Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WorldWatcher]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

 

[deltex1]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.

If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?

 

[deltex1]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".

 

[Syriusly]

And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.

Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical. They are different and should get equal rights by different means.

They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.

They can be treated exactly the same under a different set of laws...because they are different.

Separate but equal never works out well.

I think it is logical, warranted, and Constitutional to treat same gender couples, and opposite gender couples- such as my wife and I- exactly the same legally.

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

Frankly i have no idea what you mean.

If you are saying that we treat same gender couples legally equally by allowing them the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy, then we are in agreement.

If you mean by 'ceremonially' a church wedding, then I will say what I have said repeatedly in this thread- no church has been, or will be forced to marry any couple it does not wish to- for whatever reason.

 

[Syriusly]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

The legal definition is a civil definition.

The religious definition is left up to the religion.

 

[Syriusly]

...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.

If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?

No.

Individuals are not churches. Churches are not individuals.

If 30 Christian business owners all refused to accomodate gay weddings- if this was the First Church of Holy Wedding Photography- and were all told that they had to comply with state law, that would have no effect on the Church.

The Church would still marry- or not marry- as it saw fit.

Just fear mongering by homophobes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".

You said before that marriage should be recognized as a religious ceremony, I pointed out that same-sex couples also get married in religious ceremonies. Now it's the government should recognize only certain religious ceremonies?

Let me guess, the religious ones you agree with?


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.

As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.

The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no? Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.

You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.

And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.

I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals

And what, may I ask, are these long term goals you are aware of?

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.

If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?

What good is the church if it's members it can't support or protect? What good is a church without it's members?

 

[deltex1]

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

 

[Seawytch]

And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?

Here is what you did:

• You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
• You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
• You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment

You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.

And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.

I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.

I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.

As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.

The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no? Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.

You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.

And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.

I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals

Well, unless you raise your children in a bubble, they will be exposed to gays and lesbians. They will go to school with gays and lesbians and the children of gays and lesbians.

What "long term goals" would those be? The only one I'm aware of, as a gay person, is equality. What secret "goal" was told to you?

 

[Seawytch]

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

 

[deltex1]

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question....one you evidently can't answer. I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do. Pax vobiscum.

 

[Seawytch]

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question....one you evidently can't answer. I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do. Pax vobiscum.

It has to make sense in order to answer it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".

Getting back to

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question....one you evidently can't answer. I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do. Pax vobiscum.

It has to make sense in order to answer it.

You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...

 

[Seawytch]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

Indeed. I attended my first gay wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in San Francisco in 1985.

 

[deltex1]

If churches want to change their definition of marriage, so be it. Not the gummints business. Homos still get their benefits....one way or another.

 

[mdk]

And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.

The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no? Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.

You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.

And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.

I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals

And what, may I ask, are these long term goals you are aware of?

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.

If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?

What good is the church if it's members it can't support or protect? What good is a church without it's members?

While the church is made up of people, the individuals themselves are not churches, certainly not by any legal definition. It is a concept not supported by any law. That being said, I am still opposed to any church being forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

 

[Seawytch]

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially. To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority. Why be that stubborn?

The ceremonies aren't defined by the government. They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​

Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.

Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>

The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".

Getting back to

Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?

What? That statement makes no sense.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question....one you evidently can't answer. I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do. Pax vobiscum.

It has to make sense in order to answer it.

You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...

Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.