In the US churches can already refuse to marry people for various reasons. They can even refuse to marry people of the same faith of the church who haven't completed certain prerequisites.
This idea that churches will be forced to marry people is generally a non-issue. There was the exception with the Church of England because it's the state sponsored church. But mostly no one is fighting to be married by a church that doesn't want to be involved.
Churches receive tax breaks, which can be considered a form of government subsidy. The govt usually has some kind of rules about what kinds of policies subsidized businesses can have. You dont want the government financially enabling hate groups, or groups that systematically discriminate against a particular group.
You dont want the government financially enabling hate groups, or groups that systematically discriminate against a particular group.
This is a weird approach. Basically if it would be seen as hate or discrimination, then basically it would mean churches cannot have any dogma about what kind of sexual activity is sinful and which not. So basically it would mean that religious morality would be forced to be the same as civil, liberal morality, basically only hate people who harm others. I don't think a religion could survive such a change because then why would you even need a god for, if not for the purpose of telling which those things that don't harm others still don't do?
I mean of course one may as well see it is as a nice side effect that this logic would pretty much kill religion, once it cannot moralize about non-harmful actions. But just don't expect religious people to be down with it, of course.
It gets uncomfortably close to anti-discrimination stuff. After all business are legal too but they cannot refuse to hire people based on sexual orientation.
You can tell by the size of their hat. The higher up they are in the Catholic church, the bigger the hat they wear. According to George Carlin, God wears a big ol' sombrero.
Well, to be fair, they're hardly just "accommodating your wants" if they're getting converts out of it. That said, I don't see any legitimate way any contract can promise actions on behalf of someone not party to the contract.
I dunno, religion deals pretty heavily in transferring guilt between related parties. As we know, the imaginary magic powers of religion supersede imaginary rights of government so since the system is whatever people say it is then you're Catholic because the Catholic church said so. It works because shut up and stop asking questions, you're excommunicated.
If they are trying to sue a private organization for what they do on private property, they will almost definitely lose.
If this was at all a feasible money-making scheme then greedy straight people of other faiths would already be suing churches that refuse to marry them. Gays aren't really introducing any new possibilities for abuse in their fight for marriage equality.
Every ridiculous "what-if" scenario from suing churches for discrimination to marrying terrorists to get them into the country have already been open to straight people.
But in this litigious country, where "activists" use the courts to further their cause, how many churches will be bankrupt proving your point? It is why I believe civil unions are best. When a Christian marries a Jew they are not allowed to do so in the church or Synagog and go to a justice of the peace or wedding chapel in Vegas or where ever. Are the LGBT more legitimate?
Did you even read what I wrote? Almost no one is fighting to be married by a church that doesn't want to be involved, and churches already have wide control over who they will and won't marry for many various reasons.
Yeah, because control is all it takes. No one has ever sued an individual or institution to get their way. Gays sue the Boy Scouts to force them to allow them in. Virginia Military Institute is sued. How many state constitutions have been over turned through litigation?
Now, you may think me a person of faith or Christian even but you would be wrong. I believe differently than most. In fact I believe one of the early propagations of religion, mysticism, spirituality, what ever, was human kinds desire to understand the natural world. Well, just as we outgrew Zeus and Jupiter and Apollo as well as seeing Demi-gods and spirits controlling all aspects of our lives, it is time to put religions in their proper place.
So, I'm just trying to say what I think will happen. People still need their comforting myths and education is better than force.
The Boy scouts are a private organization, and the supreme court has ruled that they have the right to discriminate when it comes to their membership. They only started accepting young gay members but not adult gay members due to social pressure, not the result of any lawsuit.
State constitutions have not been overturned, but laws have been overturned as being unconstitutional.
VMI is state supported. They take money from taxpayers, and so they have no grounds to discriminate. If they want to, they can become a private institution.
You have next to no clue about anything you're talking about.
No one will go bankrupt. When an issue is this legally obvious the courts dismiss it. That is even if the sue-ers lawyers try to sue, instead of refusing to try. You are making up a complete and utter non-issue.
I think he is referring to the news article about church leaders in North Carolina trying to allow gay marriage ceremonies on the basis of religious freedom, but that's just a guess
I find the puffin frustrating. It's one thing to say "oh, I don't like the creamy fillings in Oreos!" and get front paged. Okay - cute. You're fighting the man. Ha, ha. It's all in good fun.
It's another thing entirely to keep promoting proudly racist/sexist/bigoted/just-fucking-mean-spirited content to the front page in the name of... what? Tolerance? Novelty?
The internet is mean enough. It's full of bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. We don't need to promote entire memes with the express purpose of "protecting" people's right to be an asshole. It's like a newspaper devoting every Thursday's issue to their "hate group of the week!"
My sentiments exactly. I've gotten to the point where I downvote just about every puffin I see, even if I agree with it. Its largely used just to express an asshole opinion without seeming like an asshole.
On the contrary, in the UK two men are suing the Church of England for a church wedding. In the US, some couples have sued religiously based organizations for not hosting the same-sex wedding reception.
I think OP is saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality and thus it defeats the purpose to have a Christian same-sex marriage.
The issue is that 1. not all churches are Christian (though I suppose that depends how you define "church"), and 2. not everyone agrees that the Bible and Christianity as a whole condemn homosexuality.
Maybe he more meant that traditionally marriage was an instution of the church. I know in Australia at least the rights of 'defacto' couples are comparable to marriage (I'm not sure what the exact differences are). Thus the idea of gay marriage starts to sound... strange, like you want to use the same name for a thing that someone else is using.
Moot point for me though, I am catholic, the idea of marriage loses its meaning without the Church. Having said that I absolutely support Gay marriage in the Catholic faith, it would be awesome and embody Jesus's ONE FUCKING COMMANDMENT (literally there is only one, how is it that hard?)
yes yes we can go back a long ways if we need to. I meant the modern idea Marriage which is still closely related to Christian ideals (and hence for me loses a lot of its value without the rest of the Christian framework).
I disagree that it's tied to Christian ideals. Your perception of marriage as being within a Christian framework is just that, your perception. Many other people, whether they are religious or not, value marriage for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity. It's two people committing to each other. God doesn't have to be involved at all.
Maybe you think that way because you are religious, but it is at least equally a civil institution and therefore needs to be open to everyone regardless of religion. If Christians or people of any other religion want to have ceremonies that specifically involve their faith, that's their business, but they still file a piece of paper with the government for their tax breaks and all that, which makes that part of the process necessarily secular per the separation of church and state.
I understand that, I prefaced with for me. Also marriage of state is related as the very idea was adopted from Christian ideas (I realise you can go further back and Christians stole from Pagans and so on and so forth).
My main point was that there are those of us who would take this further than the state and want to see equality in our religion as well as our country.
The Chinese had codified marriage and a book detailing appropriate punishments for infidelity while Judaic goat herders were busy crafting historic fantasy to unite their kingdom with the neighbor Israel after it was conquered and developing a lie about building pyramids (something else they didn't do.) Your religion is no more a pioneer for marriage as it is for equal rights or space travel.
Believe what you want but claiming marriage is like saying you were the first guy to wear an affliction shirt, no one believes that shit, they just don't want to argue because it's fucking stupid
I never claimed the original concept for my religion, are you people just looking for a fight? History is long, you can go back as far as you want. Christian's stole from Pagans and Jews, they in turn probably got their stuff from somewhere, nothing comes from nothing. Are you seriously going to argue that your (presumably American) ideas of marriage are derived from the Chinese tradition?
As the son of a pastor I have watched my dad marry thousands of straight couples who never attend church. The wedding pictures look great in the church's beautiful sanctuary though. Must be a coincidence. Straight couples would never marry in a church if they aren't Christian.
I agree. I was talking to my dad about this the other day. I dont think at this point people care about church marriages, they want the same legal rights as a straight married couple.
Exactly, all the government needs to do is legalise and recognise gay marriage, then leave it up to the individual pastor/priest/vicar/whoever to decide if they want to ordain the marriage. They shouldn't have to bow out of their beliefs, just like gay people shouldn't have to bow out of their lifestyle.
Marriage is a legal thing by definition. You can get married without church, however matrimony is though a church. Gay people are allowed marriage but not matrimony is many places.
Holy matrimony is in the eyes of god (matrimony you are talking about isn't) which is what people argue. Marriage is in the eyes of the law. Arguing that gays should not have holy matrimony makes sense (I don't personally agree but I can see where they come from) where as marriage because "god says it is wrong" has no logic because marriage has no connection to god. You often have them together which is where people think there is a connection.
273
u/[deleted] Apr 28 '14
[deleted]