Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Katzndogz]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Of course! Just like a Church that has snake handling as part of their belief may deny marriage ceremonies that do not include the bride and groom handling snakes. Can a church refuse to marry couples of a mixed religion? Sure. They do it all the time. Same race, different race, makes no difference. A mosque will not marry a believer and an infidel.

I can't think of a religious organization that has a religious belief in not marrying mixed race couples. Can you name one? If there was one, then yes they should be able to deny marriage ceremonies to mixed race couples.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course! Just like a Church that has snake handling as part of their belief may deny marriage ceremonies that do not include the bride and groom handling snakes. Can a church refuse to marry couples of a mixed religion? Sure. They do it all the time. Same race, different race, makes no difference. A mosque will not marry a believer and an infidel.

I can't think of a religious organization that has a religious belief in not marrying mixed race couples. Can you name one? If there was one, then yes they should be able to deny marriage ceremonies to mixed race couples.

My own parents were turned away from the catholic church to be married because my mother wouldn't convert to catholicism. It didn't come as a shock to them either.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of all the threads on this topic, I've found this one to be one of the most significant. It's huge, has tons of hits and has one of the biggest responses to any poll I've seen here so far. The subject definitely interests people. And they have weighed in quite heavily on one very troubling option for the gay gestapo..

Why don't you just come out of the closet?

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you just come out of the closet?

I have. I've said over and over I'm against gay marriage..

 

[sealybobo]

The act of marrying two people of the same gender is that person also committing a sin. You cannot require pastors and priests to commit mortal sins as a matter of law in order to accomodate gays play-acting "man and wife" or "mother and father".

Oh relax no one's going to make it a law. But trust me when society changes religion will find a loophole just like they will for women being priests and did for blacks marrying whites. Remember the bible said whites should not marry blacks? The good old days to you, huh?

How does your pastor know they are sleeping together?
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

Where in the bible does it say two guys can't do this? Tell your pastor to get his mind out of the gutter wondering what those two dudes do in the privacy of their homes. Maybe one of them is a sheeman? What right does he have to ask or judge? That mother fucker! Fucking creep!

 

[Silhouette]

Oh relax no one's going to make it a law. But trust me when society changes religion will find a loophole just like they will for women being priests and did for blacks marrying whites. Remember the bible said whites should not marry blacks? The good old days to you, huh?

How does your pastor know they are sleeping together?
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

Where in the bible does it say two guys can't do this? Tell your pastor to get his mind out of the gutter wondering what those two dudes do in the privacy of their homes. Maybe one of them is a sheeman? What right does he have to ask or judge? That mother fucker! Fucking creep!

It says in Jude 1 that guys can't do that. And other places. And the punishment the Bible prescribes for people who participate in such acts as "eternal damnation". In other words it's a mortal sin, not just a garden variety "say three hail marys and call me in the morning" type of sin.

Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage. At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.

 

[sealybobo]

It says in Jude 1 that guys can't do that. And other places. And the punishment the Bible prescribes for people who participate in such acts as "eternal damnation". In other words it's a mortal sin, not just a garden variety "say three hail marys and call me in the morning" type of sin.

Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage. At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.

Show me where it says men can't wed. It probably talks about them sleeping together not getting married. What they do in their bedroom is their business. Oh, and you must be a catholic. I've heard about mortal sins before. This is one of them? Really? And the catholic church said that them molesting all those kids was a sin and not a crime or was it the other way around?

Anyways, if your church will never come around on the gays, other churches already have. They are more than willing to suck up their $. Perhaps your church doesn't need the gays YET. That's cool. It's like when my cell phone company treats me like shit and I go to a new carrier. They don't mind because they trade business all the time. And who knows, one day Verizon might offer a better offer and you'll go back. Never say never right?

Here is how I see it. You have to be gay to be a catholic priest. Eventually they will all realize it and soften the churches position on gays. It's like the Republican Larry Craig the toe tapper or Michelle Bachman who's married to a gay but hates gays.

Your church just hasn't evolved yet.

 

[Silhouette]

Show me where it says men can't wed. It probably talks about them sleeping together not getting married. What they do in their bedroom is their business. Oh, and you must be a catholic. I've heard about mortal sins before. This is one of them? Really? And the catholic church said that them molesting all those kids was a sin and not a crime or was it the other way around?

Anyways, if your church will never come around on the gays, other churches already have. They are more than willing to suck up their $. Perhaps your church doesn't need the gays YET. That's cool. It's like when my cell phone company treats me like shit and I go to a new carrier. They don't mind because they trade business all the time. And who knows, one day Verizon might offer a better offer and you'll go back. Never say never right?

Here is how I see it. You have to be gay to be a catholic priest. Eventually they will all realize it and soften the churches position on gays. It's like the Republican Larry Craig the toe tapper or Michelle Bachman who's married to a gay but hates gays.

Your church just hasn't evolved yet.

Not catholic. Nobody in the catholic church said molesting boys there was OK. Any other misinformation you want to impart or are you done for now? The day churches OK men sodomizing boys is a day you wish to celebrate. Meanwhile the other 99% of humanity will fight against that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why don't you just come out of the closet?

That's not a closet, dude...that is a padded room!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage. At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.

The "for the children" argument was already presented and rejected by the SCOTUS. From Windsor "The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The "for the children" argument was already presented and rejected by the SCOTUS. From Windsor "The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."


>>>>

"humiliates" is a relative term. After deeper examination and the findings of the European court, the SCOTUS may decide that it is more humilating to live in a home where two people of the same gender are play-acting "mom and dad" when they are not and cannot ever be. Perhaps they will recognize the mental schism those children are destined to experience as they learn where children actually come from: actual mothers and fathers...

Disincentivizing men and women to be together with the children they produce is not a good idea for society on about a thousand other fronts too. So this is bigger than just marriage.

Your argument seems to be "since we are already mind-fucking kids, to alert them to that fact by not allowing us to marry is a mind-fuck to kids". Two wrongs don't make a right. Your circular/insular insane argument doesn't hold water when it comes to actually protecting children in the big picture..

 

[WorldWatcher]

"humiliates" is a relative term. After deeper examination and the findings of the European court, the SCOTUS may decide that it is more humilating to live in a home where two people of the same gender are play-acting "mom and dad" when they are not and cannot ever be. Perhaps they will recognize the mental schism those children are destined to experience as they learn where children actually come from: actual mothers and fathers...

Disincentivizing men and women to be together with the children they produce is not a good idea for society on about a thousand other fronts too. So this is bigger than just marriage.

Your argument seems to be "since we are already mind-fucking kids, to alert them to that fact by not allowing us to marry is a mind-fuck to kids". Two wrongs don't make a right. Your circular/insular insane argument doesn't hold water when it comes to actually protecting children in the big picture..

Nope.

My comment was to show you that your "at the end of the day" comments was silly. The "for the children" arguments was presented in the briefs and oral arguments in the Windsor case, the SCOTUS didn't buy it. So when it comes to how the court will rule next year, the "for the children" argument isn't likely to be a deciding factor "at the end of the day" as they SCOTUS has already pointed out that depriving same-sex couples with children equal treatment under the law is a bad thing.


>>>>

 

[sealybobo]

Not catholic. Nobody in the catholic church said molesting boys there was OK. Any other misinformation you want to impart or are you done for now? The day churches OK men sodomizing boys is a day you wish to celebrate. Meanwhile the other 99% of humanity will fight against that.

Really? Look how many fought back when the church not only covered up molestation they sent those molesters to other parishes to molest more unsuspecting children and their families.

Bishop ‘Not Sure’ Child Molestation A Crime | The American Conservative

He's not sure? This is one of the reasons religion can kiss my ass.

Many people left the church after these scandals but imo not nearly enough. And what does the church do to win people back? They elect a liberal pope. LOL

 

[Theowl32]

 

[Silhouette]

My comment was to show you that your "at the end of the day" comments was silly. The "for the children" arguments was presented in the briefs and oral arguments in the Windsor case, the SCOTUS didn't buy it. So when it comes to how the court will rule next year, the "for the children" argument isn't likely to be a deciding factor "at the end of the day" as they SCOTUS has already pointed out that depriving same-sex couples with children equal treatment under the law is a bad thing.


>>>>

Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited. Or didn't you know that? Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do this in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

Yes, because it's the human thing to do.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited. Or didn't you know that? Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do this in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...

Redneck vs Gay.....Whats the difference?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited. Or didn't you know that? Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do this in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...

Redneck vs Gay.....Whats the difference?

Oh that's easy. The first three photos are people who are sober, putting on an organized parade of "pride" where they hope children of all ages will be in attendance. The second picture is of Spring break type event held for young adults exclusively in areas well known for parents with young kids to avoid. I'm certain nobody there wants or expects young kids to be in attendance to an event they wake up from hung over and obviously not proud of.

Context is everything as it turns out.

 

[Silhouette]

Which event is "sober pride" and which is "shameful hangover" the next day? Which hopes little kids will be around and which doesn't?

 

[haissem123]

Jesus said nothing about homosexuals and he did his best to politely rebuke much of the old testament. I guess those in power editing our good or God's books left out the part where he said do unto others as you'd have them do unto you or judge not less ye be judged. I don't believe in forcing any church to do services for something they don't agree with, like wise I don't believe any church should try to stop others from doing what they believe is right in the sight of their God and maker.