Methodists split over gay rights

[funinspace]

What bothers the conservatives is the coopting of the word marriage for same sex couples.

What bothers the conservatives is that the Gays aren't forced to retain their stigma and illegitimacy within society. Co-opting is hardly the big thingy...

 

[steve_bank]

What bothers the conservatives is the coopting of the word marriage for same sex couples.

What bothers the conservatives is that the Gays aren't forced to retain their stigma and illegitimacy within society. Co-opting is hardly the big thingy...

It was not all that long ago states had laws against sodomy both gay and straight. When I was in the VN I was stioned just north of Norfolk Va in Yorktown.

There was a news report in Norfolk. A kid saw his parents having oral sex. He told other kids who told parents who told the police. Police investigated.

Gays are just one part of it. It is the overall warped views of human sexuality and sex as pleasure being bad.

In the Garden Of Eden Adam and Eve became uncomfortable with nakedness.

 

[steve_bank]

The meaning of marriage and the terms husband and wife go back thousands of years.

But is that actually 'the meaning' of marriage, or just the image that usually comes to mind?
Gay's aren't asking for any different ceremony or legal status or terms.
If we're talking 'definition,' we're talking about the joining of properties, the parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the children of the union, and so on.

Since it's been common language to use 'marriage' for things other than man and woman* for a long time, there's no redefining the word with samesex marriages.


*such as a music form being called 'A marriage of jazz and gospel'

So, the law is being expanded, but the meaning of the word isn't changing.

The debate on meaning would be without end. Christians say biblically marriage is one man and one woman. It alwys cpmes down to what the bible says and interpreting what god wants.

The puzzling thing is why out of all the prohibitions in Leviticus they seem to singularly hang onto prohibitions against same sex relations. They do not think the dietary rqutirements apply.

 

[steve_bank]

As to history are you arguing that in resewn civilization the general normal was not hetero man and woman husband and wife?

In recent European history, yes. But you made a much more extravagant claim. And "norms" are not exclusive truths. Nothing concerning homosexuals will ever be the "norm", because we constitute a numerical minority in every society. Minorities never define norms, unless they are rich as hell. But that doesn't mean society can't adapt to our presence, and indeed we have been integrated into society at many times in places through human history. There's an avalanche of difference between saying "most women marry men" and "all women should be forced to marry men".

In Europe, socially conservative Christians have held a lot of power for a long time, partly because people like you give it to them unthinkingly, but mostly because very powerful people found it useful to force their agenda on the populace. Homosexuality is not a new invention, nor is gay marriage whatever you choose to call it. The upper classes have always tolerated it among their number to a certain degree (Henry V wasn't gay, but his 2nd great-grandfather Edward II certainly was, and Hugh Despenser was referred to as his husband even in documents of the time), but the working classes are needed for their labor, so in the Feudal Era and afterward it was very important to keep them breeding. The church and the state were convenient allies with each other in producing the agenda of constant fecundity and the brutal disintegration of female autonomy in European culture. A project which was never fully embraced by the population, as there was always rebellion and dissension surrounding these issues.

But we don't need an ever-growing slave class any more, anyway. Indeed, over-population has become a major global crisis in many places. So why are you still pushing archaic social agendas?

I know you say you aren't, but if you aren't trying to support conservative bullshit, why are you parroting their apologetic arguments and false portrayal of history into this debate? They're wrong, and you're wrong.

If you don't believe these things, or just don't like being taken for a conservative shill, then think before you post next time.

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

 

[Politesse]

As to history are you arguing that in resewn civilization the general normal was not hetero man and woman husband and wife?

In recent European history, yes. But you made a much more extravagant claim. And "norms" are not exclusive truths. Nothing concerning homosexuals will ever be the "norm", because we constitute a numerical minority in every society. Minorities never define norms, unless they are rich as hell. But that doesn't mean society can't adapt to our presence, and indeed we have been integrated into society at many times in places through human history. There's an avalanche of difference between saying "most women marry men" and "all women should be forced to marry men".

In Europe, socially conservative Christians have held a lot of power for a long time, partly because people like you give it to them unthinkingly, but mostly because very powerful people found it useful to force their agenda on the populace. Homosexuality is not a new invention, nor is gay marriage whatever you choose to call it. The upper classes have always tolerated it among their number to a certain degree (Henry V wasn't gay, but his 2nd great-grandfather Edward II certainly was, and Hugh Despenser was referred to as his husband even in documents of the time), but the working classes are needed for their labor, so in the Feudal Era and afterward it was very important to keep them breeding. The church and the state were convenient allies with each other in producing the agenda of constant fecundity and the brutal disintegration of female autonomy in European culture. A project which was never fully embraced by the population, as there was always rebellion and dissension surrounding these issues.

But we don't need an ever-growing slave class any more, anyway. Indeed, over-population has become a major global crisis in many places. So why are you still pushing archaic social agendas?

I know you say you aren't, but if you aren't trying to support conservative bullshit, why are you parroting their apologetic arguments and false portrayal of history into this debate? They're wrong, and you're wrong.

If you don't believe these things, or just don't like being taken for a conservative shill, then think before you post next time.

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

What do my personal religious views (which have never been in any sense secret) have to do with your inaccurate historical claims or regressive political views? I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and your portrayal of European social history would be no more or less inaccurate.

 

[funinspace]

I read about this split a couple of days ago and am still wondering which way the huge UMC on the corner of my street will go. I'm guessing the more conservative route, but I've known at least a couple of very progressive people who attend. Maybe I'll go to their website when I have time and see if they have anything on it regarding this split.

Not much will happen until the May General Conference vote. It has been a long time coming, as I think they were always concerned about loosing the status of being the largest Protestant brand. The real ugly stuff will be at the individual churches that aren't heavily one way or the other theologically. People will become big assholes when they fight for 'their' church with the division is 60/40 or such.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...h-over-lgbt-issues-welcomed-methodist-college

If the separation protocol is approved at the church’s general conference in May, it will likely prevent other colleges from also disaffiliating from the UMC, Methodist college leaders said.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As to history are you arguing that in resewn civilization the general normal was not hetero man and woman husband and wife?

In recent European history, yes. But you made a much more extravagant claim. And "norms" are not exclusive truths. Nothing concerning homosexuals will ever be the "norm", because we constitute a numerical minority in every society. Minorities never define norms, unless they are rich as hell. But that doesn't mean society can't adapt to our presence, and indeed we have been integrated into society at many times in places through human history. There's an avalanche of difference between saying "most women marry men" and "all women should be forced to marry men".

In Europe, socially conservative Christians have held a lot of power for a long time, partly because people like you give it to them unthinkingly, but mostly because very powerful people found it useful to force their agenda on the populace. Homosexuality is not a new invention, nor is gay marriage whatever you choose to call it. The upper classes have always tolerated it among their number to a certain degree (Henry V wasn't gay, but his 2nd great-grandfather Edward II certainly was, and Hugh Despenser was referred to as his husband even in documents of the time), but the working classes are needed for their labor, so in the Feudal Era and afterward it was very important to keep them breeding. The church and the state were convenient allies with each other in producing the agenda of constant fecundity and the brutal disintegration of female autonomy in European culture. A project which was never fully embraced by the population, as there was always rebellion and dissension surrounding these issues.

But we don't need an ever-growing slave class any more, anyway. Indeed, over-population has become a major global crisis in many places. So why are you still pushing archaic social agendas?

I know you say you aren't, but if you aren't trying to support conservative bullshit, why are you parroting their apologetic arguments and false portrayal of history into this debate? They're wrong, and you're wrong.

If you don't believe these things, or just don't like being taken for a conservative shill, then think before you post next time.

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

I feel certain things had more to do with knowing who's kid belonged to who than it did with trying to moralize sex. The RCC declared celibacy the law because it was screwing up the administration of the institution, not because people thought there was something wrong with married priests.

 

[steve_bank]

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

I feel certain things had more to do with knowing who's kid belonged to who than it did with trying to moralize sex. The RCC declared celibacy the law because it was screwing up the administration of the institution, not because people thought there was something wrong with married priests.

I'd have to look up the name. A pope went around whacking off genitals on statues and covering up art.

 

[steve_bank]

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

What do my personal religious views (which have never been in any sense secret) have to do with your inaccurate historical claims or regressive political views? I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and your portrayal of European social history would be no more or less inaccurate.

Theists and atheists alike here are open about who they are and what they believe. The point of a largely anonymous forum.

You are making statement without any context of a set of beliefs. If you are worried about criticism consider it can lead tro new ideas for you and a better understanding of beliefs. That too is a benefit of an anonymous forum. There are no penalties.

Atheist and theist vigorously defend positions.

And finally some may just want to understand what you believe and why. Curiosity.

Obviously you shy away, I will not ask again.

 

[Politesse]

Still do not know what it is you actually believe as a half Christian and half Pagan. It would shed some light on your posts.

I'd have to the Code Of Hammurabi for marriage laws. The Jewish laws prohibiting adulatory and fornication with serious penalty goes for back in history. One of the few gospel direct sayings attributed to Jesus was reinforcing the prohibition aginst divorce set down by Moses. Further he equates divorce and remarriage 5to adultery which was then a very serious offense.

Again, it would help in understanding and replying to you posts if I knew what is you actually believe as a Christian.

My position on the forum and elsewhere is if people find comfort in same sex relations in our chaotic world then good for them. Civil legal unions, aka marriage, is fine. It gives them rights and protections. There were cases here in Washington where long term gay couples were denied any rights when the partner was hospitalized. Not even visitation rights.

And as Jay Leno put it, sure let them marry so they can be as miserable as everybody else...

What do my personal religious views (which have never been in any sense secret) have to do with your inaccurate historical claims or regressive political views? I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and your portrayal of European social history would be no more or less inaccurate.

Theists and atheists alike here are open about who they are and what they believe. The point of a largely anonymous forum.

You are making statement without any context of a set of beliefs. If you are worried about criticism consider it can lead tro new ideas for you and a better understanding of beliefs. That too is a benefit of an anonymous forum. There are no penalties.

Atheist and theist vigorously defend positions.

And finally some may just want to understand what you believe and why. Curiosity.

Obviously you shy away, I will not ask again.

I have no secret beliefs. Your portrayal of the history of sex and gender in Europe is factually inaccurate.

 

[steve_bank]

Theists and atheists alike here are open about who they are and what they believe. The point of a largely anonymous forum.

You are making statement without any context of a set of beliefs. If you are worried about criticism consider it can lead tro new ideas for you and a better understanding of beliefs. That too is a benefit of an anonymous forum. There are no penalties.

Atheist and theist vigorously defend positions.

And finally some may just want to understand what you believe and why. Curiosity.

Obviously you shy away, I will not ask again.

I have no secret beliefs. Your portrayal of the history of sex and gender in Europe is factually inaccurate.

What sex practices es do you mean? Technique, orgies?

There were moral facades for the masses and what the religious and aristocratic elite did. The elite did pretty much what they wanted within the bounds of crossing power.

Thomas Jefferson's relation with a slave woman. It was a misogynist world. JFK's womanizing was legendary.

Prince William right now.

That being said monogamy was the norm and adultery frowned upon. Jackie Kennedy maintained the public facade. The media did not report JFKs infidelity They all knew about it.

What was sex like in Europe that invalidates the general norms? Polygamy, polyandry? Families without at least a facade of marriage? It is interesting that the movie Lion In winter depicts a royal homosexual relationship.

No fixed beliefs, I will leave it at that.