Belief Beat

Belief Beat


Presbyterians, U.S. Navy Tackle Gay Acceptance — Upsetting Some Christians

posted by Nicole Neroulias

Do big gay faith news stories come in threes? If so, we’ve already had two this week:

Speaking of the consequences of repealing DADT, as I had predicted, America’s elite (thank you, Navy Seals, for re-popularizing the correct meaning) universities — Harvard, Stanford, Columbia — are now taking steps to bring ROTC back. So, it would appear that the benefits — a stronger pool of officers — may outweigh the religious right’s concerns that homophobia will discourage enlistment/reenlistment. Time will tell… I’ll keep an eye on this story.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(23)
post a comment
Jester

posted May 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm


I used to be against gays in the military till I met a gay guy who was a fantastic fighter!



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted May 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm


I hope you didn’t find that out the hard way Jester.

Good for the Presbyterians and for the Navy, and boos to those conservative congressjerks. They have so much to answer for and it’s growing.



report abuse
 

Jester

posted May 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm


Nicole, why is it ok to bash conservatives here, but not liberals?



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted May 11, 2011 at 7:10 pm


No bashing here — what do you mean?



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted May 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm


cough*cough



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted May 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm


Since when are liberals not bashed around here?



report abuse
 

Jester

posted May 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm


Too funny, Nicole. You honestly didn’t see nnmns’ first post on this thread?



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm


Conservatives seem to have a very broad definition of what it means to bash them.



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted May 12, 2011 at 10:51 pm


Ah, I thought you meant the post was bashing conservatives.

As for the comments section, my general policy has been to allow political opinions here, as long as they remain relevant to the post and do not personally attack other comments.

Having said that, let’s get back on topic now.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 14, 2011 at 12:11 am


Okay. I have some questions. Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment? Also, did the conservatives really think this situation would never come up?



report abuse
 

Jester

posted May 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm


Ok. I see. So as long as it’s bashing conservative congress members and not Obama then it’s on topic and perfectly ok. That’s fair.



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted May 14, 2011 at 1:45 pm


The post talks about opposition from conservative members of Congress. Therefore, it’s on topic. (Stop whining.)



report abuse
 

Jester

posted May 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm


Somebody has the gall to point out the obvious, repeated political bias of this blog and you call it whining? I seem to remember at least one post here in the not-too-distant past about the president where I was chastised for pointing out his anti-conservative religious views. Yet if anyone uses the phrase “conservative congressjerks” it gets completely excused and written off as being “on topic”. Double standards in the mainstream media? Say it ain’t so!

I’m just a moron in his pajamas. But I expected more than this from an educated, experienced professional journalist such as yourself.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 15, 2011 at 11:49 pm


Obama is a Muslim terrorist who wants to euthanize your grandma. There, a conservative viewpoint. Could someone answer my questions now?



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted May 16, 2011 at 7:32 am


a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.



report abuse
 

Jester

posted May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm


If that’s how you’re going to address me, Mordred, then it isn’t even worth my effort to reply.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm


Robert C: “a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.”

Why?



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm


I tried to have a conversation, Jester. But you didn’t want that. You just wanted to complain about how much of a victim you think you are. Fine by me. I’ll answer my questions myself.

“Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment?”

Well, Mordred, that would require the government to recognize anything that’s not “gays are a threat to human civilization”-type Christianity as a real religion.

“Also, did the conservatives really think this situation would never come up?

Of course they knew it would come up. They just waited until it actually did so they could make the gay soldiers out to be extremists who needed to be put in their place. (This is my opinion. Obviously I don’t know what they think.)

“Is what I’m doing right now rude and immature?” Probably.

“Do I care?” At this point, not really.



report abuse
 

ce6

posted May 17, 2011 at 12:16 am


Jester, stop whining.

This whole persecution complex of conservative “Christ”ianity is annoying. One guy gets put up 2000 years ago because of his belief system (which challenged the regional authority and got him branded as a terrorist), and now, every time you don’t get EVERY SINGLE THING going the way you want it to, someone is metaphorically ripping out your fingernails and shoving them under your eyeballs.

After a couple millenia letting that mindset rule the western world (and try to do so for the rest of the planet), I think it’s time as a species we finally grow up and recognize that EVERYONE is HUMAN and deserving of the SAME rights and respect.

No special privileges to preserve bigotry regardless of how much fun it was historically. Period.
And before you ask, No, I will not tolerate your intolerance of me.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted May 17, 2011 at 7:58 am


Jester stop rattling the dingbats, it interfers with my WiFi.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted May 18, 2011 at 3:59 pm


Mordred08,

Let me answer one of those questions …

“Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment?”

Um, no. Not necessarily. Not all wedding ceremonies are “religious”. People seem to forget that there is such a thing as civil marriage. It’s one that doesn’t take place in a church (or mosque, temple, synagogue, tabernacle, etc.) and not presided over by a clergy person. Why assume the people getting married are expressing their ‘religious’ faith?

And, they should be “protected” by the Equal Protections Clause, not to mention the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. They may not be religious in nature, but that’s no valid reason not to permit them – in the civil arena (as well as in any religion that wishes to perform them).

Hope that helped.

N.B. No conservatives were bashed in the making of this post.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted May 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm


@ Robert C.

“a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.”

Nonsense. Mine sure wasn’t. I thought you were gay yourself. If and when you choose to marry the person you love, I’m sure you’ll feel differently.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted May 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm


My apologies, GOP. I didn’t consider the issue of civil ceremonies. America’s discrimination towards non-religious people is another problem that needs to be dealt with. However, I think my point is still valid as far as religious ceremonies go, as many LGBTs do consider themselves Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. (I don’t pretend to understand why.)

Now that I think about it, thanks to Clinton’s “Defense” of Marriage Act, the ceremonies won’t be legally binding, anyway. So why is Congress up in arms over it? Because there’s a large group of Americans who see them as heroes fighting back against the gay menace, even the part that risks life and limb for so they can persecute in peace.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting Belief Beat. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy:   Beliefnet News   Good News Happy Reading!  

posted 4:57:28pm Feb. 14, 2012 | read full post »

Fun Friday: Atheist Temple Planned for UK's Nonbelievers
Author Alain de Botton has announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the United Kingdom, presumably so nonbelievers have a place to gather and share their philosophies. Um... isn't that what Starbucks is for? Also, I can't wait to see how the architect will handle this kind of project. May

posted 2:53:42pm Jan. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Alaska Airlines: High Payers No Longer Offered Sky Prayers
Alaska Airlines, now the country's seventh-largest airline, has announced it will stop offering prayer cards with its in-flight meals. (It's just raining religion news in the great unchurched Pacific Northwest lately.) I've flown Alaska several times since moving to Seattle, but I confess that I'

posted 11:07:56am Jan. 26, 2012 | read full post »

Washington's Gay Marriage Debate: Clergy vs. Clergy
I reported for Reuters at the Washington state Capitol yesterday, covering the public hearings on a gay marriage bill -- and in between, the breaking news that the state Senate now has enough votes to pass the bill. (The House already had enough votes.) It now appears that Washington's lawmakers wi

posted 11:24:39am Jan. 24, 2012 | read full post »

What Israel's Domestic Policy & Santorum Supporters Have in Common
Hope everyone had an introspective Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, whether observed as a faith-related holiday, a nice break from the work week or something else entirely. Check out this story from Religion & Ethics Newsweekly about how mandatory sentencing for drug crimes and non-violent offens

posted 1:32:44pm Jan. 18, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.