Fwiw, the exact same thing happened to people that were in favor of segregation and opposed to interracial marriage. The evolution of society is inevitable.
You are the exact person that has been brainwashed into thinking racial equality is equal to a predilection for a sexual perversion. It has absolutely zero to do with society evolving to some more enlightened plane.
But l would be interested in your research into which societies disintegrated after openly championing homosexuality. Or the regret you feel for the 3 pals you grew up with, dying of AIDS back in the early 80s, while in their 20s.
I donât think theyâre equal. Iâve also never said as much. That doesnât mean a clear line canât be drawn comparing the 2.
The people that wanted blacks in separate bathrooms said the same thing, so youâll have to excuse my laughter here. If society is evolving to not letting the government tell as many people what to do with their lives, Iâm happy, I donât really care if itâs not âenlightened.â
And you have research that these societies disintegrated BECAUSE of homosexuality?
AIDS (like all STDs) is a moron test, not a gay test. You use protection or risk an STD. I understand that if I donât wear a seatbelt, my chances of dying in a car accident go up. I donât trust other drivers to be safe enough for me to not wear one, I just do it anyway.
A bit of a politics intersects religion tangent.
Yes, really rapid cultural change over the past 15 years. Obama supporting âmarriage between a man and a womanâ in 2008. I wasnât talking about people changing their minds. I was talking about people lying to themselves, aware of that or not. Something like 2 in every 5 Soviets were informing on their neighbors and families, and yet weâre all very sure that we wouldnât do such a thing.
Have you seen this? I donât normally follow UK news, but if you search for Tim Farron and his position on homosexuality, heâs a liberal Christian. It looks like the question, âDo you think homosexuality is a sin?â may become a litmus test for political life, even if you say you support gay marriage, and anti-discrimination statutes. The Church of England is being really torn by it as some Bishops lobby to change doctrines, traditional views âuntenable.â
Then we had this here in the US. Bernie Sanders questioning a Trump nominee about his religious beliefs.
The problem in the church isnât tradition, it is scripture. Thereâs no ambiguity or wiggle room about homosexuality in all the Abrahamic religions. So the question isnât âdo you believe homosexuality is a sin?â.
It is âdoes your scripture say homosexuality is a sin?â
Now scripture also says that all have fallen short of the glory of God. None are blameless, not even one. We are to preach the gospel to everyone and condemn nobody. That doesnât mean we have to change our standards.
Well, that depends on your definition of âcondemnâ as you may recall 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5 mentioned expelling someone from the church and handing them over to Satan.
But, yes we are all sinners to be sure.
Youâre disagreeing with a straw man. I didnât say central planning, I said legally ordered. They arenât the same.
Yeah, weâre pretty much saying the same thing. Itâs still lose-lose. The only thing I get out of Trump are policies more in line with my beliefs. Policy is what is going to affect me long after Trump is gone. I despised HRCâs politics. And if a tree stump were opposing her, I would have voted for the tree stump.
Itâs way to early to make a determination base on such a small amount of time, anyway. It wouldnât matter who won, you cannot determine the guyâs worth for at least a couple of years. 6 months is nothing.
I donât think a âgood portion of republicansâ think that either. Heâs not exactly a beacon of Republicanism. Seeing as how the party and the trump campaign fought, during the campaign indicates that many republicans made peace with him, but donât necessarily like him.
At least until heâs faced down some real challenges and succeeded in their midst.
Bizarre yet illuminating that Bernie would double down on a dumb question like that. It hints at his own dogma and that itâs a strong dogma.
Well, thereâs intense pressure on churches to back away from any doctrine about homosexuality. Weâre seeing very rapid change there among many protestant churches.
The other issue, is that this may soon become politically untenable. In other words, I predict that it will soon become very hard to be electable if you hold these views. It wonât be enough to say you support gay rights.
If you look at the NPR link above, Bernie Sanders questioned Vought about his belief that non-Christians are going to hell. Religious litmus test? Politicians have long avoided saying their agnostic or atheist, but I think that will shift dramatically.
Regarding homosexuality, the politician in the UK was able to say âweâre all sinners,â effectively skirting the issue in 2015. That didnât fly in 2017. He was pointedly questioned, and felt pressured to come out and say âitâs not a sin.â I could be wrong, but I predict that in the next decade or so, as older voters die, weâll see people who hold these traditional Judaeo-Christian interpretations become unelectable. Iâm not sure what will happen with Muslims if they grow as a percentage of the population and become a political force, since many of them also share these views (non-Muslims damned, or homosexuality is a sin.)
The same thing will happen to Muslims that happened to racists, is currently happening to homophobes, and has happened on behalf of society to every major change point in history. No institution (religion, govt, any ideologies) can defeat time. When society starts to lean in 1 direction even a little, all you need is time for math to kick in. If that lean is stable, itâs just a waiting game.
In recent years, weâve seen small groups of people try to mount the last line of defense as it were (KKK for racism, WBC for homophobia and so much more, Nazis for racial superiority) just as we have throughout history with all major social changes. This generation of them isnât special or magical. Theyâll buckle to time.
Agree that itâs a matter of numbers. Weâre talking about someone being elected, so that becomes very important.
Just to clarify here a bitâŠ
Itâs not hateful, extremist wing dings like the Westboro Baptist Church that are effected. Those people arenât electable now. This is most mainstream Christians. Think traditional Catholics or Protestants who have taught that homosexuality is a sin. You can support gay marriage, and anti-discrimination statutes, and have homosexual family members that you love. I supported Civil Unions, for example way back in maybe 2004, as did many gay people at that time. I think weâre going to see people who hold traditional religious views either reinterpret their doctrine, or become unelectable, at least in some places, very soon.
These are more likely the questions that voters will need to consider. Will you decide that you will not vote for a Catholic unless they pass a litmus test that makes them publicly denounce their doctrine on these issuesl? Will you decide that you will not hire such a person, if you can see that they are affiliated with a traditional Christian denomination? Did you think Bernie was appropriate in saying he would not support the Trump nominee, following that line of questioning?
I mentioned in a comment above how agnostic and atheists have long had to either sidestep or deny unbelief if they wanted to be electable, particularly in some regions. Iâm sure there are many agnostic politicians who claim a religious tradition, because it might damage their ability to serve in public life if they were forthright. As the demographic shifts, I think weâll see this with people who hold traditional religious ideas, unless we decide as a people that we want it to be otherwise.
You just say that to make it sound like youâre original. Like a Libertarian. Youâre basically a Republican, just probably not religious Iâd guess.
Which is what people want to make sure of with those questions. If itâs an important topic for someone, why would they not find out their elected repâs thoughts on the matter?
Of course. We all will. If a Scientologist tried to run for Congress what do you think would happen? Would we not be correct to make sure the negative sides of Scientology donât negatively influence his/her decisions?
Do you think we shouldnât inquire as to the religious beliefs of our elected officials? They take it into the room with them to vote. They donât leave it at the door. Tell me if a Muslim man was running for high office nobody would question his religion. Nobody would ask if his religion influenced his voting.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that âno religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.â
Maybe read this Atlantic article, and see if you still want to go down that path. I do not.
From the article below -
"Itâs one thing to take issue with bigotry. Itâs another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term âIslamophobiaâ to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americansâand many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity.
This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test Americaâs founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI. But that danger did not stop Sanders or Van Hollen from focusing on Voughtâs religious beliefs during his confirmation hearingâŠ"
ââŠAs the demands for tolerance in America become greater, the bounds of acceptance can also become tighter. Ironically, that pits acceptance of religious diversity against the freedom of individual conscience.â
Does pushharder not comment here?
I rarely go into PWI but current events make me jump in from time to time and just realized he seems to be missing.