Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

all of you have the right to believe as you will

so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them

Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion

 

[Yurt]

all of you have the right to believe as you will

so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them

Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion

you mean like this:

GreenBean ironically writes, "this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts" and wondering why everyone laughs at him on the Board

 

[Mathbud1]

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

all of you have the right to believe as you will

so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them

Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion

you mean like this:

GreenBean ironically writes, "this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts" and wondering why everyone laughs at him on the Board

Why is everyone laughing at him right now, including you?

Do you condemn him for his recent postings?

 

[RKMBrown]

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?

Who said uninsured people are broken?

How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix the problem of uninsured people?

Who said uninsured people are a problem?

 

[Redfish]

I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry? I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.

Thought control does not work that way-----------its not about freedom -------------- its about government mandated societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of people in the world find aberant and abnormal.

 

[emilynghiem]

I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!

Yes, you are reading it wrongly.

No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.

No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality, whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.

Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board. No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry. The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.

No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.

Correct when the policies are within private practices.

That is why Kosh RKMBrown Kaz and I say to get marriage out of the public laws.
Stick to just the civil contracts that are neutral, as RKMB spelled out for example.

This is like the difference between using
"religious freedom" to cover Islam, etc.
or changing the First Amendment to specify "Islam Christianity or Atheism" and cause a huge blowout over "imposing or leaving one out"!

Keep public laws NEUTRAL and there is no issue.
You can do what you want in private, and
exercise the same ability to make contracts by NOT specifying gender at all!

 

[emilynghiem]

That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)
How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.

Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool. That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.

Who are you referring to [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

And it was also the Quaker Christians who pushed for abolition.

There are Christians on both sides of the death penalty, prolife and prochoice,
immigration amnesty or responsibility for lawbreaking,
the homosexuality issue and marriage issues.

The real issue I look at is WHO is willing to work with BOTH sides
to form consensus -- agreement on law joined by Conscience or
as "neighbors joined in Christ." The narrow gate of righteousness where
all sides AGREE but very few shall find.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate? They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?

I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."

If you did not mean "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children" over other something else then it is meaningless. You might have just said it is in the interest of society to promote stuff like procreation, or stable homes, or raising children. To which my questions still apply why do I have to be married to procreate, have stable homes, and raise children? If two parents are better than one, why not 3 parents? Why not hand out a triple bonus award for having two wives?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)
How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.

Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool. That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.

Who are you referring to [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

And it was also the Quaker Christians who pushed for abolition.

There are Christians on both sides of the death penalty, prolife and prochoice,
immigration amnesty or responsibility for lawbreaking,
the homosexuality issue and marriage issues.

The real issue I look at is WHO is willing to work with BOTH sides
to form consensus -- agreement on law joined by Conscience or
as "neighbors joined in Christ." The narrow gate of righteousness where
all sides AGREE but very few shall find.

What I am not accepting from the far right is their narrow one-sided nonsense.

They talk about the good Christians that supported abolition while ignoring that a solid evangelical grouping argued unequivocally that God approved of slavery and posted scripture to support it.

Emily, you are mistaken if you can get them to work with the right of center.

They won't.

After this fall's election, you will have new folks to work with who have replaced them, and I suspect you will do much better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!

Yes, you are reading it wrongly.

No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.

No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality, whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.

Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board. No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry. The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.

No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.

Correct when the policies are within private practices.

That is why Kosh RKMBrown Kaz and I say to get marriage out of the public laws.
Stick to just the civil contracts that are neutral, as RKMB spelled out for example.

This is like the difference between using
"religious freedom" to cover Islam, etc.
or changing the First Amendment to specify "Islam Christianity or Atheism" and cause a huge blowout over "imposing or leaving one out"!

Keep public laws NEUTRAL and there is no issue.
You can do what you want in private, and
exercise the same ability to make contracts by NOT specifying gender at all!

You will find that it is correct as public policy.

Your minority will not dictate the conclusion of this debate.

SCOTUS will, and you may do whatever you wish in private.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality. If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.

Yet it was not and we know why that was so. How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.

Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.

 

[Andylusion]

I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality. If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.

Yet it was not and we know why that was so. How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.

Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.

Marriage does belong to all Americans. Absolutely anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us can.

LOL! Love you all lol

 

[candycorn]

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"

WTF?

You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding. You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge. And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...

Ask a grown up.

 

[zen]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Dude,
READ what you just wrote...if religion is a lie...never mind...

 

[dadsgm]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

The main problem is not discrimination. It is the fact that it is called 'marriage' in the first place. Historically marriages have been sanctioned and performed by a church, a religious entity guided by its beliefs which are not to be over ridden by the state. The problem comes in when a couple desires 'state sanction' for the benefit of benefits derived from the state and federal agencies. Just because the state sanctions same sex marriage the church does not have to if it goes against its beliefs. Therefore they do not have to perform the same sex marriage and it is not discrimination. That religious right is granted by the constitution and various various court precedents

 

[zen]

What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages...do that, and marry who ever you choose...marriage licensing laws are Jim Crow laws...

 

[Mathbud1]

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"

WTF?

You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding. You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge. And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...

Ask a grown up.

That was... nice...

I've used church property my whole life for family non-church events. All three of my sisters were married and/or held their wedding receptions on church property. All of us, including me, were married by church officials.

None of us ever paid or signed any kind of an agreement with the church.

Perhaps churches in your area routinely sign agreements with people to perform ceremonies or open their doors for the ceremony. In my experience though, it is not the norm. Typically it is a voluntary association.

If your point is that a church who enters into such a legally binding agreement should not be able to suddenly back out when they find out their "clients" are gay, perhaps you are right.

If you are saying, on the other hand, that they should be forced to enter such an agreement against their will and against their beliefs, I cannot agree.

 

[Andylusion]

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"

WTF?

You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding. You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge. And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...

Ask a grown up.

Er.... I have only a limited amount of information on this. I admit that openly.

But I do know that for our church members, there would be no 'rental contract'.

Of course you don't just show up... you would go to the pastor, or the staff, inform them you wish to get married, go through counseling, and then you would set a date, which of course would have to be a date the church is available, and if you want it decorated, you pretty much have to do that, and organize that, yourself.

We don't pay for any decorations, or hosting, catering, or anything else. That's all on you.

There is a church usage fee I think... but it's not a rental fee. It's a flat fee to cover the clean up, and prepare for the Sunday service.

I don't have the exact fee on hand, but the fees in our area varies based on Church size, and of course different denominations have different amounts. As near as I can tell from what limited information is on the internet, the average rate is between $300 to $500.

Other religions tend to not even have an option. From what I understand Islam, Buddhist, Jewish and Catholic, all of them you are either a member of that Mosque, Synagogue, temple, or Diocese, or you don't get married there, and that's it.

As Bible based church, we don't have a denomination. So if people outside our church wish to be married there, I think you have to have some connection to the church, or a church we have a good relation to.

The pastor still counsels the people involved that they meet our requirements of Christian values. If you don't, that's it. End of story. And if you do get married there, you are married by one of the Pastors of our church. There is no finding pastor Bob, and having him come and marry you.

Again, you are not 'renting' the facility. You might pay a fee, but it's our facility, our building, our people, our property.

But the church is not 'rented out' as far as I know. At least I personally have never been in, or at a Wedding in which the church had a "rental agreement" that you can point to.

Now receptions often do. Typically a reception location, is at an external site, that is rented.

For our church, we have reception facilities, and I'm not sure, but there might be a rental agreement, because the reception can be many hours, and often has special setups and things like sound systems, and Catering, and a dance floor, and special lighting, and such.

However, since we would never marry a homo couple to begin with, they would never get to the point of signing a rental on the reception facilities. And no, we don't allow people married elsewhere, to rent out the reception facilities.

I suppose that you could be right about some other church somewhere. What you are describing sounds like Scientology or something. I can see them doing that.

I'm just kidding. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some Unity Churches and such that rent out their building. But I don't think that is standard practice.

I could be wrong.

 

[BillyP]

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?

No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so. The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.

People are born gay, now you know. That a church would discriminate against some of god's creation is the sin.