Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Felch]

I almost never hear priests speak out against homosexuality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Usually they don't. I think a recent study showed that Conservative parishs speak far more about poverty and the least of these than social issues.

[Jon Miller]

I think that is more the place for discussions at fellowship dinner, or the like.

Not principled stands in the middle of the sermon.

But one of the points of Christianity is for it to be big tent. I admit to not being as big tent as some (some don't think you have to believe in God to be Christian, and I would actually even go so far as saying that you have to believe that Christ lived, died, and resurrected to be Christian), but Christianity is suppose to be the fellowship of believers (who will have a lot of different beliefs).

Whether if it is that homosexual activity is a sin, or the result of sin, or only sinful for heterosexuals, or entirely put aside at the cross, or what have you. Or how to make the sign of the cross, or even to make the sign of the cross, or even if it is important at all. You can have all of those beliefs, and be Christian. I do think it is entirely right to argue about it, and try to convince other Christians to my thought.

JM

[rah]

Three examples.
1. My father in law was one of the biggest bigots I ever met. I tolerated his comments to keep peace in the family, but politely requested that he tone it down when my daughter was around (when she was younger) He was a public official and was smart enough at act like he was in public when my daughter was around.

2. As a guest at a golf outing our host started spewing some hatred. Since I was a guest I held my tongue. But declined the invitation the following year.

3. A long time friend spewed something similar. We discussed it and I told him I thought he was wrong. I asked him not say things like that and that if he continued, I'd have to break my association with him.

If I bothered to listen to what most priests spew from the pulpit, I'd probably use a combination of 2 and 3.

[Jon Miller]

In the (mostly) conservative churches I attend, the pastors don't speak directly against homosexuality/homosexual activity. They do sometimes say 'look at how the world is screwed up', and in the list of things will include homosexual activity/homosexuality.

My problem actually is not with the church saying that homosexual activity is sinful (which is the most logically defensible interpretation of scripture), but with the church presenting it as a sin which is worse than other ones common in the church membership like cheating/lying/adultery/abuse/stealing/taking advantage of the poor/etc.

Homosexuals don't feel welcome in the church, which is terrible.

I personally hold that homosexuality is the result of living in a universe which has sin. I understand that this position would be difficult for both the secular and the traditional religious to understand.

JM

[MRT144]

One can remain friends with those you don't agree with 100% of the time. Holding contrary positions is not, by itself, horrid, especially when you go to the Church for the fellowship with the people you sit with (for the most part). Like Jon said, if they advocated violence or discrimination, that's one thing. But its usually something said in passing and that's it.

Btw, the other church I frequent has a gay pastor (Lutheran) .

ELCA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeppers.

[MikeH]

I think that is more the place for discussions at fellowship dinner, or the like.

Not principled stands in the middle of the sermon.

Yes. I didn't mean principled stands in the middle of the sermon, more a quiet word with the preacher later. Where it could be discussed properly. But can see how it could be interpreted that way. Sorry for unclearness.

[dannubis]

I almost never hear priests speak out against homosexuality.

You never go to church...

[MRT144]

Yeppers.

I went to an ELCA Church as a teenager which long story short led to me moving to Seattle to pursue education in audio production. They were a pretty good group of people there.

[Zevico]

Gribbler--you're 100% right. It's the intentions of the amenders that matters.
Kentonio--Slavery was abolished by constitutional amendments, not by partisan judicial decision-making.

Partisan judicial decision-making denied blacks the right to citizenship or personhood notwithstanding the fact that blacks had the right to vote in some of the colonies prior to the passing of the Constitution. It was precisely this partisan judicial decision--designed to bring judicial wisdom from on high, nevermind the law--which led to the passing of that constitutional amendment in the first place.

We need to recognise that partisan judicial decision-making is just that, regardless of the cause, and its use to favour one kind of politics will soon become a justification for its use to favour another.

It also involves intellectual dishonesty. That comes with saying that the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean, rather than frankly admitting, as progressives ought to, that they're making it up as you go along. That's dangerous, as all supposedly "useful lies" are.

And lastly,there's the political influence that they could rightly have as politicians, not judges. Judges that want political influence should resign and participate in the political process, not make laws from the bench.

[kentonio]

Partisan judicial decision-making denied blacks the right to citizenship or personhood notwithstanding the fact that blacks had the right to vote in some of the colonies prior to the passing of the Constitution. It was precisely this partisan judicial decision--designed to bring judicial wisdom from on high, nevermind the law--which led to the passing of that constitutional amendment in the first place.

The constitution codified slavery. That section on 3/5th of a man ring any bells? Slavery (and as Gribbler pointed out, denying a woman the right to vote) were both normal and generally acceptable in the US at the time the constitution was written. Times change and thats a damn good thing. Eventually the constitution will be amended again to protect gay rights better, but constitutional amendments are slow and will require a shift in peoples attitudes and the kind of judicial decision making that you're whining about.

Funny however that you talk about the movement to give gay people equal rights as 'partisan'. You're right though, its partisan on the part of the people who aren't bigoted asses.

[Zevico]

The constitution codified slavery. That section on 3/5th of a man ring any bells?

It recognised the existence of slavery as a practice but it didn't explicitly legalise or abolish slavery. In fact it explicitly avoided the topic and that was quite deliberate. The American colonials were fighting a revolutionary war and chose not to address that topic at that time for that reason. That's what happened, right or wrong.

Then the judges of the Supreme Court decided to refuse to recognise the personhood or right to vote of blacks. That was not in the Constitution. How could it be given that the Constitution was enacted among colonies that numbered voting black persons among their residents? It was a decision of "taste"--of progressivism, of "right-thinking Americans"--not of the law. Yes, I think that decision was a terrible blow to American democracy. It disenfranchised Dred Scott and with him, all American blacks. All because some judges thought it was right to disregard for them to disregard the Constitution. You see where I'm getting at? If the judiciary is merely an instrument for political decision-making then so too is every decision and every institution. The ends justify the means--and the means may well destroy the democracy they are intended to preserve.

Either a Constitution has meaning or it doesn't. You're making a flat out argument for its meaninglessness. Understand that.

Judicial decision-making doesn't "require" changes in the attitudes of the people but of the judges. And that is precisely the problem. In a dmeocracy the law is made by the people and the judges enforce that law. Inventing a right to gay marriage out of nowhere is not a legal approach, it is a lawless approach, to constitutional change.

Ultimately, it is for the people to decide what constitutional amendments are necessary and why. Not for the judges. Progressivism, as a legal doctrine, simply means that we should appoint judges whose politics suit us. Fine. Let's appoint judges who support trade unionism and oppose it. Who support gay marriage and oppose it. Who support Obamacare and oppose it. Every judge becomes akin to a President wielding the veto pen. Does that strike you as desirable?

[Felch]

Eventually the constitution will be amended again to protect gay rights better, but constitutional amendments are slow and will require a shift in peoples attitudes and the kind of judicial decision making that you're whining about.

Constitutional amendments don't require the judicial branch. We have a written Constitution, with clear rules about how it can be changed.

[Dr Strangelove]

It recognised the existence of slavery as a practice but it didn't explicitly legalise or abolish slavery. In fact it explicitly avoided the topic and that was quite deliberate. The American colonials were fighting a revolutionary war and chose not to address that topic at that time for that reason. That's what happened, right or wrong.

The Constitution was written in 1787, some 4 years after the end of the Revolutionary War.