For the record, this idiot (Beutler) agrees with Steophan that churches should lose their tax exemptions if they hold to traditional beliefs about marriage.
And, of course, the Church of Denmark is currently legally required to perform same sex marriages.
I don’t consider that an absurd notion, I find it fully in keeping with the idea that people should be free to have any religion or none. People can believe whatever they like, and I fully agree that no government has any business in that. I’m only concerned with their actions, and if those are discriminatory that’s a problem.
I believe in religious freedom, I just long for the day when everyone freely decides it’s massively dangerous bullshit. I do not believe that religious freedom - the freedom to believe whatever you like - extends to the freedom to act however you like and get a pass on it based on your beliefs. If what I’d like comes to pass, and it makes it harder for people to brainwash others into believing their dangerous bullshit, all the better.
In short, yours was a pretty good summary, but missing a little nuance.
No. I could just about accept that, if someone makes a promise to marry, then finds out that their betrothed was “black” according to the just-one-drop idea, then refused to marry them, they should be liable for any costs occurred.
Some people will only be attracted to people of a certain sin colour, just as with other physical features. That’s not a problem. Not marrying someone because of their skin colour, when you’re attracted to them, love them, and would do if they were of a different race, is bigoted arseholery, but allowable as it’s ultimately private.
The closest thing to this that really would need to be stopped would be families or other institutions that attempt to prevent their members from marrying outside their race or religion.
So if the law of the land decreed that interracial marriages were illegal, churches should not be able to perform secret, spiritual marriage ceremonies for interracial couples?
Missed this. Yes, as a society the US (among many others) has done that, and can do that. It is, however, wrong to do so. Things, fortunately, are changing, and organisations that shelter bigots are becoming less accepted.
Umm … lose their tax-exempt status. I’m not sure how forcing churches into profitable status is going to get them to marry gay couples. SSM … or Schedule B … tough choice.
Why?
If a church chooses to deny you communion because you married a Jew or a Buddhist, bearing in mind St. Paul’s comments on the matter, that’s there choice.
No, it’s not.
See, I can make absolute statements with zero effort in backing it up as well. It’s not nearly as much fun as you make it out to be, though. You have not provided a sufficient enough reason to coerce religious organizations to act against their beliefs. “What they’re doing is wrong” is not a reason. “What they’re doing is harming children” is a good reason to force Christian Scientists to administer healthcare to their children. “Peyote is a really harmful substance” is a good reason to prevent Native American tribes from utilizing the drug in their ceremonies. “Poisonous snake bites are fatal” is a good reason to prevent churches from snake handling. “It’s wrong” doesn’t cut it here.
They certainly would not be legally able to, no. Obviously, they would be able to if they were secretive enough… I don’t think you’re asking if they should be able to, I think you’re asking if I think they should actually do it.
Firstly, I believe that law would be wrong. However, despite some exceptions, in general religions have shown themselves to be terrible moral arbiters, and one should not assume that they will decide better than the public. I would say they should, if they believe it necessary, conduct the marriage and be willing to take the legal punishment for doing so, but I would also say there are probably better ways of protesting such a law.
Is that inconsistent? Maybe. It doesn’t alter my fundamental point that neither law nor church should be bigoted, though.
Just the law and churches? It’s okay for labor unions, museum or political parties to be bigoted. You’d be surprised how many Republicans are bigoted against liberalism.
See, there’s the problem. Religion is a whole framework about what’s right and wrong for those who adhere to it. Religious freedom leaves that to the religion.
Requiring religions not to discriminate in marriage is about as absurd as trying to pass a law forbidding individuals from discriminating in marriage, such as in my question about suing people for choosing to marry someone of a certain race (or sex, for that matter).
It’s WRONG though. We should require political parties not to discriminate. They should let anyone join them regardless of political party. Makes sense.
You can’t simply declare actions are different from beliefs. That means total regulation of religious practice. Anything you say or do, rather than simply think.
No you don’t.
Again, no, you clearly don’t.
Proof that your true motivation is to destroy religious freedom.
I didn’t ask that. Should she be able to sue for discrimination? Get damages just for the harm of him choosing to reject her based on race? (not just for any costs incurred, which might apply to any jilted financee.)
But that’s discrimination!
So now you’re throwing “private” into this?
Is religion public, not private?
Great, so you’re going to make a law against that too? The private (not public) business of family relations is now yours to regulate as well as their religious affairs?
Make PAC’s and lobbyist give equally to both sides … that does make sense.
Make individual donors do the same.
Also, all voters must split their votes between all parties on a ballot to the extent possible.
It would certainly be an improvement in politics if people voted based on what politicians actually do, not what they profess to believe.
I agree.
Do you want to pass a law requiring them to?
I don’t think so. The Roman Catholic church has held its current view on divorce & remarriage (categorically forbidden, as long as one’s previous partner is still alive) for almost two thousand years now. It is not popular today, but it’s never been popular. People have wanted to do all sorts of other forbidden sexual things- contraception, premarital sex, adultery, self-pleasuring- for two thousand years now, and the Catholic church has been pretty consistently against them. The Orthodox Church as well, though they have a bit more wiggle room on divorce and contraception. I doubt that the teaching against gay ‘marriage’ is going to disappear anytime soon. And for what it’s worth, neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, nor a lot of evangelical churches, ordain women either. There are churches which do ordain women, and which have reappraised traditional teachings about sex and marriage, but they aren’t growing particularly fast right now.
Unpopularity has never been a rerally good reason, either theologically or demographically, for a church to change its moral teachings.
[
On the contrary, I think churches which are perceived as wishy-washy, watering down their beliefs to suit the prevailing political fashions of the time, are the ones which are unlikely to attract members. If the church doesn’t provide you with anything countercultural, anything you won’t get from the prevailing culture, then why bother going to church at all?
I don’t know. I think some people want a middle ground between the prevailing culture and the extremism they get at many churches. “Wishy-washy” doesn’t have to be nothing.
lance strongarm: Agreed. The evidence for this can be found in the amazing variety of churches that exist. I can walk five blocks and be at an ultra-conservative church…or an extremely liberal one.
The church, as an institution, already engages in picking and choosing.
Except the extremely liberal ones are probably hemorrhaging members. Look at the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Disciplies of Christ…
The exceptions here are the ELCA (which is still partly an ethnically-based church, that remains strong in Scandinavian-descended regions of the Midwest), and the Unitarians who for some inexplicable reason are gaining members. The Unitarians are starting from a very small base though, and they largely don’t even self-identify as Christians, so that provides little solace for Christians who consider themselves extremely liberal.