How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?

[Donald Polish]

Do you agree somehow? Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion to be able to practice own religion (or not at all if atheists)? How is a gay-couple, who want equal freedom, marrying obstacle anybody's freedom to religion? It's not like legalizing gay marriage means making straight marriage illegal. conservatives argument against that is "it's against religion" is quite reasonable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you agree somehow? Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion to be able to practice own religion (or not at all if atheists)? How is a gay-couple, who want equal freedom, marrying obstacle anybody's freedom to religion? It's not like legalizing gay marriage means making straight marriage illegal. conservatives argument against that is "it's against religion" is quite reasonable.

Because it is establishing it THROUGH THE STATE.
If it were only kept private, then it would be free choice.
But to go through govt, then it has to represent the consent of the public.
And not be imposed by law by those who believe in something that other people do not or which violates their beliefs.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

Marriage is licensed by the state but performed by the church. When governments begin to license gay marriages, it has the potential to collide with freedom of religion. Certain churches/religions oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, as a sin.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you agree somehow? Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion to be able to practice own religion (or not at all if atheists)? How is a gay-couple, who want equal freedom, marrying obstacle anybody's freedom to religion? It's not like legalizing gay marriage means making straight marriage illegal. conservatives argument against that is "it's against religion" is quite reasonable.

Because it is establishing it THROUGH THE STATE.
If it were only kept private, then it would be free choice.
But to go through govt, then it has to represent the consent of the public.
And not be imposed by law by those who believe in something that other people do not or which violates their beliefs.

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is licensed by the state but performed by the church. When governments begin to license gay marriages, it has the potential to collide with freedom of religion. Certain churches/religions oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, as a sin.

It isn't required for marriages to be performed by the church....in fact, millions each year are performed sans church.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is licensed by the state but performed by the church. When governments begin to license gay marriages, it has the potential to collide with freedom of religion. Certain churches/religions oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, as a sin.

This is also comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[Mr. H.]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a ******* circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

 

[emilynghiem]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

 

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a ******* circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a ******* circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Civil unions that provide equal government benefits for various pairings to gain the same that "married" couples are no problem. But there are two issues here, first: marriage, as traditionally defined by religious groups is one man-one woman. If the LGBTQ community were to extend the same respect to those religious beliefs that the demand for themselves, they would lobby for equal consideration of their unions under civil law and perhaps consider a respectful alternative designation that would carry the same weight civilly that has been granted the religious unions.
Second, even granted the designation of "marriage" to their unions, the LGBTQ community seems dead set on denying any consideration of religious perspectives vis-a-vis such unions. They use the force of law to deny religious people their right to not accept same-sex unions. (PS: "same-sex" should signify any "marriage", since most religious connotations appear to deny sexual access to any other partner than the one contractually bonded by law/belief.)

 

[Mr.Right]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

I guess you missed my post about how the ultimate goal of militant gays is to get rid of marriage altogether. Until they accomplish that goal, if they ever do, they are currently trying to force Christian churches to perform same sex marriages. This is nothing less than an assault on religion.

 

[Mr. H.]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a ******* circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

Are you mocking me? I'm ******* serious.

 

[jon_berzerk]

gays have always been allowed to marry

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

 

[Mr.Right]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

Some people simply believe that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. It's a classic sign of the narcisist.

 

[hipeter924]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a ******* circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil unions that provide equal government benefits for various pairings to gain the same that "married" couples are no problem. But there are two issues here, first: marriage, as traditionally defined by religious groups is one man-one woman. If the LGBTQ community were to extend the same respect to those religious beliefs that the demand for themselves, they would lobby for equal consideration of their unions under civil law and perhaps consider a respectful alternative designation that would carry the same weight civilly that has been granted the religious unions.
Second, even granted the designation of "marriage" to their unions, the LGBTQ community seems dead set on denying any consideration of religious perspectives vis-a-vis such unions. They use the force of law to deny religious people their right to not accept same-sex unions. (PS: "same-sex" should signify any "marriage", since most religious connotations appear to deny sexual access to any other partner than the one contractually bonded by law/belief.)

Because 'civil unions' constitute segregation, which is just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they're currently eligible to participate in.

And again: 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not religious entities – who may perceive marriage however they wish.