Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

[
The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.

I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.

Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.

Marriage only legally binds two people together.

Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.

Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.

Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.

But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.

But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

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?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club? You mean like Augusta National Golf Club? Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.? THAT sort of private club?

Be serious, twit. We don't believe you people have any intention of respecting the rights of private organizations, and you don't believe it, either. You're just hoping we're as stupid as you are, and will be lulled into complacency by your thin, shabby lies.

 

[Syriusly]

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real. Reality isn't determined by "legally persuasive", and certainly not by YOUR perception of it. Likewise, the only person who has no argument is the one whose entire response is "slippery slope argument = invalid". Tell us WHY it's invalid; otherwise, all you've done is scream, "You're right, and I can't debate it!"

The truth is that you know very well that it's completely plausible, logical, and likely that the fact that homosexuals already sue people for "discrimination" who are exempt from public accommodation laws means they intend to do the same to churches as soon as they've nibbled away at the First Amendment sufficiently. You're just too disingenuous and cowardly to admit it.

Public Accomodation laws have been around for 50 years now.

People have been suing to enforce them for 50 years. Sued to business's that wouldn't serve blacks, business' that would not treat women equally, business' that would not treat Jews equally.

We even had a homosexual sue the Boy Scouts. And the Supreme Court told him to pound sand.

Any idiot- even homophobic idiots and homosexual idiots can file a lawsuit.
Any American can file a lawsuit to claim Constitutional rights- and that includes homosexuals and gun owners.

But in that 50 years.....there have been no successful lawsuits telling the Catholic church that they must marry Jews, or a Segregationist church that they must marry blacks.

Where is that slippery slope?

 

[Syriusly]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club? You mean like Augusta National Golf Club? Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.? THAT sort of private club?.

Yeah imagine organizations that exclude blacks and women and homosexuals being sued for discrimination?

The ones that run as business's lose.

If you don't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I suggest you push Republicans to repeal it.

I strongly approve of Republicans being the face of the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

It's about submission. The queers want Christians to shut up.

Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.

Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.

And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.

The Christian scriptures condemn homosexuality. Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman. Jesus was a homophobic bigot. Right?

No. Just out of date and irrelevant to today's society and changing social mores.

 

[Steinlight]

[
The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.

I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.

Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.

Marriage only legally binds two people together.

Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.

Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.

Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.

But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.

But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false. Currently, our government offers child tax credits and tax cuts for married couples. I support both of these things. I think these programs should be extended, along with some kind of maternity leave program. Though such a program would be more practical on a state level most likely...

 

[Steinlight]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law where two equal, consenting adult partners enter into an agreement of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. The state values that commitment and acknowledges it accordingly with marriage.

The states are not at liberty to deny access to those eligible to participate in marriage law motivated solely by animus toward gay Americans (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

No, he wouldn't. Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.

Jesus was talking about divorce at the time. Jesus never said a thing about gays, just the sexually repressed Paul...who likely was a closeted gay man.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

Yeah, like he "baked the cake" on the temple steps.

He flogged the pigs away from the temple. Jesus wouldn't bake the cake. He wasn't about submitting to depravity, ever.

Well, the Jesus I read about wouldn't thing gays were "depraved" for one thing.

 

[Seawytch]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club? You mean like Augusta National Golf Club? Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.? THAT sort of private club?

Be serious, twit. We don't believe you people have any intention of respecting the rights of private organizations, and you don't believe it, either. You're just hoping we're as stupid as you are, and will be lulled into complacency by your thin, shabby lies.

Private clubs and churches change through public pressure not government intervention.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Little help here!

.

 

[Syriusly]

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real. .

Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.

50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.

Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.

 

[Syriusly]

.

Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Little help here!

.

What traditional 'marriage cake' says "gay marriage is wrong"?

But if the guy who was turned down feels like his rights were violated(though what rights I don't know) he has the same option as the gay couple had- he can sue or ask the city to enforce the law.

 

[Syriusly]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

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?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?

If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.

If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real. .

Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.

50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.

Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.

Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail



wouldnt ever happen

 

[Syriusly]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real. .

Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.

50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.

Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.

Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail



wouldnt ever happen

Reading comprehension past the headline is important.

United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States had had a formal complaint filed against him by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.

Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.

Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline. However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.

According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail

Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?

Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:

Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding

“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”

As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint.

Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”

He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.

Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.

“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?