Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

If I have followed the story correctly, this dedicated and popular teacher has been with his male partner for many years with the school's full knowledge of this. His sacking (more accurately, forced resignation) is as a result of his announcement that he was to finally marry his partner.

I haven't been following this story at all, but I can imagine the scenario...

I would like to suggest this could actually work out to be in the gentlemen's best interests...

He's now a "free agent", skilled in a very important domain (in this case, teaching children).

He makes his Teaching availability know to more liberal schools.

He takes a stand (I think this is already clearly happening).

He might consider suing his previous employer, or at least threaten to, to get rightful compensation (not always only (or even) money; truth is also very valuable...).

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

Gives a whole new interpretation to the old phrase "living in sin".

Originally Posted by chalsall

I haven't been following this story at all, but I can imagine the scenario...

I would like to suggest this could actually work out to be in the gentlemen's best interests...

He's now a "free agent", skilled in a very important domain (in this case, teaching children).

He makes his Teaching availability know to more liberal schools.

He takes a stand (I think this is already clearly happening).

He might consider suing his previous employer, or at least threaten to, to get rightful compensation (not always only (or even) money; truth is also very valuable...).

Great comments!

I'm sorry, I should confess at this point that I posted in haste and was confusing in my mind this recent story from Seattle, as linked by Chappy, with another recent story from Glendora, California in which another teacher at a catholic school was sacked for marrying his same sex partner, and the details I sketched refer to that story and are inaccurate with regards to the new one. That California incident also resulted in mass protests by the students against the school's decision to sack the teacher.

[chappy]

Some number of years ago, the same thing would have happened for an administrator getting divorced and remarried. And we would hear the same narrow-minded chants about sin being wrong no matter what.

Let's turn the tables a little and ask, what if God said don't eat shrimp or turtle soup, or catfish, or snails. Perhaps we might imagine that God would forbid us to eat fat or blood. Maybe God might say don't walk around without a hat or with torn clothes, or mixed fabrics, or tattoos, or mixing a few different kinds of herbs in a garden. And we might imagine a God who forbids us American Football, not because it interferes with the Sabbath--since that is Saturday and people conveniently ignore that specific rule and worship on the same day as the Romans set aside for Sol Invictus the Sun god, you know it as Sunday--but because it is unclean to touch the dead carcass of a pig.

Men without two testicles can't go to church in this imagined scenario and no bastards are allowed either. Women shouldn't braid their hair, wear gold or pearls, or expensive clothes either.

So perhaps Sin is so damned cool. Especially when you do it in a group. Like every Sunday. When you go to church to hang out with all the others defying G-d's word in deed and action.

What denomination of sinners do you belong to?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by jasong

Sin is so damn cool, and it's much more fun when you do it in a group.

If holding your breath was declared immoral by God, asphyxiation deaths would go up a thousand times.

Forgive him, FSM. He is totally deluded, and not very christian in his attitudes toward others. There is a powerful whiff of supercilious Pride here, at the very least. This could also be termed self-righteousness.

Jason, I sincerely suggest that you work on your own karma, and leave that of others to them.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

...can't go to church in this imagined scenario and no bastards are allowed either.

Interesting...

So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?

What sometimes seems to be missed is conception doesn't always require penetration.

I apologize if this causes offense.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Interesting...

So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?

What sometimes seems to be missed is conception doesn't always require penetration.

I apologize if this causes offense.

'Strange Nativities': Scientists Find 45 'Virgin Births' (and Some Virgin Fathers)

"We were analyzing data for a separate project -- people who were still virgins once they were adults. But we were surprised to discover a number of them reported pregnancies. Once we confirmed these were not programming errors, we thought there were some interesting factors."

These seemingly miraculous births were not a result of in vitro fertilization, according to the survey results. The authors also said the findings suggest the need for more -- and better -- sex education.

"We found [the "virgin birth" phenomenon] was more common among women who signed chastity pledges or whose parents indicated lower levels of communication with their children about sex and birth control," said Herring.

The immaculate conception group may have been small, but researchers did find an even larger group, whom they called "born again virgins."

"They reported in an earlier study a pregnancy, then later said they were virgins," said Herring. "Those may have been a misclassification issue."

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102

What this study adds
In a large survey representative of the US population, around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births

[kladner]

Quote:
What this study adds
In a large survey representative of the US population, around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births

A critical question in such cases would be in regard to the gender of the resulting offspring. If this were true parthenogenesis, that gender would almost have to be female, unless the mother had some strange genetic makeup.

Giving birth to a male, when one is only endowed with x chromosomes is a trick which might truly require divine intervention, such as having a bird or a crucifix fly in one's ear.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Schule_001.jpg

(I am, unfortunately, unable to locate the "crucifix-in-the-ear" painting of the annunciation. I am sure that one of the learned ones hereabout will be able to fill in this gap.)

[chappy]

Obviously someone is conflicted. But, let's not look at this as some kind of mandate. Womendates are also allowed under the ruling.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So, then, Jesus Christ wouldn't be allowed in Church, if not for the claim of his "immaculate conception"?

I generally ignore wild claims which fly in the face of science and reason -- even more so when they are based on obvious mistranslations of original source material, as the above claim is.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I generally ignore wild claims which fly in the face of science and reason -- even more so when they are based on obvious mistranslations of original source material, as the above claim is.

So, then, what is the answer to the question?

[chappy]

Just so's we are clear, Jesus' birth is not the immaculate conception, you are confusing it with the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception is the birth of Mary the mother of Jesus.

If you are going to criticize the concept you should at least start there.