IIRC, I suggested the government simply extend the existing civil union/marriage law to homosexual couples, and to let the terminology shake itself out over the next few years as it becomes the new normal. The response was typically something along the lines of “But it’s just a word! You’re supporting everything I want except the one thing I say is meaningless! Why are you such an uncompromising asshole?”
Nobody has, in general, a right to any religious/spiritual good. Not baptism, not marriage, not a religious funeral, not the Eucharist.
Well, now I’m a little confused as to what scenario you were dealing with. I mean, extending the existing marriage law to include same-sex couples is exactly what SSM supporters have been campaigning for. But it sounds from the reaction as if you were talking about something else? Was it the idea that the state should call the legal institution “civil union” and the term “marriage” would be reserved for the religious institution?
Because, Unpronounceable, there already exists such a thing as civil marriage, and:
“civil union” =/= “civil marriage” There’s a reason they had to come up with the neologism, and it is that they are different.
Heck, many of the states that voted for “It Means Only Between One Man And One Woman” amendments to outlaw SSM went on to also tack on language saying that neither would they give equal consideration to anything else, whatever the words used to name it, that purported to have the same legal effects as OMOW “marriage”. Those opposed to progress wanted to not just hold on to the mere word “marriage” but to also make sure BY LAW that nobody else could use it and that *nothing else *could have the same effect. Given that, then we could do no other than stand for that everyone should be able to use it and mean it.
AND, while that was happening ***MOST ***of us on the pro-marriage equality side had been arguing all this time that what we intended was simply to extend civil marriage to all gender pairings, without changing the rights, duties, privileges and obligations involved, so nobody else had to fear their already-standing marriage would be in any way diminished or debased. And that no, we were not trying to shove anything down the religious people’s throats, we did not care what anyone did in their own church on their own time and dime.
However as it has become obvious, some in our group do care, and further do want the religious to choke on it.
Two things seem apparent to me in this thread:
[ol][li]Steophan doesn’t have a clue as to what US constitutional issues are in regards to freedom of religion.[/li][li]Steophan is not debating in good faith here[/ol][/li]
Where am I wrong in this assessment?
Since you have carefully ignored my response to this claim and you continue to pretend that churches, generally, charge money for marriages, I suspect, as others have noted, that you are only here to see your words on the screen and have no interest in the actual discussion.
I disagree. I think as generations pass and SSM is more cmmonly accpeted and SS couples become part of more people’s day to day experience churches that don’t welcome SS couples or allow SS couples to marry there will be seen in the same light as other discriminatory traditions that have all but disappeared. For example, more churches ordain women now than did 100 years ago. The LDS church had to start ordaining black people. To survive congregations have to attract and keep new generations of believers and it becomes more difficult to do that when you cling to outdated unpopular beliefs that are generally seen as unfair.
. Could you explain what you mean by this?
Man I am so tired of people saying gay couples can’t procreate. They can and they do. They can’t accidently procreate as hetero couples can but they can make the same efforts that a hetero couple makes if one partner cannot. and what the hell is gender complementarity? A new made up term?
Couples are made up of two people and whether they compliment each other or not as human beings has nothing to do wiith their genitals or how they have sex.
Fine, but the thread isn’t about what you think they* should* do.
I’ll also point out that they preform marriages as religious ceremonies and those marriages have legal standing ONLY if the couple takes specific steps to inform and secure a license from the state. A religious ceremony ONLY has no real legal standing.
I looked at your posts in this thread and didn’t find one that outlined any reasons why churches should be tax exempt. Where is it?
Post 102.
FYI: If you click on the number of replies for the thread from the forum page, you’ll get a list of all posters in the thread. If you then click on their number of posts, you’ll get a list of all of those posts. It’s handy for long threads.
As for point 1, it’s not that I don’t know what the law says, it’s that I believe the law is wrong, and that religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. As for 2, you can make your own mind up on that.
I have repeatedly addressed that. If the church offers a service, it should offer it without discriminating according to gender, race, sexuality, religion, disability, or whatever. It should get no pass, morally or legally, for bigotry because it’s a religious organisation.
A law that prevents that being enforced in public or when money changes hands is a bad law. Your freedom of religion should end when it affects other people. You may be able to interpret that as saying two muslims couldn’t get a catholic wedding, but you certainly couldn’t deny gays or blacks one.
Pretty much, yes, although it’s more that I expect to be treated the way they treat other people, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, or whatever, based on what I actually do.
False.
Then your constitution is wrong.
Of course. I’ve repeatedly defended their right to marry no-one. What is wrong is for them to marry some people, but not others, based on sexuality, religion race, or whatever.
I see that you only care about the freedom of religion of the priest and not the couple getting married. Odd, that.
No, you don’t. You can invite who you like. If you refuse to invite someone who you otherwise would have done because they’re gay, or black, or jewish, then you’re a reprehensible human being.
If it wasn’t a private party, but an event you charged for, sold tickets, or whatever, then refusing to sell them to gays, blacks, or jews because they are gay, black or jewish should be illegal.
Tell him he’s not allowed to observe certain Mormon ceremonies if he’s not a Mormon and see how he reacts.
Apologies if I’m wrong but my understanding is that like the Druze and countless others Mormons believe certain ceremonies are only to observed by members of the religious/tribal group in question.
Why are you not capitalizing “Jew”?
Not a challenge or meant to imply anything, but it strikes me as odd.
Was it by accident or was it deliberate?
If the latter then why?
So when are you finally going to get it through your head that churches generally do not charge for, sell tickets, or whatever, to weddings, and thus your objection doesn’t apply?
Or are you merely so anti-religion that you’re grasping any excuse to inconvenience them and ultimately destroy them?
Steophan, I have a question.
The Eucharist is a key sacrament / observance in most Christian churches. Some churches say any Christian is welcome to take communion; others restrict it to members of their particular denomination.
The Eucharist is normally celebrated in public, but without a fee.
By your analysis, is it bigotry for a church to restrict access to the Eucharist to either members of their own denomination, or at least to Christians generally, and not allow non-Christians to partake?
I ask this in good faith; I’m trying to understand your general position on religious issues.
I don’t think you can generalise in that way; it depends on the local state/provincial law. For instance, my understanding is that in all Canadian provinces, a couple needs a licence from the province, but if they have a religious ceremony, that is the marriage ceremony. They’re not married until they have the ceremony; just getting the licence doesn’t do it. Once they’ve had the religious ceremony, they are married, and the religious official who performed it files the paperwork.
How does a priest refusing to conduct a marriage he doesn’t agree with violate anyone’s freedom of religion?