Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Phonencia]

of course they should, its not a left-wing or right-wing issue, its a equality issue.

WRONG!!!
it's the left and the government's way of getting rid of religion.
no, it's NOT a conspiracy theory.
They're going to make it a hate crime to talk bad about gays, then, when the normal people are in church listening to were the Bible says being gay is wrong, the government arrests us.

p.s. in my country of Phonencia being homosexual period is illegal and HEAVILY forwned upon by the local populace.

Please tell me this is satire.

No, It's not.
am i the ONLY one who finds being gay weird?

[Pouvan]

yes of course, why not? Fcuk you frikkin conservatives who say it's evil or wrong, or unnatural. How many failed marriages do you know?And its not just f'd up Xtians, but Muslims and Jews as well.

[Muravyets]

of course they should, its not a left-wing or right-wing issue, its a equality issue.

WRONG!!!
it's the left and the government's way of getting rid of religion.
no, it's NOT a conspiracy theory.
They're going to make it a hate crime to talk bad about gays, then, when the normal people are in church listening to were the Bible says being gay is wrong, the government arrests us.

p.s. in my country of Phonencia being homosexual period is illegal and HEAVILY forwned upon by the local populace.

Please tell me this is satire.

No, It's not.
am i the ONLY one who finds being gay weird?

No. There are people in prison for murdering gay people who found it weird, too.

[The United Good]

However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

I should hope that there is no disagreement on this point.

I completely disagree. If religious groups wish to receive governent funding or tax breaks of any kind they should have to follow all of the laws of the nation/state. That includes marrying homosexual couples where legal. It should also mean allowing women as clergy.

If they are against it, revolk their tax free and charitable status. Why should tax concessions go to groups that do not obey national laws? I'm sure we can all agree on this.

I agree with this. Any orginization, religious or not should have to obey the law. Anyone here seriously think that churches should be able to discriminate against women?

I realize this is a bit OT, but it's the thin edge of the wedge - should religions be above the laws in general?

[Der Teutoniker]

I completely disagree. If religious groups wish to receive governent funding or tax breaks of any kind they should have to follow all of the laws of the nation/state. That includes marrying homosexual couples where legal. It should also mean allowing women as clergy.

If they are against it, revolk their tax free and charitable status. Why should tax concessions go to groups that do not obey national laws? I'm sure we can all agree on this.

The church where my wife and I were married had reasonable limitations. For example, the pastor would not marry a couple who were not attendees of the church. Now, according to US law, one need not be a member of Crossroads Church in St. Cloud MN to get married. By your logic, they should lose their tax-free status.

The US has no law regarding allowing female clergy, and therefore the US has no jurisdiction to force that on the church, even should your ridiculous views have any shred of reasonability, or validity.

The idea of legalizing same-sex marriage has no impact on a private organizations right to provide it's services to those it chooses to. After all, by legalizing it, a same-sex couple can still get married.

Additionally, due the America's strong precedent of Seperation of Church and State, it would actually be unlawful to impose any kind of requirement like this on a church. Your argument has literally 0 merit.

[Der Teutoniker]

I don't remember the specific case(perhaps someone else does), but a few years ago, in Canada, there was an issue where a lesbian couple wanted to hold their wedding reception at a Knights of Columbus place. Knights of Columbus refused(it's a Catholic organization), and the lesbian couple took them to court, and while the Knights weren't forced to hold the reception, they did have to pay out some money because of--if I recall correctly these words were actually used--"hurt feelings".

This is a side issue--Canadian law seems to think that you have a right not to be offended(if you're interested, look into the controversy around the Human Rights Commission), but I thought that might be interesting. It's surprising, but some(not me, nor, I hope, anyone on the forum) actually would disagree with that statement, believe it or not.

A private, and religious institution has protection from the state. If I buy a large section of land, and turn it into a park, I can choose who is, and who is not allowed on said property. The same is true of other private properties, and institutions.

[Muravyets]

However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

I should hope that there is no disagreement on this point.

I completely disagree. If religious groups wish to receive governent funding or tax breaks of any kind they should have to follow all of the laws of the nation/state. That includes marrying homosexual couples where legal. It should also mean allowing women as clergy.

If they are against it, revolk their tax free and charitable status. Why should tax concessions go to groups that do not obey national laws? I'm sure we can all agree on this.

I agree with this. Any orginization, religious or not should have to obey the law. Anyone here seriously think that churches should be able to discriminate against women?

Depends on what country you're in. In the US, the law guarantees religions the right to be free from government interference*. That means that, while we think they shouldn't discriminate, under separation of church and state, they can be allowed to.

*It's supposed to be reciprocal, as well, with the government kept free from religious interference. That's why all this bitching about marriage being a religious institution is bullshit. Civil marriage is just as much marriage as any other form or ritual, and it is a governmental institution, not a religious one.

[Der Teutoniker]

am i the ONLY one who finds being gay weird?

I think it's a bit weird. I also think the practice of shaving one's legs (as women in America often do) is weird. Neither thing seems natural to me, but then again, some freaks out there choose to shave their beards, or wear soul patches, compared to that, how weird is gayness, really?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Really, another topic about THiS ?!? My predictions for this;
1) I say by the 2nd or 3rd page, someone is going to give a quote from the Holy Bible, most likely, Leviticus. Then, some atheist, Christian liberal, or gay homosexual is going to attack the quote, with another quote saying that Christians can't eat fish and stuff.
2) The Christian not being very, smart, is going put up a fight, which will lead to epic failure. Thus making this into a religious thread.
3) Massive trolling.
4) Maybe 30th page, some Mod is going to lock this.

Anyone have similar predictions ?
*When I say "gay", I mean the definition of someone who is happy.

Yay! Wrong! 31st page!

[Der Teutoniker]

I agree with this. Any orginization, religious or not should have to obey the law. Anyone here seriously think that churches should be able to discriminate against women?

I realize this is a bit OT, but it's the thin edge of the wedge - should religions be above the laws in general?

So you think that Seperation of Church and State in America should be revoked, then? And allow the State to control, and run all religious institutions, or allow religious institutions to run the state? I really can't agree with you.

[Blitzkrenia]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get this insatiable urge to make clichéd lame puns about happiness whenever they see the word "gay"?

[Der Teutoniker]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get this insatiable urge make clichéd lame puns about happiness whenever they see the word "gay"?

Eh, feel free. I mean, whatever makes you happy, right?

[The United Good]

The church where my wife and I were married had reasonable limitations. For example, the pastor would not marry a couple who were not attendees of the church. Now, according to US law, one need not be a member of Crossroads Church in St. Cloud MN to get married. By your logic, they should lose their tax-free status.

I agree with Gen Italia.

The US has no law regarding allowing female clergy, and therefore the US has no jurisdiction to force that on the church, even should your ridiculous views have any shred of reasonability, or validity.

Does the US have equal rights for women?... Does it say "Equality for women except under these other clauses"? I don't think so. Please show me where in the US constitution it spells out the limitations to women's rights in the US?

The idea of legalizing same-sex marriage has no impact on a private organizations right to provide it's services to those it chooses to. After all, by legalizing it, a same-sex couple can still get married.

So, does the emacipaion proclimation have no impact on private organizations? Does you Church have slaves?? Its fallacious to suggest that a "law" can be ignored by a private organization - the law is the law. If you don't like it, go live in a totalitarian state that has law you like.

Additionally, due the America's strong precedent of Seperation of Church and State, it would actually be unlawful to impose any kind of requirement like this on a church. Your argument has literally 0 merit.

Seriously - why is it that churches in the US can get involved into nominating, promoting and basically owning politicians? Please explain this to me:
I've heard news programs, you-tube posting, etc. where American clergy, often from the pulpit, argue political issues as though they are justifying their narrow positions (both left and right wing) as the fricken world of GOD. Then they turn around and scream "seperation of church and state" when legal issues come up that may effect them. Hypocrites. How can you not call this hypocricy?

[Ashmoria]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get this insatiable urge to make clichéd lame puns about happiness whenever they see the word "gay"?

no i usually think about that scene from 'bringing up baby" where cary grant is caught in a woman's dressing gown and when someone asks him why he says he just went gay all of a sudden.

[The United Good]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get this insatiable urge to make clichéd lame puns about happiness whenever they see the word "gay"?

no i usually think about that scene from 'bringing up baby" where cary grant is caught in a woman's dressing gown and when someone asks him why he says he just went gay all of a sudden.

It was a gay frock.


Actually, the first time I saw a man in a dress, it was in a church hall. A deacon sang "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story and had a male drag chorus backing him up. I was about 6 at the time and didn't really get the joke.

[Ashmoria]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get this insatiable urge to make clichéd lame puns about happiness whenever they see the word "gay"?

no i usually think about that scene from 'bringing up baby" where cary grant is caught in a woman's dressing gown and when someone asks him why he says he just went gay all of a sudden.

It was a gay frock.


Actually, the first time I saw a man in a dress, it was in a church hall. A deacon sang "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story and had a male drag chorus backing him up. I was about 6 at the time and didn't really get the joke.

did everyone else find it hilarious? it sounds funny and i dont even like man-in-drag humor.

thanks for finding that pic. i love that movie.

[Arkinesia]

exactly when did your lord and savior say being gay was not tolerated in the kingdom of heaven?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Apparently that guy Paul is Our Lord and Saviour.

Will you accept Paul into your heart?

Just because Paul isn't Jesus doesn't mean that what Paul said is meaningless.

Does something a press secretary mean nothing simply because he's not the President?

[Sionis Prioratus]

exactly when did your lord and savior say being gay was not tolerated in the kingdom of heaven?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Apparently that guy Paul is Our Lord and Saviour.

Will you accept Paul into your heart?

Just because Paul isn't Jesus doesn't mean that what Paul said is meaningless.

Does something a press secretary mean nothing simply because he's not the President?

I did not say he is meaningless. He's, in fact, so meaningful that he shaped the Christian Church for the millenia to come so much, that it is hardly the Church of Jesus, or Peter for what is worth. It is the Pauline Church.

What I did say is that Paul is not Our Lord and Saviour, nor do I know anyone who recognizes him as such.

[Tmutarakhan]

Does the US have equal rights for women?

The Equal Rights Amendment putting equality of men and women into the Constitution failed to be ratified. There is only the generic "Equal Protection" clause that everyone is entitled to be treated equally by the laws-- that is, by the government; nothing about the right to be treated equally by private institutions. There are some statutes restricting private discrimination against women, but only in such specific cases as the statutes specify.

I've heard news programs, you-tube posting, etc. where American clergy, often from the pulpit, argue political issues as though they are justifying their narrow positions (both left and right wing) as the fricken world of GOD. Then they turn around and scream "seperation of church and state" when legal issues come up that may effect them. Hypocrites. How can you not call this hypocricy?

It IS hypocrisy.

[Redwulf]

Also, the question remains unanswered of why the State should prohibit polygamy

The state shouldn't.

if it already accepts that the definition of marriage can be changed.

The definition was changed as recently as 1967 in the case Loving v Virginia. We DO accept that the definition of marriage can be changed.

[Redwulf]

Under the law, of course. Anyone willing to marry a homosexual couple can do so and they should be treated as equal in all aspects. However, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry homosexual couples.

Find me someone who's arguing otherwise. There are however MANY people arguing that the government can force religious institutions to NOT perform legally binding same sex marriages. People who use the freedom of religion argument AGAINST same sex marriage seem to forget that disallowing legally recognized same sex marriage is itself a violation of freedom of religion.

[Neu Mitanni]

They should have the right to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. Just like everyone else.

[Redwulf]

They should have the right to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. Just like everyone else.

Because . . .?

[Soheran]

All I was saying is this: It is logically inconsistent to accept gay marriage and oppose polygamy.

Again, maybe.

But my point was this: if you're right, it is also logically inconsistent to accept opposite-sex marriage and oppose polygamy, because there is no reason to draw the line at opposite-sex marriage, either.

This is not a slippery slope the same-sex marriage argument creates. It is a slippery slope inherent in what marriage is in our society today, and was long before same-sex marriage was a real political possibility.

[Loschiavone]

As long as two people love each other it shouldn't matter if they are of the same sex. All that matters is that they love each other.