Religious Freedom & ‘Gay Marriage’ Cannot Coexist

[PratchettFan]

If a person is following their religion they should not be forced to recognize the validity of gay marriage. It goes beyond "if you don't believe in same sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex". It goes to the florist who doesn't want to provide flowers for a same sex wedding. It goes to the counselor who doesn't want to counsel same sex couples. It reaches right into the beliefs of everyone. Gays don't want to "live along side" heterosexual families. They want to force others to accept them as heterosexual families.

No, they want to force the government, who is not supposed to be a biased or religious entity, into recognizing their marriage legally.

They would like the rest of you bastards to recognize them as normal, but only a fucking retarded monkey would believe they could force public perception.

Then there is no problem whatsoever in securing the freedom of contract to everyone is there? The government must recognize same sex marriage for purposes of state and federal benefits, but everyone else is free to make their own decisions.

That would depend upon how far you are willing to take that. For example, it is currently illegal for your employer to discriminate against you on the basis of race. Is that acceptable or should that no longer be illegal?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is one of the holiest of Chrstian rituals. It has a spiritual dimension. If gays had any common decency or religious tolerance they wouldn't insist on calling calling their unions marriage. Instead, they forge ahead with their onslaught against Christianity.

The OP is correct.

I'm Jewish. Does that mean I can't get married, since it's a "Christian ritual"?

There are many religions in the world that have no problem marrying 2 people of the same sex. What makes your religion more important than mine, or anyone else's?

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

So, there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage? Those who are not religious are not married?

 

[Underhill]

If a person is following their religion they should not be forced to recognize the validity of gay marriage. It goes beyond "if you don't believe in same sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex". It goes to the florist who doesn't want to provide flowers for a same sex wedding. It goes to the counselor who doesn't want to counsel same sex couples. It reaches right into the beliefs of everyone. Gays don't want to "live along side" heterosexual families. They want to force others to accept them as heterosexual families.

No, they want to force the government, who is not supposed to be a biased or religious entity, into recognizing their marriage legally.

They would like the rest of you bastards to recognize them as normal, but only a fucking retarded monkey would believe they could force public perception.

Then there is no problem whatsoever in securing the freedom of contract to everyone is there? The government must recognize same sex marriage for purposes of state and federal benefits, but everyone else is free to make their own decisions.

Do I think a flower shop should be allowed to deny service to gay couples? Sure, so long as I am allowed to stand out front with a big fucking sign that reads "Homophobes Here!".

But that isn't likely. So I'm thinking business owners should have to treat everyone the same. Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. So get over it.

 

[Underhill]

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

That is shit in so many ways.

I know with what esteem you hold marriage by your very choice of words.

Only been married for 18 years. But you keep telling yourself that if it will let you sleep better at night.

 

[KevinWestern]

Unfortunately, in our ever-”progressive” culture, being Christian has fast become a most dangerous proposition. As each homofascist demand is checked from liberals’ sin-centric wish list, it only gets worse.

Here’s the thing; the gov’t is simply an extension of the voter-ship and will evolve (in theory) alongside the evolution of the thoughts and opinions of the people it serves. If the people want heavy censorship of TV programs, the gov't will deliver laws that heavily censors TV programs. If the people (as a whole) do not like gay marriage and do not accept it, the gov't will only recognize opposite sex marriage.

However, we've seen a shift in thinking when it comes to gay marriage when you compare the US population in 1950 vs 2013. People are beginning to accept gay marriage as OK and mainstream, and (naturally) the laws of State and Local gov'ts are changing to reflect that shift in thinking.

My point is that the gov'ts role is NOT to maintain Christian values - for instance - from now to all eternity, but instead to evolve alongside whatever values the population it serves holds at any given time.

So, with that said - what are you upset about? Are you upset that the gov't is changing the rules to better reflect what the population of TODAY wants?

.

 

[Mertex]

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

If marriage is a religious thing, then churches do not have to marry same sex couples. But marriage is also a "state" thing, you have to have a state license to get married, and that is so you can enjoy the benefits afforded to married couples. Same sex couples should be allowed to be married under "state" law, and that does not affect anybody else's religion related marriage.

Adultery is also considered a "sin" among Christians, so why aren't Christians trying as vigorously to punish adulterers as they do to punish homosexuals?

 

[Underhill]

Marriage may be a religious thing. But it is also a secular institution that is used in tax law, estate law and property law.

I've said many times that if you want to take marriage completely out of the public sector, so that in the governments eyes everyone is in a "legal partnership" and marriage only happens in a church, I am okay with that.

But it is a hell of a lot more difficult than the alternative. So much easier to just let anyone marry and let the homophobes bitch about it until they die off and the more enlightened offspring take over.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Marriage is one of the holiest of Chrstian rituals. It has a spiritual dimension. If gays had any common decency or religious tolerance they wouldn't insist on calling calling their unions marriage. Instead, they forge ahead with their onslaught against Christianity.

The OP is correct.

I'm Jewish. Does that mean I can't get married, since it's a "Christian ritual"?

There are many religions in the world that have no problem marrying 2 people of the same sex. What makes your religion more important than mine, or anyone else's?

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

The fact that atheists get married every day implies that marriage is not "ultimately" a "religious illustration of man joined with God".

And the fact that many churches have no problem marrying two partners of the same sex implies that the laws as of now are "discriminating" against those churches that would be happy to marry same sex partners.

 

[ShackledNation]

Allowing gays to marry does not force Christians to change any of their beliefs. They can still practice their religion and get married as usual. No Christian will be forced to enter into a gay marriage against their will. This post is nonsense.

Marriage is one of the holiest of Chrstian rituals. It has a spiritual dimension. If gays had any common decency or religious tolerance they wouldn't insist on calling calling their unions marriage. Instead, they forge ahead with their onslaught against Christianity.

The OP is correct.

1. No religion has a monopoly on the term marriage.
2. Religious freedom does not mean conformity to Christianity or the religion of the majority.
3. Gays calling their unions marriage is not an onslaught against Christianity--it does not in any way change what Christians call marriage.

 

[LittleNipper]

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

If marriage is a religious thing, then churches do not have to marry same sex couples. But marriage is also a "state" thing, you have to have a state license to get married, and that is so you can enjoy the benefits afforded to married couples. Same sex couples should be allowed to be married under "state" law, and that does not affect anybody else's religion related marriage.

Adultery is also considered a "sin" among Christians, so why aren't Christians trying as vigorously to punish adulterers as they do to punish homosexuals?

Many churches will not marry people who have divorced their spouses. I would call that punishment.

 

[LittleNipper]

Allowing gays to marry does not force Christians to change any of their beliefs. They can still practice their religion and get married as usual. No Christian will be forced to enter into a gay marriage against their will. This post is nonsense.

Marriage is one of the holiest of Chrstian rituals. It has a spiritual dimension. If gays had any common decency or religious tolerance they wouldn't insist on calling calling their unions marriage. Instead, they forge ahead with their onslaught against Christianity.

The OP is correct.

1. No religion has a monopoly on the term marriage.
2. Religious freedom does not mean conformity to Christianity or the religion of the majority.
3. Gays calling their unions marriage is not an onslaught against Christianity--it does not in any way change what Christians call marriage.

No government has a right to redefine marriage of its own volition. Freedom of religion really means that people can exclude others for the sake of their beliefs and not have to answer for it. The same is true of those who will not go to war because they object on religious grounds...

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

If marriage is a religious thing, then churches do not have to marry same sex couples. But marriage is also a "state" thing, you have to have a state license to get married, and that is so you can enjoy the benefits afforded to married couples. Same sex couples should be allowed to be married under "state" law, and that does not affect anybody else's religion related marriage.

Adultery is also considered a "sin" among Christians, so why aren't Christians trying as vigorously to punish adulterers as they do to punish homosexuals?

Many churches will not marry people who have divorced their spouses. I would call that punishment.

The state will though...that was the point. That same would be true of gay marriage. The state will marry homosexuals, churches will not.

 

[Mertex]

Many churches will not marry people who have divorced their spouses. I would call that punishment.

Whoopee Doo! They can always find another church who will. That's not punishment.

Not being able to use the Commissary/BX, not being able to visit them in hospital when only next of kin are allowed, not being able to file as married for tax purposes, not being able to put partner on healthy policy, not being allowed to make legal decisions.....etc., etc.,

now that's punishment, and all because some people have an aversion to homosexuality?

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm Jewish. Does that mean I can't get married, since it's a "Christian ritual"?

There are many religions in the world that have no problem marrying 2 people of the same sex. What makes your religion more important than mine, or anyone else's?

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

The fact that atheists get married every day implies that marriage is not "ultimately" a "religious illustration of man joined with God".

And the fact that many churches have no problem marrying two partners of the same sex implies that the laws as of now are "discriminating" against those churches that would be happy to marry same sex partners.

We do not believe in women ministers. And the fact that a women is ordained does not mean she would be considered for that position within our church. We hold to this on biblical grounds. So, we really do not care what others churches decide to do. They will ultimately have to answer to the Lord.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage is one of the holiest of Chrstian rituals. It has a spiritual dimension. If gays had any common decency or religious tolerance they wouldn't insist on calling calling their unions marriage. Instead, they forge ahead with their onslaught against Christianity.

The OP is correct.

1. No religion has a monopoly on the term marriage.
2. Religious freedom does not mean conformity to Christianity or the religion of the majority.
3. Gays calling their unions marriage is not an onslaught against Christianity--it does not in any way change what Christians call marriage.

No government has a right to redefine marriage of its own volition. Freedom of religion really means that people can exclude others for the sake of their beliefs and not have to answer for it. The same is true of those who will not go to war because they object on religious grounds...

Government redefined marriage to include interracial couples. Did the government have a right to do that? Freedom of religion means you can exclude others from your religion, yes. They cannot exclude others from government services. You need to separate the legal aspect of marriage with the religious aspect. Allowing same-sex marriage licenses only changes the legal aspect, and allows those who believe same-sex marriage is ok to practice those beliefs.

 

[LittleNipper]

Many churches will not marry people who have divorced their spouses. I would call that punishment.

Whoopee Doo! They can always find another church who will. That's not punishment.

Not being able to use the Commissary/BX, not being able to visit them in hospital when only next of kin are allowed, not being able to file as married for tax purposes, not being able to put partner on healthy policy, not being allowed to make legal decisions.....etc., etc.,

now that's punishment, and all because some people have an aversion to homosexuality?

I do not feel that two healthy strong young men should be allowed to sponge off the taxpayers so that they may be mutual friends. They cannot have children together. They both should get jobs and support themselves. This is not the case where the woman can be with child and nurtures her children and the husband works to bring home the bacon.

That aside, there are companies out there that do insure homosexual couples. They are private companies and if that is what they wish to do, that is up to them.

And I do know two couples that went to the minister of our church who were divorced and they were both denied. They were rather embarrassed but the minister was very straightforward and explained the reason from our biblical vantage.

 

[LittleNipper]

1. No religion has a monopoly on the term marriage.
2. Religious freedom does not mean conformity to Christianity or the religion of the majority.
3. Gays calling their unions marriage is not an onslaught against Christianity--it does not in any way change what Christians call marriage.

No government has a right to redefine marriage of its own volition. Freedom of religion really means that people can exclude others for the sake of their beliefs and not have to answer for it. The same is true of those who will not go to war because they object on religious grounds...

Government redefined marriage to include interracial couples. Did the government have a right to do that? Freedom of religion means you can exclude others from your religion, yes. They cannot exclude others from government services. You need to separate the legal aspect of marriage with the religious aspect. Allowing same-sex marriage licenses only changes the legal aspect, and allows those who believe same-sex marriage is ok to practice those beliefs.

The law would force private businesses to accept and insure homosexual couples even where such companies had a decidedly religious foundations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS illustration of man joined with God. At the very least even in the Jewish tradition marriage was invented by God on the sixth day ---when Eve was created for Adam, brought to Adam as a part of Adam.

The fact that atheists get married every day implies that marriage is not "ultimately" a "religious illustration of man joined with God".

And the fact that many churches have no problem marrying two partners of the same sex implies that the laws as of now are "discriminating" against those churches that would be happy to marry same sex partners.

We do not believe in women ministers. And the fact that a women is ordained does not mean she would be considered for that position within our church. We hold to this on biblical grounds. So, we really do not care what others churches decide to do. They will ultimately have to answer to the Lord.

From a legal standpoint, your church is no more "valid" than any other church - including churches that support same sex marriage.

 

[ShackledNation]

No government has a right to redefine marriage of its own volition. Freedom of religion really means that people can exclude others for the sake of their beliefs and not have to answer for it. The same is true of those who will not go to war because they object on religious grounds...

Government redefined marriage to include interracial couples. Did the government have a right to do that? Freedom of religion means you can exclude others from your religion, yes. They cannot exclude others from government services. You need to separate the legal aspect of marriage with the religious aspect. Allowing same-sex marriage licenses only changes the legal aspect, and allows those who believe same-sex marriage is ok to practice those beliefs.

The law would force private businesses to accept and insure homosexual couples even where such companies had a decidedly religious foundations.

What laws? Insure against what? We have many states with legal same-sex marriage. Examples?

 

[Mertex]

I do not feel that two healthy strong young men should be allowed to sponge off the taxpayers so that they may be mutual friends.

How are they sponging off taxpayers? So, you're against a woman working and her husband staying home to take care of the kids? Sounds to me you just have antiquated ideas and want to hold on to them.

They cannot have children together.

Many heterosexual couples cannot have children, should we preclude them from getting married? What about couples that marry when they're older, you think that shouldn't be allowed because they won't have children? Since when does "being able to have children" become a pre-requisite for marriage?

They both should get jobs and support themselves. This is not the case where the woman can be with child and nurtures her children and the husband works to bring home the bacon.

What do you care if someone wants to support someone else? Who are you, the "fair support police"? Is that the reason Republicans don't want to allow same-sex marriage, because they want everyone to be the way they imagine them to be?

Sick.

That aside, there are companies out there that do insure homosexual couples. They are private companies and if that is what they wish to do, that is up to them.

Probably charge more for less. Why should they have to settle for some rinky dink insurance company just to satisfy the archaic beliefs of those who are anti same-sex marriage.

And I do know two couples that went to the minister of our church who were divorced and they were both denied. They were rather embarrassed but the minister was very straightforward and explained the reason from our biblical vantage.

Okay, so you belong to a church that doesn't believe in "forgiveness". That's weird, because I thought it was Christians that were against same-sex marriage, and I believe that Christians practice forgiveness, and divorce is not an unforgiveable sin.