions from God are vulnerable to this (and any other cultural wind that blows).
Likely the first will be the "Look at me I am super introspective, did you notice I was being introspective back there?" sort in the emerging church movement. Emergent churches I have attended were full of folk who really hated to be unfashionable. One of the self-aware parishioners confided, "We could easily be named The First Church of the Christian Metrosexual."
The poll in the article was something like 70/30 solid/wobbly, so it will likely be more than just the emergent church movement. [Sure, some will remain steadfast, but a church body based on pietism & personal revelation and that explicitly defines itself against the Bapti-bluehairs will seek yet more ways to increase the contrast.]
-
You severely underestimate the goals of the cultural conquest. The first step against the churches will be if they offer their sanctuary to anyone not of their congregation, then they will have to for every one.
Just what do you mean by "sanctuary"? I can't remember the last time any church was able to stop the civil authorities from pursuing a wanted person onto/into church property.
Next move will be that if a pastor is licensed by the state to marry people, he will be required to marry any two eligible people or lose said license.
The license to create a civil union (legal marriage) is not up for discussion; only the religious sacrament that recognizes the relationship created by the civil process.
After that will be the non-profit status of churches and beginning to assess property taxes against them.
Considering the amount of church property that is not directly related to the worship that is not a major problem for me. I have no problem with church-based schools but fail to see why the property they sit on is free from taxation. The same for social halls, summer camps and the like. Do not tell me that taxing those sorts of property "interferes" with the free exercise of religion, because it does not. Praying and partaking of whatever sacraments/rituals that form the essential elements of the religion are what should remain untaxed.
Somewhere amongst all of this will be the hate speech regulations, as we have seen in Canada already.
I seriously doubt that such will be focused specifically on the churches. I also see protections via the essential elements of the religion argument.
stay safe.
-
Skidmark, by "offer their sanctuary," he was talking about letting people have weddings in their church building. "Sanctuary" is a common term for the part of the building where church services (and weddings) are conducted.
I wonder if the idiocy of punishing churches that act like churches might finally help Americans understand the injustice of so many of our anti-discrimination laws. Too optimistic, perhaps.
-
Ah-so.
Sorry, but again the use of a part of the church building to hold the sacrament of recognizing the civil union created by the license will (hopefully) be protected as an essential element of the church.
Go to the Clerk/JP to get the state license stamped and then go to the church for the sacrament, or do the sacrament and then get the license stamped. Sacrament and license are two entirely different things.
Last time I checked there were few*, if any, churches hiring out their sanctuary to just anybody. If they did and if I were going to get married again (possible but highly improbable) there's this nice cathedral in town with a killer organ. I could probably find a rabbi to do the deed there but I do not see the Bishop coming on board in this lifetime or any other. Seems you have to be a member of the specific tribe in order to get to use the tribe's sacred hogan.
stay safe.
* - Unitarian Universalists come to mind, but they have no essential element to their religion that I'm aware of so they do not count as a religion. Very much more like equivocal polydoxy - you do your thing and I'll do my thing but all under the same roof, and often at the same time.
-
I have been an evangelical Christian my whole life. The number of "sermons" on homosexuality I have heard? Zero.
I'd be careful about expanding your experience to 'all' evangelical churches. I've heard that some churches hit on the topic very regularly, almost like the pastor has a personal grudge against it.
That being said, I'm against churches being forced into marrying anybody they don't want to.
-
I'd be careful about expanding your experience to 'all' evangelical churches. I've heard that some churches hit on the topic very regularly, almost like the pastor has a personal grudge against it.
That being said, I'm against churches being forced into marrying anybody they don't want to.
Ok. I'm relying on direct personal experience for my dataset. There may very well be churches where there are monthly "TEH GAYZORS!!" sermons. I am unaware of them, and other evangelicals in this thread have backed me up on that. (I'm fairly certain we haven't been attending the same church, so that's increasing the dataset.)
Your hearsay will require more evidence for me to believe it's a significant number.
-
I'm currently Southern Baptist (have always gone to conservative evangelical churches, but sometimes non-denominational instead of SBC) I don't think I've ever heard a sermon specifically about homos. It is occasionally (but rarely) mentioned in passing, along with adultery and other sins.
-
3. Thus, Christians no longer have a duty to obey the illegitimate gov't beyond just laws. What obliges the Christian obey the gov't will no longer be duty to a legitimate authority, but mere acquiescence to a gov't's propensity to impose obedience via violence.
Powerful statement, I knew it was coming after reading the two points before it...
I suspect that we will see a rise of Christian Martyrdom and political persecution of religeous adherents in general in America- a country which historically been spared of it.
-
I'm currently Southern Baptist (have always gone to conservative evangelical churches, but sometimes non-denominational instead of SBC) I don't think I've ever heard a sermon specifically about homos. It is occasionally (but rarely) mentioned in passing, along with adultery and other sins.
The "ick" factor(1) is too high for an "all homo" sermon. My memory of past evangelical churches may be faulty, but I also can not recall any sermon devoted solely to abortion and its grotesque details.
There is a such a strong natural revulsion to some topics(2) that in depth detailed discussion about it is a big turn-off and folk begin to react negatively even if they are on the same sheet of music. It would be the rare minister who would want to go into detail as to why homosexual men are such walking petri dish disease vectors that the FDA(3) does not want them donating blood under any circumstance. Especially so with kiddos in the pews.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust
(2) Abortion, homosexuality, human feces & other excreta, consumption of putrescent meat, pedophilia, etc.
(3) http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm Note how carefully the FDA's FAQ is worded. Yes, HIV is the 800lb gorilla, but it is not just HIV they are worried about.
Powerful statement, I knew it was coming after reading the two points before it...
Yep, I could see it coming a ways off. The LCMS statement is a careful build-up, one block at a time.
Once you understand what is being worked toward, it explains why now, for homosexual marriage--and not for abortion--is such a declaration made. After all, abortion has resulted in 55 million deaths. Reason being, that the state has not compelled participation in abortion by its citizens and non-gov't organizations until BHO's administration. That provided LCMS (and Christians generally) an out if they are willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt and all the breaks.
Compelling participation in the culture of death destroys any reasonable interpretation favorable to state legitimacy requiring obedience to legitimate authority as Christian duty. And Matt Harrison knows as well as anyone with two brain cells that compulsion is a certainty. The rules have changed.
-
Last time I checked there were few*, if any, churches hiring out their sanctuary to just anybody. If they did and if I were going to get married again (possible but highly improbable) there's this nice cathedral in town with a killer organ. I could probably find a rabbi to do the deed there but I do not see the Bishop coming on board in this lifetime or any other. Seems you have to be a member of the specific tribe in order to get to use the tribe's sacred hogan.
I've attended a number of weddings held in rented church halls by couples who were not members of that congregation.
I predict that churches that don't want to allow homosexual couples to marry in their buildings will have to rule that they only allow hall rental by members of the congregation. Even then, I foresee cases of conflict where a gay couple asks immediately before or after such a policy changes, or perhaps even closeted members deciding to come out in a big way. It will be interesting to see how those cases are handled, but I'm doubting in the long run it will turn out in favor of the churches.
-
So stop renting out the church hall - which in my schema would not be a part of the tax-exempt church entity.
stay safe.
-
So stop renting out the church hall - which in my schema would not be a part of the tax-exempt church entity.
stay safe.
Not disagreeing with you at all, but IME with my Grandparent's and Aunt's smaller churches that loss of income (not renting out the hall) would put them under.
[shrug] It's not our job to keep every little po-dunk church afloat, but it's worth noting that this decision could, without much of a stretch, lead to Christian Churches having to close their doors. Mostly due to the artificially sweet deal churches get from the .gov.
-
So we have gone from claiming that churches will absolutely not be legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals and that to suggest otherwise is a red herring to the idea that they will probably have to change how they operate and reduce their budgets if they want to be immune from being legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals?
-
So we have gone from claiming that churches will absolutely not be legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals and that to suggest otherwise is a red herring to the idea that they will probably have to change how they operate and reduce their budgets if they want to be immune from being legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals?
The law of merited impossibility. As in what you are euggesting will never come to oass and when it does tou will deserve it.
-
Let the sinners in or die off?
Nope. That's a recipe for failure. Ask the Episcopal Church. They are losing membership and seeing parish churches close all over the country, while evangelical churches are flourishing.
My late wife and I attended an Episcopal church, for a variety of reasons we don't need to delve into. Yesterday, I read an interesting article on the topic of the decision and what it might mean for "orthodox" Christians. I thought the article might be of interest to the pastor, so I went to the church's web site to get her address. And what was I greeted with?
"Celebrate LGBT Pride Month"
I still wrote to the pastor. I asked her what happened to the church my mother grew up in and loved. My mother's mantra was, "Once an Episcopalian, always an Episcopalian." And I know my mother would not have approved of same-sex marriages, or homosexual clergy. It seems to me that the Episcopal Church, and a few other "mainstream" Protestant denominations, are firmly set on a course of self-destruction.
-
Roman Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. Others, no.
The Episcopal Church (and, of course, the Anglican Church), yes.
-
Nope. That's a recipe for failure. Ask the Episcopal Church. They are losing membership and seeing parish churches close all over the country, while evangelical churches are flourishing.
My late wife and I attended an Episcopal church, for a variety of reasons we don't need to delve into. Yesterday, I read an interesting article on the topic of the decision and what it might mean for "orthodox" Christians. I thought the article might be of interest to the pastor, so I went to the church's web site to get her address. And what was I greeted with?
"Celebrate LGBT Pride Month"
I still wrote to the pastor. I asked her what happened to the church my mother grew up in and loved. My mother's mantra was, "Once an Episcopalian, always an Episcopalian." And I know my mother would not have approved of same-sex marriages, or homosexual clergy. It seems to me that the Episcopal Church, and a few other "mainstream" Protestant denominations, are firmly set on a course of self-destruction.
I tried to figure out which episcopal church you were talking about, so I did a google search. Looks like it's just about all of them (ECUSA, anyway.)
-
So is there a chance this new reality might include an end to the "oh the noez! theacracyz!" Chicken Little talk from the left? Or am I an optimist?
-
So is there a chance this new reality might include an end to the "oh the noez! patriarchyz!" Chicken Little talk from the left? Or am I an optimist?
:rofl:
-
Oh, shoot. I meant "theocracy." ;/
-
So is there a chance this new reality might include an end to the "oh the noez! theacracyz!" Chicken Little talk from the left? Or am I an optimist?
I'm not even sure that rises to the level of optimism. Sounds more like drug induced delirium to even consider the possibility.
-
I'm not even sure that rises to the level of optimism. Sounds more like drug induced delirium to even consider the possibility.
I guess so. I must have been roofied. I forgot about the backward logic of the left, that makes the first black president's administration the time to blame every policy disagreement on racism. So I guess we'll have to hear more about teh theacrazy, to justify the persecution of the refuseniks.
-
I guess so. I must have been roofied. I forgot about the backward logic of the left, that makes the first black president's administration the time to blame every policy disagreement on racism. So I guess we'll have to hear more about teh theacrazy, to justify the persecution of the refuseniks.
I've been amused lately because the news media has been making a big point that evangelical Christians are 25% of the country.
Hey, doesn't that make us a minority? Aren't minorities automatically granted the moral authority over the majority, in liberal land?
-
I've been amused lately because the news media has been making a big point that evangelical Christians are 25% of the country.
Hey, doesn't that make us a minority? Aren't minorities automatically granted the moral authority over the majority, in liberal land?
It does if that minority is gaaaaaay. Gaaaaaay; the other 1%.
-
Get ready for the new math: 10% of the population is gay. 25% of Americans self-identify as evangelical Christians. Therefore, 40% of evangelicals are gay (.10/.25) Maybe that's why we protest so much; we're in denial...
-
Get ready for the new math: 10% of the population is gay. 25% of Americans self-identify as evangelical Christians. Therefore, 40% of evangelicals are gay (.10/.25) Maybe that's why we protest so much; we're in denial...
Nah, I save that accusation for anti-gay people who get creepy with it and do things like set up camps to 'reform' gays while obsessively looking at gay porn on their computers and whatnot.
In short - it's one thing if you make a comment about gays when it comes up on the news or whatever. It's a different matter when you're constantly bringing it up no matter what's going on in the news, or introducing new anti-gay legislation all the time*, etc...
*Such as Oklahoma considering ending marriage licenses completely.
-
Are you saying that for states to quit issuing marriage licenses is anti-gay?
-
Oklahoma considering ending marriage licenses completely.
Sounds like a good idea to me :cool:
There might be a silver lining after all, if most of the states decided to "shrug" marriage licensing. :laugh:
-
Are you saying that for states to quit issuing marriage licenses is anti-gay?
It brings up the "prove you are ...." discussion. Which will immediately be countered with the "I identify as ...." discussion.
Marriage licenses seem to be most important in settling questions of distribution of assets when the marriage ends, as opposed to going with the common law/domestic partner folderol the courts have made up over the years.
stay safe.
-
Marriage licenses seem to be most important in settling questions of distribution of assets when the marriage ends, as opposed to going with the common law/domestic partner folderol the courts have made up over the years.
The divorce courts are going to be a riot in a few years =D
-
So we have gone from claiming that churches will absolutely not be legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals and that to suggest otherwise is a red herring to the idea that they will probably have to change how they operate and reduce their budgets if they want to be immune from being legally pushed into performing weddings for homosexuals?
If you like your religion, you can keep your religion, period.
Which means "If I like your religion, you can keep your religion. Maybe."
-
IMHO, the problem is the churches have been performing marriages for centuries, and the government came along and said "this civil union thing is a good idea" and created its own similar institution and also called it a marriage, but it's not the same thing. It further confused the issue by having ministers sign civil marriage licenses.
The govt has its rule for what it calls a marriage and various churches have their rules, and they are all kind of similar.
If you want your union to be the blessed by the church, goto a minister. If you want your union blessed by the state, goto a justice of the peace -- or just shack-up and call yourself a common-law marriage. That should be good enough. I think Tallpine said something similar to this last part in one of these threads.
-
Why don't we all declare to be homosexual? Then we won't be a minority anymore and thus not be given "special treatment". Then we can partner up with everybody and all be married to each other. Wait, why doesn't Obamacare require that we all be gay and get it over with....unless we don't work over 30 hours a week or belong to a union or whatever other business was exempted from Obamacare. But then if we're all gay, there won't need to be any exemption. Wait, wait, we could just print some more money and pay off all the debt and everything will be freeeeeee and we can have just one church for everybody because we're all the same.
:facepalm:
-
IMHO, the problem is the churches have been performing marriages for centuries, and the government came along and said "this civil union thing is a good idea" and created its own similar institution and also called it a marriage, but it's not the same thing. It further confused the issue by having ministers sign civil marriage licenses.
The govt has its rule for what it calls a marriage and various churches have their rules, and they are all kind of similar.
If you want your union to be the blessed by the church, goto a minister. If you want your union blessed by the state, goto a justice of the peace -- or just shack-up and call yourself a common-law marriage. That should be good enough. I think Tallpine said something similar to this last part in one of these threads.
So what happens if you just go to a church, but then your wife ends up in a coma and you want to make decisions about her treatment that are different from what her parents want?
Marriage is an inherently legal creature, even though the relationships underneath it aren't.
-
Apparently churches are tax exempt regardless of 501c3 status.
Filing for 501c3 status is actually just like inviting the government into your marriage relationship. It gives them authority they otherwise wouldn't have.
From what I've read churches weren't commonly incorporated at all until the late 60's early 70's.
I think it is time for some good ol' separation of church and state.
A good place to start is getting churches out from under the yoke of corporate law.
-
So what happens if you just go to a church, but then your wife ends up in a coma and you want to make decisions about her treatment that are different from what her parents want?
Then you better have the appropriate power of attorney or advance directive. Or got your marriage license signed by a judge. Even if its an either/or thing, clergy can perform marriages and not sign the license.
-
Then you better have the appropriate power of attorney or advance directive. Or got your marriage license signed by a judge. Even if its an either/or thing, clergy can perform marriages and not sign the license.
What would be the difference? if the couple's legal entitlements change, that's as civil as it gets. If they don't then what's the marriage?
The best thing that can come from all this reexamination is a reexamination of divorce. Maybe gay marriages will result in divorce rules that are less blatantly man hating.
I always tell my friends that choosing a good church to be married in is important - you'll need their charity bin when divorce time comes.
-
What would be the difference? if the couple's legal entitlements change, that's as civil as it gets. If they don't then what's the marriage?
I think we've been through all this before, and it didn't end well. Obviously, marriage means something special to many of us, but to you it is just a legal instrument. Nobody is going to change their mind.
On the "good news" side: a trio in Billings has applied for a marriage license to add a second wife :laugh:
-
On the "good news" side: a trio in Billings has applied for a marriage license to add a second wife :laugh:
Funny today... 20 years from now, there will be 12 year old boys being added to the 'marriages' of fabulous duos, and you'll be a bigot for speaking up against it.
-
Funny today... 20 years from now, there will be 12 year old boys being added to the 'marriages' of fabulous duos, and you'll be a bigot for speaking up against it.
It will be interesting to see how the "progressives" reconcile that with their abhorrence of anything remotely resembling child abuse today =|
-
It will be interesting to see how the "progressives" reconcile that with their abhorrence of anything remotely resembling child abuse today =|
Whew, THAT made me laugh out loud.
As though they have ever had a problem with cognitive dissonance.
Doublethink: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
-
It will be interesting to see how the "progressives" reconcile that with their abhorrence of anything remotely resembling child abuse today
More interesting will be sensible people marrying others' fetuses to prevent abortions.
-
It will be interesting to see how the "progressives" reconcile that with their abhorrence of anything remotely resembling child abuse today =|
They've been ignoring child abuse by their own for as long as I remember. Some are even heroes to them, Pulanski, Allen ...
Then of course we have the whole pedo island rumor and multiple Hollywood underage sex scandals that just get swept away.
It's only "all about the children" in theory, not about actual human beings.
-
Marriage is an inherently legal creature, even though the relationships underneath it aren't.
I concur, almost. I'll only quibble with the wording. I would say it's even more a social and religious creature, but I don't think you meant to rule that out.
-
Funny today... 20 years from now, there will be 12 year old boys being added to the 'marriages' of fabulous duos, and you'll be a bigot for speaking up against it.
This. If the same-sex taboo can be so rapidly inverted into a taboo against heterosexism, then non-consent shaming can be easily added to the new list of sins that dare not speak their names.
-
Funny today... 20 years from now, there will be 12 year old boys being added to the 'marriages' of fabulous duos, and you'll be a bigot for speaking up against it.
WWG --> WWT --> WWPolygamy --> WWPedophilia
It will be interesting to see how the "progressives" reconcile that with their abhorrence of anything remotely resembling child abuse today =|
If they abhorred child abuse, they would target the demographics that most sexually abuse children. They do not, so I make the reasonable assumption that they do not truly care about the sexual abuse of minors.
-
Marriage is an inherently legal creature, even though the relationships underneath it aren't.
The state's so-called marriage is a legal construct. The church's so-called marriage is religious construct. The two have little todo with the other, but they do have a *lot* of overlap -- and they are starting to diverge.
-
The state's so-called marriage is a legal construct. The church's so-called marriage is religious construct. The two have little todo with the other, but they do have a *lot* of overlap -- and they are starting to diverge.
The state will not allow a divergence- count on it. The State needs the churches to tow the line to salvage any legitimacy left in the State.