Do you believe anything that happened to the Dixie Chicks should be made illegal (if it wasn’t already)?
Did you miss the list of churches that do perform gay weddings ? Post #25.
I assume they have token biblical backing ;). I’m no theologian, but I figure you could go something like : Jesus made the OT obsolete, so all those Leviticus verses bigots love to thump on are just as void as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics. Also, Jesus said to love (and treat) your neighbour as you would yourself and forgive, and that it’s god’s place to judge, not to cast the first stone and yadda yadda. Because it’s more important that they believe in and love god than what they do with their naughty bits in their spare time.
Pretty hippy dude, that Jesus.
Uh, yes they were, and still are. I work with pastor that is still against interracial marriage and preaches it to his congregation, obviously using the bible for his justification.
There’s also no Biblical support for prohibiting same-sex marriage, and no Gospel support for any opposition to homosexuality at all.
And the really illogical part of Alito’s dissent is that he’s trying to martyr himself. He’s saying “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will oppose it”. Now, it would be a reasonable (though perhaps cowardly) argument to say the reverse: “Opponents of SSM will be vilified, and therefore I will support it”. But the way he said it just makes no sense. Unless he thinks that somehow, if the court had decided differently, people wouldn’t vilify opponents? But that doesn’t make any sense either: The Supreme Court of the US is not and never has been binding on the Court of Public Opinion.
Bob Jones University certainly thought there was Biblical support for its opposition to interracial marriage. Enough to end up in front of the Supreme Court in 1983. And they kept their antimiscegenation policies in place until 2000.
Seriously man, whether or not you feel there is Biblical support for it does not change the plain fact that a lot of churches and religious institutions adamantly opposed “race-mixing,” and some still do. Respectfully, I’m a little surprised you didn’t know that. Do you need evidence?
Plenty of Jewish-owned businesses operate on the Sabbath. Plenty of Christian churches perform same-sex weddings. No law of Man prohibits either, nor in this country ever will.
.
It’s interesting to hear arguments based on tradition from someone who apparently had no clue about history.
Eh, that’s not true. There’s a long history of Christian churches using religion to justify racism and slavery. And some very close parallels between the claims of religious liberty to hste on gays and earlier clsims of religious liberty to hate on blacks:
[URL=“http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/”]
Nope, DrFidelius is right, you really do ignore that the bible was used not only to justify slavery but also to justify the prohibition of interracial marriages; thanks to the changes in the secular law the old religious justifications have been reinterpreted, just as what a religion that wants to be relevant to a modern society has to do.
Of course the new interpretations make more sense nowadays, but that idea the Mormons also had against interracial marriage was not pulled out of nowhere: many people of faith in the past had the idea that the “mark of Cain” was the darkness of one’s skin, and the “curse” was supposed to be carried though generations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
It is correct to report that the Anti-miscegenationists have no biblical justifications now, but a lot of old time religion leaders and followers had no trouble finding those biblical reasons. It seems to me that a good number of people in the south still have those silly views.
Yes they are. I’ve personally known Christians who held that interracial marriage was against their religion.
That shaking, thudding sound is the artillery of Cecil’s Army in its ongoing war.
I love the smell of ignorance being fought in the morning. Smells like…hushpuppies.
Alito can kiss every bit of my ass, but I’m sure he understands that the Court of Public Opinion may eventually kick some decision up to him that will require him to rule on whether bigotry should be considered a federal thought crime.
He knows he lost this one, he’s laying the groundwork for the next one.
Plus, they were getting called bigots before the ruling. The ruling isn’t changing anything in that regard.
I presume you purport to have a point you think should be considered with that exchange, but for the life of me, I can’t seem to tease it out.
Could I trouble you to walk me through it? Thanks! 
The cornmeal-based fried treat, or the shoes?
Need answer fast.
You eat one and throw the other at bigots. It’s all good.
And those were themselves the result of reinterpretations along the course of their respective time. In biblical times, your “race”, “nation”, and your ethnicity and religion were most often treated as one and the same thing. When the Israelites are mandated to not marry people of other races or nations it really means to not marry heathens who worshipped the wrong gods (see also the “unequal yoke” in the New Testament – that both spouses should be believers).
The vilification argument does fail as mentioned in that nothing in the concept of Freedom of Speech has ever been understood to immunize against private social opprobrium, which itself does not even require a majority to take effect. Just about the only people I’d feel bad about are those who were not on the rah-rah-go-go side of the issue from day zero, and took some time to come about, or who were ambivalent at times but are happy with how the situation is solved, because you just know there will be some putz who’ll be wanting to make them feel bad about that.
Then, I suppose, people who follow those doctrines probably shouldn’t get gay married.
Not entirely sure what it has to do with people who follow different religious doctrines.
As noted earlier, inter-racial marriage was certainly counter to religious doctrines back in the days of segregation. And I provided an example of an obscure church where it still is.
Actually, that was a list of allegedly gay-friendly churches: not all necessarily would perform ceremonies. Essentially it was a list of plausible leads.
That said Presbyterian Church USA will perform gay marriage ceremonies. I understand there are other denominations as well.
I read the Presbyterian Church USA’s document on homosexuality in the early 1990s. It appeared to me to be a decent theological treatment. Honestly, I thought the Scriptural evidence against homosexuality was mixed: I could imagine hard questions asked of either side. It gets easier if you just kick back and resolve to love your neighbor in the light of changing circumstances, but I can understand if not all want to adopt such a loose interpretation. Those embracing that rough understanding can be highly pious though. Conversely, those focusing on stricter biblical interpretations still don’t have an airtight case against homosexuality IMHO, to my surprise back when I read about this.
We discussed these theological issues here over 10 years ago. Today, we’ve moved on. Interesting.
I still wonder what Alito is going on about. Another aspect might be that he and the other 2 stooges have absorbed some of the modern conservative sense of Christian victimhood displayed on Fox News. The conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote a working paper on the Fox News effect last month (revised this month). Highly dubious or even borderline preposterous arguments can gain traction when repeated without challenge, if the viewer lacks sufficient curiosity to, well, check the facts at websites such as this one.
Makes sense.
Confusion will often arise when you attempt to make a point by taking something out of context. You’ll have to try harder. Either at sincere comprehension or snark, You choose.
Since the rather obvious point has now been spoon fed to you via another poster, I can now find comfort that your mental torture is over. Thanks be to God.