Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides. Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no. Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract. A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless. Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates. Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace. The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage. But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.

No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree. If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory. Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry. What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...

Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.

I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

I'm a live and let live guy too, for the most part... but if I see a woman getting beat by a man in the street I'm gonna butt in. My guess is she's full of bile for good reason. I've got more than a little bile for democrats.... I have zero patience for them on economic issues, but only because their idea of a good economy is to rape my income.[/QUOTE]

.

Tell me about it $106K in federal income tax last year. I guess Obama knows best.......................

 

[JakeStarkey]

"But I'm sure you can see the courts forcing churches to adopt orphans to go to gay pride homes in violation of their core faith...or risk losing public funding to keep their orphans in care..." Then forego the government money.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.

I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.

What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss



>>>>

My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.

Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary. That wasn't the question.

A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain. If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain. A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.



>>>>

Ship's captains don't perform weddings at all. That's a myth. The actual ceremony is conducted by a licensed person, and by federal law, any weddings performed aboard, MUST be performed while the ship is docked and the prevailing laws of whichever jurisdiction the ship is docked in apply. Which means you must have all legal paperwork etc etc from that jurisdiction and be approved.....

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

To be no different you would have to complete your post to something like this:

"Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me. So because the speech is absolutely disgusting to me, then the 1st Amendment right to free speech doesn't apply and the government can discriminate against them.

​

Now that makes the two statements the same as they both advocate for the removal of government protections based on the fact that you find something disgusting.



>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides. Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no. Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract. A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless. Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates. Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace. The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage. But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.

No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.

You are wrong. I'll start with the first state in the list of states:

To get married in the state of Alabama:

• If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell me about it $106K in federal income tax last year. I guess Obama knows best.......................

That's their money you didn't build that. You didn't earn that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.

I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.

What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss



>>>>

My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.

Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary. That wasn't the question.

A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain. If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain. A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.



>>>>

Ship's captains don't perform weddings at all. That's a myth. The actual ceremony is conducted by a licensed person, and by federal law, any weddings performed aboard, MUST be performed while the ship is docked and the prevailing laws of whichever jurisdiction the ship is docked in apply. Which means you must have all legal paperwork etc etc from that jurisdiction and be approved.....

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

To be no different you would have to complete your post to something like this:

"Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me. So because the speech is absolutely disgusting to me, then the 1st Amendment right to free speech doesn't apply and the government can discriminate against them.

​

Now that makes the two statements the same as they both advocate for the removal of government protections based on the fact that you find something disgusting.



>>>>

No you missed a negative. Stopping government from regulating marriage is the same as stopping government from regulating speech. He's saying defending disgusting gay relationships by stopping government from regulating relationships, is the same as defending disgusting speech by stopping government from regulating speech. Recognize that speech is a social interaction, possibly including a social relationship. So his comparison is dead on.

I don't disagree with the idea that we should have an amendment that recites:
Congress shall make no law respecting a marriage between consenting adults, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. IOW let the feds define what a consenting adult is if they must, but other than that... it's none of the feds business.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides. Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no. Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract. A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless. Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates. Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace. The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage. But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.

No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.

You are wrong. I'll start with the first state in the list of states:

To get married in the state of Alabama:

• If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

Okay, I am wrong, to a point. I don't believe a 14 year old couldn't marry a 60 year old, even in alabama

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides. Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no. Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract. A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless. Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates. Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace. The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage. But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.

No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.

You are wrong. I'll start with the first state in the list of states:

To get married in the state of Alabama:

• If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

Okay, I am wrong, to a point. I don't believe a 14 year old couldn't marry a 60 year old, even in alabama

Yeah... that's why IMO the only valid type of federal regulation here is regulating what a consenting adult is. You shouldn't be able to sell your 14year old daughter to a 40year old man across state lines.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah... that's why IMO the only valid type of federal regulation here is regulating what a consenting adult is. You shouldn't be able to sell your 14year old daughter to a 40year old man across state lines.

Don't tell that to Harvey Milk fans. He took a 16 year old minor across state lines in violation of the Mann Act; as he was sodomizing the boy and acting as his father figure/guardian while he was doing it.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't tell that to Harvey Milk fans. He took a 16 year old minor across state lines in violation of the Mann Act; as he was sodomizing the boy and acting as his father figure/guardian while he was doing it.

Of course there is absolutely no evidence that any such thing ever happened.

Just a fiction created by anti-homosexual bigots.

 

[Conservative65]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

 

[Conservative65]

What's with "fags", averagebear. We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers. Don't deny it. If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.

Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags. Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which is no better and no worse than being straight.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Which is no better and no worse than being straight.

In your opinion Jake

Which you're welcome to.

 

[Syriusly]

What's with "fags", averagebear. We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers. Don't deny it. If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.

Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags. Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.

Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What's with "fags", averagebear. We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers. Don't deny it. If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.

Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags. Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.

Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.

Lakhota

 

[mdk]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.

 

[Conservative65]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.

When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.

The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.

 

[Syriusly]

"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.

Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.

I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.

There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.

When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.

The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.

For the same reason no Catholic Church has been forced to marry a Jewish couple and no Mormon Temple has been forced to marry a Evangelical Christian couple, the answer is- NO- churches should not be- and will not be- forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the requirements of that church.