I think you should go back and read what you just said lol.

 

"When same-sex marriage gets written into national law, it should in a way that protects churches from lawsuits"

 

So basically when it becomes legally bound for churches to marry same-sex couples the law should be written to allow the churches to avoid being prosecuted for refusing to follow the law that made it legal? What?

 

I know what you're attempting to say, but it isn't what you actually said lol :)

 

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying when same-sex marriage is federally allowed where both partners will receive tax benefits and the like, they shouldn't be able to force churches to marry same sex couples.

 

Scenario:

 

Jane wants to marry Jan

Jan's church refuses to marry them.

Jane and Jan get married from a government justice of the peace instead of a minister.

They receive all tax benefits and rights that a hetero-sexual couple would receive.

Jane want's to prosecute Jan's church for discrimination.

The district attorney won't take the case because it is within the church's rights to refuse service.

 

 

So same sex marriage is totally legal and everyone gets marriage benefits.  But the government can't force a specific church to marry them, they might have to go to another church that is willing or to a government resource.

I think you should go back and read what you just said lol.

 

"When same-sex marriage gets written into national law, it should in a way that protects churches from lawsuits"

 

So basically when it becomes legally bound for churches to marry same-sex couples the law should be written to allow the churches to avoid being prosecuted for refusing to follow the law that made it legal? What?

 

I know what you're attempting to say, but it isn't what you actually said lol :)

 

I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but churches are not legally bound, not even in California, where Homosexual unions are recognized. Usually when a same sex couples, or couples who do not believe in a religion, or do not wish to have the ceremony in a religious setting marry, they typically will do the ceremony at the in their  city's courthouse. Of course, some churches will do the ceremony, even with their minister/priest/preacher, but it only comes down to if the religious official marrying the couple feels right with it.

How did the "OMG people will force churches to marry gay couples when they don't want to" meme actually start? Because it isn't true, at least not in the US. In fact, it cannot ever be made the case in the US without a constitutional amendment explicitly saying so; the free exercise clause guarantees a church's total discretion in who to marry. For example, a church that refuses to marry interracial couples faces no legal consequences whatsoever. You don't have to go to a church to get married. Marriage for civil purposes can be performed by civil authority.

However, I don't see the point of having "civil unions". As far as I'm concerned, it's drawing a distinction without any reason to do so. What it basically says is "Oh, you're not really married. Your relationship isn't up to 'marriage' levels. The government is just giving you the privileges of a married couple, but you have something different." In context, "different" tends to mean or imply "lesser". The argument that the term "marriage" can't change in meaning goes against the whole history of language; a gay couple is more likely to describe themselves as "married" than "civilly united". I don't see why the government should draw arbitrary distinctions in language; if two things have different names, it implies they're treated differently, and often leads to that outcome.

@c13 - And yet, married couples who are infertile have the same tax benefits. So do those who never intend on having children. Stable relationships are useful to society per se; people in stable relationships tend to stay in their community longer and be more connected to it, can often support each other if one falls on hard times, etc.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying when same-sex marriage is federally allowed where both partners will receive tax benefits and the like, they shouldn't be able to force churches to marry same sex couples.

It's fine it just made me giggle that's all. I did understand what you meant by it it was just funny to read :)

 

I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but churches are not legally bound

I never said they were I was just replying to AShadowbox who was suggesting a potential scenario of that happening (it probably never will happen but we explore all the possibilities)

Marriage is more than just religious these days. Its gone beyond religion to a social standard. Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics. Its a global concept recognizing the union of two people. If a religious union wants to prevent it within their party fine, but they should have no say on whether other people can or cannot do it, and its no place especially for the law to say it can't happen. Im all for it, what happens in peoples bedrooms is none of my business, and not for me to judge.

This debate is about homosexual marriage, not the actual orientation, (so let's try stay as on-topic as possible). Marriage and the actual thing are different, as in marriage, politics are involved, and a few other factor's that can alter ones life (in some parts of the world, anyway).

 

It is same topic. You don't have one without the other.

The definition for marriage is unity or partnership between Man and woman.love and marriage are two different things. I can love chocolate cake but that doesn't mean I should walk down the aisle and marry the cake. same sex marriage is like trying to stick the key to the city in a apartment room door It just doesn't fit. My conclusion is be whoever you are, but don't ruin holy matrimony, that's between man, woman, and God. And he doesn't approve of anything other than that unity.

Edited February 9, 201412 yr by NYPDDetectiveODonnell

If gay's want to be miserable in marriage like straight's let them. I personally don't care. That's between them and their maker. Just as long as they are not forcing it on someone that doesn't believe in it. Example

 http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/ .Just my two cent's.

If gay's want to be miserable in marriage like straight's let them. I personally don't care. That's between them and their maker. Just as long as they are not forcing it on someone that doesn't believe in it. Example

 http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/ .Just my two cent's.

The story as reported there is misleading. The couple involved was not forcing a church to perform a marriage. They sought to perform their *civil union* ceremony on land which a church owned and held out as open to the public. At no point were any members of the church asked to participate in the wedding; the area involved was church land, but was held out as being open to general use. The tax consequence was that they couldn't then claim that land as tax-exempt under a state program allowing open space open to the general public to be exempt from property tax. There's a world of difference between "your church needs to perform this ceremony" and "land you claim property tax exemption on because it's open to the public must be available to said public in a non-discriminatory fashion." Likewise, non-church functions aren't necessarily exempt from having to *recognize* a gay marriage; no one has to *perform* one (except for government officials, who could reasonably be bound by their job to be non-discriminatory).

Coming from a religious family, I disagree with it. It states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

 

i pretty much agree with this

^ agreed its immoral

The story as reported there is misleading. The couple involved was not forcing a church to perform a marriage. They sought to perform their *civil union* ceremony on land which a church owned and held out as open to the public. At no point were any members of the church asked to participate in the wedding; the area involved was church land, but was held out as being open to general use. The tax consequence was that they couldn't then claim that land as tax-exempt under a state program allowing open space open to the general public to be exempt from property tax. There's a world of difference between "your church needs to perform this ceremony" and "land you claim property tax exemption on because it's open to the public must be available to said public in a non-discriminatory fashion." Likewise, non-church functions aren't necessarily exempt from having to *recognize* a gay marriage; no one has to *perform* one (except for government officials, who could reasonably be bound by their job to be non-discriminatory).

I was pointing to the photographer getting sued. I know that there isn't any room for hate in the world anymore but the fact is it remain's. I don't think anyone should be punished for what they believe though. If the photographer's don't want to take picture's of the gay couple's wedding then that is there choice. They should not be sued for it. But this show's it is only a matter of time before church's will also face retribution over refusing service's to gay couple's. The gay and lesbian community is alway's screaming for their right's. What about the right's of those that do not believe in that lifestyle. That's all i'm saying. I've already stated I don't give a damn if they get married or not. It is quite frankly none of my business. Between them and their maker. Just don't punish those that don't agree with it. Those people have right's too. Either way it is touchy subject for some.

What ever it takes to stop those gay pride fest parades. 

 

Personally if you bring religion into this its a horrible idea. The United States is all about equal rights and preventing 2 people that love each other from getting married isn't American its communist.

 

All religion has done to this world is destroy it and corrupt us. Don't get me wrong I believe in god but religion but I believe religion will destroy the world.

 

Whats wrong with believing in god and thinking same sex marriage is right?  The god I know would love you either way, if not he is not the god I want to worship. 

Edited February 9, 201412 yr by Darkangel