"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[wfgodot]

Actually, I've seen several here do that to Charlie.

Perhaps some examples would convince me. You're being rather flippant in the response above, and that's not like you as you do try to provide links and examples in your posts, and I respect that, and you. Those whose raison d'etre seems to be mocking detailed responses with one-liners are not the perfect allies to have in a conversation like this one. These are indicative of a narrow-minded approach based on limited knowledge souped out at the trough of Rush and the gang.

Jesus wept.

 

[Seek&Find]

No? I just wrote a check for $4,000 for additional taxes because my marriage isn't recognized by the federal government, so I can't file a joint federal return with my husband.

When my husband was covered by my insurance, I had to pay taxes on that benefit because though he is my legal spouse according to California, he is not according to Washington.

Over the past 35 years, the lack of government recognition of our union has cost us tens of thousands of dollars.

And all because some people think an old book is more important than fairness and equality.

In light of the marriage tax penalty, being identified as married may not be financially beneficial.

When the 2001 Bush tax cuts were put in place, the marriage penalty tax was eliminated for most taxpayers by doubling the single standard deduction for married taxpayers. The tax brackets were also aligned accordingly, so there wouldn’t be any additional taxes just for getting married.

When the Bush tax cuts and the 2011 tax deal expire at the end of 2012, the marriage tax penalty will return, increasing taxes for many married couples.

Update: Congress passed the tax deal to extend the 2011 tax rates. Included in the tax deal was an extension on the elimination of the marriage tax penalty for two more years. The marriage tax penalty is now scheduled to return in 2013.

More here

Looks like those "Bush tax cuts" some have bemoaned had some positive impact.

But if we are addressing the tax structure, is that a political discussion?

Not sure our overly complex, often burdensome, tax structure related to the teacher's post though. :waitasec:

 

[Seek&Find]

Where are you getting this stuff? Once again you offer no link to support your assertions. Large companies were offering domestic partner benefits for at least a decade before gay marriage was legal anywhere or even much discussed.

Covering domestic partners doesn't necessarily cost any more than covering husbands and wives. And why shouldn't a gay worker have the same benefit as the worker doing the same job in the next cubicle?

As other posters have pointed out, you and Charlie seem incapable of seeing this issue from any point of view but the most narrow religious perspective.

You do realize that these are real issues at my house, yes? And not just a theoretical matter?

So same sex couples can already get benefits without a legal change to the definition of marriage. So corporations recognized to be competitive, they needed to offer domestic partner benefits without the government forcing it on them?

Yay, free market!

 

[Seek&Find]

It's always okay. It's pretending you speak for Jesus that is overreaching.

And around we go again...

Who said they were speaking for Jesus? I believe we were just quoting His Word?? You're free to reject what it says, and you have. Are we now not allowed to quote or paraphrase the Bible when addressing what the teacher said was in it??

 

[Seek&Find]

Perhaps some examples would convince me. You're being rather flippant in the response above, and that's not like you as you do try to provide links and examples in your posts, and I respect that, and you. Those whose raison d'etre seems to be mocking detailed responses with one-liners are not the perfect allies to have in a conversation like this one. These are indicative of a narrow-minded approach based on limited knowledge souped out at the trough of Rush and the gang.

Jesus wept.

I think we've moved past it, thankfully, so no need to stir it up again, in my view. I wasn't trying to be flippant. Just chose brevity. . My much longer explanation was posted after this one.

Thanks, wfgodot! I've noticed you do the same (linky, linky) and appreciate it. I respect you too. . And Charlie.

Isn't that a powerful verse? Its brevity (as well as the image it paints for us, and the context of His grief at the death of His friend) is impactful.

Likewise, sometimes one liners are hit and runs with no desire for true discussion. Other times they are powerful insights.

 

[wfgodot]

Isn't that a powerful verse? Its brevity (as well as the image it paints for us, and the context of His grief at the death of His friend) is impactful.

Yes. It's a knock-out of a verse. Along with John 3:16, it conveys a world in a very few words. (I'm a Lutheran and, during two years of confirmation classes, had for my teacher a new pastor who was insistent on his confirmands learning by rote large chunks of Scripture and our catechism. Good grief, I about lost my mind trying to do schoolwork plus that too! But I'm very glad I was made to do so. It not only gained me firm knowledge of our church's beliefs, but, as well - and more importantly - of the Bible, and it developed in me an ability to learn large chunks of other things I came to love - Shakespeare, for example.)

Okay, back on-topic!

 

[Seek&Find]

Seems the teacher conversation has run out, and I've really gotta get back to RL. Ill be too busy to post for awhile, so if someone addresses a post to me, I am not ignoring you.

Oh, in parting, green socks are best! . Lol (for you, wfgodot)

 

[Seek&Find]

Yes. It's a knock-out of a verse. Along with John 3:16, it conveys a world in a very few words. (I'm a Lutheran and, during two years of confirmation classes, had for my teacher a new pastor who was insistent on his confirmands learning by rote large chunks of Scripture and our catechism. Good grief, I about lost my mind trying to do schoolwork plus that too! But I'm very glad I was made to do so. It not only gained me firm knowledge of our church's beliefs, but, as well - and more importantly - of the Bible, and it developed in me an ability to learn large chunks of other things I came to love - Shakespeare, for example.)

Okay, back on-topic!

Appreciate you sharing that! It's nice to get to know you a little better.

I bet that was hard work! I had memorized some, and they come back when needed, but I need to read, study, and commit more to memory. :blushing: Oooh, I attended college on an English scholarship! Boy, could we chat!

Yes, so much can be encompassed in one powerful verse! And both of those are great examples. That's why it's so hard to address it all in little snips of random posts on a thread.

:hug:

 

[Seek&Find]

Popped back in as I'd forgotten I'd left out one important piece of info in discussing how sin is sin. The Bible does designate one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:31-32
The Unpardonable Sin

31*“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32*Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

So sorry for the huge error of not including that info before. I was focused on all the other sins, especially as addressed in the teacher's post.

 

[Nova]

Your assuming my prespective is religious. I have not posted one thing
about my religious beliefs.


I dont appreciate you trying to make it look like I am in some way prejudice agaisnt gay marriage ,I am not . It doesnt mean I think anyone should have any say over anothers religous beliefs or limit their freedoms.

I never said the goverment should not veiw your marriage the same as they veiw mine. The issue has alway been the freedom of this teacher to say what he feels are his veiws under his rights.

I am sorry if you feel I have not considered issues in your home as real . I assure you that is not the case ,while I dont wear you shoes and it would be impossible for me to know every sufferage I can assure you I understand some.

One of my friends grandmother is always telling him he is going to hell. She isnt joking and believes this . She loves him but her faith makes her believe this and she is to blind to see it hurts him. His mother is always posting bible quotes to his facebook. I think her belief is wrong and her actions are horrid.

I see how their opinion has affected him and I see how what they say is hurtful and harrassing and that is from his family. I do believe they are overstepping their bounds and I can see where people do abuse their freedom of religion. I just do not believe in the case of this teacher . I dont agree with him.

I will find the correct or more suitable thread for the other topic and post your links for you at a later date, as I said I havent researched it in a while but I will show you "where the hell I got that crap.'' And I do love domestic partner insurance is offered. You seem to get the idea I disagree with it ,that might be my fault for an unclear post.

I apologize sincerely. I was posting fairly late and confused you with another poster. The fault is entirely mine.

I do think your timeline is a little off. Large corporations have been offering domestic partner benefits for nearly 20 years. Gay marriage wasn't commonly discussed until some time later.

But please ignore the rest of my post. I was flat out wrong.

 

[Nova]

Ah ,it would appear that it is ok for some people to take their personal sex lives seriously, and want the other 95% of the population change the definition of marriage to suit their whim, but not the whim of another small minority that wants group marriage. Apparently, it's not ok to have personal faith beliefs without having those beliefs mocked until it's convenient to use those beliefs against them.

The bullying tactics don't work with me, neither does the baiting - It's not about any poster's personal life - if it's about the freedom to speech and freedom OF religion.

Polygamy is a smoke screen to confused the issue of marriage equality for gay couples. Group marriage is quite easily distinguishable on legal grounds that have nothing to do with religious scripture. But that, too, would be a subject for another thread.

 

[Nova]

It's our job, as Christians, when called to do so, to speak the truth in love, to share the Gospel, to provide a defense for our faith. The teacher did all of that. As stated, it's the Holy Spirit's job to take it from there. He very well could have used the teacher's post to do that for some, or to encourage his Christian Facebook friends. Do you think he just shouldn't speak unless he absolutely knows everyone who could possibly hear it will be in a place to receive it and understand it? Perhaps the message wasn't intended for you specifically? The idea that he cannot speak of his faith as some might be offended is alarming. It's called freedom of expression for a reason.

How exactly have his words damaged real children? (Some of us have already stated our opinion that a teacher should not have his or her students as Facebook friends. There are a number of reasons for that. I wonder what the parents were thinking when they allowed that. I never would.)

Have you considered that your broad brush strokes re: social conservatives might be seen as inappropriate, injurious, and humiliating? Particularly because some posters here have stated both support for the teacher's right to say what he did, their perception that he had no ill-intent, and yet their own disagreement with his beliefs, but it appears they got lumped in with us social conservatives simply because they had a different take on the teacher's full message and its intent.

Additionally, Obama's statement intermingling his beliefs with his announcement could be seen as inappropriate, injurious, and humiliating to some. Yet I don't see anyone addressing the statement he made, which precipitated the teacher's post, or his right to make it in the way he did.

I hear what you're saying, appreciate your right to say it, and appreciate you sharing your POV, but disagree with it.

Why does Barack Obama have less freedom of religion than you do?

There is nothing "loving" about comparing gays to murderers, no matter how badly you want to defend "your boy".

 

[Nova]

Interesting, in that you already admitted you cannot read the ancient languages the Bible was written in. One of the great things about this country is we can readily access the Bible. That's not true in many countries. In fact, we have many resources at our disposal, including commentaries, topical bibles, Concordances, linguistic dictionaries, scholarly dissertation, different translations to cross compare, as well as Bible scholars, theologians, ministers, priests, pastors, etc. I love God, value His Word, and work to study and understand it (though I need to do more of that). I haven't based my beliefs on any one resource. I could challenge the one authority you've chosen, but why? Frankly, I could go down that road with you to expand on the words used in the Bible, but I think it'd get into some pretty uncomfortable conversations regarding homosexual acts in parsing the words, which would be inappropriate for this forum, potentially hurtful and ultimately would not serve a purpose. No need for us to get down to the level of parsing what the definition of "is" is in addressing this teacher's post. It is interesting, IMO, that you seem to think you know what Christians know, think, and believe better than they do. :shrug: I have no desire to fight with you, we just disagree, and that's ok.

I was raised in a devout, Disciple of Christ household. I spent three or four days at church from the time I was six until I was 17. In Sunday School, I was taught by members of my immediate family from kindergarten through 9th grade. I was an officer in our Church Youth Group, not only at the congregation but at district levels; I went to a Christian summer camp when school was out. Every bookshelf in our house (and there were a lot of them) was filled, top to bottom, with Bibles and books of religious commentary.

So, yeah, I know a little something about what Christianity teaches. But I'm happy to be corrected when I err and you will find at least one post from me above thanking a current Christian for explaining the dogma better than I.

I have given you authoritative links for my understanding of Biblical passages that are used to oppose homosexuality. You have not done the same for your views.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Seek&Find said:

Do you think he just shouldn't speak unless he absolutely knows everyone who could possibly hear it will be in a place to receive it and understand it? Perhaps the message wasn't intended for you specifically? The idea that he cannot speak of his faith as some might be offended is alarming. It's called freedom of expression for a reason.

"Speaking one's faith" in this instance seems like an excuse. I'm still baffled why it seems some Christians make excuses for bigoted and marginalizing speech. They don't appear concerned about the effect it has, and now you say he may have been "encouraging" specific others, and the rest of us should have ignored him. Testifying ONLY to his Christian peers, maybe?

I wonder why many Christians, not all, but the particularly outspoken and politically active branch of it, speak such potentially hateful and discriminatory rhetoric without a lick of concern for the damage it causes. If it causes damage, well, maybe it should? I don't know, I'm trying to understand.

And trying to convince me it is NOT damaging, by frosting it with "testament of faith" is not convincing, to me. Or much of anyone, unless they are a similarly convicted Christian.

If bringing the Word to others is so important, why do you bring it in such a way? I don't understand how you can blow off the concerns so blithely with such a lack of empathy. Are the concerns just a bunch of noise from the great unwashed? I wish I could understand.

 

[Charlie09]

Polygamy is a smoke screen to confused the issue of marriage equality for gay couples. Group marriage is quite easily distinguishable on legal grounds that have nothing to do with religious scripture. But that, too, would be a subject for another thread.

So as long as it's not personal, it's ok to marginalize another person's innate attractions and wanting to share marriage with more than one person. Interesting.

 

[Charlie09]

Seek&Find said:


"Speaking one's faith" in this instance seems like an excuse. I'm still baffled why it seems some Christians make excuses for bigoted and marginalizing speech. They don't appear concerned about the effect it has, and now you say he may have been "encouraging" specific others, and the rest of us should have ignored him. Testifying ONLY to his Christian peers, maybe?

I wonder why many Christians, not all, but the particularly outspoken and politically active branch of it, speak such potentially hateful and discriminatory rhetoric without a lick of concern for the damage it causes. If it causes damage, well, maybe it should? I don't know, I'm trying to understand.

And trying to convince me it is NOT damaging, by frosting it with "testament of faith" is not convincing, to me. Or much of anyone, unless they are a similarly convicted Christian.

If bringing the Word to others is so important, why do you bring it in such a way? I don't understand how you can blow off the concerns so blithely with such a lack of empathy. Are the concerns just a bunch of noise from the great unwashed? I wish I could understand.

pot...meet kettle

 

[Nova]

Oy. Petty and hateful person. From this one post. That many read differently than you do.

I think this conversation has degenerated. Seems to me there was a golden window of opportunity for a brief moment for us to share in a healthy discussion while respectfully acknowledging differences. It appears to have closed. Glad they were some well thought out posts and attempts to be civil with each other on this thread. I respect you, Nova, but disagree with you.

Because it's not Congress making a law establishing religion. Many of our laws are based on moral standards. That does not mean they are establishing religion. We often address what's right and wrong. In fact, some posters have said it's wrong for this teacher to post what he did. That's a moral judgement.

And, upholding how marriage has always been defined is not a strictly religious position. For example, we do have the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a liberal Democrat, so the rightwing thing mentioned before does not hold water. You've already acknowledged that some who disagree with homosexuality are irreligious. In fact, some have no issue with homosexuality, but do not support gay marriage. And, changing the definition of marriage could easily be seen as impinging the free expression of religion and violating existing law.

If the conversation has degenerated, it's because only one side is discussing. The other side is merely repeating unprovable assertions and/or desperately trying to change the subject. (That last clause doesn't refer to you, Seek.)

The Supreme Court has interpreted the freedom of religion clause to apply to governments in general, not just Congress. Obviously, since SCOTUS has applied the principle to locally controlled schools.

Bill Clinton was not a liberal Democrat. He was very much a Centrist and all too quick to pander to conservatives if it only meant discarding a small group (gays) of his loyal supporters.

MARRIAGE HAS NOT "ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED" IN ANY ONE WAY. I've given you links demonstrating this and you've paid no attention. See why the conversation has degenerated?

 

[Seek&Find]

Why does Barack Obama have less freedom of religion than you do?

There is nothing "loving" about comparing gays to murderers, no matter how badly you want to defend "your boy".

:waitasec: I didn't say Obama had less freedom. I pointed out the inconsistency that some are saying the teacher had no right to say what he did, or that he shouldn't have, knowing it would be hurtful to some, but are not applying their own standard to what they or Obama said, or the way he chose to say it.

He didn't compare gays to murderers. He addressed sins, not people. And his intent was loving-to both defend his faith and share God's message of forgiveness.

 

[Nova]

:doh: Really? You think women in pants has a lot to do with the teacher's post? My sense is you want a much bigger religious discussion than this thread or forum encompass. And, if I lived in your area, I'd be happy to meet with you over coffee (I'd have a coke - coffee tastes gross! Lol) regularly to enjoy your company and a vigorous debate. And we could discuss levitical law, the old covenant, the new covenant, etc.

No. I mentioned the "women in pants" (for the record, the injunction also applies to men in women's clothing) to illustrate how YOU are picking one passage in Deuteronomy to follow, yet ignoring another that is just as condemning. (Yes, I'm assuming you have worn pants or a vest or a tie at some point in your life.)

 

[Nova]

It's not without evidence. It's with evidence you reject, which is your choice.

In fact, changing the definition of marriage, as recognized by the law and the church, would be more you imposing your beliefs on me.

So, now we want to debate where rights come from, and what constitutes a civil right? Sounds like a political discussion to me...?

There is both historical textual and archeological evidence as well as fulfilled prophecies to indicate the Bible as God's Word. Its up to each to evaluate it and decide for themselves.

You seem to solely focus on Leviticus. Now you're accusing me of not caring to follow parts of a text I hold to be Holy? With no evidence that I reject any of it, or ignore parts of it? Just because you don't apparently know about Jesus's fulfillment of the Law, and the difference between the Old Covenant and the New?

Really? Because I'm not going to assume your opposing views are based on bigotry, cruelty, or ill-intent. Even when you choose to mock faith or insult those who believe.

Oh, please. I understand perfectly well that Jesus' death represents a New Covenant to Christians. I've discussed ROMANS quite a bit here. But Paul, in his letter to the ROMANS, was relying on his knowledge of the Torah! So it all goes back to LEVITICUS in the end.

If I seem to refer to LEVITICUS more, it's only because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and discussing the injunctions that are the least equivocal. What Paul meant is very much in dispute. Although there are scholars who question LEVITICUS as well, they are fewer in number.