Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

    In response to this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-a-gay-wedding

    You don't want to attend a "gay wedding." That's fine. I personally hate the term "gay wedding." I find the term to be just as offensive as the term "mixed-race wedding," and I view those who refuse to attend on some religious principle to be just as misguided as those who, also claiming religious justification, refuse to attend "mixed-race" weddings.

    I much prefer the phrase "wedding." Or "marriage." Because it's not a "gay marriage," it's just ... marriage.

    Like it or not, marriage equality will be the law of the land in the US. Churches will not have to perform marriages that go against their faith. The Civil Rights acts that prevent discrimination in retail, housing, transport, and other areas of commerce will eventually be expanded to include sexual orientation and sexual identity.

    And despite the straw-man objections of some, "gay marriage" will not lead to legalized pedophilia or to people marrying animals. It may very well lead to polygamy ... which I'm quite fine with.

    And the world will not come to an end. Nor will America come to and end because of it.

    No matter how that might disappoint some.

  • #2
    Same gender "marriage" has been legal in Canada for over a decade now.

    The same things were said here at that time. Churches will not have to perform these ceremonies. This will not lead to other groups trying to push the envelope and demand the same rights, such as polygamists.

    It didn't take very long for the former statement to be proven wrong, as a church in BC, I believe, was sued when they refused to serve as a venue for a lesbian ceremony.

    And that is not the only incidence.

    As for the second argument, there are cases being brought forward to legalize polygamy.

    Christians will have no rights at all eventually, and you won't care, will you?


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mossrose View Post
      It didn't take very long for the former statement to be proven wrong, as a church in BC, I believe, was sued when they refused to serve as a venue for a lesbian ceremony.
      Canada has different laws than the US. However, I would be willing to wager that the church had previously offered to serve as a venue for other marriages. If they do that, then in that respect, they are no longer just a church. They have transformed themselves into a meeting hall available for rent, and as such, they are required, by law, to follow the laws for any other public venue. The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.

      As for the second argument, there are cases being brought forward to legalize polygamy.
      As I said, I have no problems with polygamy.

      Christians will have no rights at all eventually, and you won't care, will you?
      Christians will have, and should have, no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views. If those are the rights that you demand, then no, I cannot say I'm terribly upset by the prospect.

      Comment


      • #4
        If this is the case that you are speaking of (Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and Hauser and Lazar), the "church" was a Knights of Columbus hall, and they were NOT required to host the wedding.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Outis
          Canada has different laws than the US. However, I would be willing to wager that the church had previously offered to serve as a venue for other marriages. If they do that, then in that respect, they are no longer just a church. They have transformed themselves into a meeting hall available for rent, and as such, they are required, by law, to follow the laws for any other public venue. The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.
          No church is required by law to rent themselves out for everybody anymore than a restaurant is required by law to serve those who don't have a shirt and shoes on if that is what they choose to do.

          As I said, I have no problems with polygamy.
          Why am I not at all surprised.

          Christians will have, and should have, no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views. If those are the rights that you demand, then no, I cannot say I'm terribly upset by the prospect.
          Sodomites and others of the same-gender persuasion should have no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views. Those are the "rights" that are being demanded by the homosexual agenda,and being given by this culture of political correctness. Please tell me why you hold Christians to a different standard?
          If this is the case that you are speaking of (Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and Hauser and Lazar), the "church" was a Knights of Columbus hall, and they were NOT required to host the wedding.
          I didn't say they were required to host the wedding. I said they were sued because they refused to do so.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Outis View Post
            Canada has different laws than the US. However, I would be willing to wager that the church had previously offered to serve as a venue for other marriages. If they do that, then in that respect, they are no longer just a church. They have transformed themselves into a meeting hall available for rent, and as such, they are required, by law, to follow the laws for any other public venue.
            That's just downright silly. Marriage, to us, is an institution of the Church. We don't "rent a hall" to just anybody. There are plenty of venues for people to go to have a wedding and reception. Our Church (and all Churches I have served) have only allowed "Christian Weddings".

            The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.
            Not all Christians are members of our local Church. We often have other Christians utilize our facility for weddings for various reasons, but never without a "Christian Marriage" being performed.

            Christians will have, and should have, no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views.
            Nor should we be required to provide services we oppose. There's that "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. This thread is beyond whacky.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mossrose View Post
              No church is required by law to rent themselves out for everybody anymore than a restaurant is required by law to serve those who don't have a shirt and shoes on if that is what they choose to do.
              You are comparing apples to oranges. More to the point, as I noted, your doomsday scenario did not occur. Unless you know of another incident, this part of your argument is already moot.

              Why am I not at all surprised.
              Sodomites and others of the same-gender persuasion should have no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views. Those are the "rights" that are being demanded by the homosexual agenda,and being given by this culture of political correctness. Please tell me why you hold Christians to a different standard?
              Considering that your church scenario did not happen, I want you to tell me one right that is actually being lost. Just one.

              I didn't say they were required to host the wedding. I said they were sued because they refused to do so.
              They won the suit, thus setting the precedent. (They did have to pay damages for the manner in which they accepted, then later reneged, on the contract.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.
                So, when Hurricane Ike came through, and we provided food and shelter to "any and all" for 14 days --- we should have checked Church Membership and refused all but our own? The fact that we met the needs of those in trouble REQUIRES us to... what, open our doors for drug dealers to open shop?
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is a type of relationship, only possible between one man and one woman, which is not only internally coherent but which has been entirely essential to the foundation of western civilization for more than 2,000 years. The relationship between a man and woman who come together in a permanent union in order to provide a home for any children their sexual union may produce is clearly different from a loving relationship between any two (or more) adults: the first type of relationship is ordered toward making sure that father and mother are both present in the lives of their children, who are of course the future of the society; the latter is ordered toward the happiness of the participants. Calling these two substantively and teleologically distinct types of relationships by the same name is intellectually incoherent.

                  Let us say that American copper manufacturers decide that their product is regarded as inferior to the product of steel manufacturers, and that this is unfair: they are both, after all, metal manufacturers, and it's not fair that steel manufacturers get lucrative contracts to provide girders for buildings and copper manufacturers do not. They petition the government to allow them to sell their copper products as steel.

                  This situation is, of course, absurd: steel and copper are not interchangeable, and, as useful as they both are for their own respective purposes, forcing people to regard them as equivalent results in shoddy construction jobs all around. Marriage as an institution has a fundamentally different purpose from the sorts of relationship possible between persons of the same sex; marriage, as the environment in which children are most frequently and reliably prepared for life as citizens by being raised by their own biological parents, is not interchangeable with a relationship between persons of the same sex, no matter how loving or fulfilling. There is an obvious and qualitative difference, just as there is between copper and steel.

                  You're not enlightened, my friend. You're as much a product of your own time and its biases as those who opposed mixed-race marriages: both positions are historically anomalous, and I have little doubt that, within my lifetime, society as a whole will recognize that accepting people of all sorts of sexual attractions does not in any way require us to redefine an institution whose purpose remains unique and indispensable, and in fact that imposing the sorts of expectations that only make sense in the context of a heterosexual union ordered toward the begetting and rearing of children tends to grate on those whose motivation is mutual satisfaction. When we have expanded the term "marriage" to include any relationship between any number of consenting adults that can be dissolved for any reason or at any time, we will find that we still need a name for the institution that permanently binds a man and woman together as husband and wife so that they will be present as father and mother to any children they may produce together, and that this particular kind of arrangement is important enough to society to warrant special protection.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think you're right, CP: college has ruined me.
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      That's just downright silly.
                      Silly to you, perhaps, but that is the way the law _as it currently stands_ is written. In the US, when a church opens up its activities hall as a public venue, they are required to abide by the same laws as any other public venue.

                      For my part, I am quite willing for churches to be exempted as they wish, and that is the way the laws are being written. I'm quite happy with that.

                      Marriage, to us, is an institution of the Church.
                      You will note, I am not discussing any "institution of the Church." I very carefully selected this forum to be in the context of civil law.

                      Not all Christians are members of our local Church. We often have other Christians utilize our facility for weddings for various reasons, but never without a "Christian Marriage" being performed.
                      Doubtless you have had a longstanding rule to that effect. As the laws stand, and doubtless as the future laws that will be written will stand, such church rules will be respected. As I said, I'm quite happy with that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        Canada has different laws than the US. However, I would be willing to wager that the church had previously offered to serve as a venue for other marriages. If they do that, then in that respect, they are no longer just a church. They have transformed themselves into a meeting hall available for rent, and as such, they are required, by law, to follow the laws for any other public venue. The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.



                        As I said, I have no problems with polygamy.



                        Christians will have, and should have, no right to impose, by force of law, their views on people who do not share those views. If those are the rights that you demand, then no, I cannot say I'm terribly upset by the prospect.

                        Here we are again: Christians can not imposed their views by laws but others can. (sigh)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          There is a type of relationship, only possible between one man and one woman
                          I am not discussing religious definitions, nor religious assertions. Had I wished to do so, I would have selected a religious sub-forum. I very deliberately chose Civics 101 to discuss this issue in the context of secular law.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            So, when Hurricane Ike came through, and we provided food and shelter to "any and all" for 14 days --- we should have checked Church Membership and refused all but our own? The fact that we met the needs of those in trouble REQUIRES us to... what, open our doors for drug dealers to open shop?
                            Mr. Poke, you are far more aware of the law than to present such a ridiculous counter-argument. There is a radical difference in circumstance between a church that opens its doors for emergency relief, and a church who has turned their activities hall into a public venue.

                            Indeed, the "public venue" laws would not apply even to a church that had only opened its activities hall to other faith-related functions. In such a circumstance, they would still fall within the "religious freedom" exemptions. The "public venue" laws wuld only apply to a church that had regularly opened its grounds to secular activities.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Outis View Post
                              I am not discussing religious definitions, nor religious assertions. Had I wished to do so, I would have selected a religious sub-forum. I very deliberately chose Civics 101 to discuss this issue in the context of secular law.
                              I made absolutely no reference to religion in my post: I was making a purely secular argument.
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 09:34 AM
                              10 responses
                              105 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Maranatha  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 12-03-2020, 07:13 AM
                              11 responses
                              103 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 12-02-2020, 10:50 PM
                              49 responses
                              386 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-02-2020, 08:47 AM
                              5 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, 12-01-2020, 11:56 PM
                              51 responses
                              357 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Working...
                              X