Methodists split over gay rights

[SLD]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/us/united-methodist-church-split-proposal/index.html

So apparently the Methodists can’t resolve their differences over gay rights and will split into two denominations. Not sure what the heretic will be called, but it reminds me of this good old joke.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

[steve_bank]

Anglicans split in the 90s over gays. Mean battle over ho got what property.

I think the anti gay side aligned with some group in Uganda, virulent anti gay.

 

[southernhybrid]

I read about this split a couple of days ago and am still wondering which way the huge UMC on the corner of my street will go. I'm guessing the more conservative route, but I've known at least a couple of very progressive people who attend. Maybe I'll go to their website when I have time and see if they have anything on it regarding this split.

 

[Politesse]

The same issue sabotaged efforts to unify the Lutheran denominations when I was a young adult preparing for seminary. It seems to be one of those things people just cannot get over. Ah, well. If keeping "those people" out of community is the issue people are willing to split over, a separate space may be the best for them. Their way of doing things will slowly die out by sheer demographic reality, while a kinder and more reasonable theology grows in its place. It doesn't take a seer to see that history will naturally favor a church whose doors are still open, over one which is trying to build ever higher fences around an aging congregation of misandrists. The pro-slavery Methodists did the same thing back in the day, for much the same reasons and nearly all the same justifications. And where are they now?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The same issue sabotaged efforts to unify the Lutheran denominations when I was a young adult preparing for seminary. It seems to be one of those things people just cannot get over. Ah, well. If keeping "those people" out of community is the issue people are willing to split over, a separate space may be the best for them. Their way of doing things will slowly die out by sheer demographic reality, while a kinder and more reasonable theology grows in its place. It doesn't take a seer to see that history will naturally favor a church whose doors are still open, over one which is trying to build ever higher fences around an aging congregation of misandrists. The pro-slavery Methodists did the same thing back in the day, for much the same reasons and nearly all the same justifications. And where are they now?

In my humble opinion you have eloquently expressed how higher intelligence actually works to overcome instinctive fear and tribalism, and unfortunately how it also doesn't.

 

[southernhybrid]

I visited the website of the UMC on the corner of my street. I read their bulletins and other information. Nothing was said about the split, but I did learn that the budge for next year was about 1,250,000 dollars. Wow. If only atheists were able to organize and raise so much money for charity. I know all of their money isn't for charity, but compared to many churches, this one does do a lot of charity work. Plus, they have a gym that is open to the public for a nominal fee, free concerts, all all kinds of activities.

I've never understood why so many in the modern world are either unable or unwilling to understand that some humans aren't heterosexual.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I've posted this before, but I think Howard Stern had the best response to the "Defense of Marriage" crowd: do you really want to go back to the days when gays felt compelled to marry in the hetero world, thereby creating horrible sham marriages that ended in dysfunction, deranged communication, short-changed spouses and messed-up kids?

 

[Politesse]

I've posted this before, but I think Howard Stern had the best response to the "Defense of Marriage" crowd: do you really want to go back to the days when gays felt compelled to marry in the hetero world, thereby creating horrible sham marriages that ended in dysfunction, deranged communication, short-changed spouses and messed-up kids?

Back? We're still in those days, I assure you. An overbearing family does not need the rule of law or the endorsement of a church to corral young men and women into bad decisions.

 

[steve_bank]

What bothers the conservatives is the coopting of the word marriage for same sex couples. Marriage traditionally means a man and a woman, husband and wife. It is a duality. If another word was coined for gay marriage it might diminish the conservative reactions.

Husband husband and wife wife does sound bit strange to me. Whatever you call it is the legal meaning that matters. That gays appear to be natural percentage of population and a few other issues like evolution are the last remaining battle cries and rally points for conservative Christians.

The depth of the issue is evidenced by the acrimony among Christians themselves. In the 90s I watched a Larry King panel discussion between science and Christians. Bill Nye was one of the scientists. Two of the Christians ended up arguing over which one was the real Christian based on a sieonce issue.

Us atheists are relieving ourselves in the wind so to speak.

 

[steve_bank]

I've posted this before, but I think Howard Stern had the best response to the "Defense of Marriage" crowd: do you really want to go back to the days when gays felt compelled to marry in the hetero world, thereby creating horrible sham marriages that ended in dysfunction, deranged communication, short-changed spouses and messed-up kids?

Back? We're still in those days, I assure you. An overbearing family does not need the rule of law or the endorsement of a church to corral young men and women into bad decisions.

Rights regardless of gender and sexual orientation are new. Polls showed a majority for gay rights beginning in the 90s. Even given conservatives, gay rights has become a majority norm culturally.

 

[Politesse]

What bothers the conservatives is the coopting of the word marriage for same sex couples. Marriage traditionally means a man and a woman, husband and wife. It is a duality. If another word was coined for gay marriage it might diminish the conservative reactions.

Bullshit, same-sex marriages have existed since the days of the Roman Empire. Beyond Europe, it has existed in various forms and in various cultures for thousands of years. We're eager enough to accept other cultural heritages from the Imperium; why should offense of conservative ideologies be enough inducement to change our own supposedly secular system of law, just to soothe their easily rattled religious sensibilities?.

Also, religious zealots oppose legally recognized civil unions of gay people just as vigorously as they do gay marriage, so what does one really gain?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whatever you call it is the legal meaning that matters.

which is why it has to be called 'marriage.'
That way, it instantly adopts the rights, privleges, and benefits of all the federal, state, local laws, bureaucratic policies, business rules, and so on that specify married couples, spouses, husbands, wives, wed, or other linked terms, used in written rules and legal precedents.
If thge federal term was something like 'legally co-fated participant,' then there'd be a gazillion challenges to claim that a Lecofap was/wasn't equivalent to a spouse for medical proxy, student pick-up, power of attorney, inheritance, insurance benefits, legal representation, standing for lawsuits, survivor benefits, and so on, in every school district, courthouse, jury, hospital, pharmacy, doctor's office....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, calling it something other than marriage just creates a separate-but-equal type scenario, and those have never once in history given something which is actually equal. It's basically just saying that gay relationships aren't on the same level as straight relationships, so they need to get stuck with this lesser version. It's despicable and bigoted and does nothing but add to the discrimination and allow for targeted laws which give certain rights to "married" couples but doesn't give them to the fake relationships that homosexuals have with each other.

 

[Rhea]

“Coopting the word marriage” to mean... marriage ???

How do you “co-opt” a word when you are using it in the same way? As the legal union of two people for romantic and financial and legal reasons?

 

[steve_bank]

“Coopting the word marriage” to mean... marriage ???

How do you “co-opt” a word when you are using it in the same way? As the legal union of two people for romantic and financial and legal reasons?

A derail to politics. The meaning of marriage and the terms husband and wife go back thousands of years.

Waving a magic wand and saying it now means something else is a bit fanciful, if you are expecting thousands of years of cultural inertia to suddenly change direction. Too much to expect of the 30% or so who are conservative Trumeters.

I suppose the Oxford English Dictionary has or will redefine marriage and wife-husband applying to same sex couples.

The acrimony in the religious split is clear evidence of the depth of the issue.

Personally I think the gay use of husband an wife is intended to add normalcy to the relationship.

It does not matter to me, jut making observations and comments.

 

[Politesse]

“Coopting the word marriage” to mean... marriage ???

How do you “co-opt” a word when you are using it in the same way? As the legal union of two people for romantic and financial and legal reasons?

A derail to politics. The meaning of marriage and the terms husband and wife go back thousands of years.

Waving a magic wand and saying it now means something else is a bit fanciful, if you are expecting thousands of years of cultural inertia to suddenly change direction. Too much to expect of the 30% or so who are conservative Trumeters.

I suppose the Oxford English Dictionary has or will redefine marriage and wife-husband applying to same sex couples.

The acrimony in the religious split is clear evidence of the depth of the issue.

Personally I think the gay use of husband an wife is intended to add normalcy to the relationship.

It does not matter to me, jut making observations and comments.

You haven't studied that history in the slightest, and it shows. Believe it or not, the history of the social definition marriage did not begin or end in 1950s America.

 

[steve_bank]

“Coopting the word marriage” to mean... marriage ???

How do you “co-opt” a word when you are using it in the same way? As the legal union of two people for romantic and financial and legal reasons?

A derail to politics. The meaning of marriage and the terms husband and wife go back thousands of years.

Waving a magic wand and saying it now means something else is a bit fanciful, if you are expecting thousands of years of cultural inertia to suddenly change direction. Too much to expect of the 30% or so who are conservative Trumeters.

I suppose the Oxford English Dictionary has or will redefine marriage and wife-husband applying to same sex couples.

The acrimony in the religious split is clear evidence of the depth of the issue.

Personally I think the gay use of husband an wife is intended to add normalcy to the relationship.

It does not matter to me, jut making observations and comments.

You haven't studied that history in the slightest, and it shows. Believe it or not, the history of the social definition marriage did not begin or end in 1950s America.

Of course....Saudi Arabia and the heretic Mormons do practice polygamy. So it is husband wife wife wife...

I realy have no issue with gay marriage. I was commenting on an aspect of the issue.

As to history are you arguing that in resewn civilization the general normal was not hetero man and woman husband and wife?
God old Henry 8th either killed his wife legally, or found grounds for divorce. When the pope refused to grant him divorce he stted his own version of Christianity.

The cultural norm of one man and wife runs deep. Even Henry did not blatantly violate the norms publicly.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The cultural norm of one man and wife runs deep. Even Henry did not blatantly violate the norms publicly.

And the cultural norm of raiding the neighboring tribe and raping its women runs deep too. Even chimps do it. It's a very effective evolutionary strategy because you pass your genes onto the next generation and an entirely different group of people needs to expend their resources in order to raise your offspring. That doesn't mean that the governmental overreach of expanding anti-rape laws to criminalize this type of behaviour was a bad thing.

The cultural norms supporting slavery of other groups or allowing husbands to beat or murder their wives and daughters if they did something to embarrass the family also run deep. That doesn't mean that the recent changes to cultural norms to be more against those types of activities are negatives.

The argument that something has historically been a "cultural norm" and therefore we should support that thing is an inane argument. Humans have done a lot of good things historically and we've done a lot of shitty things historically, so the fact that we've done something one way for a while isn't even close to a reason to continue doing it that way going forward.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The meaning of marriage and the terms husband and wife go back thousands of years.

But is that actually 'the meaning' of marriage, or just the image that usually comes to mind?
Gay's aren't asking for any different ceremony or legal status or terms.
If we're talking 'definition,' we're talking about the joining of properties, the parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the children of the union, and so on.

Since it's been common language to use 'marriage' for things other than man and woman* for a long time, there's no redefining the word with samesex marriages.


*such as a music form being called 'A marriage of jazz and gospel'

So, the law is being expanded, but the meaning of the word isn't changing.

 

[Politesse]

As to history are you arguing that in resewn civilization the general normal was not hetero man and woman husband and wife?

In recent European history, yes. But you made a much more extravagant claim. And "norms" are not exclusive truths. Nothing concerning homosexuals will ever be the "norm", because we constitute a numerical minority in every society. Minorities never define norms, unless they are rich as hell. But that doesn't mean society can't adapt to our presence, and indeed we have been integrated into society at many times in places through human history. There's an avalanche of difference between saying "most women marry men" and "all women should be forced to marry men".

In Europe, socially conservative Christians have held a lot of power for a long time, partly because people like you give it to them unthinkingly, but mostly because very powerful people found it useful to force their agenda on the populace. Homosexuality is not a new invention, nor is gay marriage whatever you choose to call it. The upper classes have always tolerated it among their number to a certain degree (Henry V wasn't gay, but his 2nd great-grandfather Edward II certainly was, and Hugh Despenser was referred to as his husband even in documents of the time), but the working classes are needed for their labor, so in the Feudal Era and afterward it was very important to keep them breeding. The church and the state were convenient allies with each other in producing the agenda of constant fecundity and the brutal disintegration of female autonomy in European culture. A project which was never fully embraced by the population, as there was always rebellion and dissension surrounding these issues.

But we don't need an ever-growing slave class any more, anyway. Indeed, over-population has become a major global crisis in many places. So why are you still pushing archaic social agendas?

I know you say you aren't, but if you aren't trying to support conservative bullshit, why are you parroting their apologetic arguments and false portrayal of history into this debate? They're wrong, and you're wrong.

If you don't believe these things, or just don't like being taken for a conservative shill, then think before you post next time.