I’m pretty sure I’m not confused.
Some religions don’t allow SSM, and the adherents of those religions want to deny everyone the opportunity for SSM, regardless of what belief system other people follow.
Either the followers of those religions want to deny everyone SSM, or they don’t. If they don’t, the SCOTUS decision shouldn’t be a problem at all. If they do, it means they want their personal religious belief to impact the rights of others who do not share their religion.
Some denominations don’t allow interracial marriage, so that supposed difference is bunk.
I’m personally happy to vilify people who make bad arguments. That they’re also homophobes is gravy.
That was a vote. Scripture is not subject to a vote. There is no scriptural support for a ban on interracial marriage. There is scriptural support for homosexuality being a sin. It’s not going away, but then that’s irrelevant since the courts will never allow churches to be sanctioned or forced to do anything in regards to SSM. Or interracial marriage for that matter.
But really, I don’t see why there should be any fuss. Gays won the right to have their relationships recognized by the government, which is what was just and what was desired. Marriage as a “sacred” institution endorsed by religious authorities is still intact and gays are still excluded. Anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is free to be a member of a church that won’t marry them.
Scripture is whatever people say it is, and always has been.
But not subject to a vote by the congregation. Scripture is what religious leaders say it is, Religion is not democratic. Churches don’t vote on whether Jesus actually rose or on whether to hold services on Saturday or Sunday, or whether to allow divorce.
Yes there is, at least according to some. Scripture can be interpreted a number of ways, and many in the past have interpreted it such that interracial marriage was not allowed.
When believers say “interpretation” what usually follows is bullshit. Whereas the ban on homosexuality is stated directly in Leviticus and Paul’s letters. So you’d have to “interpret” it to mean the opposite of what it says.
I’ve read the verses that supposedly discourage interracial marriage and they do nothing of the sort. They are simply admonitions to not marry people who do not worship God. It was a ban on interfaith marriage. That’s not interpretation, it’s what it SAYS:
Sure, if you’re creative enough you can interpret it to mean no interracial marriage, or that it’s okay to marry people of other faiths(denominations have tried to do both). But even believers should use their heads and their reading comprehension skills.
Says you. Everything is interpreted, and much of it can be contradictory.
Again, according to you. To others, the passages might be extremely straight forward. Just because something is straight-forward to you doesn’t mean it is to everyone. Others sincerely believe that the Bible, in a very straight-forward manner, outlaws miscegenation. Alternately, many believe that the new covenant from Jesus in the New Testament overturned the ban on homosexual acts in Leviticus.
So it all can be interpreted in many different ways, and on both sides with regards to both interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.
Lots have.
Note: Corrected spelling of “Christians” because I’m OCD and pretty sure Fear Itself intended to spell it correctly. However, I could not be so sure about “homesexuality,” which could be a word. Correction: SHOULD be a word because of the warm, comfortable images it inspires, like screwing in front of the fire on a cold, Winter’s evening.
Well, provide your evidence. Leviticus says a man shall not lie with a man, and Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So if you believe these “interpretations” are wrong, find the contradictory passages that say homosexuality is okay. Granted, there is no specific prohibition on lesbianism, only male homosexuality, so I can see some room for differences of interpretation there.
Yeah, but since interracial marriage as a sin is so weakly supported, few believe it. Gay relationships as sinful behavior on the other hand are as well supported as any other prohibition in the Bible.
Churches will and should deemphasize homosexuality in their doctrines. It’s no different from any other sin and 90% of churchgoers are fornicators anyway. Tolerance will be normal in nearly all churches very soon. Acceptance and endorsement though, you’ll never see that outside of newfangled liberal churches that don’t really care much about the concept of sin in the first place.
Some do. Many churches elect their leadership, and if they don’t like their pastor’s interpretation, can oust him. More commonly, they “shop” for a new pastor when the old one retires or dies. Selection committees are often quite aware of the theological stance they want from the new pastor.
There is a hierarchy involved, and so lower-level decisions are subject to reversal from higher offices. In many cases, the church building and assets are owned at a higher level of the organization, and so the local congregation can be directed by the higher-ups. But schism is always possible: why do you think there are so many dozens and dozens of Protestant denominations? In a great many cases, the congregations did vote on what interpretation they wanted, and those who didn’t like the outcome moved on to other sects.
If scriptural interpretation were unambiguous, there wouldn’t be any Protestants at all.
In this case, if you read their motion, it wasn’t based on scripture. It was based on “representing the community” or some such nonsense. Apparently people threatened to walk out. So it’s just old fashioned racism. Not too surprising in small town Appalachia. But they went to pains to also not judge their salvation. This was a church affairs decision, not a religious edict.
It is interesting to note though that this does give credence to liberal claims that churches will not be persecuted. If churches can still ban interracial marriages they can certainly get away with banning gay marriages. And the courts would back then 9-0 on their right to do so if a government was dumb enough to try to take some sort of action.
Sure, they do. They can “vote” by choosing not to continue attending. Their active ongoing participation is support for the interpretations given to them and if they go elsewhere for a different interpretation (be it more palatable as either more modern or more traditional), that’s a “vote”, too.
Voting need not only be expressed in the form of balloting.
Point taken, although I’ve found that people more often choose churches based on how they want to live rather than what they actually believe God wants. In America, the choice of church seems to be based less on doctrine than seriousness. Most people attend harmless, nonjudgmental churches, born agains join the serious ones that actually expect things from their congregants.
They may have given up the practice of vilifying homosexuality (and no longer feel the inclination to vilify homosexuality, if they ever did), but nobody has given up the right.
Heck, the most gay-friendly person in the world could write a book in which a character does nothing but vilify homosexuality.
So the “serious” churches are the judgmental ones? Well, let’s see if they take it as well as dish it out, and if they can’t, Alito can be their whiny champion.
As long as all they get is criticism, there’s no issue. Government action though, that’s a big no-no.
What I mean by serious is that they actually preach from the Bible, rather than just endorsing whatever people want to do.
But to get back to the original point, we want to avoid future Brandon Eich situations. Criticism is fine. Ruining people’s lives is not. Especially when it’s so selective. Brandon Eich’s “crime” was to have the same views on SSM as Hillary Clinton at the time, yet he’s still unemployed and she’s being considered for President.
As a non-believer, I have no opinion on these interpretations. I just note that some, both in the past and today, have interpreted the Bible both to support and oppose interracial marriage, and support and oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality. And as a non-believer I don’t think any particular interpretation is better than any other (in terms of some supposed fidelity to the text), though I obviously prefer more progressive interpretations in terms of public policy.
Few believe interracial marriage is sinful today, but some do, and many did in the past. I see no reason why opinions on homosexuality might not change significantly over time just as they did on interracial marriage.
It seems to me that religious practice changes quite frequently along with society, as well as interpretations of scripture, so I don’t think this is necessarily the case.