When does Equality become Inequality? Where is the fine line

[Dakini]

Some churches choose to marry same sex couples. Do you have a source on a church that's been forced to do it?

Yeah, the Lutheran churches in Denmark (source: Denmark's 2012 marriage act).

So a state owned church has to follow the laws of the state? Not only that, the church leadership expressed no qualms with the idea of performing gay marriage ceremonies so it sounds like they would have performed them even if they weren't required to uphold the country's laws as an agent of the state.

That's really the best you can do?

This persecution complex is pretty fucking sad.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

So a state owned church has to follow the laws of the state? Not only that, the church leadership expressed no qualms with the idea of performing gay marriage ceremonies so it sounds like they would have performed them even if they weren't required to uphold the country's laws as an agent of the state.

That's really the best you can do?

This persecution complex is pretty fucking sad.

To offer a bit more specificity to this point, about a third of them objected, but individual priests are free to refuse a given ceremony, leaving it up to the bishop to arrange a replacement.

The church of Denmark had previously agreed to host ceremonies for their version of civil unions as well.

[Ifreann]

Do excuse me for not proving a negative.

You seriously believe that unsupported assertions are fine as long as they're negative? There is literally no-one on the anti-church side of this argument
who understands the burden of proof.

Am I doing it right?

Anti-church, very amusing.

So what you're saying is that the people who run this alleged church changed the church's policies.

No, I am saying that the politicians in the government of an alleged country called Denmark (I'm afraid I can't prove it exists, if you're going to make the negative assertion that there are no countries other than the U.S.) changed the church's policies. The church is run by priests, not by politicians.

So this isn't a state church you've been talking about?

That doesn't sound like anyone forced the church to do anything. It sounds like the church changed itself, as so many others have done so many times in the history of organised religion.

When a group of politicians change the law to force a church to do something, that does not mean that the church is changing itself. It means that politicians are changing the church.

Unless it were a state church, in which case the politicians running the country in question are obviously in charge of the state church as much as they are in charge of any other state body.

[United North Atlantic States]

I don't remember them off the top of my head, but I do remember Denmark and Finland.

These wouldn't happen to be the State Churches of Denmark and Finland, would they?

You know, the Churches that are part of the governments of those countries?

Because I already explained about this bullshit.


Look:
If you are a Methodists or a Mormon, a Muslim or a Jew, a Catholic, a Baptist, an Anglican, a Missouri synod Lutheran, a Norwegian Lutheran, or even *shudder* a Swedish Lutheran, in Denmark, you don't have to Marry anyone you don't want to. The only people who do have to perform gay marriages, are the people payed by the government to perform, among other things, gay marriages.

When did we ever specify that we were referring to all churches? Oh, that's right; we didn't.

But anyway, the points you made in the rest of your comment are valid. I'm not certain that the cases in Finland were of a state church, but you may be right.
Also, similar laws have been proposed, over the last few years, regarding the Church of England, but as far as I recall none of them were actually passed.

Actually not even them. The government can't make them perform the ceremony, but will stop paying them if they refuse to do their jobs.

Exactly: it is their jobs, and that is the problem.

To be fair, though, we wouldn't have this issue if European countries just got rid of their state churches… but we can't anticipate that happening for at least another century.

This scaremongering about a change in policy in the State Church of Denmark is desperate and stupid.

Scaremongering? Who is scaremongering???

[Sun Wukong]

This scaremongering about a change in policy in the State Church of Denmark is desperate and stupid.

Scaremongering? Who is scaremongering???

Did you read the OP?

How about this?

This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda, and why it has to be stopped. It's not going to stop in their bedroom, they're going to take it out, into church, and force people to marry them. That's what they're already doing in the courts - forcing the government to marry them.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But anyway, the points you made in the rest of your comment are valid. I'm not certain that the cases in Finland were of a state church, but you may be right.
Also, similar laws have been proposed, over the last few years, regarding the Church of England, but as far as I recall none of them were actually passed.

Clearing up the Finland thing:

The Finnish Parliament legalized gender-neutral marriage by a vote of 105 to 92. In passing the law, Finland became the 12th country in Europe to legalize gay marriage. Until then, it had been the only remaining Scandinavian country where same-sex marriage was illegal.

Kari Mäkinen, Archbishop of Finland’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, sparked the exodus by posting a comment on Facebook in which he expressed support for the law and said he “rejoiced” at its approval. In the post, Mäkinen also called for rethinking the traditional concept of marriage.

“I know how much this day means for rainbow people, their loved ones and many others,” he wrote. “I rejoice with my whole heart for them and with them.” Mäkinen added that “our concept of marriage needs a fundamental examination. Speaking for myself, I think it is time for reconsideration.”

As of late Saturday, about 7,800 people had officially withdrawn from the state-endorsed Lutheran Church via an online service. Finnish media reported that most of the comments under the resignations express disapproval of the archbishop’s statements.

Since the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is the official state church, it is funded directly by taxpayers. The wave of resignations may cause church officials concern, since the church stands to lose the revenues of 8,000 members who will no longer be paying church taxes, which provide the majority of the church’s income.

[Qanchia]

No, I am saying that the politicians in the government of an alleged country called Denmark (I'm afraid I can't prove it exists, if you're going to make the negative assertion that there are no countries other than the U.S.) changed the church's policies. The church is run by priests, not by politicians.

When a group of politicians change the law to force a church to do something, that does not mean that the church is changing itself. It means that politicians are changing the church.

Those might seem like adequate distinctions, but in a state-established church things are a bit more muddled than that.

Yeah, in a state-established church like the Vatican's or Saudi Arabia's, where the church (or the mosque) actually has power in the running of the state, not in the case of "state religions" in Denmark or England, where the church's status is nominal and it has no actual power in the state. Here, the situation is little different from that of a country like America, France or Turkey that has separation of the church and the state.

[United North Atlantic States]

Scaremongering? Who is scaremongering???

Did you read the OP?

Yes, I did, and nothing about it registered in my mind as scaremongering. I think it is an important issue to be discussed.

[United North Atlantic States]

Scaremongering? Who is scaremongering???

[…]

How about this?

This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda, and why it has to be stopped. It's not going to stop in their bedroom, they're going to take it out, into church, and force people to marry them. That's what they're already doing in the courts - forcing the government to marry them.

Oh, yes—you're right about that person. (Although, there is also a good chance that he/she is simply trolling in-character.)

[Sun Wukong]

Those might seem like adequate distinctions, but in a state-established church things are a bit more muddled than that.

Yeah, in a state-established church like the Vatican's or Saudi Arabia's, where the church (or the mosque) actually has power in the running of the state, not in the case of "state religions" in Denmark or England, where the church's status is nominal and it has no actual power in the state. Here, the situation is little different from that of a country like America, France or Turkey that has separation of the church and the state.

"Little different" if you discount that the State owns the church in question.

Which seems like a bit of a distinction to me, but what do I know? I'm only the Great Sage, Equal of Heaven.

[Sun Wukong]

Did you read the OP?

Yes, I did, and nothing about it registered in my mind as scaremongering. I think it is an important issue to be discussed.

Except that it really isn't. Because nobody's promoting the one side.

It would be like asking, "Should we force schoolchildren to rape seals?" You can do it - it is verbally possible to phrase that as a question - but why would you?

[United North Atlantic States]

Yes, I did, and nothing about it registered in my mind as scaremongering. I think it is an important issue to be discussed.

Except that it really isn't. Because nobody's promoting the one side.

It would be like asking, "Should we force schoolchildren to rape seals?" You can do it - it is verbally possible to phrase that as a question - but why would you?

No, that's a terrible analogy, because in reality there exists a significant number of people who would actually like for churches to be legally forced to perform same-sex marriages, even if they only constitute an extreme minority. All it took was a simple Google search for me to find an entire article written under that opinion: an article to which I linked in an earlier comment.

[Conserative Morality]

Except that it really isn't. Because nobody's promoting the one side.

It would be like asking, "Should we force schoolchildren to rape seals?" You can do it - it is verbally possible to phrase that as a question - but why would you?

No, that's a terrible analogy, because in reality there exists a significant number of people who would actually like for churches to be legally forced to perform same-sex marriages, even if they only constitute an extreme minority. All it took was a simple Google search for me to find an entire article written under that opinion: a comment to which I linked in an earlier comment.

I know some people who would probably support schoolchild seal rape.

[Qanchia]

You seriously believe that unsupported assertions are fine as long as they're negative? There is literally no-one on the anti-church side of this argument
who understands the burden of proof.

Am I doing it right?

Anti-church, very amusing.

Nothing you've said so far about this makes any sense (unless you've been meaning to post non-sequiturs).

So this isn't a state church you've been talking about?

It is. What are you talking about?

Unless it were a state church, in which case the politicians running the country in question are obviously in charge of the state church as much as they are in charge of any other state body.

The politicians in charge of the country are obviously in charge of all the institutions in the country, state body or not. That doesn't make them the same thing as the church, so as to make their decisions somehow the church's decisions. They pass laws, and the institutions in the country obey or face punishment.

Look, you are not making any sense, and you're just going round and round in circles and trying to drag me with you. I see you have 70k+ posts, so I assume you're not usually like this. I think I recall seeing you post something like "Drunks Unite" earlier in this thread, so that explains it. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write posts when the people replying to them aren't going to properly understand them. So goodnight.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Except that it really isn't. Because nobody's promoting the one side.

It would be like asking, "Should we force schoolchildren to rape seals?" You can do it - it is verbally possible to phrase that as a question - but why would you?

No, that's a terrible analogy, because in reality there exists a significant number of people who would actually like for churches to be legally forced to perform same-sex marriages, even if they only constitute an extreme minority. All it took was a simple Google search for me to find an entire article written under that opinion: a comment to which I linked in an earlier comment.

The Blaze article?

You're aware that article was dripping with sarcasm, right?

[United North Atlantic States]

You're aware that article was dripping with sarcasm, right?

No, I wasn't, and I'm still not sure whether it is…

[Dakini]

You're aware that article was dripping with sarcasm, right?

No, I wasn't, and I'm still not sure whether it is…

That's really the only way to explain why that particular author would write an article supporting gay marriage in any way.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Churches should be allowed to choose who they will marry, but secular officials and commercial businesses should be required to offer gay couples the same service as anyone else.

[United North Atlantic States]

Churches should be allowed to choose who they will marry, but secular officials and commercial businesses should be required to offer gay couples the same service as anyone else.

Ah, now that's a good conversation starter. This is where the lines in popular opinion get very blurry.

Most neoliberals would agree with you. Libertarians and neoconservatives would disagree. The main problem is the apparent dilemma that the libertarian argument supports the freedoms of business owners, whereas the neoliberal/progressivistic argument supports the freedoms of customers.

I, for one, do not share the belief that there is such a dilemma.
There are two obvious extremes, though: total libertarianism and total economic statism. In the former, a completely laissez-faire state wherein the economy would ideally be unrecognized by the government, economic freedom would be essentially at 100%—in other words: anarchy in the realm of economy. In the latter, a case such as idealistic Marxism in which the state has the power to control all aspects of its economy, economic freedom is essentially zero. In the former, there is total liberty of trade; in the latter, there is total regulation of trade.
What most people (and apparently all politicians) fail to realize, however, is that there is no need for compromise in regards to these two extremes. So far, every state that has ever existed on Earth has governed somewhere between these extremes, so it is not surprising that so many people assume that such a tradeoff between liberty and regulation is necessary. But I believe that they are wrong.

I believe that both extremes should exist simultaneously.
How?
There would be two economies rather than one. There would be a state-controlled economy, which people could choose to take part in at their own will, and there would be a citizen-controlled economy (not to be confused with a state-enforced, collectivistic economy) for which there would be no purely economic regulations whatsoever—not even a standard currency. This, I believe, is the only way in which to simultaneously insure complete economic freedom and egalitarian economic treatment (as well as sufficient resources provided to each citizen) under the law.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I believe that both extremes should exist simultaneously.
How?
There would be two economies rather than one. There would be a state-controlled economy, which people could choose to take part in at their own will, and there would be a citizen-controlled economy (not to be confused with a state-enforced, collectivistic economy) for which there would be no purely economic regulations whatsoever—not even a standard currency. This, I believe, is the only way in which to simultaneously insure complete economic freedom and egalitarian economic treatment (as well as sufficient resources provided to each citizen) under the law.

So basically, we should decriminalize the black market?

[Hladgos]

*bang head 'till dead*

[Chestaan]

This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda, and why it has to be stopped. It's not going to stop in their bedroom, they're going to take it out, into church, and force people to marry them. That's what they're already doing in the courts - forcing the government to marry them.

They're going to take it out in the church oh my...

[Sebtopiaris]

As a Christian, I often get criticized for my views on Homosexuality. While I do think that they should be treated fairly and just like everybody else, we shouldn't be forcing everyone else to take measures that hurt or offend them to make that happen. Homosexual couples should be allowed marriage, but forcing churches to marry them in their chapels should not happen. Why not let religions practice the beliefs that they believe? I don't mean let religions murder people and get away with it for the sake of 'religious freedom' but why can't we do things that don't hurt people?

I just wan't to get your opinions on my opinion so I can see what people think.

Trust me, bro, what you're saying isn't that far out. In fact, it makes sense. I'm an atheist and I agree with you.
Anyways, if you get yelled at for saying this stuff, where on earth do you live?

[Sebtopiaris]

I believe that both extremes should exist simultaneously.
How?
There would be two economies rather than one. There would be a state-controlled economy, which people could choose to take part in at their own will, and there would be a citizen-controlled economy (not to be confused with a state-enforced, collectivistic economy) for which there would be no purely economic regulations whatsoever—not even a standard currency. This, I believe, is the only way in which to simultaneously insure complete economic freedom and egalitarian economic treatment (as well as sufficient resources provided to each citizen) under the law.

So basically, we should decriminalize the black market?

Wait, how'd homosexuality turn into this?

[Sebtopiaris]

This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda, and why it has to be stopped. It's not going to stop in their bedroom, they're going to take it out, into church, and force people to marry them. That's what they're already doing in the courts - forcing the government to marry them.

It's not really the gay agenda- more homosexuals getting butthurt because some conservative church which they CHOSE to be a member of wouldn't wed them and their partner. The church is an establishment run according to the religious doctrines of the people running it- if you don't like it, tough bikkies, find another church.