Joe_Cool, you are a liar and a bigot

The BBQ Pit
181

Just to make sure you understan, Joe_Cool, nobody has censored you or JerseyDiamond. Nobody has stopped wither of you from speaking your mind. How can we? This is written medium, so it isn’t possible tyo be “shouted down.” If you think free speech means you can spew whatever antigay religious propaganda you like and the rest of us have to shut up and take it, then I submit that you haven’t the foggiest notion of what the markeptplace of ideas reall signifies.

I had to accept your point, through the cite RexDart provided, that owners of up to three single-family residences may discriminate against gays (and blacks, Jews, Catholics, Mormons…). You might want to realize that, on the free speech issue, you are wrong. You may say whatever you please, but you may not say it unchallenged.

182

gobear, I think you are fighting a losing battle here; re: getting through to Joe_Cool.

But, its a good fight, so keep on!

Vanilla, who supports gay marriage, simply because she happens to believe sex outside of marriage is a sin, exactly like JoeCool and Jersey believe!

So…you guys would have all gays celibate forever?
(don’t bother answering)

183

That’s not what **joe[/] said. He supports “a nonreligious civil state of union with all the legal benefits of marriage such as taxation, inheritance, and visitation.” What I fail to understand is his insistence that only unions solemnized in his church are “marriages,” which will come as news to all the Dopers who had their weddings outside of Joe’s church.

184

No, gobear, I actually get the picture that’s being painted here, and it’s once again a matter of “rupture” (in the Robinsonian sense) – a failure on the part of both sides to grasp the differences in concept underlying the terminology used.

So:

Marriage(1) is a legally recognized contract undertaken before an agent recognized by the state to solemnize such contracts, under which the parties agree to live as a married couple for the remainder of their lives (unless, of course, such marriage is dissolved by competent legal authority through annulment or divorce, a legal exception not contempated in the formal act of contract). In the U.S., such an agent of the state may be a clergyperson duly recognized by his denomination, or it may be a judge or other civil authority – I believe there are some states where elected clerks holding public office are duly authorized to perform marriages.

Marriage(2) is a covenant between two parties before their higher power – the Judaeo-Christian God or other – formally entered into before a clergyman and normally a congregation of their co-believers.

Marriage(3) is a state in which two persons agree to contract a union equivalent in their minds to one of the above two definitions, regardless of what their legal right to do so may be, without formal recognition by church or state. “Common law marriages” and civil unions outside Vermont are good examples of such unions.

What Joe Cool seems to be saying to my reading is that he and his church believe that in the eyes of God only a marriage(2) is a “real” marriage, but that he and Jersey Diamond feel that legally a marriage(1) should not be so delimited, and that any two adults, including a gay couple, who desires to contract a marriage should not be barred from doing so.

In short, because he has personal feelings about what “marriage” ought to mean to a believer, he’s drawing a distinction between a marriage covenanted before God and the legal state called “marriage” and saying that his church, believing gay sex to be sinful, would not solemnize a marriage(2) between two believing gay people but in his opinion should not object to a marriage(1) that they choose to contract, and should not try to impede laws so permitting.

Exactly where that stance differs from what non-religious gay advocates are calling for, I don’t see. (Those of us who believe that gay people can indeed covenant a marriage(2) before God, of course, have a quite different argument with his POV – but that’s a theological question I don’t think requires thrashing out here unless you and Joe want to analyze it with me.)

Regarding housing, I think Rex Dart’s cite of the applicable Federal law addresses the question. I personally would have religious scruples about renting to His4Ever and her husband, since I feel that the apparent stance she has taken is contrary to God’s will. If I were still the owner of that double house and renting the other half, would I be justified in refusing to house her for her apparent attitudes?

To summarize, while I personally think that refusing to rent to gays is bigotry, I can accept that the religious scruples of some might mitigate against their being willing to so rent, and that the Federal law both penalizes organized discrimination by commercial or governmental rental operations and allows for such scruples to be exercised in restricted cases. As such, given the imperfect state of the real world, it is an excellent compromise that both protects the rights of the potential renters and the viewpoints of the occupant-landlords.

185

Well said, Polycarp. No, I have no interest in hashing out our theological differences regarding gay marriages, at least not at this time.

For now it will do to acknowledge that you and I have what appear to be irreconcilable differences of opinion on a few matters, and agree on some others.

186

Gobear, while I was in the shower last night I was mentally scripting out my response to your question, because I knew exactly the argument you were going to make. It ended up along the same lines as what Polycarp said, but he put it better than I would have. So let’s leave it at “what he said.”

187

Well at least we got him to thinking…

Esprix

188

Re Polycarp’s post, I’m only interested in his first definition of marriage as a legal contract sanctioned by the government. Believing gay folk who feel they need the church to bless their union can slug it out over the religious dimension of marriage, but as an atheist, I don’t see the need. So, it would appear that Joe and I are in substantial agreement, I will mark his name in the “pro-gay legal marriage” column.

As for his religious beliefs on gay sex being sinful, we’re just going to have to live in permanent disagreement. There is certainly room for debate on the meanings and context of the original Greek, but that’s not a discussion I have the energy for at the moment.

Anyway, I retract and apologize for all the mean and lowdown things I said to you in this thread.

189

I dunno about “irreconcilable” – I hope that someday we will both stand before the Great White Throne, find out which of us was right about the various issues, repent before God of our errors on the ones we individually were wrong on, and shake each other’s hand in Christian brotherhood.

But yeah, pending that event, I think you have a point. :slight_smile:

190

Just a note re: Holy Communion and Catholicism

According to Catholic doctrine, Jesus is not re-crucified, which is what most anti-Catholic filth try to backhandedly contend with the “continuing sacrifice” language.

Instead, his one perfect sacrifice is made present through the sacramental Eucharist. God is not bound by time. Through his Grace those who are in attendance at a Mass are one with the procession and actions of Christ at the Last Supper, where he first made bread his body and wine his blood. The disciples then participated in the sacrfice that was to occur the coming day, and today Catholics participate in that same sacrifice in the same manner.

There was only one sacrifice, just as there is truly only one Eucharist. It is through the sacrament of Holy Communion that that sacrifice and eucharist are made present for us today. There is no continual suffering of Christ, no “on-going sacrifice,” no re-sacrifice. Instead, the one sacrifice is made continually available.

Kirk

191

In what I think is either an amazing coincidence or else God thunking me on the head, I met a Palestinian from Clifton last night. He is a friend of my GF’s cousin, and the 4 of us went to NYC and walked around for a few hours, had a couple drinks, played pool, discussed religion (he’s Muslim), Israel (he calls it Palestine), Americans, moving to a different continent, he tried to teach us the arabic alphabet, etc.

Turns out he’s a pretty nice guy and had a lot of interesting things to say. Keeping in mind, of course, that you can’t judge an entire population by a negligible statistical sample, of course.

I’m probably going to help him buy a computer this week.

Now, the interesting part:
Even though he’s a kind-hearted, personable, reasonable guy, he (predictably) told us that 9/11/01 was engineered through the vast Jewish Conspiracy, wherein 4000 (or however many) Jews in the WTC were warned by the Mossad not to a) come in to work that day, and b) not warn any of their gentile friends.

A little further into the conversation, we found out that he also, prior to moving here, spent 5 years in an Israeli prison for firebombing an army bus (it didn’t ignite, but a bomb is a bomb).

So to conclude, some stereotypes were torn down (he and his cousin, who the two girls met a few days ago are not hateful at all, and on the contrary, are very nice people), and some reinforced (this kind, reasonable man felt that it was totally reasonable to try to burn a bus full of people - and with the defense that “It doesn’t matter, they were Jews!”).

Just wanted to keep you all posted, as I thought it was an interesting encounter.