Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[DiveCon]

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married in a church. I wish my church would be more welcoming. I respect the UCC for having reached out to homosexuals in order to share the gospel with them. I think some branches of the Episcopalian Church maybe even the Presbyterian Church has a branch that has opened its doors to the homosexual community as well.

My church is not perfect. There are a couple of areas I would like to see changed and this happens to be one of them.

That being said, I believe that our government is corrupt including the SCOTUS and that when the government tears down that wall of Separation there will be lawsuits filed by people that hate the church that will eventually force all churches to comply. Would ending the discrimination be a bad thing? Yes, if it is done by force by the government because the next thing the government will want to do is to tell us all what church we have to attend.

Immie

I don't care if I marry in a church. What is your objection to civil marriage equality?

HE DOESNT HAVE ONE
he has stated that over and over

 

[Immanuel]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation. I may be wrong, maybe like CL and Bod nothing will happen, but I believe that there are activists out there that will sue churches in order to force them to marry homosexual couples. Not ALL homosexuals will support such suits, but there are activists out there and when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land it will be inevitable that the church will be forced to comply.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation. I may be wrong, maybe like CL and Bod nothing will happen, but I believe that there are activists out there that will sue churches in order to force them to marry homosexual couples. Not ALL homosexuals will support such suits, but there are activists out there and when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land it will be inevitable that the church will be forced to comply.

Immie

They can certainly try but it is also unconstitutional.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married in a church. I wish my church would be more welcoming. I respect the UCC for having reached out to homosexuals in order to share the gospel with them. I think some branches of the Episcopalian Church maybe even the Presbyterian Church has a branch that has opened its doors to the homosexual community as well.

My church is not perfect. There are a couple of areas I would like to see changed and this happens to be one of them.

That being said, I believe that our government is corrupt including the SCOTUS and that when the government tears down that wall of Separation there will be lawsuits filed by people that hate the church that will eventually force all churches to comply. Would ending the discrimination be a bad thing? Yes, if it is done by force by the government because the next thing the government will want to do is to tell us all what church we have to attend.

Immie

I don't care if I marry in a church. What is your objection to civil marriage equality?

HE DOESNT HAVE ONE
he has stated that over and over

You speak for Immie now?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I hate the fact that the church discriminates against the homosexual community. I do not at all believe that Christ would behave in the manner that the "Religious Right" behaves in this regard. It sickens me to no end.

On the other hand, I fear what will happen when the state tears down the wall of separation. I may be wrong, maybe like CL and Bod nothing will happen, but I believe that there are activists out there that will sue churches in order to force them to marry homosexual couples. Not ALL homosexuals will support such suits, but there are activists out there and when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land it will be inevitable that the church will be forced to comply.

Immie

What is so hard to understand about civil marriage being different from church weddings?

Gays and lesbians want the civil right to be legally married. Period

The Churches can do whatever they want.

Marriage equality does not tear down the wall of separation from church and state.

 

[Valerie]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

I am not saying any of that and since it seems like I am the only one currently posting in this thread on the "other side", I feel like I'm the one being "attacked" here.

I've made it clear I certainly wasn't referring to you.

 

[Immanuel]

Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. If you are Catholic, no matter how often you recite your vows in front of a judge, you are not married in the eyes of the Church unless you have performed the Sacrament of Marriage. (Other faiths may have less restrictive views.)

I fail to see what gains can be made by introducing thousands of new laws just so we can henceforth refer to marriage as a civil union....and what the hell that has to do with gay marriage or Christian friends of GLBT people.

Are you suggesting that religious leaders no longer be state-certified to perform weddings?

You are correct. Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. The marriage ceremony IS a religious ceremony. In the Catholic Church it is a Sacrament.

As for civil unions requiring thousands of new laws, that is preposterous. One very simple law could be written that would grant all the legal rights of marriage to civil unions.

What I have been suggesting is that the religious ceremony no longer have any legal effect. The religious ceremony would now be similar to Baptism while civil unions contracts would affect the legal aspect of a couple. A couple that wanted to have those legal advantages would need to go through the state in order to receive those benefits. I suspect there might be reasons that a couple would only want to get married in the church and could careless about the legal benefits.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. If you are Catholic, no matter how often you recite your vows in front of a judge, you are not married in the eyes of the Church unless you have performed the Sacrament of Marriage. (Other faiths may have less restrictive views.)

I fail to see what gains can be made by introducing thousands of new laws just so we can henceforth refer to marriage as a civil union....and what the hell that has to do with gay marriage or Christian friends of GLBT people.

Are you suggesting that religious leaders no longer be state-certified to perform weddings?

You are correct. Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. The marriage ceremony IS a religious ceremony. In the Catholic Church it is a Sacrament.

As for civil unions requiring thousands of new laws, that is preposterous. One very simple law could be written that would grant all the legal rights of marriage to civil unions.

What I have been suggesting is that the religious ceremony no longer have any legal effect. The religious ceremony would now be similar to Baptism while civil unions contracts would affect the legal aspect of a couple. A couple that wanted to have those legal advantages would need to go through the state in order to receive those benefits. I suspect there might be reasons that a couple would only want to get married in the church and could careless about the legal benefits.

Immie

The religious ceremony NEVER had any legal effect. You have to get a civil license to marry, then you do or don't have a religious ceremony.

 

[Immanuel]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

You would not have to repeat any vows at the courthouse. In fact, the court house would not have to do ceremonies at all. Heck, you would not even have to go to the courthouse. It would be a contract that could be signed in a law office or signed and witnessed by two friends just like every other contract.

The ceremony would only apply to those who sought to have their union blessed by the church.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

I don't care if I marry in a church. What is your objection to civil marriage equality?

HE DOESNT HAVE ONE
he has stated that over and over

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

 

[Sky Dancer]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

You would not have to repeat any vows at the courthouse. In fact, the court house would not have to do ceremonies at all. Heck, you would not even have to go to the courthouse. It would be a contract that could be signed in a law office or signed and witnessed by two friends just like every other contract.

The ceremony would only apply to those who sought to have their union blessed by the church.

Immie

You don't take vows at the courthouse. You fill out a piece of paper and pay a fee.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

You would not have to repeat any vows at the courthouse. In fact, the court house would not have to do ceremonies at all. Heck, you would not even have to go to the courthouse. It would be a contract that could be signed in a law office or signed and witnessed by two friends just like every other contract.

The ceremony would only apply to those who sought to have their union blessed by the church.

Immie

exactly
and then the government is treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law
and, there is ZERO religious influence in the process
if you want to have the ceremony after that, it is entirely up to the couple

 

[Sky Dancer]

HE DOESNT HAVE ONE
he has stated that over and over

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, a photography studio is not a church, temple or mosque. You fret for naught.

She was a Christian who felt uncomfortable performing her services at a homosexual wedding. What gave this couple the right to force her to do so?

By the way, you may have seen it, but I have posted the NJ church that was forced to comply as well further down in the thread.

The point of this link was to show the progression.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

so your hang up is in the name of the legal contract?

see, i've always thought it was all about the legal rights and not the name

 

[Valerie]

You speak for Immie now?

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

What's the problem with NOT calling it Marriage ?


Have you no regard for other people's traditions and beliefs ?

 

[Sky Dancer]

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

so your hang up is in the name of the legal contract?

I want to know what the hang up is for someone else. Why not let gays and lesbians call their unions marriage?

It's what it is.

I am legally married and I want to stay that way.

I don't want a domestic partnership.

 

[Valerie]

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

so your hang up is in the name of the legal contract?

I want to know what the hang up is for someone else. Why not let gays and lesbians call their unions marriage?

It's what it is.

I am legally married and I want to stay that way.

I don't want a domestic partnership.

So call it whatever you want.


The State has it's own legal terminology, so what?

 

[Sky Dancer]

no, i dont speak for him, but he has said it himself several times yet you keep asking him the exact same question
his own posts speak for him

His posts aren't addressing marriage equality. He is harping on separation of church and state and civil unions.

What's the problem with calling civil marriage marriage?

What's the problem with NOT calling it Marriage ?


Have you no regard for other people's traditions and beliefs ?

Why would other people's tradition be hurt by gay people CIVILLY marrying? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Sky Dancer]

so your hang up is in the name of the legal contract?

I want to know what the hang up is for someone else. Why not let gays and lesbians call their unions marriage?

It's what it is.

I am legally married and I want to stay that way.

I don't want a domestic partnership.

So call it whatever you want.


The State has it's own legal terminology, so what?

I call it what it is. I have a marriage license.