Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.

Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.

See my signature for details.

'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'.

That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.

I believe Keys, among others, would happily become an inquisitor in such an eradication program. Those of that ilk are nothing more than cultural fascists.

 

[Skylar]

Again, if that's all I'd said

LOL! That is the preface, thus the foundation of your point, it is invalid... and absurdly, HYSTERICALLY so. Thus it invalidating ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IT.

Nope. As you have yet to factually establish any of your 'cult' nonsense. You merely allege it. That's known as 'begging the question' in terms of logical fallacies. Or a baseless expression of subjective personal opinion anywhere else.

You subjective opinion establishes nothing objectively. Remember, you omitting any mention of the truck sized holes in your reasoning doesn't magically make those holes vanish. While you can close your eyes and ignore any mention of the failures of your argument......you can't make anyone else ignore them.

Worse, you highlight and underline where you know your argument is weakest by what you ignore. You can neither factually establish your own claims, nor refute my dismissal of your personal opinion as establishing anything objective.

All you can do is ignore. Which is why you failed.

Have you EVER cracked so much as a Reader's Digest Article on Reason, Logic or the Art of Debate?

Readers Dgest is where you learned to debate? That might explain your over reliance on Appeal to Authority fallacies, Cherry Picking fallacies, Confirmation Bias fallacies, and most recently....the Begging the Question fallacy.

Where you make up babble about 'cults', backed by nothing but your assertion.

There's no objectively valid standard that is based in logical fallacies. And your standard is based in 4 of them.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.

Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.

See my signature for details.

'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'.

That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.

I believe Keys, among others, would happily become an inquisitor in such an eradication program. Those of that ilk are nothing more than cultural fascists.

Only if the people he was going to hurt were helpless, defenseless and unprepared. If it required he actually bleed to meet his goals, then nothing would happen save talk.

Which is exactly what we get now. Its one of the reasons Keys is gloriously irrelevant to this entire process. His subjective opinion has no objective value. And his own moral cowardice and inability to act in accordance with his own beliefs render him practically impotent as well. The results are predictably.....

.....nothing.

 

[Skylar]

I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.

its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.

It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits. No one really talks much about the real issue of first amendment rights and how it fits in with anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is several hundred pages long. Check again. Its been discussed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

There's no great movement to force churches to hold gay weddings.

Churches themselves get religion exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. That is well established.

 

[Seawytch]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

There is a compelling case for making churches accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters...but not for the government to do it. Churches will accept gays and lesbians the same way they've accepted interracial marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, etc...through public opinion.

It's already happening. U.S. congregations report major gains in accepting gays and lesbians, racial, ethnic diversity

 

[beagle9]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

There is a compelling case for making churches accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters...but not for the government to do it. Churches will accept gays and lesbians the same way they've accepted interracial marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, etc...through public opinion.

It's already happening. U.S. congregations report major gains in accepting gays and lesbians, racial, ethnic diversity

Got to throw that racial, ethnic, diversity in there don't ya, because that is the doorway y'all have latched onto isn't it ?

 

[mdk]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

That is b/c the vast and overwhelming majority of people in this thread do not support churches marrying any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Don't let that stop you from nailing yourself to the cross though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform interfaith marriages.

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform interracial marriages.

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.


Why would it any different?

The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.....Why would it any different?...The pressure to change will come internally, not externally....

OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them. What is a church if membership to it doesn't protect the individual parishoner's right to expression of freedom to religion? A church without parishoners is merely a building of brick, wood, steel or stone. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church". It says there's freedom of the practice of one's faith.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them.

OK, let's say that grasshoppers carried shotguns, then toads wouldn't fuck with them.

Same relevance.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. Please don't quote me with your name and

2. Describe for me how individual Christians aren't covered by the 1st Amendment in freedom of daily practice of their faith?

 

[mdk]

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.....Why would it any different?...The pressure to change will come internally, not externally....

OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them. What is a church if membership to it doesn't protect the individual parishoner's right to expression of freedom to religion? A church without parishoners is merely a building of brick, wood, steel or stone. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church". It says there's freedom of the practice of one's faith.

Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Please don't quote me with your name and

Typo fixed.

2. Describe for me how individual Christians aren't covered by the 1st Amendment in freedom of daily practice of their faith?

Not my job.

They are covered, however when that practice (i.e. action) conflicts with a generally applicable law, that does not automatically mean they are exempt from the law. See Employment Division v. Smith for a more detailed analysis by the SCOTUS.

However a Church (or other Religious House of Worship) as a legal entity is a non-profit corporate entity (see IRS code concerning 503(c) corporations). As a self-contained legal entity the House of Worship could be sued, that does not mean individual members of the congregation can be sued. (Whether the would win or loose any given lawsuit depends on the particulars of the case.)

For example my wife owns some Verizon Communications, Inc. stock. Verizon can be sued as legal entity, however the individual stock holders of the corporation cannot be sued simply because they are shareholders.



>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.

Then the change will never come. Count on it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.

Then the change will never come. Count on it.

Never say never, it's a long time.

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. - News Announcements - Presbyterian Church U.S.A. approves marriage amendment

United Methodist Body Votes to Change the Church s Position on Homosexuality by Allowing Clergy to Be Practicing Homosexuals Perform Gay Weddings


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.

Organizations of people get tax exempt status. It isn't limited just to churches.

And again, the Constitution says freedom of the exercise of one's faith in religion. Not "freedom of church". A church is inseperable from its individual parishoners and vice versa. Tax status wasn't mentioned in the 1st Amendment. I think that came later in a federal bylaw.

Just as you cannot legally force a Jew, for any reason whatsoever, to eat pork on a Friday; likewise you cannot force a Christian to enable a "gay wedding".

 

[mdk]

Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.

Organizations of people get tax exempt status. It isn't limited just to churches.

And again, the Constitution says freedom of the exercise of one's faith in religion. Not "freedom of church". A church is inseperable from its individual parishoners and vice versa. Tax status wasn't mentioned in the 1st Amendment. I think that came later in a federal bylaw.

Just as you cannot legally force a Jew, for any reason whatsoever, to eat pork on a Friday; likewise you cannot force a Christian to enable a "gay wedding".

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

 

[Silhouette]

Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.

That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.