Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[koshergrl]

Really?

How?

Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.

Oh. So if our Christian morality, that is, our objection to murder, the exploitation of women and children, and licentious and unhealthy practices happens to coincide with the law, then the law must give way...because at no time must the law, and Christian morality, co-exist.

How patently ridiculous.

You force babies to die, you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused... and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.

 

[Seawytch]

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.

Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.

The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.

What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Indofred]

What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?

I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?

I agree, no hate. We need jailings or fines, but not mean words on the internet.

LGBT rights in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The national criminal code does not prohibit private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults. A national bill to criminalize homosexuality, along with cohabitation, adultery and the practice of witchcraft, failed to be enacted in 2003 and no subsequent bill has been reintroduced

The province mentioned after that is a less than popular mess of a place, hastily cobbled together to promote peace with extremist bastards.
Personally, I think the fucking lot of the extremist bastards should have been shot whilst they were in disarray after the tsunami. The rest of the population would have been far better off.

Wiki is one thing, living here is another. With the exception of a few extremists (you have plenty of the American versions on this forum), no one gives a fat rat's arse about gays.
They live openly, are not excluded from jobs or other sections of society. Out of my five barbers since I've lived here, three were openly gay - I didn't care, save for one who wouldn't stop asking me for sex. I told him to fuck off, but that wasn't homophobia, just a reaction to sexual pestering. If anyone objects to that, you equally have to support any man pestering any woman for sex, even when she isn't interested.
Two work at my school, one extremely camp, no one cares either way. They're teachers, nothing else, and as long as they do their jobs, so what if they're gay?

Now, if you want to explain the problems of gays in Indonesia, come and live here for the best part of a decade, then lecture me; until then, fuck off.

 

[Seawytch]

No, they won't.

And they aren't now.

But feel free to dream big, punkin.

They are now. Churches will adapt or die...

Gay-Friendly Churches And Houses Of Worship Growing, According To National Congregations Study

Young people are turning away from churches...but not religion. They are attracted to the religion, but turned away by the fundies.


Why millennials are leaving the church

 

[Wildman]

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

NO !


because most homos are atheists.

oooh !! define Church !

 

[Crystalclear]

Really?



How?

Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.

1. You force babies to die,

2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...

3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.

4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.

1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.

2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.

3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.

4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NO.
Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
The same applies to all other religious groups.

Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.

Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.

(1) insignificant and immaterial

(2) this is 2014, not 1714

 

[GreenBean]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

You do realize that Jim Nabors was a Fruit Cake don't you ?

 

[MHunterB]

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?

That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine': it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.

And there is a difference between using a church hall for a reception, and getting married in the church by church clergy. I think it should be obvious that Church(denomination) clergy retain the right to marry only those who are accepted as Church members - thus a RC priest cannot be *forced* to marry a RC to someone who's been divorced.

But where Church law and civil law do not agree, civil law is to be obeyed: that is what most Churches have always taught. To do otherwise is to make 'good citizenship' optional rather than required - a couple of the "Peace" Churches tried using the religious excuse for not paying taxes during a war. They lost every case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine': it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.

Just a technical point, it is not illegal in the US to forbid "mixed-race" marriages. It is unconstitutional for government to make "mixed-race" marriages illegal. It is illegal for private businesses to deny equal goods and services (Public Accommodation Laws) to potential customers based on race.

However it is not illegal for a Church to refuse to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with the dogma of that Church. So Churches in fact can forbid "mixed-race" marriages in their congregation.


>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.

1. You force babies to die,

2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...

3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.

4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.

1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.

2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.

3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.

4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.

1. So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*
2. Killing.
3. Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices.
4. If we refuse to marry loons in our churches, that is not force. Loons may go elsewhere.

This is not *religious fundamentalism* and it is not the minority. The majority of the US feels this way. The extremist whackos are the ones who kill babies, want to kill the old and vulnerable, and want to eliminate religious freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube

You do realize that Jim Nabors was a Fruit Cake don't you ?

Wow. Yes, I do. Hence my choice.

 

[Crystalclear]

1. You force babies to die,



2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...



3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.



4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.

1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.



2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.



3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.



4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.

1. So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*

2. Killing.

3. Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices.

4. If we refuse to marry loons in our churches, that is not force. Loons may go elsewhere.



This is not *religious fundamentalism* and it is not the minority. The majority of the US feels this way. The extremist whackos are the ones who kill babies, want to kill the old and vulnerable, and want to eliminate religious freedom.

1. They choose for it. The mothers do often not even die.

2. No, killing is something else. This is assisted SUICIDE. The patients do not want to live anymore. Keeping them alive in their pain is torture and force.

3. Beig gay is not a choice.

4. I do not support forcing churces to marry gays as well. But the difference is that you want to take away their civil marriage.

Try again.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.

 

[bendog]

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.

Calling people names is not very nice. And, it's why the dems keep winning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine': it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.

And there is a difference between using a church hall for a reception, and getting married in the church by church clergy. I think it should be obvious that Church(denomination) clergy retain the right to marry only those who are accepted as Church members - thus a RC priest cannot be *forced* to marry a RC to someone who's been divorced.

But where Church law and civil law do not agree, civil law is to be obeyed: that is what most Churches have always taught. To do otherwise is to make 'good citizenship' optional rather than required - a couple of the "Peace" Churches tried using the religious excuse for not paying taxes during a war. They lost every case.

American law counts, not church doctrine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine': it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.

Just a technical point, it is not illegal in the US to forbid "mixed-race" marriages. It is unconstitutional for government to make "mixed-race" marriages illegal. It is illegal for private businesses to deny equal goods and services (Public Accommodation Laws) to potential customers based on race.

However it is not illegal for a Church to refuse to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with the dogma of that Church. So Churches in fact can forbid "mixed-race" marriages in their congregation.>>>>

. . . except for churches engaged in a for profit wedding and reception business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.

But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.

Calling people names is not very nice. And, it's why the dems keep winning.

No, the dems keep winning because too many Americans are just plain ignorant.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.

But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.

Exibit: A ^^^^^^^^^