Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Cecilie1200]

Such an angry person you are after reading the bible. What's your real problem? You're attracted to the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess. Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.

Jesus said marriage is a man and woman. Was Jesus judgmental?

If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.

Nice try, Sparkles, but no. Once again, just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true.

The word "eunuch" comes from both Latin and Greek roots; the Greek word "eunukhous" translates to "castrated man", although it derived its own roots from the words "eune", meaning "bed", and "okhos", meaning "keeper of". Eunuchs, of course, were popular as harem guards, since they could obviously be trusted not to violate the women.

 

[Ibentoken]

States have the authority do pass such laws. The federal government doesn't. I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.

Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscr
imination in accordance with the 14th amendment.

Bull. Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.

 

[Peach]

States have the authority do pass such laws. The federal government doesn't. I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.

Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.

Nope. The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws. It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.

Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state. I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.

I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status. The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights. This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.

The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.

Interesting. So what you're telling us is that you equate not wanting to personally participate in someone's life as denying him the ability to live that life as he wishes.

Of course, you're also telling us you are utterly ignorant of how marriages work in the legal sense, and therefore should be listened to and taken seriously no more than my five-year-old would be.

Here's a tip: Just because you have the right to express uninformed and laughably stupid opinions in public doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.

Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you. It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.

I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.

Good response.

Awesome post, great job. I agree 100%, finally someone gets it.

All I was trying to do is get someone to be consistent and and not ignore the question, because the issues are interconnected. This is a question of free association and property rights.

It is not a question of "my FEELINGS!" or "I am owed goods and services by merely existing(public accommodations)" in regards to liberal, or in the case of so called conservatives who say "race and sexual orientation are two different things, how could you compare them, btw did I tell you I would love for my kids to get mixed race married".

Glad there is someone on the boards that actually believes in the novel idea of freedom and negative liberties.

It doesn't take very much time living as an adult to realize that 1) life is unfair, 2) human beings frequently suck, and 3) any attempt to change 1 and 2 by legislation will be futile and ultimately make them both worse.

 

[Ibentoken]

Fun to watch the pitiful creatures demand equality and rights while trampling and abusing constitutional rights of others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.

Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.

You don't understand. The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry. The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards. You don't, nor should you.

Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.

Um, pretty sure I just said that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state. I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.

I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status. The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights. This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.

The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.

I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

What part of the phrase "I think" was confusing to you when he used it?

Of course, you apparently didn't understand anything else he said, so perhaps you just have a reading comprehension problem in general.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's the libturd modus operandi. "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.

Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.

However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.

No, that isn't the American way. At least it wasn't until quite recently. That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl. It's actually the Stalinist way. You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal.

I have no desire to tell you how to live. You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.

Pretty sure the American Way is to resist the natural human urges to judge and to understand when something is none of your damned business and go tend to your own knitting.

We didn't coin the phrase "rugged individualism" for nothing.

I myself would consider it a great personal favor if people would stop telling me ad nauseam about their personal business so that I could get on with utterly ignoring them and not caring.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.

Public school has no business "discouraging" personal opinions and beliefs of any sort. They exist for academic education, not religious or moral education. If I want that, I'll send my kids to a private school, which almost certainly will teach the opposite of what you have personally approved.

And if you think life isn't going to teach homosexuals that they're out of the norm, whatever warm-and-fuzzy PC ideas you push in schools, you're seriously delusional. Life is harsh, and nothing you do is going to change that.

The bolded: absolute agreement.

But the one does not exclude the other.

Having personal beliefs is one thing. Acting them out in a way that hurts someone else is something completely different.

You need to learn the difference between making someone unhappy and actually harming them, I think.

I don't have a problem with schools insisting that children should be civil and polite to each other and keep their personal opinions to themselves (particularly when not requested). That's what I teach my children myself, and those are important behaviors for social animals such as humans. But there's a big difference between teaching children when and where it's appropriate to express opinions, and teaching them whether or not their opinions are "good" or "bad".

On the other hand, it's also important for children to learn that they have neither the right to nor the reasonable expectation of universal approbation, and to adjust to the fact that some people aren't going to like them or be nice to them, and that's just how the world works.

No one can hurt me without my permission. - Ghandi

 

[ron4342]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No, they should not. Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church. The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages. Getting married in a church is not free. In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.

Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.

You don't understand. The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry. The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards. You don't, nor should you.

Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.

No one's forcing you to become a lesbian.

 

[koshergrl]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No, they should not. Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church. The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages. Getting married in a church is not free. In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.

Er...no, churches are not business in the traditional sense. Their purpose is not to turn a profit. If it was we'd have disintegrated long ago and Christianity would not exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No, they should not. Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church. The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages. Getting married in a church is not free. In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.

Churches are NOT businesses. They are non-profit charitable organizations, and as such, making money is not on their list of priorities. If it was, I don't believe I would care to attend that church.

Churches exist to promote spiritual well-being among their adherents according to their individual definitions of what constitutes "spiritual well-being". It's a little hard to do that if you're contradicting those definitions in order to make money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state. I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.

I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status. The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights. This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.

The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.

I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

They can't. No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed. The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,

is irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's quite amusing how the bigots argue so hard over an issue they've already lost on.

 

[GISMYS]

I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Is it a religious dictate? If so which religion? I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing. Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.

They can't. No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed. The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,

is irrelevant.

ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.

 

[ron4342]

GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!

Oh really!!!!! Have you discussed this with your Senators or Representatives. How about your governor, mayor, and city councilmen. How about people like Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelicals?
In case you haven't been keeping track almost every day their is a politician being caught using his office for personal profit. Do you really think the ministers and other religious leaders are above that. Check out some of their private jets and get back to me.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!

Oh really!!!!! Have you discussed this with your Senators or Representatives. How about your governor, mayor, and city councilmen. How about people like Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelicals?
In case you haven't been keeping track almost every day their is a politician being caught using his office for personal profit. Do you really think the ministers and other religious leaders are above that. Check out some of their private jets and get back to me.

YES!!! GOD LOVES TO BLESS HIS FAMILY WITH MANY GIFTS,HE HAS SURE BLESSED ME!!!and you??