The defence of marriage issue: my take

Page 5 of 10 [ 150 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 10:01 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

Okay? That still doesn't mean you have the right to force other churches to do so. Also if Gay Marriage was really as popular as you say it is, that explains why the citizens of California passed a state constitutional amendment passed only for a judge to block it. That also explains why 3 Iowa supreme court judges were kicked out of office by the citizenry.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Aug 2011, 10:02 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

And in New York, when gay marriage was made legal, a provision was made protecting religious bodies if they opposed gay marriage. So, there is no danger of Christians losing any rights over this.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm

Quote:

No one is forcing churches to marry gays, some just choose to. I doubt the Catholics will be lining up to do it.

The gallup poll is narrowly pro-gay marriage today. It can go either way in any given state. The time bomb is the demographics. The old will die. The young overwhelmingly support it. Even if conservatives resist, they've lost the independents. They are SOL.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

15 Aug 2011, 10:09 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

Show me one person who said Churches should be forced to do so. Otherwise stop with the strawmanning.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Aug 2011, 10:11 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

It's simple actually, call it a civil union from a secular standpoint as far as the state is concerned for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and the term "marriage" refers to having undergone the church wedding.

And the Christian churches that are happy to perform same-sex weddings? Those people will still be considered "married," yes?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Aug 2011, 10:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

You do in the case of a Justice of the Peace who is a government employee. Whether he objects to a marriage or not, so long as the marriage meets the standards of the Law, the Justice of the Peace is required to perform his duties.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Aug 2011, 10:54 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Aha! You're an anti-Semite! You consider people married in a Synagogue not to be "married", because they haven't undergone "the church wedding!"

Jewish couples are now to be called in "civil union" until they've found a church willing to marry them.

:shameonyou:

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 11:13 pm

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

And the Christian churches that are happy to perform same-sex weddings? Those people will still be considered "married," yes?

Haven't many of these churches been essentially disowned by the church at large.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Aug 2011, 11:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

And the Christian churches that are happy to perform same-sex weddings? Those people will still be considered "married," yes?

Haven't many of these churches been essentially disowned by the church at large.

You advocate discriminating against these churches?

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 11:20 pm

pandabear wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

And the Christian churches that are happy to perform same-sex weddings? Those people will still be considered "married," yes?

Haven't many of these churches been essentially disowned by the church at large.

You advocate discriminating against these churches?

How is being kicked out for violating church teachings (when the pastors, priests, etc. know it is against scripture) discrimination? I thought breaking rules, vows, etc. is supposed to have consequences.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Aug 2011, 11:26 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

pandabear wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

And the Christian churches that are happy to perform same-sex weddings? Those people will still be considered "married," yes?

Haven't many of these churches been essentially disowned by the church at large.

You advocate discriminating against these churches?

Just because a church is cut off from it larger body doesn't mean that they're wrong. After all, Protestantism began when Luther had been excommunicated for refusing to renounce his criticism of Roman Catholicism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

LazerBeam
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Location: Binghamton, New York

15 Aug 2011, 11:28 pm

The problem here is that people by and large fail to distinguish that legality and morality are not to be intermingled; as religion and politics are not to be intermingled. To me, it is pretty much obvious that the law has an obligation to grant marriage rights to all citizens, regardless of belief or sexual orientation. It is nonsense to say that marriage and "civil unions" should be seen as different animals. A legal state licensed marriage is a civil union. A religious church performed marriage is a spiritual union. The fact is, one cannot simply marry in their church and be counted as a union in the eyes of the law. They need a state issued license just the same. So, religions really have no right to make the decision as to whether or not a gay couple can marry except within their own institution. The state is obligated to grant the couple the status, and all benefits associated with it.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 11:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

We are assuming that is going to remain in place, which somehow I doubt.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Aug 2011, 11:37 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

We are assuming that is going to remain in place, which somehow I doubt.

What reason do you have to think that?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Aug 2011, 11:39 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Bill of Rights works both ways, you do not have the right to order someone to marry a homosexual couple if they have religious objections over it.

Some churches are already marrying gay couples. Wake up and smell the 21st century. You seem to be the one that wants to force people to follow your views.

We are assuming that is going to remain in place, which somehow I doubt.

What reason do you have to think that?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Obamacare not funding abortions with Federal Tax Money for starters, turns out the Democrats lied to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Aug 2011, 11:40 pm

? :lol:

Page 5 of 10 [ 150 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

The defence of marriage issue: my take Post Reply New Topic

The defence of marriage issue: my take