I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?



btw, I'm actually quite relieved by this thread, looking at the title I thought it was about you having seen a doctor and found out that there was something wrong with your blood pump...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm... Why should gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

---

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

---

I heard that piece this morning as well. My take on it was the inability of religions to tie homosexual union into conflict with the tenets of their religion. Then they would have the freedom of religion argument and they might actually be able to entrench around it. The homosexuals have take a tactical approach to ensuring their adgenda become part of the mainstream acceptance. I give them credit, and dont dispute your interpretation of the piece.

However, the religous have to stop fight along the lines of is it morally okay and ethical, and along the lines of freedom of religion if they want to win (or established an entrenched position that will hold in a court of law). I have been waiting for this tactic to be envoked, but alas to no avail yet, passion sometimes clouds tactical thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

---

Yeah... I was talking more generally ~;)

But for this specific case, I give a big "Meh". And I question the sanity of everyone involved. Including the media.

Sigh, another example of the mutual respect everyone must have for homosexuals :thumbsdown:

They can't see it, odd condition.

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...villion540.jpg

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...villion540.jpg

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

---

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did. And apparently you've never been to the Jersey shore. That's an open pavillion on a boardwalk, not a dilapidated shack. They run for hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to the location.

But hey, if that's the best you can come up with, and you're forced to completely sidestep the issue, I guess I'll just have to repeat:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did.

---

ORLY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don's NPR Article

The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

---

Thats my point Don. The homosexuals have accurately read the mood of the culture and have taken the legal tact of discrimination. The church's need a legal battle plan, not a hoped for outcry of morality.

There are a lot of smart people who participate in organized religion, I have yet to fathom why they havent begun to reshape the argument along these lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

---

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on. This annoys me to no end, they say they want to be accepted as equal because it's just their sexual preferation, but in the end it always becomes their sexual preferation that defines them and everything should move aside. So very very disrespectful. If these people care for that rundown little shack what's it to them, why keep insisting just because someone said no. Only small children can't take no for an answer, I want it I want it what they want is all that's on their mind at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on.

---

The usual rant, eh?

Now, did you read what I posted? Did you read up on the cases Don referred to? Did you get the point of what these cases are about? They are borderline cases, issues on the legal borderline where public order and public interest meet personal convictions and private interests. It has always been that way. That line is drawn and redrawn all the time.

And do you really think religious adoption services should operate according to their own principles, without regard for the law? Would you like Scientology to start adopting kids according to their principles? Hm?

Thought so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The usual rant, eh?

Now, did you read what I posted? Did you read up on the cases Don referred to? Did you get the point of what these cases are about? They are borderline cases, issues on the legal borderline where public order and public interest meet personal convictions and private interests. It has always been that way. That line is drawn and redrawn all the time.

And do you really think religious adoption services should operate according to their own principles, without regard for the law? Would you like Scientology to start adopting kids according to their principles? Hm?

Thought so.

---

It's the mentality, they want it, and if they can't have it they want it even more, and that's when we get cases like this because they don't (can't?) accept no. That's the real issue not the juridical particulars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

---

Right, nobody has issued any edicts stating that religions that do not embrace homosexuality will be outlawed. Right now, it's a few fringe cases.

My point was not to ring a gong of alarmism. It wasn't to discuss degree or extent. It wasn't to villify homosexuals at large.

It was simply a retort to those who've called me a paranoid nutjob over the years. There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society. For lack of a better term, I call these folks the Lambda crowd (after the Lambda Legal Advocacy crowd). Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

Now Lemur, you are right, I was wrong, I misread the article. The tax exemption was on the pavillion itself. So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?

---

No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.

---

This. Why should I respect someone who doesn't respect anything? Same with blitzbeards.

ps, not so small a minority I think.

Is it safe to ask what exactly a "blitzbeard" is? If the answer is very rude, just PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

---

Did we read the same article? Every single case they cited, the court found for the plaintiffs and forced somebody to adapt their religious principles to accept the homosexual lifestyle.

And attorney Marc Stern said:

Quote:

---

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

---

You say it's a few outlying cases. I say it's a vanguard. I'm not trying to pin this on the gay community at large, but trust me, until two gay men are being married in St. Patrick's cathedral in New York, this is far from over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Is it safe to ask what exactly a "blitzbeard" is? If the answer is very rude, just PM me.

---

Well it's one of the many fruits that dropped of my tree. Muslims with surface to sole homing toes, just can't help stepping on them because they want to be offended. Just as these gays are commited to get no for an answer, they want to be discriminated.

Don, I got your point the first time round, no mistake there. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.

---

Don't we all have such minorities? Blacks, Jews, feminists, Catholics, Protestants, leftwing and rightwing extremists, Army veterans, all have vocal minorities that push their agenda on behalf of the so-called 'majority' they claim to represent. It's lobbying business as usual.

The funniest thing is not that the ladies would have had no complaints if they had been refused on the ground that they were Jewish. The funniest thing is in that case they might have had the JDL, B'nai Brith and Alan Dershowitz backing them...

They blatantly go against what they claim are their religious beliefs, and yet they still demand the church accepts them. Or at least that their religious counterparts accept them. Why can't they just leave religion out of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

---

I'm not yet entirely sure of how to react to the article. On one side, I believe your "I told you so" is a bit premature as no ministers are being forced to perform the actual wedding ceremony. On the other hand, the couple is pretty clearly violating the first amendment rights of the church. Also, complaining that a Christian group doesn't accept you as a homosexual is stupid and pathetic. So, upon further thought, I believe the courts were wrong in this case. They should have sided with the Methodists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Don, I got your point the first time round, no mistake there. :bow:

Don't we all have such minorities? Blacks, Jews, feminists, Catholics, Protestants, leftwing and rightwing extremists, Army veterans, all have vocal minorities that push their agenda on behalf of the so-called 'majority' they claim to represent. It's lobbying business as usual.

The funniest thing is not that the ladies would have had no complaints if they had been refused on the ground that they were Jewish. The funniest thing is in that case they might have had the JDL, B'nai Brith and Alan Dershowitz backing them...

---

I don't think even Alan Dershowitz would make the point that Father Paul McMillan has to perform a wedding service for an orthodox Jewish couple in St. Patrick's. The right to restrict one's rites and rituals to members of the organization is a fundamental tenet of free association.

Where you might actually see Alan and everyone else getting fired up is if instead of a Methodist pavilion, the couple had wanted to use a pavilion owned by the local orthodox synagogue.

Who cares?!? I didn't think that many orgahs liked being told what to do anyways, I always get this funny of image of god from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Americans start talking about religion.

If it makes you feel better, I still think you're a paranoid nutjob...

Seriously though, I agree with you on this one. But as Lemur said, the fact that a few people decide to sue another doesn't mean anything by itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

If it makes you feel better, I still think you're a paranoid nutjob...

Seriously though, I agree with you on this one. But as Lemur said, the fact that a few people decide to sue another doesn't mean anything by itself.

---

Hee hee, I thought of that one myself.

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Hee hee, I thought of that one myself.

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

---

You arn't crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

---

I blame the incredible dullness of being in a pretty much established society. All these ideals, and nobody to fight for. Within an hour's distance. If you want to feel good and can be home for dinner as an idealist with moral hunger, well gay marriage, somebody could be starving in africa but at least it's something to sink the teeth in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't think even Alan Dershowitz would make the point that Father Paul McMillan has to perform a wedding service for an orthodox Jewish couple in St. Patrick's. The right to restrict one's rites and rituals to members of the organization is a fundamental tenet of free association.

Where you might actually see Alan and everyone else getting fired up is if instead of a Methodist pavilion, the couple had wanted to use a pavilion owned by the local orthodox synagogue.

---

What if they had decided they wanted to hold their ceremony in the Methodist church itself instead of a pavilion? Wouldn't the same argument apply there as well? This is an unfortunate precedent.

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd. Until the homosexuals are permited to dry hump in the pews, they're not going to be happy (or shall I say, gay!!!) giggle... with any religious group. I'll give the muslims this, they don't put up the with homo agenda crap.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd. Until the homosexuals are permited to dry hump in the pews, they're not going to be happy (or shall I say, gay!!!) giggle... with any religious group. I'll give the muslims this, they don't put up the with homo agenda crap.:2thumbsup:

---

No nothing is sacred but there certainly smart enough to use the system to further their adgenda's. I still havent figured out whats taken the christians so long to employ the same tactic :inquisitive: The whole freedom of religion thing is the only way I can see stopping the influx of infidels upon their shrines.

In a way it brings me a certain amount of glee (dare I say it makes me feel gay?) to see the churches taking it up the rear with no lube at all. Particularly gratifying is a heathen like me can see clearly their avenue to combat the erosion of their temples.

I just cant see the christians arguing from a moral point of view gaining any kind of traction legally, they pretty much squandered their moral authority card a few years back with the whole pedophile business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd.

---

Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here ~;)

---

Oops sorry, Snapper Lappers!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I just cant see the christians arguing from a moral point of view gaining any kind of traction legally, they pretty much squandered their moral authority card a few years back with the whole pedophile business.

---

You do know the methodist and catholic chruchers are two very diffrenet things. So not only are you judging an entire religon based on a few crimnal instances you are now lumping diffrent denomonations together. But whatever makes you happy I guess.

Quote:

---

You do know the methodist and catholic chruchers are two very diffrenet things. So not only are you judging an entire religon based on a few crimnal instances you are now lumping diffrent denomonations together

---

I do hope you are not trying to say that methodist churches don't have child abusers among thier clergy . And I certainly hope you would not attempt to make that claim about your own denomination either .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I do hope you are not trying to say that methodist churches don't have child abusers among thier clergy . And I certainly hope you would not attempt to make that claim about your own denomination either .

---

There are crminals everywhere and Im rather sure he was refering to the catholic scandles as no others have cuased as much commtioin. but saying the Christian church cant not claim moral authority is simply not true. There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls. Odin seems to take utter glee in the fact that the church is under attack simply becuase he views organized religon as some nasty thing

What denomonation am I Tribsey?

Quote:

---

What denomonation am I Tribsey?

---

I thought you was Southern Baptist

Marriage isn't inherently religious. I find it really odd that gay people want to get married by a real priest instead of someone who's just pretending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There are crminals everywhere and Im rather sure he was refering to the catholic scandles as no others have cuased as much commtioin. but saying the Christian church cant not claim moral authority is simply not true. There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls. Odin seems to take utter glee in the fact that the church is under attack simply becuase he views organized religon as some nasty thing

---

I wont take the thread off topic (well not to far). Yes Strike I concede there are millions and millions of Chrisitans who are great hard working people. Sadly each one of them is a criminal for allowing themselves to be associated with this criminal enterprise called christianity. I've made this argument before, and out of respect for Don and his thread I wont go on and on about it.

Should the opportunity arise again in another thread somewhat related I will be happy to go over it again.

Also, this is the first time in years someone has associated me with glee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls.

---

But keep in mind that that number encompasses all Christian denominations, and some of them think the other "so-called Christians" are naught but the Devil's Fools and Satan's Tools.

I'm going to be working at Ocean Grove in July for a Christian concert, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies. :D

I'm in DC's corner, but I'm a bomb-throwing extremist and I think the owner of any private property should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. If you disapprove, just don't go there.

The issue is made more murky by the tax-exempt status of the pavillion, but would could a Muslim-owned pavillion get away with deny a customer who wished to celebrate his favorite hog's birthday? Certainly. (That's tongue-in-cheek, just so yanno).

Frankly, I think we ought to eliminate the term "marriage" from law. This is nothing more than a contract between individuals to share assets and liabilities while gaining tax benefits.


The religious aspect of the union is completely seperate. Marriage is a covenant between individuals and the Lord. Anybody can be married spiritually and religiously, but not legally. Similarly, anybody can be joined in a union legally, but not spiritually or religiously. The fact that the government is involved in marraige at all is violation of the seperation between church and state.


The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.

---

I would give you money if my state hadnt of used it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Frankly, I think we ought to eliminate the term "marriage" from law. This is nothing more than a contract between individuals to share assets and liabilities while gaining tax benefits.


The religious aspect of the union is completely seperate. Marriage is a covenant between individuals and the Lord. Anybody can be married spiritually and religiously, but not legally. Similarly, anybody can be joined in a union legally, but not spiritually or religiously. The fact that the government is involved in marraige at all is violation of the seperation between church and state.


The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.

---

The issue with this is that people were fine with marriage as a legal term for years and years. The government changing it's terminology is just an official proclamation of 'we don't like gay people'.

I couldn't care less about what would be the legal term for marriage. As far as I'm concerned they can replace the word "marriage" with "orange juice".

Anyway, why are the media even paying attention to this? Is this stuff really newsworthy? :wall:

I don't understand these people. You are a [insert term for member of a certain religion] and you want to marry your gay friend. [insert said religion] doesn't allow gay marriage. You have two options: a) accept and don't marry your gay friend; b) leave [insert said religion] in disgust. Nobody prevents you from starting your own religion which allows gay marriage. You can even call it "The Correct [insert said religion]", as far as I'm concerned.

Some members are confusing issues again.

1. Don is not complaining that gays want to change their religion of choice. He is complaining that gays are attempting to change religions from the outside, through the courts. Whether that is actually happening, and whether it is good thing or not, is debatable.

2. Marriage is not a private contract. Under the law, marriage is a privileged status (legal, fiscal, etcetera) granted by the state to couples with an eye to conceiving and raising children in a safe atmosphere. The mot important privilege is not fiscal, but legal: spouses automatically become next of kin which is an essential prerequisite to the continuity of their childrens' education. So marriage is a contract between two people and the state (acting on behalf of the community) and the couple must meet certain conditions that vary from country to country, in return for wich the state undertakes said obligations which also vary from country to country. But the principle is the same everywhere. The whole issue of gay marriage hinges on the question of whether gays can and should raise children.

3. Religious marriage is private business.

I don't think i have understood this issue fullly before but here is an attempt....

The main point of contention for gays getting married is not that religion grants marriage, no religion controls it, the goverment controls marriage, so people don't want the goverment to allow gay marriage, but this just seems discriminatory to me, we have laws against incest and polygamy so thats why they can't get married but as we have no laws against being gay why isn't gay marriage allowed ?

Of course no religion or church should be forced to marry them, but if they can find someone and somewhere where thier welcome whats everyone else's problem that thier union has the same name as yours..... it can't be half as insulting to the institution of marriage as some of the stuff straight couples do

Actually, this particular case has to do with a Jewish couple that wanted to get married in a Methodist pavilion on the New Jersey boardwalk, but the Methodists said no, and somehow this violated some New Jersey statute or another, and I guess the Methodists were doign something state-related to get their tax break on the pavilion, and somehow the Jewish lesbians sued for the pavilion to lose its tax-exempt status and they won. So now the lesbians are married, I guess, and the Methodist church has lost its tax shelter on a falling-down little structure for no obvious reason.

I don't see why anyone finds this confusing.

It's simpler than that. From now on, regardless of what your religion teaches, you will marry homosexuals , or you will lose your tax-exempt status. Should that fail to work, further 're-education' strategies will be initiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's simpler than that. From now on, regardless of what your religion teaches, you will marry homosexuals , or you will lose your tax-exempt status. Should that fail to work, further 're-education' strategies will be initiated.

---

Uhm... This is about using a building, not marrying a couple, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm... This is about using a building, not marrying a couple, isn't it?

---

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.

It's about a homosexual lobby out there forcing everyone to acknowledge and accept them through misuse of the courts.

And it's about forcing religions to adopt the creed of 'diversity'.

In short, it's about barring religion. Whenever religion takes a stand on a behavior, the behaviorists turn to the courts and the courts force the religion to abandon their teachings.

And at the end of the day, the joke is on the homosexuals. Because it's really about the evolution of an aristocracy, and the tyranny of a legal system most Americans have no ability with which to interact or affect policy.

Still, I really don't see what the big deal is for these christians. I mean come on, screw the gay thing, this is about two people loving each other, right?

Why on earth they seem intent on ruining someone's special day is beyond me. You don't want gay marriage? Fine, but I don't understand why anyone can let such feelings grow so strong as to completely blind them. Like the guy in Holy Grail says; "This is a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."



But at the same time of course, I don't understand why the couple pushes this thing. I know I wouldn't want to be somewhere I'm not wanted on the happiest day of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Still, I really don't see what the big deal is for these christians. I mean come on, screw the gay thing, this is about two people loving each other, right?

---

Christians may define themselves any way they want, that's not for you or anyone else to judge.

If religious establishments use public funds, occupy public spaces or exert public functions (such as in adoption charities) they should be held accountable by the public under the law.

But I am with Don when it comes to their right to define their own religious boundaries and have them respected.

A statement mentioned in the article which Don quotes is interesting. The lawyer says that the issue of the Methodist pavilion is no different from that of a restaurant that refuses to serve blacks. If the restaurant owner's God tells him that blacks are inferior and should not be fed, is he within his rights?

Chew on that, guys. I'd like to hear from Americans in particular because they have had this sort of debate in many shapes and guises for the past fifty years and their thinking on it is usually tested and well developed.

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
Church should have won
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
I haven't read this one yet
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
The homosexual couple were correct in winning. This is on par with southern business owners not selling to blacks.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
As much as I think it is rediculous, the Boy Scouts should have won this because they are a private organization with religious affiliations.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
The gay couple were correct. See the photographers.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
The schools should have won. Why the :daisy: are homosexuals even attending these schools.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.
The homosexuals were correct in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

A statement mentioned in the article which Don quotes is interesting. The lawyer says that the issue of the Methodist pavilion is no different from that of a restaurant that refuses to serve blacks. If the restaurant owner's God tells him that blacks are inferior and should not be fed, is he within his rights?

Chew on that, guys. I'd like to hear from Americans in particular because they have had this sort of debate in many shapes and guises for the past fifty years and their thinking on it is usually tested and well developed.

---

Actually, based on the answers coming back from the Legalist Taliban we have running the show over here, just being foolish enough to mention God means you'd probably lose your case, regardless of its merits. :laugh4:

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice. And if you're not sure what it is, call up a black church and ask them if they think gays should be allowed to join their civil rights movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Christians may define themselves any way they want, that's not for you or anyone else to judge.

---

Bah, I haven't signed up for anything that says "thou shalt not judge" ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

The schools should have won. Why the :daisy: are homosexuals even attending these schools..

---

Because they're christians and the school is good perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
I haven't read this one yet

---

They're all from the sidebar at the end of the link.

Quote:

---

This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
The homosexual couple were correct in winning. This is on par with southern business owners not selling to blacks.

---

So if somebody chooses to exercise their freedom of speech in my store, and uses ethnically derogatory terms, again, a lifestyle choice that causes no physical harm to anyone, I'm still legally required to serve them? And if somebody practices extremely poor hygiene... I'm required to seat them in my 4-star restaurant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice.

---

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

While I personally think the hardline biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are questionable, they are there, right after the purification rituals (so be sure to stone your neighbor for serving meat AND cheese on the same pizza). I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination." I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination."

---

It's Leviticus. It's always Leviticus.

Thank you Don. It is actually quiet refreshing when I have to look at my beliefs on a certain subject and decide whether they still are valid or if I should rethink my position. :bow:

I was going to change the comparison to a Nazi refusing to give service to a Jew but that would be discrimination based on religion which would only be valid if there is a gay religion(Admit it, the irony of a homosexual using the "freedom of religion" defense would be hilarious).

So right now I'm not sure whether I am correct or whether DC is. ~:yin-yang:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

---

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

---

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so what I am about to say has probably already been said by those smarter than I, because it's so blatantly obvious that I am, quite frankly Don, surprised you even had the balls to start this thread:

This is clearly not an example of a gay couple trying to force a church to marry them, which is the matter that you and I have argued many times in the past.

This is an example of a gay couple who wanted to use a facility (not even a church, at that) to perform their civil union, and they were discriminated against because the owners of the facility in question happen to disagree with gay marriage. Quite funny, since the couple in question are not even asking to be "married" in the facility in question.

So Don, to use your words, not mine: "Hogwash. You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman. :strawman2:"

Have a nice day.

:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice. And if you're not sure what it is, call up a black church and ask them if they think gays should be allowed to join their civil rights movement.

---

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

---

Sorry, I must have missed that part of the article. Where in there did it say that a lesbian couple asked the methodist church to marry them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

---

That sums up very nicely my feelings on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

Is the restaurant owner claiming his establishment is the property of his new religion? Or that by forcing this religious facility to serve blacks he'd be forced to implicitly condone their "black" behavior? I think the comparison fails on several levels....

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

---

I'm of two mind on that issue. Part of me agrees with you. But then a part of me asks, what about businesses other than restaurants? How about grocery stores? Or doctors? What if there was only one grocery store or doctor within 100 miles, and they both refused to serve a family because they were black? Or gay?

How about this: In my job, I do a lot of business with First Nations. One of the things that some of them have been involved with lately is building their own power generation plants in order to become independent and also generate a bit of profit selling excess power back to the general population of Canada. What if an independent, on reserve power generation plant refused to supply electricity to a house on the reserve because the owner of the house was married to a whitey?

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

---

Sorry Don, I was actually going slightly off topic there and following Xiahou's "businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason" line, not apropos of the original thread topic whatsoever. And the essential services I used in my post were private businesses, who, in Xiahou's world, should be able to refuse service to anybody they want. But let's limit it just to restaurants if you want. Picture this: A nice, middle class black family is driving accross the country for a family holiday. They stop for a bite to eat at a rustic looking cafe somewhere in middle America, mom, dad, 10 year old daughter and twelve year old son. Upon entering, the owner of the restaurant, standing behind the bar polishing glasses and joking with his cronies, catches sight of the black family. He then says loudly, so that everybody in the restaurant can hear it: "Get your black asses outa here. We don't serve niggers." It that his right as a business owner?

I don't care if churches ban gays, or blacks, or women from being members of their churches. They can do that all day long if they want. They are religious organizations. Religious organizations have been involved in indefensable, silly, and downright mean practices for thousands of years. Who am I to try to stop them?
:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

---

He can do as he whishes but no one will eat there and he will be foreclosed on :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

---

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

---

As someone who is at great risk of ending up in the army in the upcoming years thanks to our fascist constitution, please elaborate on how it ended. :clown:

I have a hard time feeling bad for the church.

While I think they are justified in refusing to "serve" whoever they like, I can't really fault the gays for going after them in court.

The majority of Christian churches have been demonizing gay people for a long, long time, despite the teachings of Jesus.

When you make enemies and burn bridges, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the...

If the laws allow this kind of thing to happen, change them. Don't expect the gay community to have any more mercy or understanding than the Christian one has had, though.

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

---

I don't hate them at all. However, it's still the church's right to decide to marry them or not. That's why we have seperation of Church and State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

---

Yeah, you're right. Keep your unfounded prejudices. Just goes to show the church's detrimental effects on society. Their dislike of certain groups (based on whatever BS logic from years gone by) gets passed on to the congregations and the middle-classes then have their enemy to hate and breed intolerance, regardless of how stupid the entire situation is - (you realise people don't choose to be gay, so how can you persecute them?)

Nice other thread by the way, your question seems to have been answered quite competently by other people with common sense so I don't feel the need to contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".

---

That's not the point. I didn't say the restaurant owner is a Christian. Could be any religion.

Premiss: The restaurant owner's God and religious teachings forbid him to serve blacks.

Question: Is he within his right to refuse them as clients or not?