Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

You assume, erroneously Syriusly, that the US Supreme Court will be weighing this question in favor of adults with kids as only a secondary consideration.

I can virtually guarantee you that it will be the opposite of that this time around. This time around the Court knows their Decision will be read far and wide. As such, they will be very careful to include every parameter of the most important people in marriage: children. And they will understand this time around that states get nothing but loss from incentivizing marriage...except the payoff that producing excellent children/future citizens that make the state less expensive to run in the long run. The privelege of marriage in any state is that state's investment in its future citizens. Otherwise there would be no earthly reason for a state to be involved in marriage at all. Most states I know are not giddy about giving out random tax breaks for zero reason.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I would like the moderators to notice that Saintmichaeldefendthem (in antagonist role), Syriusly and Paint are all LGBT activists engaged in a make-believe flame war calculated to disappear this thread because of the importance of the poll results in it.

This wouldn't be the first time this trick has been used to try to "disappear" threads with subject matter, headings or poll results the cult doesn't like..

You have an extremely high opinion of your own importance, Silly...and it has NO basis in reality. You are having delusions of grandeur again.

 

[TooTall]

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?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.

I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.

That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.

No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

You have an extremely high opinion of your own importance, Silly...and it has NO basis in reality. You are having delusions of grandeur again.

Thanks for bumping the thread Jar Jar. People need to see those poll results.

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?

 

[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?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.

I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.

That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.

No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

Any church can refuse to marry a couple for any reason it wants to- the most common reason being that one or both of the couple is the wrong 'flavor' of Christianity- but a church could reject a couple for any reason it wanted to- because the couple was Jewish- because they were previously divorced- because they had lived together before marriage- because they were from Mexico because they were black or because they are homosexual.

Churches- synogoguges- Temples- mosques- can exclude anyone that they want from any activities that they want to.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?

LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans.

There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines.

Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.

And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

You assume, erroneously Syriusly, that the US Supreme Court will be weighing this question in favor of adults with kids as only a secondary consideration.

I can virtually guarantee you that it will be the opposite of that this time around..

You are delusional.

 

[koshergrl]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
..

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

Yeah, this is what progressives do.

If they can't get the people to approve legislation they propose, and they haven't the support to force laws the people reject (repeatedly) upon them, then they just change the definition of the terms, so that whatever depraved activity they are attempting to force upon the public against it's wishes suddenly becomes something else.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?

LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans.

There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines.

Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.

And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.

Westboro Baptist Church is one small church, with a small congregation.

It speaks volumes of the anti-Christian homo promoters that it is the "go to" example of wide-spread Christian *hatred*. If this alleged hatred and bigotry was so wide spread, there would be examples world wide, and you'd hear our leaders praising Westboro all over the place. Like your leaders praise hate mongers like Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, and various and assorted Muslim pigs.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.

1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
..

The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

Yeah, this is what progressives do.

If they can't get the people to approve legislation they propose, and they haven't the support to force laws the people reject (repeatedly) upon them, then they just change the definition of the terms, so that whatever depraved activity they are attempting to force upon the public against it's wishes suddenly becomes something else.

I will repost my post again- just because your response amuses me- feel free to tell us why you think the Supreme Court was wrong in each of these declarations that marriage is a right- starting with Loving v. Virginia:



Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?

LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans.

There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines.

Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.

And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.

Westboro Baptist Church is one small church, with a small congregation.

It speaks volumes of the anti-Christian homo promoters that it is the "go to" example of wide-spread Christian *hatred*. If this alleged hatred and bigotry was so wide spread, there would be examples world wide, and you'd hear our leaders praising Westboro all over the place. Like your leaders praise hate mongers like Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, and various and assorted Muslim pigs.

Silhouette and yourself would be right at home with Westboro.

I pointed out that Westboro consists mainly of family members- but I am sure you could be accepted there.

I can't imagine any mainstream church that would want you.

 

[koshergrl]

I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said. You seem to think that if you don't agree with a comment, then it has no validity. I'm here to tell you that's a juvenile supposition, and your ignorance won't compel me to waste time trying to make you understand simple English.

 

[Skylar]

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?

What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?

Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.

I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.

That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.

No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.

I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one. What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true. I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.

The church that judge Leon Bazille went to perhaps?

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.


Judge Leon Bazile, ruling on Richard and Mildred Loving

Not many *do*. But its clear that prohibitions against interracial marriage have a religious doctrinal pedigree in the past. After being overturned by the USSC legally, not so much anymore.

Lets hope that religious prohibitions against gay marriage follow the same pattern.

 

[koshergrl]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

 

[Syriusly]

I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.

Or apparently to even post a coherent response.

 

[Syriusly]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

 

[koshergrl]

I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.

Or apparently to even post a coherent response.

Like I said, just because you don't understand English doesn't mean a thing to me.

Nothing gets through the chatter in your head. It's sad, but common amongst your type.

 

[koshergrl]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

 

[Skylar]

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.

I'm sure you think you made a point here.

That religious justification for restrictions on marriage don't always hold up legally, or make much sense rationally?