Another Comment That I May Not Post
Linked by Slacktavist, this blog is by one of the founders of No Longer Quivering, a site for the people recovering from damage done by the Quiverfull movement. The post is mostly about how un-christian the people who were doing the Chick-Fil-A's support day were. But the comments, ech! So in reply mostly to this guy R.C. I said:
Is that a rule here, Becky? Because I read the explanations, and no, they didn't change my mind. They also seemed self-serving and factually wrong on many points. I don't agree to disagree. They have the right to express themselves without interference from the government, and they have whatever rights the blogger grants them here, but they don't have a right to not have others express their public opinions about what they said publicly.
You cannot hate the sin and love the sinner, you cannot be against marriage equality and think you're not being hateful to those whose rights you are trying to take away. And R.C. can pretend it's not about the gay thing all he wants, but it is. The backlash against the "haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs" came before any of the politicians said anything, amazing how that works. And R.C., if you do actually want to convince other people of the rightness of your views, rather than grandstanding for your fellow travelers, calling them names is not the best way to do it.
As an atheist I'm always surprised by those saying they have traditional Christian viewpoints that say they are against equal marriage rights. Because first off, biblical marriage was definitely not "one man, one woman," it was one man, and however many women he can accumulate/support. Which means the Mormons got it right, initially. And if you want to be 'traditional' to the Christian church, you wouldn't have anything to do with a priest or other official of a church for your marriage at all. It wasn't until the 15th century that the church got involved in weddings, and that was mostly priests looking for a new revenue stream after some of the other 'traditional' ones were removed. For some time before that people got married in the Church porch but that was more a place that's centrally located than anything religious.
I think I will post it anyway, isn't that inflammatory, I think, it's just stating the obvious.
Is that a rule here, Becky? Because I read the explanations, and no, they didn't change my mind. They also seemed self-serving and factually wrong on many points. I don't agree to disagree. They have the right to express themselves without interference from the government, and they have whatever rights the blogger grants them here, but they don't have a right to not have others express their public opinions about what they said publicly.
You cannot hate the sin and love the sinner, you cannot be against marriage equality and think you're not being hateful to those whose rights you are trying to take away. And R.C. can pretend it's not about the gay thing all he wants, but it is. The backlash against the "haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs" came before any of the politicians said anything, amazing how that works. And R.C., if you do actually want to convince other people of the rightness of your views, rather than grandstanding for your fellow travelers, calling them names is not the best way to do it.
As an atheist I'm always surprised by those saying they have traditional Christian viewpoints that say they are against equal marriage rights. Because first off, biblical marriage was definitely not "one man, one woman," it was one man, and however many women he can accumulate/support. Which means the Mormons got it right, initially. And if you want to be 'traditional' to the Christian church, you wouldn't have anything to do with a priest or other official of a church for your marriage at all. It wasn't until the 15th century that the church got involved in weddings, and that was mostly priests looking for a new revenue stream after some of the other 'traditional' ones were removed. For some time before that people got married in the Church porch but that was more a place that's centrally located than anything religious.
I think I will post it anyway, isn't that inflammatory, I think, it's just stating the obvious.