wp.

should have specified anti-gay bigotry.

A Bishop conducted a gay marriage in Alabama just in the last few weeks. I forget the denomination, but doing so controversially violated the law of his church.

Isn't there a denomination that has split in two because women were being ordained as ministers or w/e? That's the way the gay issue will go, imo. There are still plenty of church going ppl (my town has so many churches it's amazing to me given that the pop is only 25,000 and at least a third are winter visitors). Eventually some church is going to offer gay marriages if there aren't ones already doing so (I don't keep up w/ that), it may split that church, but sooner or later the more tolerant church will win out.

But to be fair we should face the fact that there is significant resistance to gay marriage amongst the Black clergy and they are hardly likely to be Republicans. However there are now Black clergy organizing to support it.

These things take time.

Rev. Dr. William Barber, head of the NC NAACP, National NAACP Chair of the Legislative Political Action Committee, member of the Order of the Long Leaf Pine, supports gay marriage.

I just wanted to type out his titles heh

Things only change because the congregation has to drag the church leadership kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Sorry, but religion is just the nut low worst example of ways to make society more socially liberal.

IDK, it seemed to have some effect when it came to abolition.

Radical abolitionism was partly fueled by the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening, which prompted many people to advocate for emancipation on religious grounds. Abolitionist ideas became increasingly prominent in Northern churches and politics beginning in the 1830s, which contributed to the regional animosity between North and South leading up to the Civil War.

Besides pointing out that blanket statements are rarely useful/accurate I think that you have that backwards.

lol? Because millions of Christians and Muslims are just sitting around going "Man, I mean I love gay dudes, have absolutely no problem with them pounding each others asses like crazy and getting married...its just this darn book forcing me to think of them as sinners!"

There would be roughly the same amount of homophobia without the help of organized religion, they would just have to shut their ****ing mouths about it or grasp at some other dumb ass rationalization-straw

I agree with vhawk. Lock it up.

What?

You guys seriously are defending religion as being socially liberal and not being responsible for its OWN actions/views?

You need some republican level backpedaling to justify that line of thought.

Um, yes? There aren't many reasons to hate on the gays other than "God said so." People who aren't religious tend to be much more tolerant of it. Those places where they literally stone gays to death --guess what? They're all deeply devout societies.


You're cherrypicking here. There were just as many if not more religious leaders at the time who used the bible to justify slavery. Same thing applies to the pro-segregationist preachers in MLK's era.

People hate on people different from them all the time. There aren't any good reasons to pick on red headed kids at school, but they still get bullied.


lol

Riiiiight, and when was the last time atheist homophobes beat a gay kid to death?


Are you not aware of how religion has been used to justify slavery and segregation?

"The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders—they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground—Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake"

--Rev. J. H. Thornwell

I thought this one was religious too because judas was depicted as a redhead.

Well gingers dont have souls, an entirely religious concept. So yeah, all adds up imo.

See, this is the crux of the issue here. YB, before you concern troll, you needed to pretend to be on our side.

Notice the argument now is that other people have personal flaws too, so nobody with a personal flaw can call Your Boss racist. We've completely abandoned the pretense about rhetorical persuasiveness and whatever and developed this entirely new system.

It's transparent. Nich and Your Boss and other racists love to come up with various rules of debate that all end in the same place:

Them not getting called racist. That's the goal here.

Did you guys know MLK was a Republican?

And Strom Thurmond was a democrat!

crazy dayz...

Well first, welcome back! Did you enjoy your time off? Everybody else sure did.

But what the **** are you talking about? I think maybe your little break affected your ability to read. Wipe the froth away and try again maybe?

Anyway, not sure how many times someone has to say that not one **** is given about what some random wannabe intellectual on the Internet thinks about them, but I'll try again. Nobody cares what you think. Nobody.

i do

So do I.

Well I think most people would find it a little weird that you derive some of your self worth from what randoms on the internet think about you. But hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.

not the same thing

reading seems problematic for you

This post would seem a lot more sincere if it wasn't preceded by like 20 posts in this thread whining about how you don't want anyone on the internet to call you mean names.

I won't quote that so you can go back and delete it if you want, but the reading issues here aren't mine. @RM

Yep, the break affected your ability to read.