• @Nahvi
    link
    English
    -19 months ago

    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.

    • @LemmysMum
      link
      English
      19 months ago

      Violent victories over political ideology. If you want to be an apologist for evil don’t be surprised when we think you’re evil.

      • @Nahvi
        link
        English
        -19 months ago

        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.

        • @LemmysMum
          link
          English
          09 months ago

          reading comprehension so low

          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.

          • @Nahvi
            link
            English
            -19 months ago

            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”.

            • @LemmysMum
              link
              English
              19 months ago

              You’re too stupid even a dictionary can’t save you.