Should Churches be Forced to Marry Gay Couples?

• thavoice

  Well of course murder would be of the worst offenses. I meant it more on the level of a person's day to day life. Homosexuality is morally wrong.
• Fly4Fun

  

  I really had no idea that people were arguing that churches should be forced to perform wedding rites for gay couples.
  
  I think in general anti-gay stances are wrong, but there is no reason here for the state to interfere with a religious institutions doctrine with regards to this topic.
  
  When I see a topic like this I just see lame fear mongering to blame the liberals and how immoral/controlling they are.
• wildcats20

  

  thavoice;1485834 wrote:Homosexuality is morally wrong.

  
  That is your opinion.
• Midstate01

  

  Churches shouldn't be forced to marry anyone. Gay or straight.
  
  I do think all couples who want to be married should be made to do some counseling sessions though. Would maybe prevent some bad decisions and quick marriages that don't last.
• thavoice

  wildcats20;1485851 wrote:That is your opinion.

  Well who's else opinion would I give?
• vball10set

  No, a church shouldn't be forced to marry anyone.
• Fly4Fun

  

  thavoice;1485834 wrote:Well of course murder would be of the worst offenses. I meant it more on the level of a person's day to day life. Homosexuality is morally wrong.

  Why is it morally wrong?
  
  What is morally wrong about a person finding another person to share their life with in a way that makes both of them happier and to provide a point of stability for each other?
  
  Or do you object on the stance that it's not natural?
  
  I've honestly heard from legitimate (non-wiki but scientific artciles) about homosexual behavior in nature, but I looked at wiki and they have an extensive list, and at this moment I don't feel like checking every link they provide to back up the claim. But it appears to be even more common place than I believed prior to about 30 seconds ago.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
  
  But even ignoring the explanation of looking at other animals, you say it's not natural. So it's not natural because sex is meant to procreate. So with that reasoning, do you truly follow that line of reasoning and refuse to use condoms or masturbate? Sex is for procreation right? Or do you accept that sex has alternative justifications as well such as emotional bonding between a couple. Why can't a gay couple have sex for that justification?
• rocketalum

  I love the biblical justification. There are a handful at most of old testament verses and either next to or totally nothing in the new that I've seen quoted (I've read the bible and did 12 years of catholic school but by no means a biblical scholoar). I don't think you'll find Jesus bring up homosexuality once but he sure does mention divorce. I wonder how many evangelicals rallying against gay marriage are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriage.... I know I've got a few relatives you could count in that group. Selective Christianity is honestly what turned me away from the entire faith.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Why is it morally wrong?"
  
  Is it morally wrong for the Muslims in my neighborhood to object to my dog being off a lead?
  
  Perhaps, perhaps not. But I respect that (read, TOLERATE, not ACCEPTANCE) and keep my dog on a lead when I pass by them. And they dislike gays and dogs!
  
  Different people have different morals.
• Fly4Fun

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1485868 wrote:"Why is it morally wrong?"
  
  Is it morally wrong for the Muslims in my neighborhood to object to my dog being off a lead?
  
  Perhaps, perhaps not. But I respect that (read, TOLERATE, not ACCEPTANCE) and keep my dog on a lead when I pass by them. And they dislike gays and dogs!
  
  Different people have different morals.

  I know different people have different morals. I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his belief in this instance, hence my question.
  
  Also, it might not be a moral question but a legal one (leash laws).
  
  But I honestly had no idea that Muslims had a moral objection to unleashed dogs.
• thavoice

  Manhattan Buckeye;1485868 wrote:"Why is it morally wrong?"
  
  Is it morally wrong for the Muslims in my neighborhood to object to my dog being off a lead?
  
  Perhaps, perhaps not. But I respect that (read, TOLERATE, not ACCEPTANCE) and keep my dog on a lead when I pass by them. And they dislike gays and dogs!
  
  Different people have different morals.

  Yeah, that is pretty much true! Although the Terps we worked have said that sex with women is for making babies, but sex with dudes is for pleasure. Pretty damned sickening but hey, I guess my morals must be fucked up because I think homosexuality is wrong.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Some people might find homosexual sex disgusting. Some people might find heterosexual anal sex disgusting. Some people might find sodomy disgusting. I don't necessarily agree or disagree (well I do disagree in at least one instance), but it is a belief that isn't novel, or new.
  
  And yeah, certain Muslim sects have this weird thing about dogs and no there are no leash laws here as long as I can control him (which I can). I put him on a leash out of tolerance. They see him as an unclean animal. I see him as a faithful companion that sometimes licks his butt. Again, it isn't new or novel. Do certain Jews eat shellfish, or pork? No, and it is stupid. Because bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good (Pulp Fiction reference), but it isn't my call because I'm not Jewish.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Fly4Fun;1485844 wrote:I really had no idea that people were arguing that churches should be forced to perform wedding rites for gay couples.

  I never said forced, I dont think they should be allowed to exclude people based on their sexuality. Just the forums way of over reacting. For example, I can be refused service at a restaurant if I don't wear a shirt/shoes but I can't be refused service bc of my skin color. Similar situation IMO should be set up to protect homosexuals. People brought up vegans being forced to serve meat, and I didn't even justify that with a response. Nonsensical and clearly they don't see things the same way as I do.
• thavoice

  Fly4Fun;1485872 wrote:I know different people have different morals. I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his belief in this instance, hence my question.
  
  Also, it might not be a moral question but a legal one (leash laws).
  
  But I honestly had no idea that Muslims had a moral objection to unleashed dogs.

  Yeah, because the muslin faith is totally against unleashed dogs....
• Fly4Fun

  

  thavoice;1485874 wrote:Yeah, that is pretty much true! Although the Terps we worked have said that sex with women is for making babies, but sex with dudes is for pleasure. Pretty damned sickening but hey, I guess my morals must be fucked up because I think homosexuality is wrong.

  I would appreciate if you would answer some of the questions I posed.
  
  And if that comment about Terps (what does that name even mean? I only know it as relating to the Univ. of Maryland) then you completely failed in understanding that argument. I was merely suggesting that based upon behavior there is more than one reason for sexual interaction. One is procreation and another is mate bonding. But a possible third, which I didn't even suggest but you did, could be pleasure (I doubt it would be difficult to find people who have sex for pleasure).
• Fly4Fun

  

  thavoice;1485881 wrote:Yeah, because the muslin faith is totally against unleashed dogs....

  I'm taking his post for what it was. I really have no idea if it is a moral issue for Muslims or not, he was the one suggesting it was. Different religious having different moral beliefs concerning animals isn't completely out of this world (Hinduism: Cows).
  
  Now can you stop perverting arguments and avoiding the simple questions I asked.
• thavoice

  Fly4Fun;1485882 wrote:I would appreciate if you would answer some of the questions I posed.
  
  And if that comment about Terps (what does that name even mean? I only know it as relating to the Univ. of Maryland) then you completely failed in understanding that argument. I was merely suggesting that based upon behavior there is more than one reason for sexual interaction. One is procreation and another is mate bonding. But a possible third, which I didn't even suggest but you did, could be pleasure (I doubt it would be difficult to find people who have sex for pleasure).

  My bad. interpreter. I really don't need to explain my morals to you. You make it seem like my opinion is so far out in left field.
• Fly4Fun

  

  thavoice;1485892 wrote:My bad. interpreter. I really don't need to explain my morals to you. You make it seem like my opinion is so far out in left field.

  I asked you a few questions and all you have done is make a few defensive posts completely avoiding the issue or actually answering any of the reasonable questions I asked.
  
  Any time you are ready to collect your thoughts and answer I'd be more than willing to engage in a dialogue.
• Heretic

  

  Fly4Fun;1485898 wrote:I asked you a few questions and all you have done is make a few defensive posts completely avoiding the issue or actually answering any of the reasonable questions I asked.
  
  Any time you are ready to collect your thoughts and answer I'd be more than willing to engage in a dialogue.

  What about when it all comes down to: "It's bad because...uh...'Murrica!!!"?
• gut

  That the KKK is allowed to exist should make the answer painfully obvious - Churches will not be forced to marry homosexuals any time soon. Although I agree with MB that it could one-day threaten their tax-exempt status.
• #1DBag

  

  Anarchy
• I Wear Pants

  Do I think churches should be forced to marry same-sex couples? No. That's simply unreasonable. While their policy may be stupid and hurtful (just like I see bans on pork or dogs, well at least stupid those don't really hurt anyone) it doesn't block anyone from getting married in any number of churches that would be happy to perform a ceremony for a gay couple. And there is the secular option as well.
  
  The trickier consideration comes into play in regards to tax-exempt status. I'm not sure I know how I feel about whether that opinion should be grounds for revoking it or not (though honestly I don't think churches should qualify anyway but that's a different argument).
  
  Do I think I should be able to get married?
  
• gut

  The tax-exempt status is somewhat of a non-starter for me. For the most part, a charity is not going to incur tax liability, anyway, assuming they spend all their revenues to provide goods and services (no different than a business that operates at a loss or fails to generate a profit). I imagine they do carry some reserves, and there could be a nominal "profit" that might be taxable in a given year...but small potatoes.
• Tiernan

  True Sinners (if there is such BS in the first place) are people who think gay individuals are any less normal than they are and these aholes should be removed from the herd because the rest of us really don't want them wasting our resources.
• reclegend22

  

  Tiernan;1486062 wrote:True Sinners (if there is such BS in the first place) are people who think gay individuals are any less normal than they are and these aholes should be removed from the herd because the rest of us really don't want them wasting our resources.

  Having grown up in a Pentecostal church, I can assure you that the Christian faith does not teach its followers to think of gay individuals as less than normal human beings. Rather, it teaches its followers that the act of homosexuality itself does not follow the way of the scripture.
  
  You don't believe that to be the case. That's fine. You are entitled to that opinion. As are people who believe the opposite of you.