https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...776564001/
Interesting opinion piece on changes accelerated by the Supreme Court ruling.
"...Same-sex marriage advocates told the public that they sought only the “freedom to marry.” Same-sex couples were already free to live as they chose, but legal recognition was about the definition of marriage for all of society. It was about affirmation — by the government and everyone else.
It’s unsurprising that once a campaign that used to cry “live and let live” prevailed, it began working to shut down Catholic adoption agencies and harass evangelical bakers and florists. This shows it was never really about “live and let live” — that was a merely tactical stance....
It also undercuts any reasonable justification for marital norms. After all, if marriage is about romantic connection, why require monogamy? There’s nothing magical about the number two, as defenders of “polyamory” point out. If marriage isn’t a conjugal union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, why should it involve or imply sexual exclusivity? If it isn’t a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing, why should it be pledged to permanence?
Marriage redefiners could not answer these questions when challenged to show that the elimination of sexual complementarity did not undermine other marital norms. Today, they increasingly admit that they have no stake in upholding norms of monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.
Same-sex marriage didn’t create these problems. Many in America had unwisely already gone along with the erosion of marital norms in the wake of the sexual revolution — with the rise of cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, no-fault divorce and the hookup culture....
Having secured a judicial redefinition of marriage, they pivoted to the “T,” with the Obama administration redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” and imposing a new policy on all schools.
And having won government support, activists turned to eliminating private dissent. Former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke wants to yank the tax-exemption of noncompliant churches. Megadonor Tim Gill vows to spend his fortunes to “punish the wicked.” Who are “the wicked”? Those who refuse to accept the new sexual orthodoxy...."
I read the "United" Methodists are now splitting due to these issues. Glad to see some of their membership standing up for what is true, but it seems when people vote on what objective truth is it seems to demonstrate how nonsensical the progressive relativist perspective is. I imagine a lot of them will be looking to convert to a church that has stood for something more objectively true despite suffering the slings and arrows over the centuries. Kind of reminds me of the difference between what is objectively true and our far-from perfect legal system.
The courts have been ruined by relativism, whereas earlier in our nation's history, there was a general shared sense of a universally acknowledged truth, enshrined in our founding documents that stated that is where all power flowed from, not the government itself, which itself can create nothing. While the major parties differed on how best to implement those truths, they more or less shared the same truths as core beliefs, which united the country and made us a strong nation in the face of our enemies. The slippery slop of making it up as you go, once again rears its ugly head in the face of objective truth. No matter how many people shout at once the sky is green and the grass is blue, in the beginning it was not so. Those words continue to fall on deaf ears, and our posterity suffers the consequences. It's simple math, but today, for too many, 1+1=/=2, and that is the fundamental issue.
(01-04-2020 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...776564001/
Interesting opinion piece on changes accelerated by the Supreme Court ruling.
"...Same-sex marriage advocates told the public that they sought only the “freedom to marry.” Same-sex couples were already free to live as they chose, but legal recognition was about the definition of marriage for all of society. It was about affirmation — by the government and everyone else.
It’s unsurprising that once a campaign that used to cry “live and let live” prevailed, it began working to shut down Catholic adoption agencies and harass evangelical bakers and florists. This shows it was never really about “live and let live” — that was a merely tactical stance....
It also undercuts any reasonable justification for marital norms. After all, if marriage is about romantic connection, why require monogamy? There’s nothing magical about the number two, as defenders of “polyamory” point out. If marriage isn’t a conjugal union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, why should it involve or imply sexual exclusivity? If it isn’t a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing, why should it be pledged to permanence?
Marriage redefiners could not answer these questions when challenged to show that the elimination of sexual complementarity did not undermine other marital norms. Today, they increasingly admit that they have no stake in upholding norms of monogamy, exclusivity and permanence.
Same-sex marriage didn’t create these problems. Many in America had unwisely already gone along with the erosion of marital norms in the wake of the sexual revolution — with the rise of cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, no-fault divorce and the hookup culture....
Having secured a judicial redefinition of marriage, they pivoted to the “T,” with the Obama administration redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” and imposing a new policy on all schools.
And having won government support, activists turned to eliminating private dissent. Former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke wants to yank the tax-exemption of noncompliant churches. Megadonor Tim Gill vows to spend his fortunes to “punish the wicked.” Who are “the wicked”? Those who refuse to accept the new sexual orthodoxy...."
Eliminate No-fault divorce when children of the union are present. And/or make any no-fault application loser-pays, and left behind spouse gets first dibs on house, car, children and family pets. Breacher of an agreement should be liable, not the left behind, and not the children. But then, abortion...choice was made to have sex, but chooser then reneges and wants a do-over, making the innocent child pay with its life. Blackjack tables at casinos still do not allow you to get your money back once you bust. Not too hard to understand why. You play, you lose, too bad. But many would not consider a child a loss. Only losers do. let losers suffer their insane decisions, not good people, and not children.
Thanks for posting this, bullet. another +3 for you. GO
(01-04-2020 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I read the "United" Methodists are now splitting due to these issues. Glad to see some of their membership standing up for what is true, but it seems when people vote on what objective truth is it seems to demonstrate how nonsensical the progressive relativist perspective is. I imagine a lot of them will be looking to convert to a church that has stood for something more objectively true despite suffering the slings and arrows over the centuries. Kind of reminds me of the difference between what is objectively true and our far-from perfect legal system.
The courts have been ruined by relativism, whereas earlier in our nation's history, there was a general shared sense of a universally acknowledged truth, enshrined in our founding documents that stated that is where all power flowed from, not the government itself, which itself can create nothing. While the major parties differed on how best to implement those truths, they more or less shared the same truths as core beliefs, which united the country and made us a strong nation in the face of our enemies. The slippery slop of making it up as you go, once again rears its ugly head in the face of objective truth. No matter how many people shout at once the sky is green and the grass is blue, in the beginning it was not so. Those words continue to fall on deaf ears, and our posterity suffers the consequences. It's simple math, but today, for too many, 1+1=/=2, and that is the fundamental issue.
The number of American United Methodist Congregations supporting traditional Biblical marital morality between a man and a woman is in the minority even in the Southeast. When churches become social clubs and wealthy donors have homosexual children this is your result.
The UMC would long ago have abandoned traditional morality had it not been for African United Methodist Churches which are evangelical and very traditional, and for South Korean United Methodist churches which hold to scriptural authority. The main seminary in the Southeast at Emory University has had a gay and lesbian caucus since the late 80's and the stance of the seminary has aligned itself with this stance in spite of the fact that until now it has been a violation of the Methodist book of discipline.
Moving forward our nation faces greater crises of morality as parents will be labeled as unfit for discouraging their children from homosexual experimentation being encouraged by public school science and biology teachers, or sex ed classes.
This is where "One Nation Under God" or "In God We Trust" is going to be under constant attack. When homosexuals realized they could never receive the blessing of God because the lifestyle was contrary to Biblical teaching they sought to have new translations of the Bible put into to print to justify their position and when that was challenged by the various ancient texts used to provide a normative translation as opposed to a manipulated one they went after the seminaries many of which quit going to the ancient language texts, or just quit teaching Greek and Hebrew and Latin as well as other Semitic languages from the ancient near East and then went after the disciplines and denominational guidelines on morality to get what they want.
Well now they can receive the false blessing of an apostate minister, affirm themselves with heretical teachings, and call themselves holy if they like but none of it changes what an unchangeable and perfect God will do.
Man has simply done what man has done before. Created a 'god' in his own image that will affirm man in his sin. And as it has happened always in the past the society that embraces this will fall, and be laid waste by their enemies. And there's great reason for this. No man will offer his life to fight for that in which he does not believe, and the immoral seldom risk their lives for others.
You reap what you sow, and the seeds of destruction are now sewn in our native soil.
Kind of sad this is something you care about. You probably think of yourself as a conservative...why do you care?
(01-04-2020 07:16 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of sad this is something you care about. You probably think of yourself as a conservative...why do you care?
It's extremely sad and telling that you don't care about it! But so far I'm not finding that you are adding much to the discussion but pronouncements made in a trollish fashion. Lend substance to the discussions.
(01-04-2020 07:16 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of sad this is something you care about. You probably think of yourself as a conservative...why do you care?
Kind of sad this is nothing you care about. You probably think of yourself as liberal which negates the need to ask why don’t you care...
You do you and we’ll do us. If you have nothing of substance to offer you simply perpetuate the stereotype of liberal loon. As they say, if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything. Your dear leaders are calling.
The irony of saying "you do you and we'll do us" in a thread deriding marriage equality.
(01-05-2020 10:29 AM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]The irony of saying "you do you and we'll do us" in a thread deriding marriage equality.
The irony of a banned poster posting.
(01-05-2020 10:29 AM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]The irony of saying "you do you and we'll do us" in a thread deriding marriage equality.
Obviously, you haven't read the article if that's your take, that this is about the change in the definition of marriage.
y’all lost, move on...hell, even Chick-fil-a has come to terms with it.
(01-05-2020 12:23 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]y’all lost, move on...hell, even Chick-fil-a has come to terms with it.
We can just for the next set of black robes to vote it down.
(01-05-2020 10:29 AM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]The irony of saying "you do you and we'll do us" in a thread deriding marriage equality.
JD, there's man's law which says it will acknowledge marriage between men and men and women and women.
Then there's marriage in the eyes of God as defined by the Bible before it was corrupted in translation or corrupted in paraphrasing. It is defined as the union between a man and a woman. And more importantly the marriage between a chaste man and a chaste woman since God's understanding of marriage has nothing to do with a license, but rather with consummation. In essence under Biblical teaching a man and woman are married when they have consummated the relationship. Therefore all subsequent consummations with anyone else is either fornication or adultery. It is why the marriage ceremony was contained within the two families when the groom rode into the encampment of the bride's father and her family lit the way for them to ride out to the tent of the groom and the following morning they were married.
When marriage was usurped by government for the purpose of taxation marriage essentially ceased to be under the provenance of God and fell under the dominion of man. Under the dominion of man the clergy learned to profit from it, the community made it an expensive party, and the government collected a license fee and then built its income tax structure around it while insurance companies limited their coverage to the family unit.
So when the government altered the Biblical parameters for marriage, the legal ramifications changed as well as did the licensing. And the customs of man as man defines morality adjusted to fit the government.
Don't for one second think that any of this changed God's parameters. It didn't.
But neither has man made legal divorce changed the parameters, nor clergy profitable parameters on annulment.
Morality and blessing are still the provenance of God, no matter what man or government permits. And when our days are done we will no longer answer to the government, societal customs, or to the church as it is dominated by man, but we will answer to God. And claiming we followed man's law instead of God won't help any of us at that point.
(01-05-2020 12:23 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]y’all lost, move on...hell, even Chick-fil-a has come to terms with it.
i do think it's pretty cool that leftists demand that the popular vote decide the president at the same time arguing that the popular vote should not decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal.