Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?

Obergefell can and will get revisited. a..

No.

Despite your desire to harm homosexuals- Obergefell is not being revisted.

 

[Syriusly]

As pointed out- no church has yet been forced to accomodate homosexual or mixed race weddings- and no church will be.

The only ones who are making the claim are those who are fear mongering.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread started almost 2 years ago.

In the almost 2 years- still not a single church has been required to marry anyone that it doesn't want to marry.

 

[MaryL]

Gays demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.

 

[Skylar]

The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?

Well they can so long as a democrat or "gay marriage is beautiful" Trump aren't in the Whitehouse. Obergefell can and will get revisited. The children having no say about being separated as a matter of binding contract from either a mother or father for life thing...that's not going away. Neither is the Kim Davis issue.

Says you. And every time you've given us a legal prediction, you've been wrong.

Every. Single. Time.

How perfect does your record of failure have to be before even you'll admit that you have no idea what you're talking about?

The premise the Court started with was false. Behavior is not = to race. That's where the problem began.. You can't use PA laws to force upon Christians that which is nothing other than Rainbow Cult dogma..

And who says that is the premise that the court started with? Remember, you've never actually read the Obergefell decision nor have the slightest clue what its premise is.

And of course, you ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument. As your pseudo-legal gibberish has no impact on the outcome of any case. While the rulings of the supreme court do.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.

Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"? Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?

It's OK, we both know the answer...

Sil....people aren't churches.

Any argument you want to make on that pseudo-legal horseshit of an argument is already dead.

 

[dblack]

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.

Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"? Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?

It's OK, we both know the answer...

Sil....people aren't churches.

Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.

 

[Skylar]

"No, Gandalf, 'tis not. A dark power dwells in there. Such as I have never felt before. It is the shadow of an ancient horror. One that can summon the spirits of the dead. I saw him, Gandalf, from out of the darkness. A Necromancer has come!" Radgast the Brown

Yeah, I dug up a statistic you don't want voters to see right about now... poor mdk ...he forgot about this thread with the largest poll ever at USMB...and one of the most popular threads too...look at that view count ...

A poll that never said what you claimed it did. You've cited it as support for the legality of same sex marriage.

Which, of course, it isn't.

Does it ever occur to you that you have to lie constantly to hold the position that you do? If your claims had merit, why would you have to?

 

[Skylar]

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.

Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"? Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?

It's OK, we both know the answer...

Sil....people aren't churches.

Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.

Sil has literally argued that people are churches. In this thread. At least a dozen times.

Its all blithering nonsense.

 

[dblack]

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.

Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"? Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?

It's OK, we both know the answer...

Sil....people aren't churches.

Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.

Sil has literally argued that people are churches. In this thread. At least a dozen times.

Its all blithering nonsense.

I don't usually read Sil's posts. Sorry for the 'drive-by'.

 

[Skylar]

Gays demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.

The right to marry isn't predicated on children. Nixing that entire argument.

 

[Rustic]

It should be a nonissue to the federal government...

 

[Skylar]

It should be a nonissue to the federal government...

What is 'it'?

 

[Rustic]

It should be a nonissue to the federal government...

What is 'it'?

Marriage of any sort, if someone wants to marry a fence post. It should be none of the federal governments business...

 

[ChrisL]

Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways? If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship. I would just go to a justice of the peace or something. You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.

 

[Rustic]

Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways? If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship. I would just go to a justice of the peace or something. You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.

...not to a control freak
See: progressives

 

[ChrisL]

Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways? If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship. I would just go to a justice of the peace or something. You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.

...not to a control freak
See: progressives

Well, I suppose every group has their activists.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a nonissue to the federal government...

What is 'it'?

Marriage of any sort, if someone wants to marry a fence post. It should be none of the federal governments business...

The Federal government gets involved when the States violate the equal protection clause. Say, when the States forbid black people from marrying white people. Or don't recognize same sex marriage.

As long as the States don't violate any rights, the Federal Government doesn't get involved in marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways? If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship. I would just go to a justice of the peace or something. You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.

This entire thread is a vast strawman. As so far I've seen only one person who has argued that churches should be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

Religion is, by its very nature, exclusionary. With sin as its bifurcation. Leave religion to the religious, and the law for everyone.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.

Americans have the right to marriage- that has been long established. "Gay" Americans demanded the same right as every other American couple.

You don't need marriage either- but you have the right to it.

Gay couples do have children- children they have born themselves, children they have created through artificial insemination, and children, abandoned by their biological, heterosexual parents, that they have adopted.

Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married?