What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Internationalist Bastard]

OMG op, I thought you’d never ask
Yes, a thousand times yes

I thought you had better standards. Accepting a marriage proposal in an NSG post. Tsss.

That said, I know at least one NSGer who can perform wedding ceremonies.

Me? Standards?

[The Blaatschapen]

I thought you had better standards. Accepting a marriage proposal in an NSG post. Tsss.

That said, I know at least one NSGer who can perform wedding ceremonies.

Me? Standards?

Yes

[Cekoviu]

OMG op, I thought you’d never ask
Yes, a thousand times yes

I thought you had better standards. Accepting a marriage proposal in an NSG post. Tsss.

That said, I know at least one NSGer who can perform wedding ceremonies.

Me! Strictly speaking, it won't be legally or religiously recognized, but I'll do it.

[New Legland]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Because marriage totally didn't exist before the religions that forbid them did. Also, nice job contradicting yourself here. How does the government have nothing to do with marriage if it defines it (poorly, I might add) and only allows churches to officiate it? And 0.01%? I don't know what world you live in where only 0.01% of the population is gay. (Yes, I know this is IC, but I think it's fairly likely that your actual views are being expressed here.)

[Kannap]

I don’t really think I’ve stated my in-depth explanation.

Overall, about LGBT+ marriage, I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t really understand affection at my current state, and how one could be in such way. I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people. Otherwise, I feel like if you feel better being LGBT+, okay.

Sounds like you're making up something that doesn't exist.

I mean, if you're going to expect me not to show happiness and obtaining small shreds of equality where you all have given them to us, then you'll be expecting for a while.

[Neutraligon]

I don’t really think I’ve stated my in-depth explanation.

Overall, about LGBT+ marriage, I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t really understand affection at my current state, and how one could be in such way. I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people. Otherwise, I feel like if you feel better being LGBT+, okay.

Sounds like you're making up something that doesn't exist.

I mean, if you're going to expect me not to show happiness and obtaining small shreds of equality where you all have given them to us, then you'll be expecting for a while.

What on Earth are you talking about? I have no idea what people you are referring to. I honestly think you are trying to manufacture an issue in order for there to be a problem with gay marriage.

Yup, I completely expected this. My bad, I’ll just go now. What I was trying to say was kinda like the whole “vegan” thing, where people are so enthusiastic about being “vegan” that they will use that as an excuse for many things, but since that is neither relevant nor applicable in the concept of gay marriage the whole point is invalid. In short, I screwed up and tried making a point that doesn’t actually exist.

They did say they where in the wrong.

[Kannap]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people!

I'm impressed, you're living in 2014 yet you've posted on NSG in 2019.

Why? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization.

Marriage, for most of history, has always been a changing idea. At least, in my society - a little place called the United States - we mostly don't arrange marriages anymore and women are treated a little more than just vagina property for childbearing nowadays. Change is good, try it some time.

[Kannap]

Good for the children too to have loving parents. Let them have their families in peace and self-crit imo.


Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

No they should not.

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

[Quaeg]

Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

Legally speaking, no, but I see no problem with revoking at least some of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to do so. I'd like to see how far they're willing to take their morals when their wallet's on the line.

I agree with that. Gay people pay taxes so churches can either pay them as well or get with the programme.

[Kannap]

OMG op, I thought you’d never ask
Yes, a thousand times yes

Does this make IB and me brothersisterhusbandwives?

[San Lumen]

No they should not.

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

good luck ever getting that passed. Scientology alone would spend millions fighting it.

Also we have separation of church and state for a reason.

[Telconi]

No they should not.

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

You do realize that no law mandates a church to perform a ceremony for anyone, and not specifically homosexuals.

[Kannap]

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

good luck ever getting that passed. Scientology alone would spend millions fighting it.

Also we have separation of church and state for a reason.

And marriage licenses fall under the jurisdiction of state.

All things considered, churches don't have to officiate marriages, its just a thing they offer to do and they do it. I don't even know if there's a case of anybody forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple. So I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place.

[San Lumen]

good luck ever getting that passed. Scientology alone would spend millions fighting it.

Also we have separation of church and state for a reason.

And marriage licenses fall under the jurisdiction of state.

All things considered, churches don't have to officiate marriages, its just a thing they offer to do and they do it. I don't even know if there's a case of anybody forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple. So I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place.

A religious institution has the right to refuse to marry anyone.

[Kannap]

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

You do realize that no law mandates a church to perform a ceremony for anyone, and not specifically homosexuals.

I misread the context, but I still stand by churches should be paying taxes - mainly in regards to a lot of them heavily involving themselves politically as organizations or in regards to mega church pastors freely buying mansions and private jets - but that's not the topic of this thread.

[Telconi]

You do realize that no law mandates a church to perform a ceremony for anyone, and not specifically homosexuals.

I misread the context, but I still stand by churches should be paying taxes - mainly in regards to a lot of them heavily involving themselves politically as organizations or in regards to mega church pastors freely buying mansions and private jets - but that's not the topic of this thread.

It isn't.

[Kannap]

And marriage licenses fall under the jurisdiction of state.

All things considered, churches don't have to officiate marriages, its just a thing they offer to do and they do it. I don't even know if there's a case of anybody forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple. So I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place.

A religious institution has the right to refuse to marry anyone.

I don't know if you're arguing or adding to what I said.

[United Muscovite Nations]

good luck ever getting that passed. Scientology alone would spend millions fighting it.

Also we have separation of church and state for a reason.

And marriage licenses fall under the jurisdiction of state.

All things considered, churches don't have to officiate marriages, its just a thing they offer to do and they do it. I don't even know if there's a case of anybody forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple. So I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/08/d ... -marriage/

[Christenmark]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Because marriage totally didn't exist before the religions that forbid them did. Also, nice job contradicting yourself here. How does the government have nothing to do with marriage if it defines it (poorly, I might add) and only allows churches to officiate it? And 0.01%? I don't know what world you live in where only 0.01% of the population is gay. Yes, (I know this is IC, but I think it's fairly likely that your actual views are being expressed here.)

in eccense they are, and yes IC the nation has a tiny LGBT population, but know this, The reason I mentioned churches is because 100% secular marriages are very rare (they are religious by nature), (sans las vegas) I know IRL it is larger, but even then IRL they re still a minuscule sliver of the whole, so small that the point still stands. the last quote, from the New Testament, is a separation of church and state, I just did not realize that by endorsing spirituality it would make a department for it. IRL I don't want the government anywhere in the business of marriage, I think it should be up entirely to the two getting married, but I also don't like the people who are trying to force the rest of us to change the word's meaning for the sake of an indescribably small number of people

[San Lumen]

Because marriage totally didn't exist before the religions that forbid them did. Also, nice job contradicting yourself here. How does the government have nothing to do with marriage if it defines it (poorly, I might add) and only allows churches to officiate it? And 0.01%? I don't know what world you live in where only 0.01% of the population is gay. Yes, (I know this is IC, but I think it's fairly likely that your actual views are being expressed here.)

in eccense they are, and yes IC the nation has a tiny LGBT population, but know this, The reason I mentioned churches is because 100% secular marriages are very rare (they are religious by nature), (sans las vegas) I know IRL it is larger, but even then IRL they re still a minuscule sliver of the whole, so small that the point still stands. the last quote, from the New Testament, is a separation of church and state, I just did not realize that by endorsing spirituality it would make a department for it. IRL I don't want the government anywhere in the business of marriage, I think it should be up entirely to the two getting married, but I also don't like the people who are trying to force the rest of us to change the word's meaning for the sake of an indescribably small number of people

NSG is OOC.

Why should same sex couples not have the same rights as you do?

[The Black Forrest]

And marriage licenses fall under the jurisdiction of state.

All things considered, churches don't have to officiate marriages, its just a thing they offer to do and they do it. I don't even know if there's a case of anybody forcing a church to marry a same-sex couple. So I don't even know how we got into this discussion in the first place.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/08/d ... -marriage/

Wouldn't work here.

[The Grims]

Then they better start paying taxes. If they're gonna start picking and choosing what laws they can partially follow or completely follow, they have no business being tax exempt.

You do realize that no law mandates a church to perform a ceremony for anyone, and not specifically homosexuals.

Yet several people here seem to be of the opinion that forbidding a church to perform marriage ceremonies for certain couples is perfectly fine.

[Christenmark]

in eccense they are, and yes IC the nation has a tiny LGBT population, but know this, The reason I mentioned churches is because 100% secular marriages are very rare (they are religious by nature), (sans las vegas) I know IRL it is larger, but even then IRL they re still a minuscule sliver of the whole, so small that the point still stands. the last quote, from the New Testament, is a separation of church and state, I just did not realize that by endorsing spirituality it would make a department for it. IRL I don't want the government anywhere in the business of marriage, I think it should be up entirely to the two getting married, but I also don't like the people who are trying to force the rest of us to change the word's meaning for the sake of an indescribably small number of people

NSG is OOC.

Why should same sex couples not have the same rights as you do?

who said getting married was a right? I have a constitution with me right now, and there is no mention of the right to get married. also, they can form a union, but I won't call it a marriage and I won't go against what I believe to be sinful action just to make someone happy meaning I won't facilitate their union (I.E.- Cater their union's ceremony)

[The Grims]

NSG is OOC.

Why should same sex couples not have the same rights as you do?

who said getting married was a right? I have a constitutional right now, and there is no mention of the right to get married. also, they can form a union, but I won't call it a marriage and I won't go against what I believe to be sinful action just to make someone happy

Why do you or your religion get to dictate what other religions or secular law systems call marriage ?

[Christenmark]

who said getting married was a right? I have a constitutional right now, and there is no mention of the right to get married. also, they can form a union, but I won't call it a marriage and I won't go against what I believe to be sinful action just to make someone happy

Why do you or your religion get to dictate what other religions or secular law systems call marriage ?

Did I not just state that I don't want the government to be involved with marriage at all

and I never even implied forcing my ethics onto you, others have tried to do so to people of my viewpoint, however.