Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Exactly. Like when the north was about to win the civil war, Lincoln allowed some slavery to be legal.
Or when the allies were on the brink of victory, they went and allowed some concentraition camps to open again.
Also, folding and voting against human rights to keep your hand on some property doesn’t sound like winning to me.
Maybe you meant the Charlie Sheen kind of “winning”?
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
I will! Fuck them, it was a shit decision, good job appeasing the regressives, well done guys.
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their “divorce” amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren’t actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.
Exactly. Like when the north was about to win the civil war, Lincoln allowed some slavery to be legal.
Or when the allies were on the brink of victory, they went and allowed some concentraition camps to open again.
Also, folding and voting against human rights to keep your hand on some property doesn’t sound like winning to me.
Maybe you meant the Charlie Sheen kind of “winning”?
I will! Fuck them, it was a shit decision, good job appeasing the regressives, well done guys.
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their “divorce” amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren’t actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.
Violent victories over political ideology. If you want to be an apologist for evil don’t be surprised when we think you’re evil.
Is your reading comprehension so low that you do not realize that I am “apologizing” for gay people who are supporting gay rights?
It makes it sound like you think gay people are evil.
If self awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
You don’t even know the definition of apologist, I’ll give you a clue, has nothing to do with apologising.
Just to help you out. When an apologist is in action, what are they doing? I will give you a hint. It isn’t “apologistizing”.
You’re too stupid even a dictionary can’t save you.