Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[hamster]

Its true that Christians in America are way less sensitive to divorce, but how would you even tell if the guy buying the cake was on his third wife?

[Epoetker]

By the Scarlet "A" that every divorced man is forced to wear in our hypothetical adultery-shaming universe, duh.

[Joel]

The statement was about whether a considerable number of Christians believe that homosexual activity is sin.
Whether there also exists a considerable number of Christians who believe that homosexual activity is not sin, is a different question.

The one bit in your article that references individual beliefs is unacceptably misleading:


"This is not the case for members of the mainline Protestant churches. A solid majority of people who identify as mainliners now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed. In a survey we conducted in September 2014, 60% of mainline Protestants now say they favor same-sex marriage, up from just 34% a decade earlier in 2004."

The author is deliberately conflating the survey of being in favor of legal same-sex marriage, with being in favor of their church approving of same-sex marriages or their church performing marriage rites for same-sex couples.

Let alone with believing that homosexual activity is not sin. Those are all different things.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

I'm not nitpicking, I was pointing out that you have given no evidence of your original claim that there isn't a considerable number of Christians that believe that homosexual activity is sin.
Arguing that a considerable number of Christians believe the opposite is irrelevant (unless it were so overwhelming as to show that there were no considerable dispute).

As for denominations whose leadership have sanctioned same-sex marriage, that doesn't actually answer the question of numbers of people (I think the average members of mainline churches are probably more conservative than the leadership). Your article talks about people leaving those denominations.

And then the article points out that only two mainline groups (one within Presbyterianism and one within Lutheranism) have so sanctioned. So then the article tries to argue that the membership (of mainline churches) is more in favor of sanctioning than is the leadership ("This is not the case for members of the mainline Protestant churches....") But the evidence they present to back that up only says that a majority of those members are for legal same-sex marriage. Thus the article provides no direct evidence that the membership is in favor of the churches sanctioning same-sex marriage.

But, even if the article had proven what it claimed, it still would do nothing to support your claim that there isn't a considerable number of Christians that believe that homosexual activity is sin. Indeed, if you want to use the list of denominations that have sanctioned as support of your claim that a considerable number of Christians sanction, then the corresponding list of denominations that prohibit would equally be evidence that a considerable number of Christians prohibit, thus contracting your original claim.

[KingsGambit]

The adultery lady is a hypocrite, but I got nominated for a screwball just for the very act of nominating her for a screwball.

The relevant quote, though:

Interestingly, she said that she would willingly serve a customer who committed adultery, but not a gay person: "It's just a different kind of sin to me, and I just don't believe in it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7001288.html

[Sparko]

The adultery lady is a hypocrite, but I got nominated for a screwball just for the very act of nominating her for a screwball.

The relevant quote, though:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7001288.html

ah so it wasn't the pizza lady after all, like Tassman claimed.

While the florist lady seems to think Adultery is a "different sin" - that is still her conviction and religious belief so she should be able to decide who to serve or not. But to me Adultery is a sexual sin, just like homosexual behavior is.

[KingsGambit]

I wonder if what she meant, but couldn't articulate, was that she would differentiate between helping somebody participating in a sin and somebody who is a sinner in general. That's not what she said of course but it might be possible.

[Tassman]

I'm not nitpicking, I was pointing out that you have given no evidence of your original claim that there isn't a considerable number of Christians that believe that homosexual activity is sin.
Arguing that a considerable number of Christians believe the opposite is irrelevant (unless it were so overwhelming as to show that there were no considerable dispute).

As for denominations whose leadership have sanctioned same-sex marriage, that doesn't actually answer the question of numbers of people (I think the average members of mainline churches are probably more conservative than the leadership). Your article talks about people leaving those denominations.

And then the article points out that only two mainline groups (one within Presbyterianism and one within Lutheranism) have so sanctioned. So then the article tries to argue that the membership (of mainline churches) is more in favor of sanctioning than is the leadership ("This is not the case for members of the mainline Protestant churches....") But the evidence they present to back that up only says that a majority of those members are for legal same-sex marriage. Thus the article provides no direct evidence that the membership is in favor of the churches sanctioning same-sex marriage.

But, even if the article had proven what it claimed, it still would do nothing to support your claim that there isn't a considerable number of Christians that believe that homosexual activity is sin. Indeed, if you want to use the list of denominations that have sanctioned as support of your claim that a considerable number of Christians sanction, then the corresponding list of denominations that prohibit would equally be evidence that a considerable number of Christians prohibit, thus contracting your original claim.

not consider homosexual activity to be sinful.

She did? Give me a link and a quote.

My mistake, wrong bigot! As has subsequently been pointed out it was the florist lady, not the pizza lady who made the remark.

By the Scarlet "A" that every divorced man is forced to wear in our hypothetical adultery-shaming universe, duh.

As opposed to the actual

[Starlight]

As opposed to the actual homosexual-shaming universe that the decaying Christian right still tries to promote despite escalating ignominious defeats by the forces of justice.

I've been intrigued to see here how quickly the momentum of the Christian right falls away once laws are passed. In the run up to the passage of marriage equality here a couple of years ago, there was a lot of zeal being publicly aired by the Christian right about how the gay marriage was going to destroy the world etc. The zealously anti-gay Christians had gotten behind the pulpits and behind the microphones and were giving anti-gay speeches everywhere. It seemed that within Christian churches there was no such thing as "too far" in terms of what could be said was bad about gay people. Nothing was ever out-of-bounds. And as the marriage equality legislation passed there was loud wailing and gnashing of teeth, and much rushing to ensure that all Christian churches were banned by their denominations from ever holding gay weddings.

And then... it all fell away. Once it was no longer a topic of national significance, the churches didn't encourage the crazies to give their anti-gay rants from the pulpit any more, and gradually increasing number of moderate Christians in the pews said to one another "hey, actually, I have a few gay friends and a gay family member, and they seem fine" and didn't get shouted down by the crazies. And so the tone that pervades a lot of churches here now is "um, why were we against this again?" So already the Anglicans are setting up a committee to set up a committee (really!) to achieve the eventual goal of starting to host gay marriages in a couple of years time. The Baptists have spotted that their own national body doesn't have the authority to ban individual churches from hosting gay marriages if they want to, so they've back-peddled on their previous absolute ban.

Interestingly, when some random guy claiming to be a Baptist minister recently gave a public anti-gay rant, the Baptist union quickly moved point out that the guy wasn't official or associated with them, but they also condemned the strong anti-gay rhetoric the guy was using. That was interesting because it was the first time I have ever seen a specific Christian publicly condemned in this country by other Christians for being too anti-gay. In just two years the public position of the Baptist church has changed from being pretty much that gay marriage is going to destroy society to defending gay people against criticism by Christians!

But an interesting double standard in that the sin of adultery (as it’s seen to be by the Church) is nowadays socially acceptable, whereas the equally grievous sin of active homosexuality (according to many denominations) remains a “hanging offence”.

It amuses me that the very words of Jesus they misinterpret as condemning homosexuality are actually talking about divorce and remarriage which they think is fine.

[Epoetker]

I've been intrigued to see here how quickly the momentum of the Christian right falls away once laws are passed.

I agree, it's a blind spot of law-and-order conservatives in particular without a real sense for how national subversion works. May have been an excuse for it in the past, definitely no excuse for it now!

In the run up to the passage of marriage equality

there was a lot of zeal being publicly aired by the Christian right about how the gay marriage was going to destroy the world etc. The zealously anti-gay Christians had gotten behind the pulpits and behind the microphones and were giving anti-gay speeches everywhere. It seemed that within Christian churches there was no such thing as "too far" in terms of what could be said was bad about gay people. Nothing was ever out-of-bounds. And as the marriage equality legislation passed there was loud wailing and gnashing of teeth, and much rushing to ensure that all Christian churches were banned by their denominations from ever holding gay weddings.

I wish it were actually true, but sadly, you're generalizing without any public facts to back it up. Was Haven Monahan one of the speakers?

And then... it all fell away. Once it was no longer a topic of national significance, the churches didn't encourage the crazies to give their anti-gay rants from the pulpit any more, and gradually increasing number of moderate Christians in the pews said to one another "hey, actually, I have a few gay friends and a gay family member, and they seem fine" and didn't get shouted down by the crazies. And so the tone that pervades a lot of churches here now is "um, why were we against this again?" So already the Anglicans are setting up a committee to set up a committee (really!) to achieve the eventual goal of starting to host gay marriages in a couple of years time. The Baptists have spotted that their own national body doesn't have the authority to ban individual churches from hosting gay marriages if they want to, so they've back-peddled on their previous absolute ban.

I'm pretty sure there were active schisms in most of the major denominations, I most certainly remember the Lutherans splitting off, the Anglicans were fairly predictably following their gay archbishops, and the Baptists are too loose a coalition too dependent on strong personalities in the individual churches to take any firm action. What you actually got was the mainline churches emptying of most of their previous hardcore members, because honestly a church that supports sin actively isn't a church that serious people are going to continue attending.

Interestingly, when some random guy claiming to be a Baptist minister recently gave a public anti-gay rant, the Baptist union quickly moved point out that the guy wasn't official or associated with them, but they also condemned the strong anti-gay rhetoric the guy was using. That was interesting because it was the first time I have ever seen a specific Christian publicly condemned in this country by other Christians for being too anti-gay. In just two years the public position of the Baptist church has changed from being pretty much that gay marriage is going to destroy society to defending gay people against criticism by Christians!

Wouldn't really be surprised if this was the case, but again, I'm going to have to file this report's acceptability under lines like "'We're doing this because we love Mitt Romney and hate that Obummer fellow', said my 7th and final rapist, as the Dave Matthews Band poster on the wall fell down, revealing a swastika."

Please have the common courtesy to actually link things if you want people to take you seriously. Anyone can spout off mainstream narratives and talking points, good posters at least show their work.

[Tassman]

I've been intrigued to see here how quickly the momentum of the Christian right falls away once laws are passed. In the run up to the passage of marriage equality here a couple of years ago, there was a lot of zeal being publicly aired by the Christian right about how the gay marriage was going to destroy the world etc. The zealously anti-gay Christians had gotten behind the pulpits and behind the microphones and were giving anti-gay speeches everywhere. It seemed that within Christian churches there was no such thing as "too far" in terms of what could be said was bad about gay people. Nothing was ever out-of-bounds. And as the marriage equality legislation passed there was loud wailing and gnashing of teeth, and much rushing to ensure that all Christian churches were banned by their denominations from ever holding gay weddings.

It was gratuitous scaremongering in the name of Jesus, often grounded upon sheer bigotry. And they were wrong in any event. Gay marriage has been legal in many countries for a decade or more, e.g. Canada, and the world hasn't ended.

And then... it all fell away. Once it was no longer a topic of national significance, the churches didn't encourage the crazies to give their anti-gay rants from the pulpit any more, and gradually increasing number of moderate Christians in the pews said to one another "hey, actually, I have a few gay friends and a gay family member, and they seem fine" and didn't get shouted down by the crazies. And so the tone that pervades a lot of churches here now is "um, why were we against this again?" So already the Anglicans are setting up a committee to set up a committee (really!) to achieve the eventual goal of starting to host gay marriages in a couple of years time. The Baptists have spotted that their own national body doesn't have the authority to ban individual churches from hosting gay marriages if they want to, so they've back-peddled on their previous absolute ban.

I agree. In my opinion it was when many Christians started to realize that most homosexual men and women were normal folk just like the rest of us, rather than the freaky caricatures they were often portrayed as.

Interestingly, when some random guy claiming to be a Baptist minister recently gave a public anti-gay rant, the Baptist union quickly moved point out that the guy wasn't official or associated with them, but they also condemned the strong anti-gay rhetoric the guy was using. That was interesting because it was the first time I have ever seen a specific Christian publicly condemned in this country by other Christians for being too anti-gay. In just two years the public position of the Baptist church has changed from being pretty much that gay marriage is going to destroy society to defending gay people against criticism by Christians!

It amuses me that the very words of Jesus they misinterpret as condemning homosexuality are actually talking about divorce and remarriage which they think is fine.

Actually Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all, but he specifically condemns divorce. In fact I've got no problem with either (it's not for me to judge) other than note the blatant inconsistency of the current debate wherein all the moral outrage is focused just upon the homosexuals.

[Bill the Cat]

Joel you have utterly missed the point. Namely, the likes of MM cannot make the blanket claim that for Christians’ homosexual activity is sinful, because there are significant numbers of Christians and Christian denominations that interpret scripture differently. They do not consider homosexual activity to be sinful.

As I said in another thread, the existence of an interpretation in no way validates the truthfulness of that interpretation.

[Epoetker]

Right on cue:

A coalition of 34,000 black churches has cut its ties with Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) in the wake of its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage.

In a statement at Charisma News, Rev. Anthony Evans, president of the National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), wrote that PCUSA’s “arbitrary change of Holy Scripture is a flagrantly pretentious and illegitimate maneuver by a body that has no authority whatsoever to alter holy text.”

After endorsing same-sex marriage last June, PCUSA voted earlier this month to revise its constitutional language defining marriage to include a “commitment between two people.” The church became the largest Protestant group to formally recognize same-sex marriage as a Christian institution and to permit same-sex weddings in its congregations.

I encourage them to get their #BlackBrunch on in PCUSA's headquarters in the future.

[Joel]

Not among conservative Christians.

In the run up to the passage of marriage equality here a couple of years ago, there was a lot of zeal being publicly aired by the Christian right about how the gay marriage was going to destroy the world etc. The zealously anti-gay Christians had gotten behind the pulpits and behind the microphones and were giving anti-gay speeches everywhere. It seemed that within Christian churches there was no such thing as "too far" in terms of what could be said was bad about gay people.
Nothing was ever out-of-bounds.

I've been going to conservative Christian churches (non-'mainline') all my life and I can recall hearing only one sermon that mentioned the sin of homosexual activity, and the mention was quickly followed with the caveat that it is no worse than any other sin that we all have committed.


I do think the conservative Christian message on same-sex marriage has taken the wrong approach. It seems like they have generally presented themselves as opposing or banning same-sex marriage. A more consistent message would have been to say, from the beginning, "No, I don't oppose 'same-sex marriage', because I can't oppose something that can't exist. 'Same-sex marriage' is as contradictory and nonsensical as 'married bachelor'. One cannot oppose or ban 'married bachelors' because no such thing is even possible. A same-sex man-and-wife is simply a logical impossibility."

Then they would realized, "No, 'same-sex marriage' cannot destroy America, because no such thing as 'same-sex marriage' is possible."

And then as laws started to change to "recognize" nonsensical contradictory things, the consistent response would be to mock those laws and to disassociate government "marriage" licenses from the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. One might say, "Just because you have a government 'marriage' license doesn't mean you are actually man and wife. And if the government were to deny a married couple a 'marriage' license it would not make them any less man and wife."

[Starlight]

I do think the conservative Christian message on same-sex marriage has taken the wrong approach. It seems like they have generally presented themselves as opposing or banning same-sex marriage. A more consistent message would have been to say, from the beginning, "No, I don't oppose 'same-sex marriage', because I can't oppose something that can't exist. 'Same-sex marriage' is as contradictory and nonsensical as 'married bachelor'. One cannot oppose or ban 'married bachelors' because no such thing is even possible. A same-sex man-and-wife is simply a logical impossibility."

Then they would realized, "No, 'same-sex marriage' cannot destroy America, because no such thing as 'same-sex marriage' is possible."

The arrogance is breathtaking. You're assuming that Christians have some sort of right to define for everybody else what marriage is, when marriage is something that non-Christian people around the world have been doing for thousands of years.

I've certainly seen plenty of Christians try to take your proposed approach. It results in a lot of eye-rolling in their general direction.

[lilpixieofterror]

The arrogance is breathtaking. You're assuming that Christians have some sort of right to define for everybody else what marriage is, when marriage is something that non-Christian people around the world have been doing for thousands of years.

I've certainly seen plenty of Christians try to take your proposed approach. It results in a lot of eye-rolling in their general direction.

You mean in countries, where gay marriage is not only banned, but sometimes enforced with the death penalty for anybody caught engaging in homosexual acts? Keep talking Starlight because marriage between men and women are the norm around the world and 'gay marriage' isn't (don't try your 'examples' again, you were totally embarrassed when you tried them last time).