Interesting religious breakdown on gay marriage
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
Is it safe to assume that this study refers to monogamous marriages between two consenting adults?
You can throw out Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus. They aren't a voting bloc. The survey was given to 40K people. In a nation that claims to be 90%+ Christian.
Substitute the following.
Black Protestant 27%
Mormon 28%
Jews are secular.
This graph alone is crap.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/...ve-sex-marriage-white-evangelical-christians/
Mormons are a voting block? But Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus combined aren't? OK. Not really accurate numerically.
Blacks vote 90% for Democrats so they vote for the party of gay marriage despite black Protestants saying they are against it.
This graph shows most religious blocks are for gay marriage or have a substantial minority in favor...it matches up with the overall slight majority in favor of gay marriage in the nation as a whole and probably explains why the supremes are about to give it extra protection here soon.
Blacks vote 90% for Democrats so they vote for the party of gay marriage despite black Protestants saying they are against it.
This graph shows most religious blocks are for gay marriage or have a substantial minority in favor...it matches up with the overall slight majority in favor of gay marriage in the nation as a whole and probably explains why the supremes are about to give it extra protection here soon.
I think that graph is like accurate as well. I think to take it a step farther though, most of those religous denominations support equal rights marriage but at the same time, would not want their church to have to abide by it. (IE-Catholic churches and Priests being required to have a gay marriage).
Only thing I would say about Mormons and voting block is that due to most of them being consolidated in Utah, while numerically they are less in number, they do control Utah so in a sense it is a stronger block than the others. Strength is numbers due to dense population I guess.
Only thing I would say about Mormons and voting block is that due to most of them being consolidated in Utah, while numerically they are less in number, they do control Utah so in a sense it is a stronger block than the others. Strength is numbers due to dense population I guess.
I find the rhetoric of so many churches to be fascinating on this issue. I support the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in the life of the church, and I also support my clergy friends and colleagues who do not desire to perform same-gender wedding ceremonies. I fail to see, however, any grounds by which any clergy could be "forced" to perform such a ceremony.
There is a monumental difference between saying that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is unconstitutional or that banning same-gender wedding ceremonies is unconstitutional and saying that a clergy person must - on threat of punishment - perform such a ceremony. There is no constitutional leg to stand on for the latter case, is there?
There is a monumental difference between saying that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is unconstitutional or that banning same-gender wedding ceremonies is unconstitutional and saying that a clergy person must - on threat of punishment - perform such a ceremony. There is no constitutional leg to stand on for the latter case, is there?
The Pope and the Mormon Prophet are closer to God than you.
Do you have a direct line to God? Both of these men do.
Are they Christians?
Mormons are more political than Muslims, Buds, and Hindus combined. It is actual dogma. Look at the Boy Scouts. How many millions did the Mormon church spend to defeat prop XYZ in California? I forget, it happened 1-2 years ago. Mormons own states. Who has their own basic cable television station from coast to coast? Who has their own publishing companies, agricultural conglomerates, resort hotels, and shopping malls?
Who is a $40 BILLION business?
And lets be honest.
When you meet someone and they tell you that they are a Mormon what do you hear?
Adam Smith found those plates!
or
I will believe anything!
Last edited:
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I wasn't trying to be aggressive or argumentative, and I don't see how your questions are germane to what I said. It's probably because I'm working on a seminary assignment and not fully focused on the discussion, so perhaps you'll be kind enough to make the connection explicit for me?
As far as your questions, go, you have to understand that there are enormous theological differences in understandings of prayer and revelation between Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and United Methodism (my denomination).
I confess to ambivalence about the orthodoxy of Mormonism as a Christian sect, but I am not about to put myself in the place of God and pronounce judgment as to who is included and who is not included. There's a great saying I heard recently about questions like that: A pastor was asked whether a certain person was in heaven or hell, and she responded: "Such questions are above my pay grade. I'm in sales - that's a question for management." Funny, but there's a point there.
"Do I have a direct line to God?" Theologically, my denomination (and nearly all Protestant) churches would say that all Christians have a direct line to God through prayer and Scripture. However, I wonder about the sincerity of this question. As you have made clear in the past your opposition to all things associated with the Christian faith, I suspect you don't believe that anyone has a direct line to God (if you believe that God exists at all). It seems to me that this is a straw man of some sort.
All of that said, I have a question for you: what do the pope or a Mormon prophet have to do with the point of my original post, which was to question whether there is a legal, constitutional ground by which someone could argue that a clergy person should be forced to perform same-gender wedding ceremonies under threat of punishment.
"Trail Mix Christians".
Ever eat trail mix? Most people eat what they like and discard the rest. Same for "Christians" when they read the bible. They pick out the parts they like then discard the rest. That's how we got where we are.
It doesn't work like that. That's the really hard part... reconciling with those you love when they're falling short. That's the LGBTQ(and the rest of the alphabet soup). They're eating trail mix. But it doesn't work that way.
If you want to be a Christian, you follow the bible. Not parts of it you like. All of it. Even when it hurts. Even when it hurts those you love. Even when it hurts YOU. That's love, true love ... when you don't allow people to destroy themselves.
Ever eat trail mix? Most people eat what they like and discard the rest. Same for "Christians" when they read the bible. They pick out the parts they like then discard the rest. That's how we got where we are.
It doesn't work like that. That's the really hard part... reconciling with those you love when they're falling short. That's the LGBTQ(and the rest of the alphabet soup). They're eating trail mix. But it doesn't work that way.
If you want to be a Christian, you follow the bible. Not parts of it you like. All of it. Even when it hurts. Even when it hurts those you love. Even when it hurts YOU. That's love, true love ... when you don't allow people to destroy themselves.
I don't believe anyone is making the argument that clergy should be forced to perform a religious ceremony, the argument is about the civil side of things and the commercial side of things.
And you know exactly how to interpret the Bible correctly yes? Which parts to follow and which parts have gone away? Because I can find a whole lot of Christians who will say, no matter what you believe or follow, that you are doing it wrong. Whatever you say you mean by "all of it" someone else will say, nope still not enough, you shouldn't eat shellfish, you shouldn't wear mixed fibers. you'll say the NT replaced the OT law, they'll say, nope, it didn't and they will quote you why. You'll say their wrong, they'll say you are wrong, and both of you will pretend you know perfectly the mind of an omnipotent being, at least in what that being wants humanity to do and not do.
I believe you meant Joseph Smith instead of Adam Smith although Joseph Smith may have been reading Adam Smith when he came up with the ideas for his "church".
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
UMC is still no homos in the church and no homo marriage.
Correct?
It could have changed regarding a conference. I don't keep up this stuff much anymore. I did decide to revisit the IWU and Taylor student handbooks. Still no homos.
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
UMC is still no homos in the church and no homo marriage.
Correct?
It could have changed regarding a conference. I don't keep up this stuff much anymore. I did decide to revisit the IWU and Taylor student handbooks. Still no homos.
I forgot to answer that last part.
No one wants to force a church to marry them.
Is this a holy book or not? Why does it need translation?
You do know who made a pretty penny, and well. killed a lot folks along the way for trying to "interpret" the bookl, correct? Why was it illegal to translate it? Why do you need a divinity degree and 50 years of schooling to understand God's written word? Why is it gated content?
Do you not see the sinister intentions?
Last edited:
You have discovered the main point of contention within Methodism - at least half of it. There is another place in our discipline which makes a strong statement of affirmation that the LGBTQ community is loved by God and calls for an end to discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation. You might imagine, given the above statement, why so many Methodists are confused. The Discipline appears to say two different things. Our General Conference meets in 2016, and I expect the issue to be resolved - and I'll be surprised if it isn't resolved in favor of inclusion.
In the meantime, it's not as simple as "no homos." I personally don't know of a single United Methodist congregation that would refuse entry to an LGBTQ person or couple. There might be limits some churches would place on how inclusive they would be, but no one that I know of would say, "You aren't welcome here."
In addition, there is within United Methodism a rather large contingent of welcoming churches and welcoming leaders who choose to be inclusive regardless of the paragraph quoted above. There was a very public church trial (one of the dumbest things Christians do) where a UMC pastor performed a gay wedding ceremony. They tried to strip him of his ordination...it didn't go over well. There are bishops calling for a cessation of such trials - which would, in essence, end the debate in favor of inclusion.
The point being - the UMC is a large organization and like all large organizations, change comes slowly. But it is coming.
It's not quite 50, but it feels like it sometimes.
The Bible needs translation, simply, because it was originally written in Hebrew and Greek and possibly Aramaic. Most Christians don't read those languages. And once you introduce translation, you introduce bias. Hence all the disagreement.
I have no excuse for why the church made it illegal to translate for so long. They thought it was a good idea to try to control access - it wasn't.
I can only speak for myself, but I would never suggest that you need a divinity degree to understand the Bible. The reason pastors get them is so that we can help offer possible readings of the challenging texts and be able to answer questions. I don't ever want anyone who hears me preach to take my word as gospel. I hope and pray that they listen to what I say and prayerfully test it against their own knowledge of the Bible and experiences with God. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again.
Do you think your side has enough votes to defeat the belt and the South?
I know all about conclaves/conventions/whatever your sect calls them.
It reminds me of a classic Emo Phillips joke.
Honestly, this is one aspect of religion that, to put it low brow, cracks me up. When a non-believer debates a believer the main route of attack is an objective moral law. An objective moral law giver. And yet, here we are voting on a moral law topic.
What about Christ's life and teachings changed that made possible the following?
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.
This Christ fellow hasn't made an appearance in 2000 years.
It is as if all of these religions are man made. Hmmmm......
"And yet, here we are voting on a moral law topic."
I may have misunderstood your point so I apologize if I have. By moral law do you mean we legislate morality? Of course we do all the time from murder to theft, assault even adultery in civil proceedings as grounds for divorce.
Back to the subject of the thread. It is ALL about behavior and conduct and what society will accept.
I may have misunderstood your point so I apologize if I have. By moral law do you mean we legislate morality? Of course we do all the time from murder to theft, assault even adultery in civil proceedings as grounds for divorce.
Back to the subject of the thread. It is ALL about behavior and conduct and what society will accept.
The issue for the last several General Conferences has not been the American votes. If it were just the American church voting, the Methodist Church would have become more inclusive 4 or 8 years ago. The issue is the delegates from the African churches, who have been voting en bloc to keep things the way they are. I won't bore you with administrative details, but there seems to be enough movement to overcome that this time. I could well be wrong, though.
I would argue that the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, who had (literally) nothing to say on the subject. Christ's teachings are inarguably in favor of inclusiveness. Rather, the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality is based on a few texts that can be read as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality but do not have to be read so.
I want to be clear that my purpose in conversations here is not to "convert" you or anyone else. I readily admit that I find the dismissiveness a bit frustrating, and I post primarily to counter assumptions about Christian faith that are not (always) true.
An extremely Catholic country and one of the most socially conservative in Europe, Ireland, became the first country to have a popular vote to allow gay marriage - supported by over 60% of voters. Ireland is a country that bans abortion with the only exception being endangering the mother's life, being gay was criminalized until 1993 and the Catholic Church runs the public schools. The Archbishop of Dublin after the vote said the Catholic Church needed a reality check.
The really incredible thing is over 60% of eligible voters showed up (higher than US presidential election turnout).
Big Frank, The Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, still says no homo.
Ireland has fallen into the clutches of Satan.
And, you just know that somewhere Josh Duggar is chomping at the bit to tell us how his god disagrees with Ireland.
Good for Ireland for casting aside fantasy and recognizing the franchise of all humans.
Last edited:
I'm Catholic and have a lot of friends who are Catholic. The concept of Papal Infallibility is as outdated as women having their heads covered in a Church. To wit, none of us believe the Pope has God on speed dial. Since the second highest concentration of Mormons is in Arizona, I know many. None of them believe the Prophet has exclusive access either. Sometimes religions say things that people who follow that religion don't necessarily believe. Never met a Catholic girl who wasn't on birth control in the 70's.
A lot of dishonesty in these posts. Do you speak for all gays and lesbians? No one wants to? How many high profile lawsuits have we seen because a Christian business did not want to cater to a gay wedding. We were told that the health care law did not include taxpayer funding for abortion and would not require religious organizations to pay for their employees birth control. All lies to placate the masses. And you want to talk about the ancient church not allowing interpretations for sinister reasons?
Excellent!
Popes and prophets are no more correct than folks wearing sandwich boards and selling pencils form cups.
I agree, it is all totally man made. No one is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, no one holds the Keys to Saint Peter and no one receives revelations. Transubstantiation is a man made pyramid scheme.
Man made bullocks invented to control. I am glad you agree.
You equated churches with commerce. You may want to rethink that.
No. You may want to rethink your stand that you speak for all gays and lesbians. But I get it. Dishonest deflection is your schtick.
Lets go back the original point. No one is asking their local orthodox christian church to marry them. Is that correct?
Or, are gay humans demanding that your church marry them or face a lawsuit?
Stay on target, Biggs.
No one claims to speak for everyone ever. This is a point I drive home when we discuss Islam.
Commerce is a separate discussion. Unless you want churches to become commercial....which most of them are.
I would argue that the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, who had (literally) nothing to say on the subject.
I went back and read this thread. I missed this gem.
The historic teachings of Christ have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.
Again, I rest my case.
I went back and read this thread. I missed this gem.
The historic teachings of Christ have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.
Again, I rest my case.
As informed as you pretend to be about this topic, I'm sure that you know about this case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html
Yet your direct quote was, "No one wants to force a church to marry them." You flat-out state that this won't happen in the world's most litigious society if the Supreme Court rules as you predict? I suppose you are relying on the "stupidity of the American voter" to push your agenda forward. We've seen it before.
This is a lot to ask, but now give us your honest assessment of where NAMBLA will go if you get your wish. When Bill Clinton was elected, it gave great hope to every non-heterosexual activist. NAMBLA was right out there in the forefront. Hillary, a champion for these activists, is also a champion for children to have the rights to make their own decisions. Next you'll say, "No one is talking about the inclusion of children."
I'm sure someone, somewhere, will try and sue for just about anyone for just about anything. So what?
The question is, will a court agree, and the answer is, in this country, no. I don't care about other countries that you know have different laws and traditions.
The fact that you think NAMBLA is tied to gay marriage boggles the mind. You apparently can't distinguish between consenting adults, and an adult and a child who legally cannot consent. The fact that you think Hillary Clinton is pro-NAMBLA? Congrats, you've just won the internet today in the field of bat-crap crazy postings.
As expected, more dishonesty. Or ignorance. Or both. You know that Hillary has been working for years with the UN to declare that "children should no longer be considered legally incompetent." Stop playing the role of an incompetent lawyer and just tell the truth. You claim that a child legally cannot consent, but you understand the goal of this effort is to remove that "restriction" -- which NAMBLA has been supporting for years. And yes, NAMBLA has always been a supporter of Hillary's. And NAMBLA is indeed the ugly step-child in the GLBT spectrum, as much as you and the rest of the spectrum would like for them to remain invisible until your goals are met. Hillary doesn't support the entire spectrum? I know that you would rather that Janet Reno, Hillary's close buddy, had shown a bit more "discretion".
No, I don't know full well that Hillary has been doing anything of the sort. And no I don't think anyone who isn't full on crazy thinks Hillary wants kids to be able to have sex with adults, or is in league with NAMBLA. Are you trying to take the forum crazy title? Because this thread is a good first step.
As to your question about "why does it need translation" - uh, because maybe, just maybe, the books/letters were written in an ancient language(s)?
