• SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.

    “We only voted against human rights so the people who are against those human rights can leave with all their money and property intact, we promise!”

    Man, you’re making these “progressive” churches sound wonderful!

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      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.

      We will see if they make good on it next year.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.