Utah judge removes lesbian couple's foster child, saying she'll be better off with heterosexuals

[mtangelsfan]

If someone called me a "Christ-follower" I would consider it a compliment.

[the dude abides]

so you went from being a regular church-goer to a person who mocks people as "Christ-followers" ?

 

classy

 

No.  I was mocking those who claim to be Christians who want to close our borders to refugees.

 

Admittedly, my post was to goad Fan.

 

The "Christ-follower" label wasn't the insult.  The implied hypocrisy was.

Edited November 18, 2015 by the dude abides

[Glen]

Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin. Heh heh.

[Adam]

Background, my pastor is MT's former pastor and good friend. Just a fluke.

 

Anyway, this was pretty enjoyable. From a service a few weeks ago.

 

A couple of weeks ago I got an email from a woman in our church. She said that it had become widely known that a couple in our church, which was unmarried were living together. She asked that church leadership step in and correct this behavior by removing the couple from the church until they could show proof of separate residences. 

 

I replied. Ma'am, your concerns are serious. I'll tell you what. I'd like you to join me while we talk to this couple. But, first, we'll begin by addressing every member of our church who is overweight because they've committed gluttony. We'll go to their homes, you and I, and let them all know they will need to lose weight and show proof of a good diet before they're allowed back in the church.

 

She never responded. 

[the dude abides]

Maybe it is more about where you are.

 

Regardless, as Adam brought up to me the more unpopular things for pastors to talk about (and what can really cause folks to go) are sins like gossip, gluttony and the like.

 

You're probably right.

 

Keep in mind, we're in the land of John Hagee, Ed Young and Robert Jeffress here in Texas. When in Rome....

[mtangelsfan]

Although I will say after being in Montana for ten years now it surprises me that my church isn't more old school.

[Adam]

A fault of Christians and leadership, but really of everyone is that we tend to spend significantly more time talking about the things we're against than the things we're for. I suppose because it makes people feel better about themselves. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Adam

[mtangelsfan]

Agreed Adam, it is the same reason many more complaints are lodged vs. compliments in food service and retail even though most people have average to good experiences.

 

Have a good server, might leave a bigger tip but chances are you would never pull the manager aside to tell them so.

[Adam]

Back to dude and nate - the reason many Christians are so outspoken about Gays is because by pointing their fingers at another's sin, they feel better about their own sin. 

 

But...

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NLT

[mtangelsfan]

What about your experience in church Adam.  Does dave talk about homosexuality more than other stuff?

[Glen]

Back to dude and nate - the reason many Christians are so outspoken about Gays is because by pointing their fingers at another's sin, they feel better about their own sin.

But...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NLT

I was reading about stoning the other day and it's even more brutal than I imagined. The put the person in a hole with just their head above and then pelt the head with rocks until the person is dead. They still do this in Saudi Arabia, apparently. ****ing savages.

[Angelsjunky]

If your argument isn't that anything should go as long as nobody is forced to marry nor accept that definition, then don't make that argument. That is what you said earlier. Also, don't blame people for using YOUR logic and rationale for forms of marriage that you don't like. 

 

It's a new, different definition that the government will force people to accept. The government will also exclude some types of relationships from marriage. 

 

Again, when you make that argument with your friends, don't make it freedom versus oppression, make it the virtues of male-female marriage only versus sex-neutral marriage. 

 

Your argument that if gay people marry, there'd be less hard-to-place kids in foster care is a real argument. I don't think it would make any difference since places with gay marriage actually have less marriage, but at least it's an honest argument. 

 

Times change, and laws change to reflect that. I wonder what imagined fantasy past you wish to go back to? Again, I really don't see much of an argument against gay marriage that isn't based upon religious fundamentalism and homophobia. My guess is that 95% of people against gay marriage, if not more, are religious fundamentalists. For those that aren't it is probably just pure homophobia.

 

And yes, it is about equal rights. I don't care whether people get married or not or what they choose to do within their marriage, whether they have kids or not, are divorced, have gay orgies, etc. What I care about is that people have equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation. In my opinion, human rights are more important than the institution of traditional marriage.

[nate]

A fault of Christians and leadership, but really of everyone is that we tend to spend significantly more time talking about the things we're against than the things we're for. I suppose because it makes people feel better about themselves. 

 

One of the bigger problems I have with religion is that a static belief system with a supreme being leads to conflict and superiority complexes.

 

Enough already happens in clashing cultures, religion just adds another layer to it.

[mtangelsfan]

One of the bigger problems I have with religion is that a static belief system with a supreme being leads to conflict and superiority complexes.

 

Enough already happens in clashing cultures, religion just adds another layer to it.

 

It also leads to millions of folks helping other folks.

[nate]

It also leads to millions of folks helping other folks.

 

So you just take the good with the bad?  It has lead to war and millions of deaths.

[juansavage1]

The value of marriage in society has depreciated over the centuries when people got some wild hair up their ass that it needed to be for "love" instead of traditionally marrying for political or financial reasons. Prearranged marriages we determined for the good of both families, not the indulgence of lustful teens that have no concept of the stability of the family unit and introduced strangers into the fold that may interrupt the path to a better social status. By promising a child to another family and accepting theirs unto your own there is a contractual bond tying families together base on mutual trust, the couple will sort out their feelings later but would stay together because of a valued family commitment.

 

That is what Juan would like us all to return to, the age of dowries, social order and bartering your children.

This is a logical fallacy. Are those the only two choices? Please police your thinking if you care about real discussion. 

[juansavage1]

I don't buy the sanctity of marriage argument with the number of divorces in this great country.

Who started the divorce movement in the late 60s and 70s? Christians or the same people who want SSM? SSM is really the last battle in a movement started in the 19th century. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Your point is valid if only SSM people were getting the divorces

[juansavage1]

These pastors aren't stupid MT.

 

50% of marriages end up in divorce.  Why would any pastor want to speak out against divorce in the same manner that they do against homosexuality?

You hit upon a good point. When things get far afield, you can't say anything anymore. For example, single mothers are now a powerful voting block and make up a sizable chunk of the Dem party. Again: congratulations, leftists. 

[juansavage1]

I agree that most churches don't risk alienating people who are caught up in the world created by the people here mocking Christians. That being said, all of the straight ones have marriage counseling and keep positive pressure on couples to work things out. 

 

One thing that I'm fond of doing when making generalizations is to look at facts. It's not too hard with the internet. Try it. 

 

http://divorce.com/divorce-rates-church-attendance/

 

 

 

Despite the claims that church attendance does not improve the risk of divorce for Christians, a report in USA Today cites a sociologist who says the numbers depend on what kind of Christians are being discussed. When University of Connecticut sociologist and author, Bradley Wright looked at divorce statistics for evangelical Christians, he says the numbers show church attendance has a big influence on the overall rate of divorce. Wright pointed to the National Survey of Families and Households and found that Americans who attend religious services at least twice a month were one third less likely to get divorced than those with no religious affiliation whose divorce rate is the same as the national average at around 50%. When Wright looked at the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, he found that adherents of religions including Christianity have a divorce rate that is 8% lower than the national average at about 42%.

Wright’s recent book, “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites and Other Lies You’ve Been Told” stress the point that the divorce rates for Christians are not the same as the general population and that being a “committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.” When Wright examined the statistics he found that 60% of evangelical Christians who do not attend church had been divorced or separated and the divorce rate for evangelical Christians who do attend church was only 38%. Wright concludes that the lower numbers mean Christian pastors can preach to their flocks about the value of marriage more effectively and that the idea that Christians are no different from anyone else when it comes to divorce is not true if you consider Christians who attend church regularly. As the overall national divorce rate continues to hover near 50%, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Wright’s hypothesis holds up over the next decade.

 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Jay]

To be fair according to the chart the divorce rate went from 1% to 2%

 

I really don't think it has to do with SSM.

 

More likely it has to do with the Women's liberation movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_liberation_movement

Edited November 18, 2015 by Jay

[juansavage1]

Your point is valid if only SSM people were getting the divorces

No. My point is that SSM isn't an expansion of marriage, but another attack on marriage. The attack started with the secular-left movements of the 19th century and really flowered with the sexual revolution in the 60s. 

 

Again, I'm just pointing out facts and representing a point of view while also noting flaws in your arguments and facts, not trying to convince people of anything. 

[juansavage1]

To be fair according to the chart the divorce rate went from 1% to 2%

 

I really don't think it has to do with SSM.

 

More likely it has to do with the Women's liberation movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_liberation_movement

SSM is the effect of the kind of thinking that divorces marriage from any higher purpose and declares it a primarily emotional bond between people. It's not the cause. 

[mtangelsfan]

So you just take the good with the bad?  It has lead to war and millions of deaths.

 

plenty of things lead to war and death.  Bad things have been done in the name of plenty of things.

 

Of course I don't like bad things being done in my religion, I speak out against it when it happens.  You've seen it.

[juansavage1]

Times change, and laws change to reflect that. I wonder what imagined fantasy past you wish to go back to? Again, I really don't see much of an argument against gay marriage that isn't based upon religious fundamentalism and homophobia. My guess is that 95% of people against gay marriage, if not more, are religious fundamentalists. For those that aren't it is probably just pure homophobia.

 

And yes, it is about equal rights. I don't care whether people get married or not or what they choose to do within their marriage, whether they have kids or not, are divorced, have gay orgies, etc. What I care about is that people have equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation. In my opinion, human rights are more important than the institution of traditional marriage.

 

 

I'd say the majority of people really against (most people either don't care or don't like to be called names) traditional marriage are either atheists or hostile towards religion (I really do think this, but I never use it as an argument).

 

And, yes. times change. I'd like a future where marriage is restored to its natural, logical definition and that most kids get to experience life with their parents. I think that can happen in several states rather quickly if one of the next SC justices isn't as sappy as Kennedy. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Juan Savage