Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Gay marriages and civil partnerships in church

Page 5 of 11 [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

17 Feb 2011, 11:12 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
More rights? Is this some whiney "white man's burden" BS? You do realize how absolutely f***ing ret*d that is, right? Well, I guess probably not.


I'm certainly not aware of any extra rights the LGBT community has in the UK. Still, I've heard the argument that the LGBT community are advocating for 'extra rights' here in the US so it's not a stretch to think some in the UK feel the equality they've achieved there amounts to 'extra rights'.


I don't especially think there's any extra rights other than fighting for minority protection from discrimination; which, isn't exactly "extra" rights so much as it is protection rights against all those burdened white men. :roll:


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

17 Feb 2011, 11:13 pm

Agreed.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Butterflies
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 168

17 Feb 2011, 11:33 pm

As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

17 Feb 2011, 11:42 pm

Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Butterflies
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 168

18 Feb 2011, 12:00 am

skafather84 wrote:
Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. I've grown to expect total homophobia from most churches. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


I fully agree.

I'm not sure what the rules are in America. I suppose they're different in each state, but in Britain a same sex relationship appears to be treated as somehow less valid than a hetero relationship. No matter how I try and look at the situation, I can find absolutely no justification for it. I cannot see why a relationship between me and another female should be treated any differently to any relationship between a male and female.
I suppose it's only right that the churches should be able to discriminate. That seems to be a large part of what many churches are all about, but their outdated views should not be allowed to affect the lives of the non-church going population.



murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

18 Feb 2011, 3:25 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Yeah, who am "I" to have an opinion!??!?!?! What is the world coming to...


There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion. However, we were talking about legalities. You asserted that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony.

Plenty of churches gladly provide a religious service to same sex couples. Just like it's not the government's business to force churches to marry people they don't want to, it isn't the government's business to force a church NOT to marry a couple.

So basically, what you're saying is you're for government control only when it limits the rights of minorities.


Its the churches business, so they shouldn't have to change their policies if that particular church doesn't want to. Goverment has given minorities extra rights here for a long time now, so they are no longer the minority.

And for any backward people, I didn't mean all gays, i'm sure most gay people are fine just getting on with their life's.


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

18 Feb 2011, 3:32 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


So when child molester's start wanting to marry their underaged prey, they should be able to, cause its their right? I'm not comparing gay people and pedo's as one in the same obviously. When a certain group can alter a religion to suit them, thats extra rights. Too bad for you if you can't see that. You have to remember the USA isn't the only country in the world. I'm not the same kind of white person that you're thinking of.


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

18 Feb 2011, 4:29 pm

murphycop wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


So when child molester's start wanting to marry their underaged prey, they should be able to, cause its their right? I'm not comparing gay people and pedo's as one in the same obviously. When a certain group can alter a religion to suit them, thats extra rights. Too bad for you if you can't see that. You have to remember the USA isn't the only country in the world. I'm not the same kind of white person that you're thinking of.


Not comparing gays and pedos, but at the same time trying to use a paedophilic relationship between an adult and a child unable to consent legally, with two consenting adults? Can you ever manage an example that actually bears a similarity to the situation?


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

18 Feb 2011, 4:36 pm

murphycop wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
murphycop wrote:
Yeah, who am "I" to have an opinion!??!?!?! What is the world coming to...


There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion. However, we were talking about legalities. You asserted that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony.

Plenty of churches gladly provide a religious service to same sex couples. Just like it's not the government's business to force churches to marry people they don't want to, it isn't the government's business to force a church NOT to marry a couple.

So basically, what you're saying is you're for government control only when it limits the rights of minorities.


Its the churches business, so they shouldn't have to change their policies if that particular church doesn't want to. Goverment has given minorities extra rights here for a long time now, so they are no longer the minority.

And for any backward people, I didn't mean all gays, i'm sure most gay people are fine just getting on with their life's.


Give an example of one or more of these extra rights.

Also, explain why extra rights would make a minority no longer a minority when they are still... in the minority.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

18 Feb 2011, 4:38 pm

murphycop wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


So when child molester's start wanting to marry their underaged prey, they should be able to, cause its their right? I'm not comparing gay people and pedo's as one in the same obviously. When a certain group can alter a religion to suit them, thats extra rights. Too bad for you if you can't see that. You have to remember the USA isn't the only country in the world. I'm not the same kind of white person that you're thinking of.


What the hell do pedophiles have to do with churches being forced to either perform or not perform a same sex wedding ceremony?


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

18 Feb 2011, 4:55 pm

It has nothing to do with it, i'm talking about groups pushing for extra rights, which is part of it. I was just making a point to when he said "all humans"!.


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

18 Feb 2011, 4:58 pm

You have yet to post an example of one of these extra rights you keep talking about.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

18 Feb 2011, 5:21 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
You have yet to post an example of one of these extra rights you keep talking about.


I've already said, if they change a churches policies, that is an extra right. I'm not saying its going to happen, but thats what they're pushing for.

You can sue someone for being homophobic, but can you sue someone for being heterophobic? :wink:


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

18 Feb 2011, 5:28 pm

You said they already HAVE extra rights. Give just one example, and I may lend some credence to your opinions.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Butterflies
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 168

18 Feb 2011, 5:36 pm

murphycop wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Butterflies wrote:
As a lesbian, I have no real problem with any church choosing not to marry homosexual couples. As an athiest, it is of no consequence to me, although it is a serious matter for religious people who happen to be homosexual.
It is a different matter however, that the state does not recognize gay marriage. I cannot see any justification for the state treating same sex relationships differently from heterosexual relationships. It seems like the state is giving justification to those who see same sex relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual relationships.


Yeah, I don't see how it's any matter whether a church does or doesn't so long as the actual rights and privileges granted with the union are still there. Marriage for all (humans)!


So when child molester's start wanting to marry their underaged prey, they should be able to, cause its their right? I'm not comparing gay people and pedo's as one in the same obviously. When a certain group can alter a religion to suit them, thats extra rights. Too bad for you if you can't see that. You have to remember the USA isn't the only country in the world. I'm not the same kind of white person that you're thinking of.


As far as I know, if the victim were to grow up and choose to marry her abuser, many, if not most churches would be prepared to marry them.

Quote:
Goverment has given minorities extra rights here for a long time now, so they are no longer the minority.


Firstly, that doesn't even make sense. Secondly, what extra rights do gays have?



murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

18 Feb 2011, 5:41 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
You said they already HAVE extra rights. Give just one example, and I may lend some credence to your twisted opinions.


I dunno, gay tv, where's straight tv? Gay bars, where's the straight bars? All of them I guess, but you couldn't call them straight bars. And Like I said, people can be sued for being homophobic, but not heterophobic.

Anyway, gay people have it pretty good here. I know a lot of the US is way behind us. A lot of people who are against homosexuals, seem to have the view, "just keep your perversions behind closed doors".


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??