• Larry

    And from some very whiny folks we have tears of impotent rage
    http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2015/06/tears.jpg

    “Can victorious LGBT advocates continue the fight for civil rights while also affirming the religious liberty of their opponents?”

    I fail to see how the religious liberty of their opponents are affected in any way of note. The ability to discriminate against a group is not an expression of religious liberty. Its the opposite. Its imposing religious views through the laws against others. No more an expression of religious liberty than legally enforced mandatory mass.

  • Pingback: Tears of joy, tears of sorrow, and little empathetic listening (COMMENTARY) - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • Pingback: Liberal Pro-Gay marriage Christian commentator states “Today’s winners will need to decide how badly to punish the losers.” | Laodicean Report()

  • Tom Downs

    Mr Lupfer: As someone with at least the beginning of a theological education you should be aware of the need to be careful using the word “orthodox”. It’s slippery, changing its definition depending on who’s using it. That is, aside from those groups whose proper name includes that word. In the U.S. today there is no single agreed upon meaning to orthodox.

  • Ted

    The freedoms of speech and association are still enshrined in the United States Constitution. No church will ever be forced to marry anyone they do not want to, or even welcome them through the door. All that has ended is one group’s ability to force their particular view of morality on the rest of society; a society their own views of morality, and centuries of legal control, created.

  • The Great God Pan

    When the decision in Loving v. Virginia came down, opponents of interracial marriage felt the same way that opponents of same-sex marriage are feeling now, and (crucially) their feelings were every bit as rooted in sincere religious belief. As Judge Leon Bazile made clear in the decision that ultimately was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, interracial marriage was seen by traditionalist religious believers as a radical affront against God’s plan for humanity.

    If I were alive at the time, I’d like to think I wouldn’t have felt any “empathy” with those yokels as they trudged ahead, angered and terrified, into a world that had supposedly been turned upside down by the Supreme Court.

    You, I suppose, would have objected to them being portrayed as “hate-filled bigots no better than the Ku-Klux Klan.” So it goes. The KKK, btw, were also sincere religious traditionalists. No empathy for them?

  • Greg1

    You are trying to equate a racial component with a gender component. Those are mutually exclusive. This decision was pulled out of thin air, and redefines what marriage is, and not who is permitted to marry.

  • Larry

    No, he is comparing 2 times when religious based bigotry was given color of law. ‘

    Even if it redefined marriage, that is not an argument. Its half of one. Also living proof why the anti-gay crowd were such lying sacks of crap in court. For such an argument to work people have to come up with why such changes had to be banned. What they got for reasons for bans were so ridiculous, irrational and utter bullcrap unrelated to the subject and law.

    It was clear the only real reason was christian bigots having their say in legislatures.

  • Georgann

    You said “”But they were wrong to blame gays and lesbians for these social changes, some of which were exacerbated by (if not caused by) politically conservative economic policies.””

    Have you any solid evidence to back up this ludicrous statement?

  • Larry

    Plenty of evidence:

    The increasing necessity of 2 income families to support middle class lifestyles is one of the greatest stressors on families in the last 40 years. It has given an economic element to equality among spouses which was largely absent. This made the gender neutrality of marriage laws more of a necessity than before.

    I can go on for a bit more. 🙂

  • Ben in oakland

    Once again, you couldn’t be more wrong if you enter the “I am wrong” sweepstakes and took the top three prizes. This isn’t about a redefinition of marriage, it is about a redefinition of gay people as is no longer your legal, social, moral, and religious inferiors in matters of love, sex, family, and faith.

    And you really just hate that, don’t you? I mean, you’ve been taught your whole life that we are your interiors, and that it is perfectly within your right to make our lives is difficult, expensive, unpleasant, and dangerous as possible in pursuit of that idea.

    As for redefining what marriages is, NONSENSE. Not one heterosexual marriages harmed, changed, or affected in anyway. All that is changed is, contrary to your nonsense, is exactly about who is permitted to marry.

    Lying for Jesus is not a good thing. But is it worse than being amigos for Jesus? And did I hurt your feelings by using the bigot word? Emma shutting down debate?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  • Ben in oakland

    If you were so inclined, you could find a graphic put out by the national organization for marriage a couple of years ago, where they show that marriage was allegedly in decline Among heterosexuals since just after World War II.

    Though normally, I would not go to the national organization for marriage for anything remotely resembling the truth, in this one case, I will accept their facts.

  • Pingback: That Was The Week That Was | The Pietist Schoolman()

  • Greg1

    There is no such thing as Christian bigotry. The duty of a Christian is to make disciples of all nations, and leading people to heaven. The only obstacle to getting there is grave mortal sin. And, homosexuality is classified as such a sin. So our duty is to enlighten people as to where the path they are presently on is leading them (and it certainly is not heaven).

  • larry

    If one was to take your posts seriously, there is no such things as Christian honesty. You feel this need to lie to me in the most obvious way possible.

    Coming up with excuses why you want to treat a group of people like crap doesn’t make it rational or reasonable. It just means you are just too spineless to own up to your prejudices.

  • Stave

    I cannot for the life of me discern why heterosexual people of any, or no, faith are in the least bit concerned that same-sex marriages now have the same equivalency as traditional marriage. If you don’t like same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. How difficult is that?

    As for the claim that homosexuality is an abomination to Christian doctrine, on what is that based? From some obscure, Old Testament verses that have been cherry-picked from a lot of other, similarly nasty Old Testament verses that have been conveniently ignored.

    My long abandoned Catholic education never taught me the hate and discrimination I see written in these comments. If those who condemn here have any shred of Christian values about them, they will recognize that Christian doctrine preaches love, compassion and understanding. Where did you lose your compassion and love for your fellow humans, people?

  • Greg1

    Larry, lying might be a way of life for you, but I do not lie, but only speak the Truth of my Faith.

  • LDSMan

    Matthew 19:1-8 — Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically cited.

  • LDSMan

    AMEN!!!

  • Doc Anthony

    Both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly condemn homosexual behavior, and therefore condemns “gay marriage”. There’s no way to escape that fact if any person (Catholic, Protestant or even Atheist) reads the Bible at all. God loves the entire world (John 3:16), but that doesn’t change what God says in the Bible about what is right and what is wrong.

    PS…the Supreme Court doesn’t get to repeal the Bible. Sorry.

  • Doc Anthony

    “I fail to see how the religious liberty of their opponents are affected in any way of note.”

    Oh yes you do Larry, in fact we all do. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ”… People of faith can take NO comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

    Why? Because this evil and corrosive decision effectively allows “advocating” and “teaching” one’s religion (at least within the four walls of one’s own house of worship), but DENIES and DISALLOWS the constitutional “free exercise” of one’s religion.

    THAT one constitutional right – the free exercise of one’s religion – no longer exists for Christians and other religionists (not even for atheists) in America, when it comes to saying “No” to requests for tacit or overt participation in clearly anti-Christian (or anti-other-religionist) practices such as gay-marriage ceremonies and gay receptions.

    So religious freedom has in fact been **repealed**, and Larry (and actually all of us) know it.

  • Doc Anthony

    If it is gay, it is not even a marriage.

    God, not the Supremes, gets the last word on the actual definition of marriage. And it is NOT same-sex stuff, as Jesus points out in Matt. 19:4-6.

  • ben in oakland

    you are of course welcome to think whatever you wish. I not only don’t care what you think, I don’t care what your god thinks, either.

    Meanwhile, the husband and I, along with 1.3 million of our closest friends, are off to celebrate one more brick removed from the wall of homohatred, and one more brick added to the wall of separation between church and state.

    so, doc, have a nice day. Weep and wail to your hearts content, pray for Jesus to come tomorrow, gnash your teeth. I don’t care.

    It’s a great day.

  • dmj76

    Doc
    What is the source of the authority of your Bible?
    Best wishes

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Quite the opposite is true. We’re always hearing anti-gay churches seeking publicity for their unsubstantiated claims of being “persecuted,” for their opposition to marriage equality, but it’s always important to remember it’s a LIE that they’d be “forced” to perform same gender marriages. The major Christian, Jewish and other denominations that are marrying same gender couples now were denied their right to practice their religion freely until the US Supreme Court ruling of June 26, 2015:

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox…

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Moravian Church Northern Province
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Presbyterian Church USA
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

    Please note anti-gays cannot provide even ONE example where a CHURCH was “forced” to perform a marriage they didn’t want–NOT ONE.

  • CarrotCakeMan
  • CarrotCakeMan
  • CarrotCakeMan

    Spare us that spam, Doc. Government was involved in marriage for well over a thousand years before the Church made a power grab for marriage in the 1100s.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Stave, heterosexuals are secure in their own sexual orientation. They know gay and lesbian Americans are similarly secure and that we were all indeed born that way.

    But anti-gays demonstrate constantly they are NOT heterosexuals. Please note am neither saying they are proud, open LGBT Americans.

    “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

    http://www.landman-psychology.Com/Homophobia%20Associated%20with%20Homosexual%20Arousal.pdf

    http://psycnet.apa.Org/journals/abn/105/3/440/

    An agency of the federal government, the National Institutes of Health, publishes a supporting study:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.Gov/pubmed/8772014

    Here’s a video that illustrates that study:

    http://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=AEuDDvqYbVw

    How about a You-tube SONG that explains this?

    http://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=1CQg9f7z9eg&feature=youtu.be

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1870. Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now. About 400 years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the King kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1 Corinthians 6:9. The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague. Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text,…

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Gay tyranny is already at work. The Harrisburg Pa. newspaper has announced it will now no longer print anything that argues against gay “marriage.” So a corrupt court decision will now be protected by press censorship. No debate allowed.

  • Ben in Oakland

    Well, that’s because you don’t understand the word censorship. No newspapers required to print anything. Censorship happens when the government does it.

    There is nothing that requires them to print the drivel that you would require them to print. There are plenty of other outlets that will print the lies, distortions, and hate Disguised love that so many so called Christians seem to peddle.

    I suggest you write for one of them.

  • Doc Anthony

    “What is the source of the authority of your Bible?”

    Excellent question, Dmj. Thanks for asking.

    I have a simple answer for you, but first — think for a second about all the verses of the Bible the you consider to be true. I’m reasonably sure that if you check, you already accept a large part of the Bible to be true and reliable. Maybe even most of the Bible. (If I’m wrong, please correct me.)

    So what is the source of the authority of your Bible and mine? Here’s your answer:

    Ultimately, that authority can only come from God Himself. In fact, that’s exactly what Jesus said in John 10:35. “The word OF GOD.” Not the word of mere humans. The word of God Himself. You could spend the next hour doing nothing but just exploring and thinking about all the implications of such a statement.

    Jesus also said the Scriptures are unbreakable (KJV). The Bible got Unbreakable authority, because it’s — the word of GOD.

    The Ultimate Author => The Ultimate Book.

  • Doc Anthony

    Conspiracy-theory much, Mr. CCM?

  • Ben in Oakland

    There is nothing about the nature of free speech that entitles you to a platform to express it. You are entitled to express it. You were not entitled to demand a platform.

  • Be Brave

    The Harrisburg PA newspaper is persecuting Christians.

    I am no surprised that this stared so soon. The evil that has spread this insanity has nothing but malevolence towards Christians.

  • Be Brave

    dmj76,

    What is the source of your questioning the Bible’s authority?

    Which demon do I address?

    No matter how you twist and rage on, there is no support for LGBT anything in or from the Bible. I’m sorry the voices in your head want to scream through your tortured soul.

    The authority of the Bible is Who He said He “Is.”

  • Be Brave

    Hmmm, the “born that way” lunacy. Which of course has to be the biggest sales pitch in the demonic kingdom.

    If people were born gay or lesbian, they wouldn’t have definitive genitalia. The “males” wouldn’t produce sperm an the “females” wouldn’t ovulate.

    Now if scientific facts are not important to the lascivious licentious mobs, I guess we just call them progressives and liberals and pity their diseased minds and of course misused bodies. Like they say, don’t want to be gay? Don’t engage in homosexual behavior. Want to literally be deranged? Engaged in gay behavior.

    deranged:

    tr.v. de·ranged, de·rang·ing, de·rang·es

    1. To disturb the order, arrangement, or functioning of: an asteroid impact large enough to derange the climate.

    2. To upset (normal condition or functioning, as of a bodily organ).

    3. To cause to be psychotic or otherwise severely mentally unsound.

  • Be Brave

    “It was clear the only real reason was christian bigots having their say in legislatures”. -Larry

    Ah yes, spoken like a true anti-Christ. The very same kind that have been complicit in persecution after persecution since the beginning of the “Hate a Christian: movement 2000-years ago. AKA “secularists.”

    Notice that Larry, joining the growing anti-Christian (liberal/progressive) movement, has moved to take away worth of the individual and corporate Jesus-defined Christian body. Unless of course Christians behave and REALLY believe and vote . . . like anti-Christians.

    Here is Jesus the homophobic hateful bigot as defined by Larry et al …:

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

    For this reason? Marriage. Anyone that labels a Christian a bigot on this issue is purely evil.

  • Ben in oakland

    Well, BB, it only took a decision for gay marriage for what little mask you bother to wear to come off. Sort of like a g-string on a go-go dancer, but without the expectation of titillation. Yesterday, you admitted that execution was how your Christian love would deal with gay people.

    And today? If I weren’t ROLFLMAO, I’d be in positive awe that you, like little Antonin, haven’t exploded in frustration.

    “If people were born gay or lesbian, they wouldn’t have definitive genitalia. The “males” wouldn’t produce sperm an the “females” wouldn’t ovulate.”

    So, now we know you’re not only an oozing pustule of hate disguised as love, replete with an over abundance of over-identification with God, but that you are also beyond crazy or beyond stupid.

    What else are you going to reveal? But please do reveal it. I’m getting positively tipsy on the schadenfreude.

  • Charles

    Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t get to dictate who can share in the RELIGIOUS sacrament of marriage. The government has no right to force a minister to perform a wedding, any more than to compel a priest to reveal what he heard in Confession. (First Amendment, anyone?)

    The Supreme Court only has authority to decide who is entitled to CIVIL recognition for their marriage. In making this decision, it can’t let itself be swayed by arguments on religious grounds (again, First Amendment, anyone?). And since no one has offered a cogent argument against marriage equality on any other grounds, this decision was inevitable.

  • Charles

    Doc wrote,

    “Both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly condemn homosexual behavior, and therefore condemns ‘gay marriage’.”

    The Bible condemns heterosexual behavior outside of marriage, but blesses it within marriage. It condemns homosexual behavior outside of marriage, but…”gay marriage” was not a concept that the writers of the time could envision, any more than they could imagine a world without slavery.

    So it could be argued that in terms of Biblical teaching on gay marriage, the jury is still out…or, more accurately, was never in.

  • Charles

    The “no longer” implies that they printed some – possibly a great many – such arguments already, and now that the decision has been made, they might have other uses in mind for their column-inches. Just a thought.

  • Ben in Oakland

    “If people were born gay or lesbian, they wouldn’t have definitive genitalia. The “males” wouldn’t produce sperm an the “females” wouldn’t ovulate.”

    Yesterday, you admitted your hatred with your desire for our execution. Today, with this comment, you admit that you are crazier than a barrel of bat guano, or ignorant beyond the dreams of fundamentalism.

    Thank you so much for finally admitting the truth about yourself. I had a feeling that with the Supreme Court’s decision, the true colors of those who hate in the name of religion would show, and the masks would come off, exposing the vast, barren emptiness of your souls.

    Thank you again.

  • Larry

    Given the propensity of Christian fundamentalists to distort facts and outright lie if it suits them, I don’t believe the story. A link to a reliable source would help here.