garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by garion2003 on Jul 1, 2015 10:54:56 GMT -5
Yes! Again... on the 'gay people no longer hiding does not = shoving it down other people's throats'....
Another good one. Another aspect of this loss of privilege thing.
I was trying not to gloat yesterday, but I was feeling pretty good ANd yet somehow having a prayer before a meeting is seen as "shoving religion down the throats" of seculars. But oh well, I guess its just a privelege thing... Well, I'm okay with it as long as the prayer is to Zeus. If you pray to Krishna, Jesus, Baal, or Artemis, that's heathen and you should be burned at the stake.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 12:17:42 GMT -5
that last film, in particular, attempted to draw a distinction between cult and religion. i would think that would be a SERVICE to religion. Well... in fairness... there's only ONE legitimate difference between a "cult" and a "religion"... and that's the number of adherents. i am not sure that is precisely true, but it is close enough if you like simplicity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 12:21:38 GMT -5
So, I've been seeing some people IRL argue that 1) the state shouldnt be able to change the definition of marriage 2) marriage is religious institution not government 3) their should be civil unions and for government and then marriage... But ultimately, if they were separate, gay people would have been getting married a long time ago...if marriage is separate from government all you have to do is convince someone with the capacity to marry that you should be able to marry. It has only been by dint of the state that the religious have been able to deny gay people the right thus far... Oh god not this again. This "argument" makes me want to pull my hair out. Here's the thing, if you believe that only your god can define what a marriage is, why do you care what the state calls it? omg! this is the most brilliant counterargument EVER. EVER!!!!!! KUDO!!!!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 12:23:15 GMT -5
And if they did separate them , it's not like the fact would keep gay people from marrying anyway. i think this is the fundamental "problem". people pretend like it is about THEIR marriage, but it really isn't. it is about someone else's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 19:51:39 GMT -5
The state of Washington enacted same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum in 2012. I voted for it. My position, however, is actually more nuanced than a straight support of the idea. Rightly or wrongly, I have always considered the term "marriage" as being religious in nature. My preference would be that we have civil unions for the legal aspects of marriage, for both same- and opposite-sex couples. If someone wants a religious ceremony too? Fine. The only thing that is really important is that both types of couples have the exact same rights and privileges as a result of the legal commitment.
The problem, I think, is that we are too far down the road of "marriage" being used as a legal and tax term, not to mention that it has enormous symbolism. The time and cost required to back us out would be prohibitive, and I do not think many people would insist on the distinction between the terms. So I reluctantly support the use of the term marriage as the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
We COULD still differentiate between "marriage" and "Holy Matrimony" but how many people are going to use four extra syllables every time?
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you." The difference (to me) though is that "married" ALWAYS carried the legal stuff TOO. Otherwise I would say most people who didn't or couldn't get the extra, religious step, wouldn't care about that "extra" step.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2015 19:56:09 GMT -5
I can hear it now just like I could hear it using the words 'married' and 'civil unions' to differentiate between the two words; "We are holy matrimonied. You? Why you're only married. How more special we are than you." The difference (to me) though is that "married" ALWAYS carried the legal stuff TOO. Otherwise I would say most people who didn't or couldn't get the extra, religious step, wouldn't care about that "extra" step. Well the good thing it's a done deal. Marriage for all is here to stay. There will be no civil unions if married in a court house. Marriage will be marriage for everybody no matter where and by whom it is conducted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 20:17:41 GMT -5
The difference (to me) though is that "married" ALWAYS carried the legal stuff TOO. Otherwise I would say most people who didn't or couldn't get the extra, religious step, wouldn't care about that "extra" step. Well the good thing it's a done deal. Marriage for all is here to stay. There will be no civil unions if married in a court house. Marriage will be marriage for everybody no matter where and by whom it is conducted. Yup!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 1, 2015 20:48:50 GMT -5
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesSALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining. The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline Protestant groups that allow gay marriage in all their congregations: the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings. Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesWell as my grammar school teaching nuns told us young students, if you are in a part of the country on a Sunday where there are no Catholic churches to attend mass, find an Episcopalian church and attend their church services. About as close to Roman Catholicism as you can get the nuns used to say.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 1, 2015 21:06:53 GMT -5
And this is why the left is totally blind to their own disrespecting ways...
Let me break it down to all the people that don't seem to see it:
Example 1 = someone posts a message on this board that says they are against gays getting married, that they don't believe someone is born gay, that its a lifestyle choice, etc, etc. That person would get reemed by the left on this board, saying that their words are insulting/demeaning, they would be ridiculed, called names, etc, etc.
Example 2 = someone posts a message on these boards calling someone's god an "invisible man in the sky" and the Bible a fictional storybook thereby demeaning that person's god, their religion, and their beliefs. The leftist liberals would be absolutely silent - in fact, they would probably "like" the post.
So please stop this "liberals are so much more tolerant and understanding of different people's views and beliefs" horseshit...its getting old and has never been true.
So, he's NOT invisible? When was the last time you saw him? Ummm, no...why would you think He is invisible? And is seeing something the only way to know it's there? If so, when was the last time you saw Global Warming?
And he doesn't live in the sky? Ummm, no again...which is why I am always puzzled when people state the invisible man in the sky thing. I've gone to church almost my entire life, and we have never prayed to the sky. Now, some religions may pray to the sky, but I've never seen Christians do so, yet the man in the sky is almost entirely directed towards Christians. Its very puzzling.
Where does he live? Under a bridge? In a subway station? Portugal? Heaven is the simplest answer... It could also be said He lives beyond the boundaries of the universe.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 21:36:35 GMT -5
So, he's NOT invisible? When was the last time you saw him? Ummm, no...why would you think He is invisible? And is seeing something the only way to know it's there? If so, when was the last time you saw Global Warming?
And he doesn't live in the sky? Ummm, no again...which is why I am always puzzled when people state the invisible man in the sky thing. I've gone to church almost my entire life, and we have never prayed to the sky. Now, some religions may pray to the sky, but I've never seen Christians do so, yet the man in the sky is almost entirely directed towards Christians. Its very puzzling.
Where does he live? Under a bridge? In a subway station? Portugal? Heaven is the simplest answer... It could also be said He lives beyond the boundaries of the universe.
you don't see global warming. or gravity. or love. but you know they are there by their EFFECTS. ultimately, this leads to a circular definition of God. you believe in Him because he is everywhere.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Jul 2, 2015 15:08:38 GMT -5
I made my fourth stab at reading the actual opinion earlier today. It was also unsuccessful. I still love the decision but think that the majority opinion is a huge disappointment. Kennedy does not connect the legal dots. Reading what he has written in this case was giving me flashbacks to Powell's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hartwick which also showed an amazing preoccupation with history and tradition that I found odd in a SCOTUS opinion.
I'm trying to cut Kennedy some slack by asking myself what he could have cited to bolster his legal arguments without citing himself. I'm trying to cheer myself up by telling myself that a poorly articulated majority opinion tends to lead to poorly articulated and fractured dissents. I'm trying to tell myself that my tribe won big, that everyone who was sick of treating people differently won big, but I'm still not stirred by the opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 17:37:06 GMT -5
Believer's have a right to not agree with same-sex marriage rulings, same sex, period. Unbeliever's of our faith have a right to stand for what we do not stand for on behalf of our God. Whosoever believes is a choice. You are correct, @heart2heart - you have an absolute right to disagree with today's ruling based on religious belief. You have an absolute right to believe what you want about the attributes of a God that your worship. You have the absolute right to make your rules and live your life in accordance with holy books you follow. You have an absolute right to enforce those holy book rules on the community of believers who are Like You. You have an absolute right to turn away from your church steps anyone who comes to you asking for your blessing and your rituals who does not believe like you and your community of faith believes.
You (the Big You) just don't have the right to take those Religious Rules out into a civil, non-sectarian arena and enforce them as Civil Law on persons who are Not Like You. That's why we have a constitution that defines a separation of church and state.
All the rest ("we will be forced - FORCED I TELL YOU!!!! - do to distasteful things that violate our beliefs") is fear-mongering.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 17:37:57 GMT -5
Ok.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 3, 2015 2:29:21 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2015 2:35:31 GMT -5
poor thing.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 3, 2015 2:42:51 GMT -5
The way she's carrying on, you'd think jack-booted thugs are forcing her to marry someone named Brenda.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 3, 2015 3:43:46 GMT -5
Agree....and I move on....
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 3, 2015 7:19:04 GMT -5
The way she's carrying on, you'd think jack-booted thugs are forcing her to marry someone named Brenda. I could only watch a few seconds of the video. She's quite the drama queen. She probably had her husband Ed... er... Paul... er...Jack... er... Christopher... Manny ...er...what ever the hell husband #7's name is film her little Douglas Sirk-style melodrama.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,593
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 3, 2015 9:25:09 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 3, 2015 9:31:48 GMT -5
This woman must be this guy's mother.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jul 3, 2015 13:11:12 GMT -5
Betty Bowers explains marriage: [this is epic]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 17:04:21 GMT -5
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesSALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining. The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline Protestant groups that allow gay marriage in all their congregations: the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings. Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesWell as my grammar school teaching nuns told us young students, if you are in a part of the country on a Sunday where there are no Catholic churches to attend mass, find an Episcopalian church and attend their church services. About as close to Roman Catholicism as you can get the nuns used to say. So here's the "yes, but...." on this. They actually voted overwhelmingly in both houses to approve two trial liturgies for same-sex marriages effective Nov. 1. BUT, and it's a big one, a diocese whose bishop doesn't agree may choose not to allow clergy in the diocese to perform the rite AND a priest is any diocese with personal theological objections may refuse to perform the service without fear of punishment. In our typical Episcopalian fashion, they found a compromise that is largely dissatisfying to both sides of the debate. DH and I are eagerly awaiting the decision of our bishop because if he decides that the liturgy can be used in our diocese, but our parish priest won't do it, we will have to worship at a different Episcopal church. That's not really a big problem for us b/c we love another church except for the fact that it's 30-45 minutes away. If, however, the bishop says no same-sex marriage in our diocese, we will have to look to another denomination such as Presbyterian or Evangelical Lutheran for our worship. This is really a deal breaker issue for us. I just can't worship in a church that says "Bring your friends to church!" but won't give all my friends equal access. A month or so ago, I heard a sermon that said God's love never has an asterisk as in, "God loves you*" "*except for the following group, condition, or situation."
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 3, 2015 17:10:18 GMT -5
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesSALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining. The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline Protestant groups that allow gay marriage in all their congregations: the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings. Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churchesWell as my grammar school teaching nuns told us young students, if you are in a part of the country on a Sunday where there are no Catholic churches to attend mass, find an Episcopalian church and attend their church services. About as close to Roman Catholicism as you can get the nuns used to say. So here's the "yes, but...." on this. They actually voted overwhelmingly in both houses to approve two trial liturgies for same-sex marriages effective Nov. 1. BUT, and it's a big one, a diocese whose bishop doesn't agree may choose not to allow clergy in the diocese to perform the rite AND a priest is any diocese with personal theological objections may refuse to perform the service without fear of punishment. In our typical Episcopalian fashion, they found a compromise that is largely dissatisfying to both sides of the debate. DH and I are eagerly awaiting the decision of our bishop because if he decides that the liturgy can be used in our diocese, but our parish priest won't do it, we will have to worship at a different Episcopal church. That's not really a big problem for us b/c we love another church except for the fact that it's 30-45 minutes away. If, however, the bishop says no same-sex marriage in our diocese, we will have to look to another denomination such as Presbyterian or Evangelical Lutheran for our worship. This is really a deal breaker issue for us. I just can't worship in a church that says "Bring your friends to church!" but won't give all my friends equal access. A month or so ago, I heard a sermon that said God's love never has an asterisk as in, "God loves you*" "*except for the following group, condition, or situation." I know if may be hard to do, but don't give up on your current church just yet if you are okay with everything else they do. Give the church time to breathe and reflect. It is all so new for so many.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 17:13:09 GMT -5
Is it the Bishop piece that worries you most? I would think individual priests should still me able to make their own decisions about who they marry...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 17:58:54 GMT -5
Is it the Bishop piece that worries you most? I would think individual priests should still me able to make their own decisions about who they marry... Within the Episcopal Church in America, a priest who performs a rite or sacrament not approved by the bishop is subject to discipline just as an employee of a secular company is subject to discipline for not following corporate policy and procedures. In other words, if our bishop says no same-sex weddings, any priest in our diocese performing one is well-done toast and kiss that career path goodby. If, on the other hand, the bishop chooses to authorize the liturgy of marriage for a same-sex couple in his diocese, individual priests may still opt out if they have theological objections. Scenario one=no Episcopal church in a very big chunk of Texas can marry same-sex couples-we choose to worship in another denomination like Evangelical Lutheran; Scenario two=other Episcopal churches in this part of Texas will do same-sex marriages but my parish priest says no can do-we drive across town to another really great Episcopal church. Like Tennesseer said, I shouldn't rush to a decision because this is a new world for many. But my parish church is already experiencing a struggle between the dinosaurs and newer species treading the earth. We experience a lot of pressure to align with the dinosaurs b/c we are in that age group. That is probably part of the reason we are sort of poised to jump ship spiritually for an environment that doesn't try to position you on an issue based on gender or age.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 19:22:54 GMT -5
Wow. Just... ummm... wow. This chick is some sort of special isn't she? 5 Justices didn't "invalidate God" (or whatever other rubbish she said... I honestly only got through about a minute of her whining)... they said it was unconstitutional to deny gay people equal rights.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 19:25:38 GMT -5
Betty Bowers explains marriage: [this is epic] I had never watched her... Lol I kept clicking on the next one and the next one...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 19:39:49 GMT -5
Betty Bowers explains marriage: [this is epic] OMG! That was hilarious... (and very well put together, and completely factual as to what she was saying the Bible says) I have to watch more of her!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 4, 2015 2:05:49 GMT -5
Betty Bowers explains marriage: [this is epic] I had never watched her... Lol I kept clicking on the next one and the next one... Never? Oh, she's hysterical! She's from the "Landover Baptist Church." Here you go.
www.landoverbaptist.org/
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jul 4, 2015 7:28:34 GMT -5
That woman is certifiably nuts! She goes on and on and on about Christians and God and Jesus! She even mentioned that we are in 2015! But I don't think she knows that we are in 2015. She doesn't even seem to comprehend the fact that not everybody is a Christian.
Nobody's telling you to marry a woman lady so shut up!
|
|