Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Gay friend posts status where he's happy about Obama supporting gay marriage.

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

I post that 1 Timothy 2: 12 says a woman shouldn't teach a man and ask her why she's trying to teach a man and not being quiet.

Her response: "He's not much of a man."

/raeg

[kaijyuu]

I don't know whether I should laugh or be depressed by that exchange.

[Urist Imiknorris]

I did both.

[penguinofhonor]

Well, one of my friends actually came at her from a sympathetic "what would jesus do" viewpoint and she's actually reconsidering her views. Beats my smartass jabs by a mile.

[Scelly9]

Well, one of my friends actually came at her from a sympathetic "what would jesus do" viewpoint and she's actually reconsidering her views.

Wow. That hardly ever works.

[scriver]

That's like the only way to convince someone of anything, scelly. Not antagonising them.

[Scelly9]

That's like the only way to convince someone of anything, scelly. Not antagonising them.

Yeah, its just in my experience it hardly ever works to do that on gay-bashers and a lot of the time it backfires. Mostly, I just ignore em.

[Euld]

Gay friend posts status where he's happy about Obama supporting gay marriage.

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

I post that 1 Timothy 2: 12 says a woman shouldn't teach a man and ask her why she's trying to teach a man and not being quiet.

Her response: "He's not much of a man."

/raeg

Respond with "still more man than you'll ever be."  DO EEET!

[RedKing]

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

So she believes in reincarnation? Weird Christian.

Apparently there's a legal complaint being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom. My former pastor (I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod) is one of the three clergy. I'm doubly impressed because the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.

He didn't have to do this. He could have easily hidden behind the denomination's rules and made no comment. That's the kind of the thing that I needed to see after yesterday, to reaffirm the notion that Christianity has value, even if its implementation often leaves something to be desired.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, its just in my experience it hardly ever works to do that on gay-bashers and a lot of the time it backfires. Mostly, I just ignore em.

Well yeah.  If they've thought about it at all then their interpretation of Jesus would indeed warn gays that them marrying is a sin.

[Truean]

His stepsister posts some generic "god hates gay marriage, you'll have to answer for this in the next life" stuff and cites a Bible verse.

So she believes in reincarnation? Weird Christian.

Apparently there's a legal complaint being filed in Greensboro, NC by the county register of deeds and three clergy members, to the effect that the clergy view any state imposition on who they can and can't marry as a violation of religious freedom. My former pastor (I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod) is one of the three clergy. I'm doubly impressed because the complaint specifies that while he won't perform a same-sex marriage (because the denomination, which is the archconservative wing of the Lutherans, forbids it), he feels that it's STILL a violation of religious freedom and that other denominations should have the right to solemnize same-sex marriages if they so choose.

He didn't have to do this. He could have easily hidden behind the denomination's rules and made no comment. That's the kind of the thing that I needed to see after yesterday, to reaffirm the notion that Christianity has value, even if its implementation often leaves something to be desired.

He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.

As for the stepsister and the "next live" stuff, could also be an afterlife. She knows what "God" says huh? Has she been hearing other voices as well? Remember the rule, "You talk to God, you're religious; God talks to you, you're crazy."

[RedKing]

He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.

No, I read it as "Look, as a Missouri-Lutheran Synod pastor, I can't marry you. But I think that if the UCCs or Episcopals or Unitarians or whoever are willing to marry you, they should be allowed to do so." It does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the arguments that (for instance), the Feds were violating religious freedom by forcing Catholic-funded institutions to provide insurance coverage for birth control, against their own religious doctrine.

If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Frumple]

He's basically saying the state has no sovereignty over family law, which it always has in this country since the beginning. As for his "if they so chose" argument, it's a puff piece because he knows that choice is effectively bound by the church. Thus it will never happen.... Kinda funny though.

No, I read it as "Look, as a Missouri-Lutheran Synod pastor, I can't marry you. But I think that if the UCCs or Episcopals or Unitarians or whoever are willing to marry you, they should be allowed to do so." It does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the arguments that (for instance), the Feds were violating religious freedom by forcing Catholic-funded institutions to provide insurance coverage for birth control, against their own religious doctrine.

Which never actually happened, heh. Weren't... weren't you the one that cleared that up over in the America Election thread a while back? Though I guess you mean the noisy argument in the media that was misrepresenting things...

If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.

[Heron TSG]

I'm atheist, but I the UCC is a pretty cool church in my book. They've been performing ceremonies in my area for gay couples for years, even if the event isn't legally binding.

[RedKing]

If the UU's (as an example) have decreed that they recognize and celebrate same-sex marriage, how is it not violating religious freedom for a state to force them to NOT perform said marriages? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, that's a point that doesn't exactly get represented in the larger dialogue, and a pretty good one. Kinda' cuts to the point that the advocates against same sex marriage aren't doing it for religious freedom, they're (at best) doing it for their religion's "freedom." It's nice to see some folks getting some attention fighting for religious freedom writ large.

Well, and let's make clear that what they (the anti-SSM advocates) are fighting for is their religion's freedom to discriminate. Which has typically not been recognized as a valid right by most courts (although Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission certainly could be interpreted as allowing exemptions for religious institutions from things like equal opportunity labor laws).

It's a thorny issue: One the one hand, religions shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from civil protections and be legally able to create second-class citizenry. On the other hand, government should not be able to dictate to religions what parts of their doctrine they are allowed to practice.

In a perfect world, it would be left up to the market of ideas, and people would vote with their feet -- if the majority of individuals favored gay marriage, in theory they'd leave close-minded denominations and choose SSM-friendly ones. But it's nowhere near that simple. Most people can't "shop around" for a new church the way you can for a new car.