Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[BillyP]

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?

 

[dblack]

After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."

So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.

No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.

We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I would say it was very unusual.

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.

We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.

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.

Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal. At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out. If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.

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.

I agree. You should be able to not perform services at your discretion. I used a Taylor Swift example earlier. Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.

If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform? I don't think so.

Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.

You honor your agreement as a professional.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Basically what I said;

You pay a fee; call it what you wish

You make plans but at some point, you have an agreement with the church to have your wedding on X-day. I would want something in writing myself; it protect me.

We've had homosexual church members. TTBOMK, none ever had a same sex wedding or union in the church hall or cathedral. But if Joan and John want to get married, are church members, pay the fee, and go through the process with the Pastor and are allowed to do so, Joan and June should have the same right to pay the fee, go through the process and be allowed to do so.

 

[usmcstinger]

A very dumb subject Read the US Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be called 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.

Polygamists and incest couplings too?

One of the main reasons civil unions are a situation some states consider is that marriage often comes with the privelege of adoption too.

The question above is merely smoke and mirrors: inconsequential practically and philosophically.

Accepted scientific studies demonstrate that children are abused at about the same statistically rate by adults despite their sexual orientation.

Heterosexuals abuse children in incredibly greater numbers and have been demonstrated to be no better parents than homosexuals.

The propagandists of the Cult of Hetero-fascism expose its failings in every post.

 

[Seawytch]

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

And in 18 states and counting anyone can marry someone of the same sex. It will be all 50 within 10 years.

 

[Seawytch]

The whole point of the Bible, is to repent of what you were born as. We were all born rebelling against G-d from our birth.

The entire message of the Bible is... Repent and you will be forgiven.

We're discriminating against unrepentant sin. Repent, and you will be welcome in the Church of Christianity.

So you should repent for how god made you? That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.

So you really think all the urges that are part of human nature, that we spend our childhoods learning to control, are good and acceptable because "that's how God made us"? Really? You don't think it's possible for people to be born with or develop defects in their hardwiring that make them inclined to do things that are a bad idea? Human behavior has nothing in it that qualifies as "bad" or "wrong" to you?

Think about what you're saying before you vomit it up for everyone else to see.

But being gay isn't "bad", it just is. What is bad is when people who are gay are forced by society to live against their nature. Nobody's happy then. Not the person pretending to be straight and certainly not the family they are lying to.

Being born left handed isn't "bad" and yet segments of society used to force the left handed to use their right hand.

Not every anomaly is a "bad idea".

 

[Gadawg73]

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

And in 18 states and counting anyone can marry someone of the same sex. It will be all 50 within 10 years.

Friend of mine we nick named Vike, career Army 20 years and 20 years APD, part American Indian and is married to a black woman.
His take on the gay boogeyman issue is just like mine but Vike says it this way and I have copied this:
"30 years from now when gay marriage has been legal in most all or all states folks are going to look back and see how ridiculous opponents were with their claims"

He said the same thing with gays in the military hysteria from the kooks claiming all kinds of whacked out scenarios.

No matter how one spins it with their 9 paragraphs of gobbly gook gay marriage is still and will always be a NON ISSUE to thinking adults.
I am off to work, there is bullying to be done at $100 a hour.

 

[Unkotare]

So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.

No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.

We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.

The line between those two is a matter of perspective, and certainly not absolute.

 

[dblack]

No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.

We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.

The line between those two is a matter of perspective, and certainly not absolute.

Agreed. But we're not even drawing the line, and that's the problem. It seems like a lot of us see government as synonymous with society, and think that anything good, anything we value as a society, should be encoded into law.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

No. Some civil servant at the county clerks office can enjoin them...

 

[Cecilie1200]

What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages......

And then anytime a 'married' woman decides to stay home and raise her children she is a virtual prisoner of her 'husband' because if he ever decides to walk at a moment's notice she has no recourse to legal protections for herself and her children. Golly, what a great idea.

The day marriage stops having a legal and financial impact on people's lives is the day it will stop constituting a legally-enforceable contract in the eyes of the government. Which is to say, never.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.
Not IMHO.

Allowing a church religious freedom doesn't impact a gay couples ability to get married.

Free speech does not provide you with your choice of venue, why should marriage equality?

 

[Seawytch]

What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages......

And then anytime a 'married' woman decides to stay home and raise her children she is a virtual prisoner of her 'husband' because if he ever decides to walk at a moment's notice she has no recourse to legal protections for herself and her children. Golly, what a great idea.

The day marriage stops having a legal and financial impact on people's lives is the day it will stop constituting a legally-enforceable contract in the eyes of the government. Which is to say, never.

Correct...and gays will have full equal access to it (not just in 18 states), eventually. We already have equal access to religious marriage in all 50.

 

[Mathbud1]

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.

I would say it was very unusual.


We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.

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.

Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal. At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out. If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.

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.

I agree. You should be able to not perform services at your discretion. I used a Taylor Swift example earlier. Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.

If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform? I don't think so.

Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.

You honor your agreement as a professional.

We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.

If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I would say it was very unusual.


We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.


Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal. At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out. If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.

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.

I agree. You should be able to not perform services at your discretion. I used a Taylor Swift example earlier. Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.

If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform? I don't think so.

Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.

You honor your agreement as a professional.

We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.

If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.

There's a big difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.

The discussion gets garbled when you try to mix the two together.

There is no legal justification for denying marriage equality.

Churches have the right, however, to define their sacrament of marriage as THEY choose.

 

[Silhouette]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

No.
Not IMHO.

Allowing a church religious freedom doesn't impact a gay couples ability to get married.

Free speech does not provide you with your choice of venue, why should marriage equality?

It's more than that. Free speech does not entitle you to force someone else to speak out in favor of [via voice or action] your behavior in violation of their closely held religious beliefs.

Keep in mind that LGBTs are an incomplete grouping of sexual behaviors. So far, they're not a federally-recognized religion, but merely a cult. That unfortunate but wholly accurate premise is going to bump them up against a wall in the very near future: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.

But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.

Which is what you are doing now to little effect.

 

[Silhouette]

LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.

But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.

Which is what you are doing now to little effect.

Aha! You're finally coming around to your senses. You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!

I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion. You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions. Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle? Y'all certainly are flexible...I'll give you that..

Bring it on!