Author Topic: Gay Marriage thread (Read 5914 times)

Curval · « **Reply #210 on:** April 12, 2006, 10:01:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
nope curval... what if one of the incestuous couple is sterile? what is your objection then? I believe that is game set and match.... to use your terms..

lazs

The last post was 30-15...and your serve. If you think you have "won" this little round with spurious red-herring exceptions then it would be 30 all.

Seagoon · « **Reply #211 on:** April 12, 2006, 11:07:09 AM »

Hello DeSelys,

Setting aside our prior "failyahs to co-muny-cate," just a few thoughts regarding your post to Elfie...

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
Here in Europe the lukewarm (tm Seagoon) catholics aren't allowed to marry at the church again after a divorce.
Mmmm so you take what suits you in religion and reject the rest? How convenient... Don't expect to gather much respect from believers and non-believers, though.

[/b]

Elfie isn't actually being inconsistent at all, the Bible recognizes two legitimate reasons for divorce, in Matthew 19:9 mentions porneia or sexual immorality on the part of one's spouse (i.e. adulterous conduct) or irremediable desertion by one's spouse (1 Cor. 7:15). In these circumstances the covenant is broken and the remarriage of the innocent part is allowed. This is the almost universal confession of the Christian churches that came out of the Reformation. I seriously doubt you'd be interested but I wrote a biblical/exegetical examination of divorce and remarriage in the bible sometime ago for the denominational magazine of another Presbyterian denom (here's an online copy):
http://www.providencepca.com/essays/divorce.html

Oh and actually you'll find that I don't have the copyright on the phrase "Lukewarm" Christianity (Greek: Chliaros - tepid) - Christ said it first in Revelation 3 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ' These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."

Quote

Elfie... since the beginning, I'm talking about civilian, administrative marriages ONLY. Religions decide to forbid gay marriage or not, and I'm fair with that. So try again (and read and think twice before posting please). [/B]

Actually there is always a relationship between civil and religious weddings in the USA and there will likely be legal consequences if gay marriage becomes federal law.

As a pastor, I am authorized to act as an agent of the state in conducting weddings. Once the parties involved have obtained a marriage license from the state, I can officiate at their wedding, and that marriage is considered both valid and legally binding. Therefore, if I refuse to marry two men or two women, they could potentially bring a civil rights suit against the church on the grounds that they are being unfairly discriminated against contrary to the laws of the state. Such suits have already been brought, for instance, against evangelical churches that have fired gay employees. In fact, if gay marriage is legalized, it is very possible that churches that refuse to marry persons of the same sex will have their civil authority stripped so that a marriage performed by an evangelical pastor would not be considered legally binding.

- SEAGOON

indy007 · « **Reply #212 on:** April 12, 2006, 11:23:54 AM »

Been watching Big Love on HBO recently.. I didn't know polygamy(sp?) was banned by Mormons in 1890. The guy playing Roman is doing an interview and equates their struggle with the movement for gay marriage.

Personally, I think if a guy can put up with 3 wives, he deserves a trophy at the least.

Vudak · « **Reply #213 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:17:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon

As a pastor, I am authorized to act as an agent of the state in conducting weddings. Once the parties involved have obtained a marriage license from the state, I can officiate at their wedding, and that marriage is considered both valid and legally binding. Therefore, if I refuse to marry two men or two women, they could potentially bring a civil rights suit against the church on the grounds that they are being unfairly discriminated against contrary to the laws of the state. Such suits have already been brought, for instance, against evangelical churches that have fired gay employees. In fact, if gay marriage is legalized, it is very possible that churches that refuse to marry persons of the same sex will have their civil authority stripped so that a marriage performed by an evangelical pastor would not be considered legally binding.

- SEAGOON

All I can say is I guarantee you that if this bad case scenario ever starts to happen, I'll be arguing as vigorously for your right to refuse to marry the couple in the church as I am arguing for gay marriage right now.

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1

Even with a very young age, I`d be willing to bet that you will never live to see the day that gay marriage is legalized and accepted in my home state.

Fine by me. If CT legally marries a gay couple, TX is still going to have to honor it. (Though not by any means, like it).

Chairboy · « **Reply #214 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:31:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vudak
All I can say is I guarantee you that if this bad case scenario ever starts to happen, I'll be arguing as vigorously for your right to refuse to marry the couple in the church as I am arguing for gay marriage right now.

Ditto. The seperation between church and state goes both ways, religion must be protected from government meddling.

lazs2 · « **Reply #215 on:** April 12, 2006, 02:21:18 PM »

no curval... you either admit that some exceptions are ok and therfore gays can be excluded or... that there can be no exceptions between two humans.

That is the end of the match... you can't play any longer so it is over.

oh... deselys... thank you for your answer. at least you did answer and you say that sterile brother and sister can marry. I presume that you would be ok with two sisters or two brothers marrying also?

you say that these people are not asking... they are small and have no power but even you admit that the whole marriage thing is more about us paying for their benifiets than anything else... once the door is cracked and you say that it is some sort of "right" with no exceptions...

What would stop such unions for convienience?

As for promiscuous... it is indeed a factor. it is possible and does rarely happen that a faithful partner of conventional marriage is infected with aids by (in allmost every case) the male partner who is promiscuous...

Now... if marriage is a vow of loyalty.... would not gay couples expect the same? They might expect it but... with their far higher promiscuity rate.... they would simply be that much easier victims of aids and such.

The married gay couple is gonna be way more promiscuous and just as dishonest about it.... a real formula for disaster.

There is no plus side to gay marriage.

lazs

Elfie · « **Reply #216 on:** April 12, 2006, 02:25:09 PM »

Quote

Comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is mixing oranges and (bad) apples,

Apples to Apples, both are deviant behaviors in my belief.

Quote

Elfie... since the beginning, I'm talking about civilian, administrative marriages ONLY. Religions decide to forbid gay marriage or not, and I'm fair with that. So try again (and read and think twice before posting please).

I have read your posts, I dont recall at any point (other than what I just quoted) you saying you are only talking about civil marriages and not church marriages. Maybe you should try to be more clear?

Also see Seagoon's post for potential ramifications of a Pastor refusing to marry a homosexual couple. This isnt just a civil issue. If homosexual marriages are made legal throughout the US, someone will ask a pastor to marry them, when he refuses they will file a lawsuit and most likely win regardless of Freedom of Religion in this country.

lazs2 · « **Reply #217 on:** April 12, 2006, 02:30:30 PM »

also... pedophiles claim that they can't help their behavior just as homosexuals do. There is pretty persuasive proof that pedophiles can't be "cured".

It does seem troubling that so many bleeding hearts here are so predjudiced against a group with human rights like pedophiles and those who are incestuous.

lazs

Elfie · « **Reply #218 on:** April 12, 2006, 03:05:31 PM »

Quote

also... pedophiles claim that they can't help their behavior just as homosexuals do. There is pretty persuasive proof that pedophiles can't be "cured".

Any sinner can be cured (and forgiven) via Salvation through Jesus Christ. (We are ALL sinners, including myself and Seagoon)

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

Vudak · « **Reply #219 on:** April 12, 2006, 03:24:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie

Also see Seagoon's post for potential ramifications of a Pastor refusing to marry a homosexual couple. This isnt just a civil issue. If homosexual marriages are made legal throughout the US, someone will ask a pastor to marry them, when he refuses they will file a lawsuit and most likely win regardless of Freedom of Religion in this country.

I highly doubt they'd win. Not everyone for gay marriage hates and wants to oppress religious freedoms. Just like not everyone against gay marriage is a bigot. If they win the lawsuit the SC would certainly strike it down as Unconstitutional.

Elfie · « **Reply #220 on:** April 12, 2006, 03:33:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vudak
I highly doubt they'd win. Not everyone for gay marriage hates and wants to oppress religious freedoms. Just like not everyone against gay marriage is a bigot. If they win the lawsuit the SC would certainly strike it down as Unconstitutional.

I'm not so sure about that. The *offended* homosexual couple will argue that their civil rights have been violated, the church will argue that their refusal to perform the ceremony is based on Freedom of Religion.

Some large churches are fairly wealthy, smaller churches like Seagoon's have very little. Some will be able to afford attorneys others wont. At some point I believe the Church loses that legal battle simply due to lack of funds.

Vudak · « **Reply #221 on:** April 12, 2006, 03:46:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
I'm not so sure about that. The *offended* homosexual couple will argue that their civil rights have been violated, the church will argue that their refusal to perform the ceremony is based on Freedom of Religion.

Some large churches are fairly wealthy, smaller churches like Seagoon's have very little. Some will be able to afford attorneys others wont. At some point I believe the Church loses that legal battle simply due to lack of funds.

Nah, most churches are part of a larger group of some kind, and even if Seagoon's isn't, there'd be some wealthy individual who'd help them out, failing that, I'm sure a group of people would. Heck, I'd probably send some money, and you know my basic view on religion.

BluKitty · « **Reply #222 on:** April 12, 2006, 04:03:50 PM »

So your argurements are based on religious grounds?

Sorry, But I find that UNAMERICAN. Maybe you should find another country if you want a theocracy.

I happen to belive in the Constitution and great men like Hamilton.

MANDO · « **Reply #223 on:** April 12, 2006, 04:04:47 PM »

Well, if spanish example is of any help ...

Our tardish, new, pathetic and probably gay president legalized gay marriage two years ago and, as far as I know, no more than 100 gay weedings have been celebrated up today. And I suspect we have more than 200 gays in Spain, so, what about the rest of them?

Simple: only a very small portion of gays are really interested into any kind of marriage, but all of them are pretty interested into any new law, announcement, comment or whatever else that put their colective in the first page of any newspaper. It seems they see themselves as the progressive new state-of-the-art fashion/way of life opposed to the rest of us, obsolete tiranic barbarians.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #224 on:** April 12, 2006, 04:10:10 PM »

One more time:

Suppose that two siblings live together (non-sexually/incestually) and decide that they want to raise children together. Does the government have any right to deny them any rights or privileges that it grants a married couple? If so, why?