Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RyanL said:
I guess you’re right – I must have the wrong apocalyptic scenario on the brain. My bad.

With regards to your question – what’s stopping them now?

Wait…you mean do I think allowing people of the same sex to marry each other and have the government funnel my tax dollars to support it would kill of the human race.

My answer? No, I don’t think that will kill off the human race. I’m sure there are other communities in the world where they won’t swallow that pill (heh heh…so to speak), and I’m sure they’ll survive.

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
In what way would your tax dollars be funneled to support same sex marriage?
 
Benadam said:
I’ve done the same thing. It’s interesting that as a general rule the folks that support gay marriage would support a false notion of rights attached to sexual reproduction. It all kinda blends together.:hypno:
Click to expand...
No. It just shows how you paint “those” who disagree with you using a broad brush, (“those folks”) instead of understanding them as individuals equally convicted by their beliefs.
[/quote]
 
JuneBug72 said:
In what way would your tax dollars be funneled to support same sex marriage?
Click to expand...
For a start, by using the government as a policing agency to enforce laws against “so-called” discrimination of and against homosexuality and homosexual couples, such as to investigate, charge and prosecute organization which would deny homosexuals the use of their property to perform gay marriages, or against organizations and/or agency that would deny “gay” couples the “right” to adopt children through their organizations or agencies.

And this is not some end of world scenario, it is happening or has happen in New Jersey and Mass and other places, and oh it happens these organizations being investigated, charged and prosecuted happen to attached to religious organizations. Gay marriage is not only an attack against society, but aimed directly at Judea-Christian organizations to restrict their freedom of practice.
 
Bennie_P said:
For a start, by using the government as a policing agency to enforce laws against “so-called” discrimination of and against homosexuality and homosexual couples, such as to investigate, charge and prosecute organization which would deny homosexuals the use of their property to perform gay marriages, or against organizations and/or agency that would deny “gay” couples the “right” to adopt children through their organizations or agencies.

And this is not some end of world scenario, it is happening or has happen in New Jersey and Mass and other places, and oh it happens these organizations being investigated, charged and prosecuted happen to attached to religious organizations. Gay marriage is not only an attack against society, but aimed directly at Judea-Christian organizations to restrict their freedom of practice.
Click to expand...
This is what I fear yet I also distrust any attempt to fire someone from a job or refuse housing based on sexual preference. They have just as much right to fair housing and employment as anyone else.
 
Qhua said:
Actually, I do expect society will eventually recognize it. But that’s not my point.

My point is that it is puzzling how we can live in the greatest country in the world, founded on the premise of Freedom Religion and pursuit of happiness, disallow gay marriages?
Click to expand...
Does the 1st ammendment guarantee your right to download, copy, and distribute another’s intelectual property? No. The same goes with marriage. That term has been used to describe the union of a man and a woman for millenia. the infringement of rights is whn another group comes along and tries to use that terminology for other than it’s true meaning.

Does freedom of religion allow the government to start allowing people to go to their local court building, fill out a form and declare themselves Priests, Bishops, Munks, etc?

I have no problem with allowing those other than a man and a woman from forming a civil contract that grants them the same contractual relationship as would be granted by a marriage contract but don’t call it a marriage. Like wise I have no problem with someone else forming a software company but you don’t haveteh right to call it Microsoft or any other term that has been taken.
 
goofyjim said:
This is what I fear yet I also distrust any attempt to fire someone from a job or refuse housing based on sexual preference. They have just as much right to fair housing and employment as anyone else.
Click to expand...
There are already protection in place to most employment situations and housing. The only legal way to bare someone in the area of housing is if the individual has felony background or is a registered sex-offender.

I would if I where you not worry about such descrimination to be protected by law.

As to employment in some cases discrimintion based on morality codes, such as an openly gay teacher (a promoter of an active gay life style) in a school run by a religious institution should be allowed, for how is a Church run school promote Church teaching if one of its teaches openly oppose it?

The last two retail companies I worked for offered the same benefits for same-sex couples as they did for married couples. I think your fears are not warranted.
 
^^ further, the Catholic Church itself, as an employer, does the same, despite its moral opposition to such unions. The church does indeed comply with the civil statutes, at least in my archdiocese. Equal bereavement rights, benefit sharing, etc.
 
NoMoreGames said:
To start of, I’m not being sarcastic. That being said, are those who are against gay marriage also against the freedom of religion? I don’t like how the emails this site sends out places it in the same category as things like abortion, and euthanasia. Those two violate human life, which is universal to all humans. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life nor limit the rights of others. I’m curious as to why people believe that gay marriage should not be allowed in the country when it falls more so under the category of freedom of religion. 🤷
Click to expand...
I support freedom of religion. People should remain legally free to believe or disbelieve whatever they want. The government has limits on what it can and cannot do. And for that very reason, I oppose legal recognition of gay “marriage” — precisely because the government has limits. It would be totalitarianism indeed if the government claimed the authority to change the definition of what constitutes a “marriage.”
 
JuneBug72 said:
Christianity was declared the official state religion by the emperor Theodosius in 380. Christianity was the state religion before and during the fall of Rome. One might as easily conclude that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome.
Click to expand...
And given the straits Roman Society was in, how could one say that was a bad thing to happen?
 
royal_archer said:
Does the 1st ammendment guarantee your right to download, copy, and distribute another’s intelectual property? No. The same goes with marriage. That term has been used to describe the union of a man and a woman for millenia. the infringement of rights is whn another group comes along and tries to use that terminology for other than it’s true meaning.

Does freedom of religion allow the government to start allowing people to go to their local court building, fill out a form and declare themselves Priests, Bishops, Munks, etc?

I have no problem with allowing those other than a man and a woman from forming a civil contract that grants them the same contractual relationship as would be granted by a marriage contract but don’t call it a marriage. Like wise I have no problem with someone else forming a software company but you don’t haveteh right to call it Microsoft or any other term that has been taken.
Click to expand...
English is a very flexable and adaptive language. It seems that the majority of people are in agreement that homosexual couples should have the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexual ones. Because for a milenia the word marriage has been used to describe the union of two loving caring individuals the homosexual community feel that it should be used to describe their relationships as well. Which is fair enough.

The actual word marriage is a word. Its the spirit of the union that matters. If gay couples wish to call each other husband and husband (wife and wife) and claim to be married then so be it. God and Religion did not create english. We are free to use our languages as we see fit, and their is NO REASON we cannot allow that marriage be the legal union of 2 people in a relationship.
 
Squishy said:
English is a very flexable and adaptive language. It seems that the majority of people are in agreement that homosexual couples should have the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexual ones. Because for a milenia the word marriage has been used to describe the union of two loving caring individuals the homosexual community feel that it should be used to describe their relationships as well. Which is fair enough.

The actual word marriage is a word. Its the spirit of the union that matters. If gay couples wish to call each other husband and husband (wife and wife) and claim to be married then so be it. God and Religion did not create english. We are free to use our languages as we see fit, and their is NO REASON we cannot allow that marriage be the legal union of 2 people in a relationship.
Click to expand...
But the government lacks the authority to change what constitutes a marriage. Your argument presumes that the government has unlimited power; if the government declares something a marriage,m then zap! it becomes a marriage. I believe in limited government. Government lacks the power to redesign the family unit.
 
Gamera said:
But the government lacks the authority to change what constitutes a marriage. Your argument presumes that the government has unlimited power; if the government declares something a marriage,m then zap! it becomes a marriage. I believe in limited government. Government lacks the power to redesign the family unit.
Click to expand...
Actually. I was not saying this. I was saying that if the government call a certain union a marriage. That it actually means nothing. Its a word. A discriptive term.

What exactly do you mean by the ‘family unit’ ?
 
Gamera said:
But the government lacks the authority to change what constitutes a marriage. Your argument presumes that the government has unlimited power; if the government declares something a marriage,m then zap! it becomes a marriage. I believe in limited government. Government lacks the power to redesign the family unit.
Click to expand...
I agree but government also lacks the power to intrude into the private lives of consenting adults. I believe that it is sinful but the government should not be in the job of criminalizing all sins, only those which directly affect the lives of others.
 
I’m not ignoring the other questions to me a few pages ago, I just though I’d state that it’s surprising how many people don’t understand the difference between religious marriage, and the civil union which adopted the term marriage. You can be married in one without the other, therefore they must be different. Catholics just don’t have a problem with the state using their term at this point because they remain somewhat similar. Perhaps the uproar should have happened when the government adopted the term in the first place…
 
goofyjim said:
I agree but government also lacks the power to intrude into the private lives of consenting adults. I believe that it is sinful but the government should not be in the job of criminalizing all sins, only those which directly affect the lives of others.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Squishy said:
Actually. I was not saying this. I was saying that if the government call a certain union a marriage. That it actually means nothing. Its a word. A discriptive term.
Click to expand...
The whole purpose of words is that they mean something. If it meant nothing, then why do gay rights activists want gay union to be called “marriage” rather than “unions”? Apparently it does mean something.
Squishy said:
What exactly do you mean by the ‘family unit’ ?
Click to expand...
The institution of the family: marriage and consanguinity. If the government had the power to change what constitutes a “husband” or a “wife” then the government would have the power to change what constitutes a “mother” or a “daughter.” You can’t get much more Orwellian than that. That is why gay “marriage” poses such a tremendous threat to the institution of marriage: if the government claims the power to “zap” a gay union and make it a marriage, then the government can just as easily claim the power to “zap” my marriage and declare it isn’t a marriage. Who gave the government that power?
 
Gamera said:
The institution of the family: marriage and consanguinity. If the government had the power to change what constitutes a “husband” or a “wife” then the government would have the power to change what constitutes a “mother” or a “daughter.” You can’t get much more Orwellian than that. That is why gay “marriage” poses such a tremendous threat to the institution of marriage: if the government claims the power to “zap” a gay union and make it a marriage, then the government can just as easily claim the power to “zap” my marriage and declare it isn’t a marriage. Who gave the government that power?
Click to expand...
The government allows single parent adoption/fertilization (octo-mom). I think they already have changed it by your definition.
 
Gamera said:
The whole purpose of words is that they mean something. If it meant nothing, then why do gay rights activists want gay union to be called “marriage” rather than “unions”? Apparently it does mean something.
Click to expand...
For them it means equality.
The institution of the family: marriage and consanguinity. If the government had the power to change what constitutes a “husband” or a “wife” then the government would have the power to change what constitutes a “mother” or a “daughter.” You can’t get much more Orwellian than that. That is why gay “marriage” poses such a tremendous threat to the institution of marriage: if the government claims the power to “zap” a gay union and make it a marriage, then the government can just as easily claim the power to “zap” my marriage and declare it isn’t a marriage. Who gave the government that power?
Click to expand...
I remember when i was very young 6 or 7 one of my friends married me to a ‘girlfriend’ Should that be a legal binding union?

Civil weddings and the idea of a catholic wedding are already much seperated. Their is no reason that civil weddings cannot accept same sex couples. Religious weddings i doupt ever will. Its all about being married in the eyes of the law. Where as a religious wedding is about being married in the eyes of god.

Homosexual couples probebly dont give a stuff about god. But they do about the law, which affects their every day lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top