Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Redfish]

no one has said that those laws did not exist. only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?

she can't answer that and will leave the thead, its a typical pattern

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

no one has said that those laws did not exist. only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay. Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry. Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage. It's completely different ... yeah right. Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book. IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse. Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings. IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.

Minority group? Hmmm? How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?

Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too. Don't forget the polygamists! You always leave them out Seawytch. Why do you leave out the polygamists? Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo? Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to? Really? After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?

You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th. So why not advertise it now? Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative? You know it's a fact.

We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day. You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems. What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race. Are all those laws discriminatory? Of course they are. And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination. Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't. I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A Black person is born black... True.

However, Blacks could marry. They were no laws against that.




However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice. Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?



>>>>

Race doesn't exist. Genetically there is only one race.

Homosexuality is a choice.

Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?



>>>>

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

(Thanks to Dr. Thomas Sowell for the previous quote.)

The fact that there were laws banning interracial marriage in some places at some point in time is irrelevant. The point is that those laws were wrong and invalid because they discriminated against people for something that had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. That has nothing to do with law regarding or excluding homosexual "marriage", because that IS about their actions and DOES involve the definition of marriage.

Before you trot out all the old tripe about "homosexuals are born that way, just like blacks", let me just say that, in a logical, dispassionate legal system - rather than the overblown mass of drama leftists try to turn our courts into at every opportunity - this is also not the point. The law is still not discriminating against them as people, only against their chosen actions. Homosexuals are still allowed to marry anyone they wish within the definition of marriage. Bans on interracial marriage limited that privilege within that definition, which is why they were wrong and struck down.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not start with the mosques rather than the churches?

The same people who bend over backward to accomodate Islam, want to go after Christian churches -- why?

Because Christians are unlikely to shoot you, bomb you, or fly airplanes into your buildings if you piss them off.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too. Don't forget the polygamists! You always leave them out Seawytch. Why do you leave out the polygamists? Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo? Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to? Really? After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?

You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th. So why not advertise it now? Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative? You know it's a fact.

We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day. You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems. What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race. Are all those laws discriminatory? Of course they are. And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination. Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't. I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

WOW! No answer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is wrong with polygamy? Why is wrong with it? Why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

I think you're making my point, right?

Or you are making my point. You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy.

I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior. Nutz.

Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority. Hypocrites are in all groups.

Who's "we", paleface? I think the way people conduct their "relationships" these days is utterly, cockeyed insane and virtually guaranteed to bring them nothing but misery and drama. On the other hand, drama seems to be the only thing most people seem to want these days, so maybe that's why they do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no one has said that those laws did not exist. only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?

Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.

 

[BlackSand]

Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.

.

Quite true. My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor. She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is wrong with polygamy? Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group? Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

WOW! No answer?

Here is your answer:

Laws prohibiting siblings from marrying are Constitutional, valid, and do not manifest as 'discrimination' because they're applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion, such laws are rationally based, and pursue a proper legislative end, unlike laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Moreover, marriage laws are not written to accommodate siblings, where the contract law that is marriage is designed only for consenting adults who are not related.

Same-sex couples are therefore eligible to enter into the marriage contract, siblings are not.

 

[Silhouette]

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?

Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.

What are actions apart from the peopel that do them? Would you convict a murder and sent it to prison while letting the murderer himself go free? Of course not! Behaviors and the people that do them are inseparable in law.

And we regulate behaviors as a majority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?

Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.

What are actions apart from the peopel that do them? Would you convict a murder and sent it to prison while letting the murderer himself go free? Of course not! Behaviors and the people that do them are inseparable in law.

And we regulate behaviors as a majority.

Uh, yeah, that's what I just said, your deliberate attempt to twist and misunderstand notwithstanding.

Try to keep up. Legal discrimination should be toward the things that people do, not the people themselves. The law should not exclude homosexuals simply because they ARE homosexuals - as in preventing them from living in certain places - but can and should differentiate between behaviors. That's what the law exists to do.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh, yeah, that's what I just said, your deliberate attempt to twist and misunderstand notwithstanding.

Try to keep up. Legal discrimination should be toward the things that people do, not the people themselves. The law should not exclude homosexuals simply because they ARE homosexuals - as in preventing them from living in certain places - but can and should differentiate between behaviors. That's what the law exists to do.

People who do gay sex living at a certain place or working at a certain place is no cause for concern except for the high propensity of gay men to carry the HIV virus because of the mechanical nature of their sex practices trying to use the lower digestive tract [colon/anus] as an artificial vagina. Then there are real sanitation concerns as with shared bathrooms and such. Bloody diarrhea to razor rash issues on the toilet seat for example.

But in marriage there is a concern because of the children involved. Then gay sex permitted in Lawrence V Texas no longer is a private matter. It is a matter that affects others: children. Children where society must encourage a mother/father guardianship for them above and preferred to any other arrangement. All other arrangments must be promoted as legally inferior to make the brass ring just that one arrangement.

The fact that other arrangements exist does not erase the need for a goal to shoot for that encourages the one and only best arrangement for raising kids. Other arrangements such as single parents or widowed parents are unfortunate necessary evils. Gay parents don't exist at all in nature so promoting this least natural of all arrangements is beyond the pale.

I'd be in support of calling a single woman or widow "married" before I would call gay ones that. For they never can be that which is what is natural to beget children. The children of these pretend-hetero marriages are not stupid and will grow up to learn about reproduction, mothers and fathers. And they will question why society allowed them to be formed in such a bastardized arrangement of the nuclear family.

 

[Seawytch]

Race doesn't exist. Genetically there is only one race.



Homosexuality is a choice.

Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?







>>>>

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.



When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.



Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.



(Thanks to Dr. Thomas Sowell for the previous quote.)



The fact that there were laws banning interracial marriage in some places at some point in time is irrelevant. The point is that those laws were wrong and invalid because they discriminated against people for something that had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. That has nothing to do with law regarding or excluding homosexual "marriage", because that IS about their actions and DOES involve the definition of marriage.



Before you trot out all the old tripe about "homosexuals are born that way, just like blacks", let me just say that, in a logical, dispassionate legal system - rather than the overblown mass of drama leftists try to turn our courts into at every opportunity - this is also not the point. The law is still not discriminating against them as people, only against their chosen actions. Homosexuals are still allowed to marry anyone they wish within the definition of marriage. Bans on interracial marriage limited that privilege within that definition, which is why they were wrong and struck down.

Wanting to deny marriage equality based on gender is no different than denying it based on race.

 

[Seawytch]

Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.



.

Quite true. My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor. She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.

Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.



.

Quite true. My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor. She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.

Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.

Which has ****-all to do with the topic OR with Christianity . . . so it's par for the course where your posts are concerned.

 

[BlackSand]

Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.



.

Quite true. My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor. She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.

Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.

Uh Yeah ... And Religious institutions still can deny interacial heterosexual couples if they so choose.
Even though that is not quite what I was talking about ... Glad to see you got the point.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

Depends on states' public accommodation laws and eventually a SCOTUS ruling parsing the issue.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.

WOW! No answer?

Here is your answer:

Laws prohibiting siblings from marrying are Constitutional, valid, and do not manifest as 'discrimination' because they're applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion, such laws are rationally based, and pursue a proper legislative end, unlike laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Moreover, marriage laws are not written to accommodate siblings, where the contract law that is marriage is designed only for consenting adults who are not related.

Same-sex couples are therefore eligible to enter into the marriage contract, siblings are not.

So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.

What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?),

Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?