Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[pantagrapher]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

 

[kt421]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights. We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

 

[Peens]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

Thats correct, If YOUR Views differ from the Liberals than you should have no rights. See how "Tolerant" we are!!

 

[CrossEyed]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

You have every right to believe what you want - you can desire whatever you want. So can we.

Fair enough. My point is that the desire of Christians to not have homosexual marriage legalized is not an inconsistent or baseless argument.You engage in homosexual activity and think that it is acceptable behavior. To me it is completely consistent that you would want homosexual marriage legalized.

 

[Coach]

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

Religious beliefs are not a good objective reason for laws. Come up with something more concrete. (ps - you won't be able to)

I think you are misled or mis-informed if you believe this. Our country and the laws that govern it were based on the religeous values of of our founding fathers. Want proof - 1 - Go to court and be sworn in as a witness. What do you place your hand on?2 - Take a $1 bill out of your pocket, flip to the back side and then type the three words that appear above the word "ONE".

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights. We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

But you would take a case of an atheist who wanted to remove a plaque of the ten commandments that was in a public park as part of a memorial to a founder of the town due to a violation of the seperation clause, I bet.

 

[larry_boy_44]

ok, so your really the hateful person who is discriminating against people, correct?

I just hate Christians, I'm not trying to strip away or limit their rights. There's a difference.

I mean, I don't care if gay marriage is passed... Really< I don't... I'd prefer if it weren't called marriage for the sake of those who would b eoffended by that and that it is the best way to get a compromise out of this situation...give the gay people "civil unions", make the civil unions act like marriages, but not be called marraiges...problem solved...I don't see why this is such a horrible solution...

Because it's an inefficient solution which leaves doors open for abuse and further discrimination, and is in effect still a form of discrimination since they have to have a special term. It's entirely unnecessary from a legal perspective since your objection is religious in nature (which is irrelevant when it comes to law).

except, like I said, it has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with forcing your moral beliefs on me...

When my moral beliefs are based on equality and yours are based on bigotry then yeah, I have no problem forcing my moral beliefs on you.

but you are breaking your moral beliefs to force your beliefs on mine...you say I'm hypocritical, but everything I do is the same with everyone...You say its wrong to force your beliefs/morals on someone then admit to forcing your beliefs morals on me...who's the hypocrite?I say homosexuality is wrong, I believe it is... that doesn't mean that the people are any less worthy of things...I am saying they shouldn't call it marriage because it is a very sacred thing to some people... that's it... if it's called marriage, fine, who really cares? But there are people who fell like thier rights are being infringed upon by calling it marriage, because, whether you like it or not, marriage is not "Between two people" it is "between a man and a woman"...even in polygamy, the woman doesn't marry the man and the other women, she marries the MAN, and that's it...so calling it something different is COMPLETELY in line with what marriage is and has been since the dawn of man...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

2 - Take a $1 bill out of your pocket, flip to the back side and then type the three words that appear above the word "ONE".

My bill has four words. Please send me yours so I can see what you're talking about. Thanks.

 

[Jericho]

My point is that the desire of Christians to not have homosexual marriage legalized is not an inconsistent or baseless argument.

That's true, in a theocracy. In a secular government, that's not enough. You have to explain why.

 

[CrossEyed]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights. We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

If you seriously believe that this case would not be brought then you have no sense of history of the last 30 years and the rapid acceleration of moral relativism and its impact on our society and our legal system (see no fault divorce).

 

[Peens]

2 - Take a $1 bill out of your pocket, flip to the back side and then type the three words that appear above the word "ONE".

My bill has four words. Please send me yours so I can see what you're talking about. Thanks.

:rotflmao:

 

[larry_boy_44]

WHO SAID THERE SHOULD BE?!?!

Anyone who voted 'no'. Because there are laws already that do that, so anybody who doesn't want to change said laws is giving support to those laws.

but most of hte people who voted "no", and I've said this like 25-30 times already in this thread, only voted no to calling it "marriage", not to gay people having the same rights straight do under marriage, just call it something differnet...if its all about the tax/insurance rights and all that stuff, gay people woudl have no problem accepting civil unions, because they don't, it shows that they don't really want "marriage", they want to force people to say that it is okt o be gay, when those people don't think it is...

 

[larry_boy_44]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights. We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

you wouldn't, but I'm sure you don't see $$$ every time someone comes to you with a case...there are lawyers who do...same with most malpractice claims... there is no reason they should seek tens or hundreds of millions of $$ in damages, yet they still do it...

 

[kt421]

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

Religious beliefs are not a good objective reason for laws. Come up with something more concrete. (ps - you won't be able to)

I think you are misled or mis-informed if you believe this. Our country and the laws that govern it were based on the religeous values of of our founding fathers. Want proof - 1 - Go to court and be sworn in as a witness. What do you place your hand on?2 - Take a $1 bill out of your pocket, flip to the back side and then type the three words that appear above the word "ONE".

There is a difference between a law based on a good objective reason and the reality that some of our laws and institutions have religious roots.BTW, you can affirm to tell the truth in court without using a bible.

 

[Coach]

2 - Take a $1 bill out of your pocket, flip to the back side and then type the three words that appear above the word "ONE".

My bill has four words. Please send me yours so I can see what you're talking about. Thanks.

Meant to type "the last three words".But I got you to look!

 

[pantagrapher]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

 

[Peens]

WHO SAID THERE SHOULD BE?!?!

Anyone who voted 'no'. Because there are laws already that do that, so anybody who doesn't want to change said laws is giving support to those laws.

but most of hte people who voted "no", and I've said this like 25-30 times already in this thread, only voted no to calling it "marriage", not to gay people having the same rights straight do under marriage, just call it something differnet...if its all about the tax/insurance rights and all that stuff, gay people woudl have no problem accepting civil unions, because they don't, it shows that they don't really want "marriage", they want to force people to say that it is okt o be gay, when those people don't think it is...

How many times do you have to say that Larry before they understand it. Seriously

 

[larry_boy_44]

OK. I have news for you. Unfortunately, our country has become trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits. Anybody can sue these days. Not just gays, but straight, black, white, disabled, etc.It seems you agree with my analogy of the Hindu couple. So anybody has the potential to sue the church then. Why target gays specifically then? There is no proof we will sue just as their is no proof we won't. So I don't think it is fair to use that statement as an argument against gay marriage.

because a Hindu couple won't get married in a Catholic church because they would want to get married in whatever the traditions of the Hindu's is...but a gay couple could easily want to be married in a Catholic church, and, in many churches, they wouldn't be allowed to...hence, they would sue...Hindu's wouldn't want to do it, gays would... that's the difference...

 

[kt421]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights.  We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

Would you take the case if a gay couple wanted to be married in a Catholic church? Just curious to see if your answer supports my argument that gay people wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to sue the church.I could be wrong. Let's find out.

No, I wouldn't. I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

if you don't think the same thing why are you talking?everyone wants other people to believe as they do, if they didn't, they would NEVER say what they believed...

 

[larry_boy_44]

No, I wouldn't. I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on.

you don't, but would others?

 

[Jericho]

who's the hypocrite?

The only moral belief I'm forcing on you is "don't be a bigot". It's like the 'intolerant of intolerance' paradox.If I was trying to pass legislation that Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote, then you can call me a hypocrite.

 

[Coach]

There is a difference between a law based on a good objective reason and the reality that some of our laws and institutions have religious roots.

I was responding to a claim that Religeous beliefs are not a good objective reason for laws. They were for the founding fathers of this country. I agree that there can be a difference, however, I believe the line is bit more blurred than most care to admit.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But to me, marriage is between 2 consenting adults who love each other.

I don't even think they need to love each other.

 

[Mr. Z]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

Actually, you are wrong here. It has nothing to do with himself, but with the God that created us. If you know anything at all about the Christian worldview, you will understand that we believe we are totally deprave and lean on God's mercy to save us. It's not about us, but Him.

 

[kt421]

...and yet the government does intervene in the area of civil rights.  We have a church that was forced by the government to install access ramps for the disabled (this is not a bad thing, but it is an example where the gov't steps into the business of a religion).My guess is that if a Hindu couple wanted to marry in a Catholic church, they would be denied and they probably could find an ACLU lawyer to represent them.

But not-installing-access-ramps is not a fundamental belief of that church (I assume). Not marrying gays is. Thats a big difference.As a ACLU lawyer I can say that I would not take the Hindu case.

you wouldn't, but I'm sure you don't see $$$ every time someone comes to you with a case...there are lawyers who do...same with most malpractice claims... there is no reason they should seek tens or hundreds of millions of $$ in damages, yet they still do it...

But there is no money in this type of suit (not that the ACLU takes suits for money anyway). It is a loser and an obvious loser. I'll let your point about malpractice lawyers go - thought its wrong.

 

[Abashail]

Possibly stupid legal question here. Suppose down the road that federal recognition of gay marriage is adopted. Is there any chance that a gay couple could petition to force a specific church to marry them, using a discrimination argument? I mean, if I had a restaurant that refused to serve gay customers I suspect that policy woul dbe illegal. Wouldn't a similar argument hold for churches? Or does church/state seperation step in to defend the church here?I realize that this is pretty hypothetical, but I'm sure some of the law theorists here can speculate some.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't need other people to tell me if my lifestyle is ok or not. That's not the point here. The point is that I want my civil rights.As for marriage vs. civil union, when we talk about marriage in this thread, I'm really thinking civil union. Not a religious union. Atheist call their marriage a "marriage" even though by your definition, it is only a civil union. Where's the outrage in that?But to me, marriage is between 2 consenting adults who love each other. So call it whatever the heck you want. A gov't recognized civil union would still be "marriage" to me and my partner.I think the 2 terms are interchangeable - everyone is going to have different definitions of "marriage".

so, would you be opposed to the goverment calling it civil unions between gay people and giving these civil unions all the legal rights of a marriage?Because most of the people who are opposed to gay marriage would vote "yes" to that...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But to me, marriage is between 2 consenting adults who love each other.

I don't even think they need to love each other.

There you go. But that's my definition of marriage. I know there are a lot of marriages out there with no love in them. But for me, that's the definition.

Do you think two people should be allowed to get married even if they don't love each other?

 

[larry_boy_44]

who's the hypocrite?

The only moral belief I'm forcing on you is "don't be a bigot". It's like the 'intolerant of intolerance' paradox.If I was trying to pass legislation that Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote, then you can call me a hypocrite.

it doesn't matter, by forcing a moral belief on me, you are being a hypocrite and a bigot yourself...and I don't HATE ANYONE!!!!DO YOU NOT LISTEN?!?!

 

[larry_boy_44]

He's an ACLU lawyer!! If he doesn't think there is one, then their probaly isn't. Sure, someone might sue but I seriously doubt that they would win.

how many people think that Kobe's "victim" has a case against Kobe? Is he still being sued?How many people thought that lots of people had cases when they won or that people took them?one lawyer not thinking there is a case doesn't mean that there owuldn't be a case... and you know it...

 

[CrossEyed]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

You've got me all wrong, my friend. There's not a righteous thing about me. The only reason I'm worthy of anything is because of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I'm absolutely no better than you or anyone else. But my faith in Him and love for Him motivates me to do my best to follow His word and to tell others. Just trying to be a faithful disciple.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If straight couple calls your pastor today does he need to marry them? Not would he, but does he have to?Why would it be different?

my pastor says yes to straight couples though...I mean, he's married people he doens't necessarily agree with on beliefs...the only real requirement is they have to take a marriage class thing with him...But I am sure he wouldn't marry gay people...but he wouldn't do it simply because they are gay...And are you telling me there aren't gay couples who would try to sue churches tha twon't let them get married in thier churches? You know it would happen...It isn't a matter of he has to let them, its a matter of someone making a fuss because they are being "discriminated against"...

Let's retry this.I don't care if in your pastor's case he chooses to always say yes to straight couples as long as they take his class. The question is can he say no?Can he descriminate based on religion if 2 mormons asked him? Could he descriminate based on a mental handicap? Or, maybe an interracial couple?Not "would he", but "could he" without being sued.Finally, in 2004 there can be no guarantees of law suits being filed, but why this great fear of facing such a case? Have women sued the Catholic Chuch and won based on the obvious hiring bias for the position of Priest? Of all the church's in your state, is yours such a high profile church to be worth anyone's trouble? But also small enough to not be able to endure the fight?

 

[Abashail]

Possibly stupid legal question here. Suppose down the road that federal recognition of gay marriage is adopted. Is there any chance that a gay couple could petition to force a specific church to marry them, using a discrimination argument? I mean, if I had a restaurant that refused to serve gay customers I suspect that policy woul dbe illegal. Wouldn't a similar argument hold for churches? Or does church/state seperation step in to defend the church here?I realize that this is pretty hypothetical, but I'm sure some of the law theorists here can speculate some.

Bah, this has already been asked. Stupid 14 page threads. Ignore me

 

[kt421]

Possibly stupid legal question here. Suppose down the road that federal recognition of gay marriage is adopted. Is there any chance that a gay couple could petition to force a specific church to marry them, using a discrimination argument? I mean, if I had a restaurant that refused to serve gay customers I suspect that policy woul dbe illegal. Wouldn't a similar argument hold for churches? Or does church/state seperation step in to defend the church here?I realize that this is pretty hypothetical, but I'm sure some of the law theorists here can speculate some.

no.

 

[pantagrapher]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

Actually, you are wrong here. It has nothing to do with himself, but with the God that created us. If you know anything at all about the Christian worldview, you will understand that we believe we are totally deprave and lean on God's mercy to save us. It's not about us, but Him.

So if god supports you, you can't be self-righteous? This is like having a lap race on a mobius strip.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Let's retry this.I don't care if in your pastor's case he chooses to always say yes to straight couples as long as they take his class. The question is can he say no?Can he descriminate based on religion if 2 mormons asked him? Could he descriminate based on a mental handicap? Or, maybe an interracial couple?Not "would he", but "could he" without being sued.Finally, in 2004 there can be no guarantees of law suits being filed, but why this great fear of facing such a case? Have women sued the Catholic Chuch and won based on the obvious hiring bias for the position of Priest? Of all the church's in your state, is yours such a high profile church to be worth anyone's trouble? But also small enough to not be able to endure the fight?

I don't think he could...If you can't discriminate against an interracial couple, then you couldn't discriminate against a gay couple either...I'm not saying my church is high-profile, but I doubt its gonna be a huge church that gets sued if one does...it will be a small church and that church will probably give in 'cuz they can't afford the legal battle...

 

[kt421]

He's an ACLU lawyer!! If he doesn't think there is one, then their probaly isn't. Sure, someone might sue but I seriously doubt that they would win.

how many people think that Kobe's "victim" has a case against Kobe? Is he still being sued?How many people thought that lots of people had cases when they won or that people took them?one lawyer not thinking there is a case doesn't mean that there owuldn't be a case... and you know it...

Yes, she does have a case and yes, he's still being sued. Why wouldn't she have a civil case? But you are right in one sense - some lawyer, somewhere may take this case. It would likely be a waste of that lawyer's time and might cost the church a small amount of legal fees to defend until it was rejected by the court.Small price to pay for getting rid of government-based discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Let's see...a few thousand in legal fees versus denying an entire group of people the right to marry...

 

[chitlins3]

He's an ACLU lawyer!! If he doesn't think there is one, then their probaly isn't. Sure, someone might sue but I seriously doubt that they would win.

how many people think that Kobe's "victim" has a case against Kobe? Is he still being sued?How many people thought that lots of people had cases when they won or that people took them?one lawyer not thinking there is a case doesn't mean that there owuldn't be a case... and you know it...

Flawed analogy. Whether or not Kobe's accuser has a case against Kobe is an issue of fact. On the other hand, the gay couple would likely not have standing to bring the action against the Church.

 

[larry_boy_44]

He's an ACLU lawyer!! If he doesn't think there is one, then their probaly isn't. Sure, someone might sue but I seriously doubt that they would win.

how many people think that Kobe's "victim" has a case against Kobe? Is he still being sued?How many people thought that lots of people had cases when they won or that people took them?one lawyer not thinking there is a case doesn't mean that there owuldn't be a case... and you know it...

Yes - but the point is that I don't think they would win.There is a HUGE difference between the Kobe case and the possible scenario of suing a church and you know it.

I know,b ut it was the only case I could think of...Heck, OJ was said to be innocent (or whateveR) and he still got sued and lost...it doesn't take much to sue someone...if someone sued a church for not letting them marry in the church 'cuz they were gay, and you were on the jury, what would you vote?

 

[CrossEyed]

The God of Christianity says that homosexuality is sin.  Therefore a follower of Christianity should feel that homosexual marriage is wrong.  Where is the inconsistency there?

There's nothing inconsistent with feeling it's wrong, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that adultery is wrong. But that's not what we're arguing about. The inconsistency comes up when you say "the god of Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I think there should be laws that limit the rights of homosexuals".

So I shouldn't desire that the laws of my country reflect what I believe is right?

No, you should respect other people's liberty. The selfish desire that everyone play by our rules is one most of us shed as children. If you have not yet realized that interpersonal relationships thrive when there is an unspoken, mutual understanding that we are all different, you are not only self-righteous, but tyrannical in your own private way.And I respect your right to be such.

But the problem here is that you are judging my motivation. Couldn't it be that because I truly feel that this is destructive behavior and an affront to God that I desire this law not to be changed? Not as much so I can have things "my way" but because I feel that everyone would actually be better off?Now you may feel that I am incorrect in my thinking, but don't make the mistake of pretending to understand my motivation.

Do you understand that the idea that humanity would be better off if they adopted your ideals is the very essence of self-righteousness?

Actually, you are wrong here. It has nothing to do with himself, but with the God that created us. If you know anything at all about the Christian worldview, you will understand that we believe we are totally deprave and lean on God's mercy to save us. It's not about us, but Him.

So if god supports you, you can't be self-righteous? This is like having a lap race on a mobius strip.

My righteousness isn't about self, it's about Him.

 

[Mr. Z]

Actually, you are wrong here. It has nothing to do with himself, but with the God that created us. If you know anything at all about the Christian worldview, you will understand that we believe we are totally deprave and lean on God's mercy to save us. It's not about us, but Him.

So if god supports you, you can't be self-righteous? This is like having a lap race on a mobius strip.

God doesn't "support" me and my beliefs. If not for Christ saving me and changing my life, I wouldn't believe much of what I currently believe. I take absolutely no credit for anything I believe. I certainly didn't come up with my own beliefs and then take a look at the bible and see what it said. Not sure how that can be self-righteous.

 

[shuke]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".

Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?

What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...

*ends the sarcasm*

what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??

I mean, seriously...

The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...

is this all really that hard for you to understand?

This has to be an alias because this is just plain laughable. Way to skirt around the atheist issue.

I'VE ANSWERED IT ABOUT 10 TIMES!!!! ARE YOU NOT READING?!?!go back to Kindergarden, maybe like 3rd grade... learn how to comprehend what you read again... and get back to me, k?

You still have not given a rational answer as to why you find it okay for two atheists to use the word marriage, when this word is obviously deemed so sacred by the Christians blah blah blah.I stand by my analysis: your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded.

 

[Dickies]

OK. I have news for you. Unfortunately, our country has become trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits. Anybody can sue these days. Not just gays, but straight, black, white, disabled, etc.It seems you agree with my analogy of the Hindu couple. So anybody has the potential to sue the church then. Why target gays specifically then? There is no proof we will sue just as their is no proof we won't. So I don't think it is fair to use that statement as an argument against gay marriage.

because a Hindu couple won't get married in a Catholic church because they would want to get married in whatever the traditions of the Hindu's is...but a gay couple could easily want to be married in a Catholic church, and, in many churches, they wouldn't be allowed to...hence, they would sue...Hindu's wouldn't want to do it, gays would... that's the difference...

This is what I've been repeating throughout this thread..... You obviously have no problem with Hindu people getting married, yet you claim that the reason gay marriage should not be allowed is because marriage is a sacred Christian term for a man and a woman getting married. Marriage has nothing to do with Christianity, nothing to do with religion. It has been going on prior to the biblical days, and as far back in human history as we can trace. Why is marriage suddenly solely a term for Christians?I find it offensive that you think gay people shouldn't be able to use the term marriage, and must fall back on civil unions. It reminds me of seperate but equal rights for blacks. You are saying that they get all the benefits, yet you choose to view them with a lesser attitude by tagging them with civil union instead of just recognizing them as normal people.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Larry,This is a serious question, not backhanded comment. The term marriage is used both in a legal sense and a religious sense. I would think we would agree on at least that much. Here is my question: How does the use of the term marriage negatively impact/infringe your rights as a citizen of the United States? I am trying to understand your position.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

So you don't care about the religious aspect of marriage, since you are fine with atheists being "married".

Your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded?

What are your thoughts on slavery and a woman's right to vote?

*shakes head and turns sarcasm*all the...

*ends the sarcasm*

what the heck are you talking about? I can't even type the stuff sarcastically... seriously... what do you ant me to say? "YEAH BRIGN BACK SLAVERY!!"??

I mean, seriously...

The point is marriage is referring ot something VERY VERY specific between a man and a woman... some people take this as a very VERY sacred act and it means a lot to them and they feel that it is an infringement upon thier RIGHTS to have a union between two gay people be called a marriage...

is this all really that hard for you to understand?

This has to be an alias because this is just plain laughable. Way to skirt around the atheist issue.

I'VE ANSWERED IT ABOUT 10 TIMES!!!! ARE YOU NOT READING?!?!go back to Kindergarden, maybe like 3rd grade... learn how to comprehend what you read again... and get back to me, k?

You still have not given a rational answer as to why you find it okay for two atheists to use the word marriage, when this word is obviously deemed so sacred by the Christians blah blah blah.I stand by my analysis: your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded.

...because it fits the criterion ordained (as most religious people would argue) by God even though it does not truely meet the criterion built by God which would not only involve the union of man to woman but would also include the purpose of this religion to further glorify God.I think most let it slide because it at least meets half of the criteria.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if someone sued a church for not letting them marry in the church 'cuz they were gay, and you were on the jury, what would you vote?

That case would never get to a jury. It'd be thrown out long before then.Churches are allowed to discriminate all they want (when acting as churches as opposed to educators or secular employers).

 

[Mr. Z]

You still have not given a rational answer as to why you find it okay for two atheists to use the word marriage, when this word is obviously deemed so sacred by the Christians blah blah blah.I stand by my analysis: your argument basically boils down to what was deemed "right" when the country was founded.

As a Christian, I believe marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman. I have no problem with non-Christians using the word "marriage" when it is between a man and a woman. I DO have a problem with non-Christians getting married in churches or atheists making vows before God.Editing to expound a bit:Marriage was created by God to be between a man and woman. God created many things that people enjoy and are blessed by, even though they may not believe in God or Christ. Non-Christians and atheists enjoy the act of sex, the miracle and joy of child birth, the beauty and splendor of His creation. They are not exempt from these things because they aren't Christians. Same goes with marriage. The difference between this and homosexual unions is that God created marriage for a man and a woman.

 

[pantagrapher]

Actually, you are wrong here.  It has nothing to do with himself, but with the God that created us.  If you know anything at all about the Christian worldview, you will understand that we believe we are totally deprave and lean on God's mercy to save us.  It's not about us, but Him.

So if god supports you, you can't be self-righteous? This is like having a lap race on a mobius strip.

God doesn't "support" me and my beliefs. If not for Christ saving me and changing my life, I wouldn't believe much of what I currently believe. I take absolutely no credit for anything I believe. I certainly didn't come up with my own beliefs and then take a look at the bible and see what it said. Not sure how that can be self-righteous.

If you're not responsible for any of your decisions, I trust you don't hold anyone else responsible for theirs.