Funny thing how we find those who agree with us "tolerant", and those that don't, well...

In regard to interracial marriage: I agree with the court's decision. The prohibition of interracial marriage is a change in the understanding of marriage as always understood in Western culture. It does not have a long precedent based on religious culture or tradition. It was a novelty dreamed up by white supremacists that could not find support in either religion of tradition. In the south, they resorted to some pretty creative interpretation to try to say it came from the Bible which easily collapses under just a cursory reading of the text. It never was a duly accepted belief in Christian tradition.

Funny thing how we find those who agree with us "tolerant", and those that don't, well...

 

That is not what being tolerant is. One may be tolerant without agreeing with the view point of the other person. How one treats another person who disagrees with them is really where you see toleration in action. If you belittle those who disagree with you or misrepresent them or once your side "wins" and you have the power you cut those who disagree off at the knees, that is intolerant.

 

If someone would say they agree with my point regarding terminating the clerks w/o prosecution but then calls the other side fools and suggests they be banished from BGP, I would call that person intolerant.

 

You are free to disagree with me and I will still eat wings with you on all you can eat Tuesday and have a good time, assuming you are agreeable to that.

 

My apologies to the Vegans among us. On my defense, I don't want to kill the poor things, I just want to eat their wings. They will be flightless but chickens can't fly very high any way.

County clerks aren't performing the ceremony, so they are no responsible for the couple getting married.

 

Now we are getting closer to agreement. That may be a way that a person with convictions against gay marriage can still perform their duties in good conscience. Obviously, those who are refusing to do so would disagree, at least as they take a first look at it. But you may have a valid point. There are many Christian attorney's and judges who have reconciled participating in a legal divorce. There may be those who disagree with the SCOTUS decision that may find they can still exercise their full duties as a county clerk.

 

As I stated before, I am not certain about what their moral duty is given the circumstances they find themselves in. I do lean towards not being able to give out licenses. Fortunate for me, I am not a County Clerk.

In regard to interracial marriage: I agree with the court's decision. The prohibition of interracial marriage is a change in the understanding of marriage as always understood in Western culture. It does not have a long precedent based on religious culture or tradition. It was a novelty dreamed up by white supremacists that could not find support in either religion of tradition. In the south, they resorted to some pretty creative interpretation to try to say it came from the Bible which easily collapses under just a cursory reading of the text. It never was a duly accepted belief in Christian tradition.

 

I'm not saying I think the two are completely compatible, but the truth is the church did a great job of propping up segregation and slavery from the pulpit and using scripture to do so. It took far more than a cursory reading to undo the theological props and many, many Christian folk down here still use them to hold up their theology on mixing of races both through matrimony and culturally. It was THE accepted practice and polity of churches.

 

Great book to read is Willard Swartley's "Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women."

I promise this isn't a setup for some sort of attack, but I have a genuine question for those I guess in favor of this bill, but more so those in opposition of the Obergefell decision on religious grounds.

 

What exactly is the sin at issue with gays getting married? Not having sex out of wedlock, but the actual marriage.

 

I don't put a lot of stock in the slippery slope argument for multiple legal reasons, and I don't subscribe to the general moral arguments (e.g. cheapens the definition of marriage, child raising, somehow churches will one day be forced to perform ceremonies, etc.) but recognize that I might not agree, but an argument can have merit. I guess what I am getting at is that from my perspective any argument against SSM starts with that conclusion, then attempts to justify that position. I understand that this has been discussed ad nauseam, but I'm seriously confused about the religious reasons.

 

Is the argument that people are going to engage in homosexual sex acts that they wouldn't without a piece of paper and a 15 minute ceremony by a JOP? Maybe I'm wrong, but whether or not it is a sin, I'm pretty sure straight people in Casey and Rowan Counties are still having sex even though nobody can currently get married.

Sounds like a book worthy of a read. The only Biblical justification for slavery that I ever saw was very flimsy and could be refuted easily. However, that does not mean that those who wanted to find it in Scripture would be that easily persuaded. I remember being sickened by reading

 

Yes, churches divided over the issue of slavery. I was sickened when I read "A Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" as he described the cruelty of his Methodist owner and how it was incongruent with what the slave owner claimed to believe in the Bible. When the Methodists first arrived in the New World they spoke against slavery. Later they caved to political and economic pressures in society.

 

It took the 2nd Great Awakening to jolt the church out of its systemic sin and to take a stand against injustice.

 

A great book detailing the struggle for abolition and women's rights, among other things, is Donald Dayton's book, "Discovering an Evangelical Heritage."

What exactly is the sin at issue with gays getting married? Not having sex out of wedlock, but the actual marriage.

 

I don't put a lot of stock in the slippery slope argument for multiple legal reasons, and I don't subscribe to the general moral arguments (e.g. cheapens the definition of marriage, child raising, somehow churches will one day be forced to perform ceremonies, etc.) but recognize that I might not agree, but an argument can have merit. I guess what I am getting at is that from my perspective any argument against SSM starts with that conclusion, then attempts to justify that position. I understand that this has been discussed ad nauseam, but I'm seriously confused about the religious reasons.

 

Is the argument that people are going to engage in homosexual sex acts that they wouldn't without a piece of paper and a 15 minute ceremony by a JOP? Maybe I'm wrong, but whether or not it is a sin, I'm pretty sure straight people in Casey and Rowan Counties are still having sex even though nobody can currently get married.

 

Bipsic, great question and a huge one. I will attempt to answer you but want to take some time to gather my thoughts. I've already been compared to a 5-yr old. lol

 

There are many facets to the answer. One facet is the "religious" answer, which you asked for. I will only be able to speak from a Christian perspective and don't claim to be the expert or authoritative voice for all Christians. The other facet comes from natural law or what one may gather from reason as one looks at the world. I don't believe these two facets are opposed. So let me give it some thought so I may represent what I really would like to say.

 

I put a portion of your quote in "bold" because I want clarification. Where you say, "any argument against SSM starts with that conclusion, then attempts to justify that conclusion," what conclusion are you referring to? What is the starting conclusion?

 

Thank you.

Bipsic, great question and a huge one. I will attempt to answer you but want to take some time to gather my thoughts. I've already been compared to a 5-yr old. lol

 

There are many facets to the answer. One facet is the "religious" answer, which you asked for. I will only be able to speak from a Christian perspective and don't claim to be the expert or authoritative voice for all Christians. The other facet comes from natural law or what one may gather from reason as one looks at the world. I don't believe these two facets are opposed. So let me give it some thought so I may represent what I really would like to say.

 

I put a portion of your quote in "bold" because I want clarification. Where you say, "any argument against SSM starts with that conclusion, then attempts to justify that conclusion," what conclusion are you referring to? What is the starting conclusion?

 

Thank you.

 

Thanks for your response, and I look forward to your elaboration. I should probably preface that I am coming in from a Christian perspective as well, although I see a huge line between a government recognizing a marriage and a place of worship doing the same.

 

Regarding the above bolded, I am referring to legal arguments attempting to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation. The way I generally see it, of course this isn't everybody, but often people say "gay marriage, gross, this is something new and something I have no interest in, so why should anybody else." Or "living as a homosexual is morally wrong, so how can we make sure this doesn't happen."

 

Of course, the same argument can be made about the other side, but somehow I see a difference, since we are dealing with the government, between starting from a lack of discrimination vs. we can discriminate, but this is why.

 

The reason I ask the question of what actual sin is at issue is because I genuinely respect personal religious views, but fail to see (but would be open to an explanation of) how a clerk's denial of a marriage license will prevent those who already don't subscribe to the same beliefs from acting on what the clerk wishes to prohibit.

And he's doing a phenomenal job of being that leader from the sounds of it.

 

Not according to the Bible.

Not according to the Bible.

 

How so?

How so?

 

According to the Bible same sex relationships are wrong. The pastor, when asked, should be teaching what the Bible says.

 

Not trying to be sanctimonious. I'm am far from perfect or a great Christian.

 

Let's be honest, any Christian, including myself, that doesn't read the Bible and know that is says same sex relationships are wrong, aren't being genuine. We may choose to ignore it, justify it some way, but the Bible clearly points out it is wrong.

According to the Bible same sex relationships are wrong. The pastor, when asked, should be teaching what the Bible says.

 

Not trying to be sanctimonious. I'm am far from perfect or a great Christian.

 

Let's be honest, any Christian, including myself, that doesn't read the Bible and know that is says same sex relationships are wrong, aren't being genuine. We may choose to ignore it, justify it some way, but the Bible clearly points out it is wrong.

 

Maybe I didn't read the article through but I thought the problem was some wanted him at a public rally and he responded he was too busy for that event. That's where the criticism came from. Maybe I was wrong.

They just need to do their job, or quite, or be fired!

According to the Bible same sex relationships are wrong. The pastor, when asked, should be teaching what the Bible says.

 

Not trying to be sanctimonious. I'm am far from perfect or a great Christian.

 

Let's be honest, any Christian, including myself, that doesn't read the Bible and know that is says same sex relationships are wrong, aren't being genuine. We may choose to ignore it, justify it some way, but the Bible clearly points out it is wrong.

 

Where did the article say that he wasn't teaching that homosexuality was wrong? I believe that the Bible also says that you are to attend to the poor and the sick. This pastor was choosing to do that, rather than stump for someone that is defying the duties of their chosen job.