Trying to paint religion as a positive force on this issue by dropping a long list of religious groups that favor legalizing same-sex marriage, but dishonestly failing to point out that, even when combined, they represent only a very small minority of religious people in this country, and that the vast majority of religious believers are vehemently opposed to it. Otherwise, this wouldn't be going to the fucking Supreme Court in the first place.

The Catholic and Baptist "faith communities" alone outnumber the ones listed by many times, and they are rabidly opposed to sanctioning or supporting same-sex marriage in any way. Despite this moron's lame apologetics, "the assumption that people of faith are antagonistic towards same-sex marriage and gay people" is based on cold, hard numbers and the official positions of churches representing the majority of god-fearin' Americans.

If you count up the members of the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and those who adhere to Judaism you get a number of about 7.7 million. The Catholic church alone has about 68 million members and you have the anointed leader of that organization preaching that gay marriage is the work of the devil. Throw in the Baptist, Pentecostal, and Mormons and you get another 28 million and this still leaves out numerous denominations that will never support gay marriage in the foreseeable future.

So yes, there are some religious organizations that support gay marriage, but they are far overshadowed by those who actively oppose it and it ain't even close.

Despite how many members the RCC has, the US members pretty overwhelming disagree with the stance of it's leader.



The position of the leadership is clearly problematic, but it just doesn't reflect the rank and file, and that is who votes.

The numbers for baptists and pentecostals are not nearly as positive, of course, but they are changing for Mormons.

The fact is there is a trend among the religious and religious groups. Let's acknowledge that. Let's embrace that. Let's support them, instead of saying, but, but, but….. look at those who haven't joined you!

They are only overshadowed if you allow that to be the case. The majority of people in this country are religious and the majority of people in this country support glbt marriage equality. If anyone is going to be overshadowed, it will be those who maintain their opposition.



Let's leave them behind.

I find it more than a bit offensive you'd say I'd like this to be a problem, btw.

among some to accept that this is actually changing. Perhaps I misread your post, but that is how it came across.

Although I would love to see the catholic church change it's position, that's not really the issue as far as I am concerned.

I'm more interested in how the american catholics see this, because they are the one's who are going to vote. Eventually, they may force the RCC to change it's position.

Right now, there are many other denominations signing on. Are you going to give them some recognition?

This really says it all:

the base doctrines of the church. Because of this, that monolith has changed…. from time to time.

There isn't going to be any movement to withhold donations, because catholics give money to the church to support the things they embrace. As bad as the RCC is at some things, they provide more assistance to the most marginalized and disenfranchised in this world than pretty much anyone else.

They aren't apathetic, they just understand that they aren't going to change the doctrine anytime soon. In the meantime, they live their lives and support the things that they support.

I'm not a fan of the catholic church, but I am a fan of many, many catholics that I know personally or just know of. I believe that they do some really good things and I'm not going to encourage anyone to stop doing that.

Baby/bathwater and all that.

If they actually wanted to give money to the things they embrace, there's other options.

I don't give money to the Salvation Army even though I embrace some of the things they do. You really don't have to give money to bigots in order to support worthwhile causes.

as to who and where they choose to give money if you are not a part of that group, let alone judge them.

If you give money to some organizations, I would make a serious bet that you don't support 100% of what they do or what they stand for.

I'm not catholic, but I have given money to the catholic church in the past. When the AIDS crisis hit New Orleans, the catholic organizations were far ahead of the curve in terms of providing for the gay community, which was being ravaged.

It's easy to just dismiss them as bigots. It's harder to actually look at what is happening on the front lines and make a thoughtful decision about how and when to support them.

I dismiss them as people who give money to bigots, which supports bigotry.

Patronizing Chick-fil-A doesn't make you a bigot. It just makes you someone who finances bigotry.

have come to the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad.

Chik-fil-a is not complex, imo. The RCC is.

who have come to the conclusion that the bad outweighs the good?

No, maybe no organization is 100.0000% pure, but when I give money to a food bank or to Doctors without Borders, I can find out enough about them to be very confident that bigotry is not part of their mission.

On the other hand, if you give to the Catholic Church, you know with absolute, 100% certainty that bigotry IS part of their mission. Not to mention making abortion and artificial contraception illegal. All goals they pursue vigorously in countries all over the world, at the cost of millions of lives and the depravation of the rights of many more. Saying "yes, but....soup kitchens!" is a really lame and despicable way to excuse, defend and be an apologist for the support of such things.

Cant be done, actually. And there are serious allegations of intentional misuse and laundering within the church.

Dry up the money, the church will change. Period.

But if you're going to argue that not all Catholics agree with their leaders' bigoted stance and refusal to take the right side in this case, then you also have to acknowledge that many of the members of the groups you're trying to include in support of same-sex marriage don't agree with the stance of THEIR leaders on this issue, either. Can't have it both ways, cbayer, as much as you always try to.

And as far as voting..how does that matter here? This a Supreme Court case, not an election. The voting that matters, from this vast army of "liberal" and "progressive" Catholics that you claim is out there, has given us both houses of Congress and many, many state legislatures and governorships firmly in control of right-wing, bigoted, anti-intellectual fundamentalists who fight rabidly against gay rights, woman's rights, the rights of the poor, the rights of racial minorities, and everything else you claim these wonderful Catholics favor.

What needs to be "acknowledged" is this simple fact: The ONLY organized opposition to LGBT rights in this country comes from religion-from religious believers and your so-called "faith communities". Despite a small minority of believers who are decent human beings in this regard, if it were not for religion and its insane, bigoted dictates, this would not even be an issue. As much as you try to award it, cbayer, religion deserves NO credit here.

When a Catholic gives money to the church, they are supporting bigots who are actively petitioning against gay rights and actively promote hate of homosexuality. So regardless of what their personal thoughts are, they are still very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I boycott all sorts of businesses that actively support hate of homosexuality. We all have choices about where our money goes. It's not as if Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A is the only game in town. If all those Catholics really felt that strongly about support of gay rights, they could join the UU church and never be asked to give up any of their beliefs.

I've asked before with no answer.

It wasn't that long ago that the theme of anti-Catholic bigots was that every penny goes to the tyrant in Rome.

Let's have some intelligence and documented facts here.

Associating me with anti-Catholic bigots is a nice touch, btw. But I suppose that must mean anyone who dares point out Catholic church bigotry or church child rapists and cover ups, yes?

Yes, it does.

Join the club, we're all anti-catholic bigots down here.

In between your chews of popcorn, tell me more about this anti-Catholic bigotry you spoke of so warmly.

Perhaps you can point out the bigotry in our posts, I'm sure someone would love to hear all about it.

Come on, bmus, don't run away from your sincerely held belief.

BTW, I sued the singular when addressing you. Do you feel a need to use the plural when responding? Is there something you want to say that you can't without backup?

Or my belief that what goes around comes around?

In your fantasies.

Persecution complex much?

It's a spin on a tired old, species of bigotry.

Come on now, facts much?

That's your job.

Goodness you're touchy today.

Read more closely, the only one who mentioned persecution is him. I asked for facts.

It's a last ditch to brush away from whatever is at hand, so why are you so scared to answer anything at all Rug? Every question you get asked you just attack in response, why is that?

Did you get a receipt that says your donation will not be used to oppress anyone? Can you produce proof that you are not supporting their bigoted actions?

Usually someone without the ability or the integrity to speak for him or herself, invoking instead the imagined cheering of a crowd.

The reason you're having difficulty, quinton, is that I don't answer stupid questions.

You still haven't proved that anti-catholic bigots are running amok on DU.

Why?

You also have a bizarre manner of restating things in a way that, while more palatable to your sense of self, bears no semblance to reality.

I asked you to tell me more about the anti-Catholic bigotry you spoke fondly of upthread.

The only mention of "anti-catholic bigots . . . . running amok on DU" is posted right under yuor name.

No, you prefer to make inferences that won't get you a hide.

Nor is it your playpen, A&A.

Next time you want to post a flippant remark about the "anti-Catholic club" (because you could not possibly be such), make sure you do so in a sandbox where you won't be called on it.

Of course, I may be wrong. Just type "I am not anti-Catholic." I'll take those four little words at face value and ignore the thousands of words to the contrary.

BTW, learn the difference between an inference and an implication.

I don't support anti-catholic institutions, rug, do you support the largest and most bigoted religious organization in the world?

Lets go back to the post that set you off :

Now you only have to type one word instead of four. Come on, bmus, you can do it. You just have to type two letters or three.

You were last time.

I'm just enjoying how many ways you attempt to elude the obvious.

In the meantime, I'm laughing at how guliible you were to swallow the evolutionary psychology claptrap in GD. Well, maybe eager is a more accurate word than gullible.

I posted the link for entertainment purposes and said so, didn't you read the whole thread?

So nice to see you're still a fan.

I think of you often when I post.

Be specific, what part of that post says I swallowed the study?

Who supports the hundreds of hateful bishops, archbishops, and priests like Salvatore J Cordileone, Thomas Paprocki, and Francis George?

Where do you think the millions of dollars the Catholic church pours into anti-gay marriage elections comes from?
http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-catholic-hierarchys-devotion-to-fighting-marriage-equality

Are you going to ask me to prove the sky is blue and water is wet next?

I asked you where the money comes from, not how the USCCB spends it.

Do you actually think all its money comes from parish baskets? Are you that politically naïve?

Are you that politically naïve?

Wow! I kinda like your game. Works both ways, eh?

But I suspect the bulk of it comes directly from the same sources that fund the FRC and the RNC.

It's pretty obvious by now that you simply don't have the facts to support your claim and would rather spend your internet time attacking Catholics en masse, particularly those that attend church, than find out who is actually funding these campaigns.

I'm taking my son to work. Keep an eye on bmus.

Particularly when it ignores utterly the vast amounts of political money floating around that has nothing to do with parishes. That is what is fucking stupid.

You're far from the only person posting it. I have yet to see anyone post a breakdown of where the money comes from. There is no need to do the political chore of tracing it. Because . . . . religion.

Completely idiotic.

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself and what you pretended I wrote. You are just continuing with your strawman gibberish and I just ain't playin' no mo. It's getting pretty banal at this point.

Cheers!

t was banal when you typed it the first time.

Were you paying attention to the scandals involving child rape and cover ups? He's stating facts.

These aren't terribly comprehensive statistics we're dealing with. Of those Catholics who support gay marriage, we really have no idea what percentage of them are active in the Church or how many of them actually attend service on a regular basis.

If they're not showing up to mass, they aren't putting money in the plates. But on the other side of that coin is a vocal minority of hardliners who do reliably fill the pews every Sunday. It's only sensible, then, that no matter the opinion of mainstream self-identifying Catholics, it remains in the Church's best interest to side with the hardliners.

That's not to say that mainstream Catholics should throw money at the church. As you note, if they donate despite their misgivings, the Church would suffer no impetus to reform. Rather, the implication is this: numerical superiority doesn't necessarily translate to influence. And so, you are correct: there is no reason whatsoever to find these opinion polls encouraging.

While a majority of Americans may be coming around to the idea of gay marriage, that shift in opinion is largely unreflected in the country's major religions, and there is no reason to expect significant change in the immediate future.

But I do have reason to expect significant change in the foreseeable future. There's a good reason why the RCC is "softening" it's hate. The reason is because they have been hemorrhaging membership in both the mainstream and the hardliners for decades and this trend doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon, if ever. Boycotts don't require a majority to participate. They just require enough to participate to create enough of an impact to influence the management of the organization.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

Even if they don't change in the immediate future and there's little reason to suspect they will, that still isn't a good reason to keep supporting the organization. I don't expect Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A are going bankrupt anytime soon, but I'm still not going to give them my business.

Cause last I checked it was still exclusively religion vs equality. And the Episcopal Church still pedals anti-marriage equality in other countries.