Marriage Equality!

[Kimberlyann11]

If you were to read all my posts you will see that I never said anything about my faith dictating the law. I actually said up thread that I don't think the government should be in issuing marriage licenses to ANYBODY. The government is in it for tax purposes and initially for the census. I think the government should stay out of it. I just said my faith made me feel a certain way about homosexuality. Nothing more, nothing less. Others may feel they have heard the other side ad nauseum. I think posters know my opinion and there is not much more to say so I'm stepping out. This has been a good conversation and have enjoyed reading this spirited debate!

You said you're done so if I don't get an answer, I understand,,but what would you propose for marriage licenses? Nobody getting married? Anybody who wants to getting married? I work for an insurance company and we will cover your spouse. How do we know it's your spouse and not your neighbor who's just been diagnosed with cancer an you feel sorry for her?

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky. A couple people have mentioned this on this board and I have a genuine curiosity about how this would work.

 

[ScottOKW2K]

I think that churches should be left alone to perform marriages for whoever they wish however I also believe that they should keep their thoughts to themselves. It's fine to have beliefs but it's important iMO to understand that others don't necessarily believe the same things and shouldn't be forced to live in a certain way.

Anyway, this borders on talking about religion. Why not just be happy that so many of our fellow citizens have the chance to be a little happier now? Besides what they do is no one's business. Just let them live in peace for goodness sake.

Fortunately we have a First Amendment, which gives those on all sides of any issue the ability to freely express his/her opinion(s).

 

[Hrhpd]

Fortunately we have a First Amendment, which gives those on all sides of any issue the ability to freely express his/her opinion(s).

I agree with you. I don't think churches need to be silent about their beliefs. They should be allowed to minister and preach within their own beliefs with absolutely no restraints. They should be allowed to shout their beliefs from a rooftop, a mountain top, go door to door to preach their beliefs. Even if I hate every part of a certain church's beliefs, I would fight for their right to believe it and preach it.

However, I also believe that the minute they step out of the church role and start trying to influence government policy and laws, they should immediately lose their tax exempt status.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I agree with you. I don't think churches need to be silent about their beliefs. They should be allowed to minister and preach within their own beliefs with absolutely no restraints. They should be allowed to shout their beliefs from a rooftop, a mountain top, go door to door to preach their beliefs.

However, I also believe that the minute they step out of the church role and start trying to influence government policy and laws, they should immediately lose their tax exempt status.

Worded much better than I would have.

 

[lauradis]

Or maybe the boxes say "Man" and "Property."

or white man and white property..

oh wait that was 50+ years ago...never mind...

 

[Sabeking]

You said you're done so if I don't get an answer, I understand,,but what would you propose for marriage licenses? Nobody getting married? Anybody who wants to getting married? I work for an insurance company and we will cover your spouse. How do we know it's your spouse and not your neighbor who's just been diagnosed with cancer an you feel sorry for her?

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky. A couple people have mentioned this on this board and I have a genuine curiosity about how this would work.

Hey Kimberlyann I will address this but then I am out. I have absolutely no idea! Honestly it's too late to go back and it would be a nightmare to even change; the wheels were set in motion. I don't think anyone has all the answers and if they say they do...run! Lol!

 

[lauradis]

I hope that you are right and that this will unite the country. But as I look at this thread and see the way some have been treated. Laughed at, made fun of, called names.... for expressing an opinion that is different from theirs. One that our president and Hillary Clinton held until a couple of years ago.

I appreciate your thoughtful post though, and I hope I am wrong. My fear is that like the baker who was fined $135,000 or the photographer who was sued, both for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, is the way it will go in churches. I'll stop there.

But again, I hope you are right.

This is what I fear also.

How wrong would that be? Give us freedom, give us the same right to marry as you,, now let me take your freedom of religion away?????

Just for the disboard record... I totally support freedom of religion and all human rights..

 

[lauradis]

First I guess we are allowed to talk religion now??

Just because some do or don't follow certain things in the bible speaks to people not the Creator. Second you say the Old Testament was not kind to women, Are we talking about people or the Creator? Just curious.

I am not happy that government issues marriage licenses to anyone. I don't think it's their business and is a way to make money and collect taxes.

Personally homosexuality is not something I agree with based on my faith. However, that does not reflect in my treatment of anyone. My cousin is a lesbian and I spent this last weekend with she and her partner and had a blast as usual. She doesn't judge my views and I don't hers. We have respect for each other's opinion. Flame me.

No flame here..

But a very valid point.....

Hey Disboard we want freedom of speech with no report button... come on, give us just one section where we can vent, yell,, be grumpy with each other...

You can even put a disclaimer on the top that you don't approve of any comments and have to be 18 or older to enter....

 

[Christine]

Well, honestly, I think it's more than the fear of a church being forced to marry same sex couples. I don't think anyone really thinks it will come to that. That is totally protected by religious freedoms. You can believe what you believe and practice that belief on church property.

It really extends to outside treatment of same-sex married couples. Hence, the "internet" example you see over and over again: a Christian business owner is forced to provide a cake to a same sex wedding reception. So what I am gathering from this is that these folks consider gay marriage a biblical abomination and they don't want to participate in helping that venture in a positive way because it goes against their beliefs.

I guess I understand that viewpoint; however, the minute you step outside of the church, you can no longer publicly discriminate against certain classes of people, no matter your beliefs. That's just the law, plain and simple. It would be the same as a Christian couple wanting to get married and have a big reception and the best cake provider in town happened to be an atheist and really thought terribly of Christians (or any worshippers for that matter). The atheist refused to sell them a cake. Against the law.

 

[lauradis]

It's not "oh brother", it's a valid point. There are so many things mentioned in the bible that would be ludicrous to legislate. Then there's that whole "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" thing. If people were really interested in preserving the "sanctity of marriage", why aren't they focused on criminalizing adultery and repealing laws allowing divorce? I'm not even being facetious; it just doesn't make sense. I mean, I know "sanctity of marriage" is a smokescreen, but if you really, truly cared about that viewpoint, gay marriage is peanuts compared to the societal effect of divorce.

Actually Adultery is a crime in some states the last time I looked, but no one enforces it.

Just like men aren't allowed to take there tops off at some lake spots in ohio.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140417/FEATURES01/140417009

 

[k5jm]

No flame here..

But a very valid point.....

Hey Disboard we want freedom of speech with no report button... come on, give us just one section where we can vent, yell,, be grumpy with each other...

You can even put a disclaimer on the top that you don't approve of any comments and have to be 18 or older to enter....

Sorry, policy is policy and it was put into place for a reason. Some things cause emotions and feelings to run too high and we want to foster a community of information exchange.

 

[lauradis]

Here in Cleveland, Ohio on June 28,2015 it is a freezing 56 degrees and hello must have frozen over, because we The citizens of the United States of America have to freedom of Marriage returned to us.

Human Rights 1 Dogma -1

 

[lauradis]

Sorry, policy is policy and it was put into place for a reason. Some things cause emotions and feelings to run too high and we want to foster a community of information exchange.

Its ok,,, Im just so darn happy... my high from fridays ruling hasnt warn off yet... I love the disboard civil manners, even if it makes it hard to disagree or agree with someone...

 

[Muushka]

As a religious institution, the church gets a level of protection that can not be justified for a baker or photographer. Those are private businesses that provide a service and can not refuse service to an entire class of people. That is completely different than actively officiating a ceremony. Churches can refuse couples for any reason. Catholic Churches often have a series of requirements you must meet, no one has ever successfully forced a Catholic priest to marry non Catholics, or even required them to rent out their cathedral.

I think that people accepting legal marriage as a separate issue from the religious ceremony will serve to ease tensions.

I personally believe in freedom of association and letting the free market decide whether or not a business made the right choice or not.
Now before everyone starts stomping on me, please take a moment to think about it. I (for example) own a business. I don't like people who have red hair. I don't want them in my store. Do you really think I would stay in business for this type of practice? Answer is no. Lets say I want a birthday cake decorated with bacon and a pig theme. I go to a Muslim bakery to have them bake this weird cake. Do you think that this Muslim baker should be forced to buy bacon, cook it and draw a picture of a pig just because I feel like that type of birthday cake (which, by the way, my husband would love)? To me the answer is no. I believe that businesses should be able to associate with whom they want to associate and let them find out whether or not they made a wise business decision via word of mouth. If you found out a business discriminates against Blacks, would you shop there? I wouldn't.

Simple.

It allows you to justify your nasty hate with a book written thousands of years ago.

However, the bible also says many other things that no one or little to no one follows. The bible or at least the Old Testament isn't too kind to women as well

It just is crazy to wrap your head around he idea of people caring so much about other people's lives...

Funny you should say that. We have a religion today that isn't too kind to women.
And yet it is constantly being defended.

Well, that was quick... faster than you can say "slippery slope", Politico: It's Time to Legalize Polygamy


The good news for Polygamists, public opinion, no doubt bolstered by examples of sympathetic media treatment such as "Big Love" and "Sister Wives", is following a familiar trajectory. The next clock is now ticking before another group of people, carrying signs reading "Marry Who You Love", in front of the SCOTUS are hugging and high-five'ing each other.

Yup. Slippery slope.

If you were to read all my posts you will see that I never said anything about my faith dictating the law. I actually said up thread that I don't think the government should be in issuing marriage licenses to ANYBODY. The government is in it for tax purposes and initially for the census. I think the government should stay out of it. I just said my faith made me feel a certain way about homosexuality. Nothing more, nothing less. Others may feel they have heard the other side ad nauseum. I think posters know my opinion and there is not much more to say so I'm stepping out. This has been a good conversation and have enjoyed reading this spirited debate!

Actually (and I may be wrong, I'm sure I'll be told if I am) I thought that the tax concern with marriage was to encourage marriage and subsequent children to keep our country growing.

I agree with you. I don't think churches need to be silent about their beliefs. They should be allowed to minister and preach within their own beliefs with absolutely no restraints. They should be allowed to shout their beliefs from a rooftop, a mountain top, go door to door to preach their beliefs. Even if I hate every part of a certain church's beliefs, I would fight for their right to believe it and preach it.

However, I also believe that the minute they step out of the church role and start trying to influence government policy and laws, they should immediately lose their tax exempt status.

In that case I guess the Catholic religion ought to lose their tax exempt status.
They are trying to influence the global warming or climate change policy.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

ALL lives matter

Black, white, brown, blue, young and old. and gay

I like your signature. I fixed it for you.

Happy to help.
Have a nice day.

 

[bcla]

For example - Mormons believe it is bad to drink coffee. Do you think they should be able to get the government to pass laws preventing everyone from drinking coffee? And the Old-Order Mennonites who live near me believe it is bad to drive cars. They only use horse-drawn buggies. Should we (out of respect for their beliefs) pass a law forbidding everyone from driving cars?

To me, that's the same as having laws that prevent people from marrying because their relationships are forbidden by your religion.

The LDS Church was heavily active as a proponent of California's Proposition 8 back in 2008, although the church's official stand has changed a lot since then. They also consider it a personal choice whether to consume "hot drinks" which means coffee and tea, although it's been interpreted one the years to mean anything with caffeine.

As for old order Amish and Mennonites, it's more cultural than religious. They consider the use of modern technology carefully, and don't want to become dependent on it. I read about an Amish tool fair. They wanted to limit the power source to something that was nonelectrical. They had a lot of displays of air powered tool where they might rent air canisters. It also included natural lighting techniques. It may seem like a strange loophole that they can use modern tools that are air powered, but that's for them to decide. An Amish community might set up a single phone to be used if necessary. Ive seen pictures of a small shed just for the phone.

They're also not prohibited from using modern conveniences if needed. They'll pay for drivers, take the train (I've seen them before), and even fly. There was an outbreak of measles a couple of years ago started by a missionary traveling to the Phillipines. They'll pay for modern medical treatment if sick/injured but consider preventative medicine carefully. I understand most you'll see on Amtrak are going to Mexico for medical care sine it's cheaper.

 

[bcla]

Here in Cleveland, Ohio on June 28,2015 it is a freezing 56 degrees and hello must have frozen over, because we The citizens of the United States of America have to freedom of Marriage returned to us.

Human Rights 1 Dogma -1

No hangover from the NBA Finals?

 

[lauradis]

No hangover from the NBA Finals?

Didn't watch them and Cleveland will never win lol

that's a good one

 

[Sleepy425]

I hope that you are right and that this will unite the country. But as I look at this thread and see the way some have been treated. Laughed at, made fun of, called names.... for expressing an opinion that is different from theirs. One that our president and Hillary Clinton held until a couple of years ago.

I appreciate your thoughtful post though, and I hope I am wrong. My fear is that like the baker who was fined $135,000 or the photographer who was sued, both for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, is the way it will go in churches. I'll stop there.

But again, I hope you are right.

The government doesn't force churches to marry people - I know plenty of people who couldn't be married in the Catholic Church despite their desire to do so. So I do t understand why people are claiming that this will be forced upon the church.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I personally believe in freedom of association and letting the free market decide whether or not a business made the right choice or not.
Now before everyone starts stomping on me, please take a moment to think about it. I (for example) own a business. I don't like people who have red hair. I don't want them in my store. Do you really think I would stay in business for this type of practice? Answer is no. Lets say I want a birthday cake decorated with bacon and a pig theme. I go to a Muslim bakery to have them bake this weird cake. Do you think that this Muslim baker should be forced to buy bacon, cook it and draw a picture of a pig just because I feel like that type of birthday cake (which, by the way, my husband would love)? To me the answer is no. I believe that businesses should be able to associate with whom they want to associate and let them find out whether or not they made a wise business decision via word of mouth. If you found out a business discriminates against Blacks, would you shop there? I wouldn't.

Most countries, including the US and Canada, have tried this approach, and it did not work. If there are only one or two red-haired people in town, you might do just fine. You'll get plenty of customers with other hair colours. There might be a few who stay away because they object to you not serving the gingers, but most probably won't even know. Or maybe they think, well, I don't agree with his stance but I like his donuts and I guess everyone has the right to their opinion - those few redheads in town can just go shop in the next city.

This approach just does not work for minorities, especially minorities who face some prejudice and discrimination anyway. As you know, in the past there were many businesses that did discriminate against blacks, and did just fine. It was only after laws were passed forbidding this that things began to change.