Org Mobile Site
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd.
Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here
Oops sorry, Snapper Lappers!!!Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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 .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
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 thingI 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 .
What denomonation am I Tribsey?
Originally Posted by :
What denomonation am I Tribsey?
I thought you was Southern BaptistWhat denomonation am I Tribsey?
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.
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. 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
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.
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.There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls.
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).
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
Anyway, why are the media even paying attention to this? Is this stuff really newsworthy?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?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.
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. Uhm... This is about using a building, not marrying a couple, isn't it?
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.
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.
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.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?
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
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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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" Christians may define themselves any way they want, that's not for you or anyone else to judge.
Originally Posted by woad&fangs:
The schools should have won. Why the are homosexuals even attending these schools..
Because they're christians and the school is good perhaps?The schools should have won. Why the
are homosexuals even attending these schools..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.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
Originally Posted by :
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?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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO