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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[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?

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[woad&fangs]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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'.

Excellent!

It's about time the priviliged position of religious institutions is brought to an end! They are not above the law.
Likewise, it is about time freedom of religion is scrapped from the lawbooks in the first place. There's freedom of gathering and expression. That suffices. All that freedom of religion does on top of that is to grant priviliged status to opinion based on superstition above opinion based on anything else.

Companies can not discriminate against blacks, religions can not discriminate against people in wheelchairs and sports teams can not discriminate against gays. Any allowable discrimination should be limited to essential qualities: sports teams can refuse the handicapped, companies can refuse unqualified workers, and churches can refuse those of different denomination.

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons. I see no reason why religious institutions should be above the law in this respect. Not even, when they are entirely privately funded and receive no tax-exemption benefits whatsoever.
Freedom in our societies is defined as individual freedom. People must be accepted as individuals, not as members of a group.

[Don Corleone]

First of all, many establishments can and do discriminate and refuse service to people. If you're not an Elk, you're not getting a beer at the Elks lodge, no matter how hard you try.

Secondly, I find it rather surprising to see Louis that you're so thoroughly 'modern', you've evolved to a position of compelling belief in others. I guess "live and let live" just doesn't cut it anymore, eh?

[Adrian II]

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons.

Why exactly? And why exactly do you support this state of affairs?

You say people should be accepted as individuals. At the same time you condone the fact that people, institutions and companies discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?