Homosexuality - Legacy thread

Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
Here is a link to the Homosexuality and Christianity thread on the old website.

Feel free to add to this thread or create a new thread on a subset of this topic

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Interesting development in one of those wedding-based discrimination cases. A couple in New York state would routinely rent out their farm for weddings but refused to do so for a lesbian couple. After the case wound its way through various levels of appeals the couple gave up, swallowing a $13,000 penalty. ($10,000 to the state of New York as a penalty for violating their anti-discrimination laws and $1,500 to each of the lesbians.)

    So now Robert and Cynthia Gifford have resumed renting their property for weddings, ostensibly available for the use of any couple who can legally wed in the state of New York (and who can afford the fee). They have, however, decided to take a "poison pill" approach to same sex couples. Their website now carries this warning/disclaimer:
    At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council.

    For those who are unfamiliar with them, the Family Research Council is an SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group*. This tactic is perfectly legal and does not seem to fall afoul of any anti-discrimination laws, even ones that prohibit a "hostile environment". It could even be argued that this kind of full disclosure is laudable, given that couples getting married usually don't think about (or care) what happens to their wedding money after they spend it.

    Of course there's a good chance this may backfire, losing the Giffords not just the custom of any same-sex couples but also a lot of opposite-sex couples as well. For Robert and Cynthia Gifford it probably won't since anyone who Googles their farm will probably come across this case so anyone who doesn't want to give money to homophobes will likely stay away even without this notice, but it might have a negative impact for anyone else trying it.


    *The SPLC does not designate every group opposed to gay rights as a "hate group". You have to really work at it to get that designation.
  • I think they're still arseholes but I think it's a fair way to deal with the situation. They have to treat people equally but they don't have to like it and their customers don't get to choose what is done with their money afterwards.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Still hostile and discriminatory.
    "You niggers can eat here, But we are giving part of the money you spent to the Klan"
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    I doubt it's illegal though.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Would they go ahead and do a SSM if someone asked, even with the caveats?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    As I said, I believe the problem will be self-correcting. Not every American jurisdiction has anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation, yet even in those places very few businesses are willing to put up "No Queers" signs despite it being perfectly legal to do so in those jurisdictions. This is mostly because most business owners who are inclined to discriminate prefer to do so on the down-low, discriminating against gay people but not risking the business of any sympathetic straight people.

    With the Cliffords the calculus is a little different, since anyone who Googles them will come across their protracted legal battle. I'm guessing their thinking is that as long as that's going to be widely known (or at least knowable) there's little to be lost by publicly associating themselves with the FRC. For someone who doesn't have that reputation already I suspect this is not going to be a popular strategy, largely because if it was someone would be doing it already.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Interesting development in one of those wedding-based discrimination cases. A couple in New York state would routinely rent out their farm for weddings but refused to do so for a lesbian couple. After the case wound its way through various levels of appeals the couple gave up, swallowing a $13,000 penalty. ($10,000 to the state of New York as a penalty for violating their anti-discrimination laws and $1,500 to each of the lesbians.)

    So now Robert and Cynthia Gifford have resumed renting their property for weddings, ostensibly available for the use of any couple who can legally wed in the state of New York (and who can afford the fee). They have, however, decided to take a "poison pill" approach to same sex couples. Their website now carries this warning/disclaimer:
    At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council.

    For those who are unfamiliar with them, the Family Research Council is an SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group*. This tactic is perfectly legal and does not seem to fall afoul of any anti-discrimination laws, even ones that prohibit a "hostile environment". It could even be argued that this kind of full disclosure is laudable, given that couples getting married usually don't think about (or care) what happens to their wedding money after they spend it.

    Of course there's a good chance this may backfire, losing the Giffords not just the custom of any same-sex couples but also a lot of opposite-sex couples as well. For Robert and Cynthia Gifford it probably won't since anyone who Googles their farm will probably come across this case so anyone who doesn't want to give money to homophobes will likely stay away even without this notice, but it might have a negative impact for anyone else trying it.


    *The SPLC does not designate every group opposed to gay rights as a "hate group". You have to really work at it to get that designation.

    Blimey. What a bunch of charmers the FRC are!
  • Jimmy Carter weighs in:
    “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else”
  • I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.

    Well indeed. They can be as politically misguided as anyone else.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Yay, Jimmy!
    (not worthy)

    And there's already at least one gay Republican group: Log Cabin Republicans.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 11
    I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.

    That kind of concern trolling was probably more convincing before the Republicans adopted a thrice-married serial adulterer as their standard bearer. Of course the quote comes from a column written in 2004 praising Rush Limbaugh, a serial adulterer who was at the time in the process of separating from his third wife. Limbaugh has since married a fourth time, because marriage is so important to Republicans they want to have as many as possible, apparently. Mr. O'Rourke has only had two marriages, so apparently he's not as "pro-marriage" as Limbaugh.

    Just out of curiosity, what sort of things are "more important" than your family and your God?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, what sort of things are "more important" than your family and your God?
    Destroying other people's families, and their right to worship their god as they see fit? I mean speaking on behalf of Republican Evangelicals.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Thatcheright--

    And, respectfully, did Maggie Thatcher support the things you are implying? (Cross-pond question. I really don't know.)

    Thx.
  • Margaret Thatcher was involved in section 28, which prevented any promotion of homosexuality
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Thx.
  • Today's New York Times (requires use of a free click) has an article by "biblical scholar" Idan Dershowitz arguing that Leviticus 18 originally permitted gay sex and was later edited to say the contrary.

    (The article also says things about incest that made my head hurt).

    Thoughts, anyone?
  • So if you were only prevented from having homosexual incest, heterosexual incest was OK?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I did not find it a very convincing article. He treated (eg) the prohibition on sex with the aunt as contradicting the prohibition on sex with your uncle and thus not condemning homosexual practices. I don't read it as a contradiction but rather a fresh prohibition. Perhaps there's something in the Hebrew which helps his conclusion. I have absolutely no Hebrew at all, so can't comment on that, but the author does not refer to any either.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It's bollocks. Utter and absolute bollocks.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's bollocks. Utter and absolute bollocks.
    Irrelevant. When you stone your children at the city gates for misbehaviour,* then Christians can pretend that they follow the bible without modification.

    *And other such instructions.

Sign In or Register to comment.