Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 15:45:03 GMT
I think it's fair to say that most of the people on the left here believe that a business should be required by law to service a same-sex wedding (bake the cake, take the pictures, cater the reception, etc.), regardless of whether or not the people working there have religious objections to the union.
Would you apply that same principle to a church being forced to actually perform the same-sex wedding ceremony? Even if their faith defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, MUST they provide this service?
Or is there an inherent difference there? If so, what is the difference (from a principled/philosophical point of view)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 15:49:07 GMT
I think we should make marriage against the law
Its an outdated institution that there is no need for in a modern society.
But no i don`t think you should force anybody to do something against there will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 27, 2018 16:13:14 GMT
I believe that no Church should be forced to perform same sex marriage. If people do not like the church which does not perform same sex marriage then they should find some other place to marry. I also believe that no business should refuse to cater their normal business goods to anyone. Marriage is a religious ceremony that Church performs and should thus follow the principle of their religion in doing so. The Church is an active party in such a case. In providing birthday cake the business owners (even if they are religious) are not doing any ceremony or ritual from their end. It is the other party that is attaching meaning to that cake in the form of considering it a gay cake or whatever cake. The business owners are just passing on the commodity which is normal business for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 27, 2018 16:43:13 GMT
"Or is there an inherent difference there?"
Yes, one is a church the other isn't. There's suppsoed to be a seperation of church and state, so I don't have an issue with churches turning down gay marriages if that means keeping religion out of government matters(though I think their reasoning is still silly and irrational). I don't like the idea of bakers being "forced" to make a cake for gay couples (though again their reasoning is silly), but if they're allowed to turn them down, then that opens the door for other religious discirimation (a Christian baker refusing to bake for a Mulsim or Jewish wedding for instance)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 16:59:40 GMT
I think it's fair to say that most of the people on the left here believe that a business should be required by law to service a same-sex wedding (bake the cake, take the pictures, cater the reception, etc.), regardless of whether or not the people working there have religious objections to the union. Would you apply that same principle to a church being forced to actually perform the same-sex wedding ceremony? Even if their faith defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, MUST they provide this service? Or is there an inherent difference there? If so, what is the difference (from a principled/philosophical point of view)? Personally my ideal solution would be to split marriage into two parts. Let churches have "marriage". Any church may marry whomever it wants, and not marry whomever it doesn't want to marry. No restrictions whatsoever. And for that matter, let religions control divorce howsoever they want to - allowing it, forbidding it, whatever they want. No government oversight, no government regulation, no government interference. However, such marriages are religious matters only - they carry no legal rights or protections whatsoever, and indeed have no legal status whatsoever. As far as the government is concerned, two "married" individuals are legally identical to two strangers. Then as a separate institution you have Civil Unions. These are government contracts, essentially. They carry all the legal protections. They are on offer to couples of any gender, any faith. You can sign one for a fixed period, or a lifetime - but you can dissolve even a lifetime union in a divorce. Anybody who has a religious marriage can also have a civil union. Thus if you want the religious marriage and the legal protection on top, you have your religious ceremony and then pop down to the courthouse and sign a civil union afterwards. It would be entirely up to churches whether anybody who has a civil union can also be married. To me it seems the best of all worlds. A secular government offering civil unions to citizens without religious restriction. Religions which can all practice marriage as they please, entirely free of government interference. Anyway, that's how I will do it when I am the Padishah Emperor and all of humanity lies prostrate at my feet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 17:14:12 GMT
I think it's fair to say that most of the people on the left here believe that a business should be required by law to service a same-sex wedding (bake the cake, take the pictures, cater the reception, etc.), regardless of whether or not the people working there have religious objections to the union. Would you apply that same principle to a church being forced to actually perform the same-sex wedding ceremony? Even if their faith defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, MUST they provide this service? Or is there an inherent difference there? If so, what is the difference (from a principled/philosophical point of view)? I think our society has become too Pussy.
Everything upsets someone. It's about being an adult. Our ancestors struggled to survive, fought wars, sacrificed for humanity, etc...
Now, we are crying because someone refused service.
- A Florist refuses to give gay people flowers for their wedding. Write a bad review on Yelp and go somewhere else. - A restaurant doesn't want to serve a fat lady because she's the press sec at the White House. Go to another restaurant. Why eat where people don't want you? - Cops shoot a teen. Don't cuss, resist, and put your hands in your pockets when the police ask you to cooperate. How do they know you don't have a gun?
- They won't let me use the men's room because I was born female, but I feel like a man on the inside. It's a fu***ing toilet. Who gives a sh**? - The government won't abolish abortion. The government won't abolish gay marriage. Who cares? If you don't agree with it, don't do it. You have that right. If someone else does, that's their soul not yours. Jesus didn't force the Roman government to adhere to his laws. He just gave people the answers and they had the right to follow them or not. The choice is yours, why force people?
It's damned common sense. We are all different, we all think differently, we all come from different religious backgrounds, socio-economic situations, parts of the country, race, family structures, childhood trauma, genetic differences, etc... Just treat people the way you want to be treated and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 17:31:24 GMT
I think it's fair to say that most of the people on the left here believe that a business should be required by law to service a same-sex wedding (bake the cake, take the pictures, cater the reception, etc.), regardless of whether or not the people working there have religious objections to the union. Would you apply that same principle to a church being forced to actually perform the same-sex wedding ceremony? Even if their faith defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, MUST they provide this service? Or is there an inherent difference there? If so, what is the difference (from a principled/philosophical point of view)? Personally my ideal solution would be to split marriage into two parts. Let churches have "marriage". Any church may marry whomever it wants, and not marry whomever it doesn't want to marry. No restrictions whatsoever. And for that matter, let religions control divorce howsoever they want to - allowing it, forbidding it, whatever they want. No government oversight, no government regulation, no government interference. However, such marriages are religious matters only - they carry no legal rights or protections whatsoever, and indeed have no legal status whatsoever. As far as the government is concerned, two "married" individuals are legally identical to two strangers. Then as a separate institution you have Civil Unions. These are government contracts, essentially. They carry all the legal protections. They are on offer to couples of any gender, any faith. You can sign one for a fixed period, or a lifetime - but you can dissolve even a lifetime union in a divorce. Anybody who has a religious marriage can also have a civil union. Thus if you want the religious marriage and the legal protection on top, you have your religious ceremony and then pop down to the courthouse and sign a civil union afterwards. It would be entirely up to churches whether anybody who has a civil union can also be married. To me it seems the best of all worlds. A secular government offering civil unions to citizens without religious restriction. Religions which can all practice marriage as they please, entirely free of government interference. Anyway, that's how I will do it when I am the Padishah Emperor and all of humanity lies prostrate at my feet. I actually fully agree with this! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 27, 2018 17:54:54 GMT
Of course not unless their own tenets mandate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 27, 2018 17:57:44 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 27, 2018 18:01:46 GMT
Personally my ideal solution would be to split marriage into two parts. Let churches have "marriage". Any church may marry whomever it wants, and not marry whomever it doesn't want to marry. No restrictions whatsoever. And for that matter, let religions control divorce howsoever they want to - allowing it, forbidding it, whatever they want. No government oversight, no government regulation, no government interference. However, such marriages are religious matters only - they carry no legal rights or protections whatsoever, and indeed have no legal status whatsoever. As far as the government is concerned, two "married" individuals are legally identical to two strangers. Then as a separate institution you have Civil Unions. These are government contracts, essentially. They carry all the legal protections. They are on offer to couples of any gender, any faith. You can sign one for a fixed period, or a lifetime - but you can dissolve even a lifetime union in a divorce. Anybody who has a religious marriage can also have a civil union. Thus if you want the religious marriage and the legal protection on top, you have your religious ceremony and then pop down to the courthouse and sign a civil union afterwards. It would be entirely up to churches whether anybody who has a civil union can also be married. To me it seems the best of all worlds. A secular government offering civil unions to citizens without religious restriction. Religions which can all practice marriage as they please, entirely free of government interference. Anyway, that's how I will do it when I am the Padishah Emperor and all of humanity lies prostrate at my feet. I actually fully agree with this! I don't think government should be involved in the marriage business at all. Contract law takes care of any inheritance issues. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2018 18:12:32 GMT
Absolutely not, but to my mind (my "conspiracy theorist" mind) the question is on a par with: Do you think the deck chairs on RMS Titanic should be rearranged?
In the future there will be one church-state for the entire world, and it will decide who gets married and who doesn't, along with having the final say on everything else. That's quite depressing, isn't it? Why yes, yes it is, and that's why I don't enjoy telling people about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 27, 2018 18:36:49 GMT
Absolutely not, but to my mind (my "conspiracy theorist" mind) the question is on a par with: Do you think the deck chairs on RMS Titanic should be rearranged? In the future there will be one church-state for the entire world, and it will decide who gets married and who doesn't, along with having the final say on everything else. That's quite depressing, isn't it? Why yes, yes it is, and that's why I don't enjoy telling people about it. You mean the RMS Olympic disguised as the Titanic? 👍 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 18:38:40 GMT
I actually fully agree with this! I don't think government should be involved in the marriage business at all. Contract law takes care of any inheritance issues. That'd be ideal, but I'm not sure the government will want to surrender their control over the whole thing. They tend to not give up their power once they get it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2018 18:41:55 GMT
Absolutely not, but to my mind (my "conspiracy theorist" mind) the question is on a par with: Do you think the deck chairs on RMS Titanic should be rearranged? In the future there will be one church-state for the entire world, and it will decide who gets married and who doesn't, along with having the final say on everything else. That's quite depressing, isn't it? Why yes, yes it is, and that's why I don't enjoy telling people about it. You mean the RMS Olympic disguised as the Titanic? 👍 Either way, they're both gone now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 18:42:22 GMT
In the future there will be one church-state for the entire world, and it will decide who gets married and who doesn't, along with having the final say on everything else. That's quite depressing, isn't it? Why yes, yes it is, and that's why I don't enjoy telling people about it. Good thing it's not true, then. You may as well not bother. |
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 27, 2018 19:01:16 GMT
NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2018 22:48:37 GMT
I actually fully agree with this! I don't think government should be involved in the marriage business at all. Contract law takes care of any inheritance issues. So how do people get married if they want to? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 27, 2018 23:00:12 GMT
I don't think government should be involved in the marriage business at all. Contract law takes care of any inheritance issues. So how do people get married if they want to? Marriage is only based on legality because the government says it is, but it means nothing since marriage is more important as a commitment than a law. That's why a dude can be common law married to 3 women even as the government doesn't recognize it. A person would get married based on how they planned to get married in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2018 23:04:22 GMT
So how do people get married if they want to? Marriage is only based on legality because the government says it is, but it means nothing since marriage is more important as a commitment than a law. That's why a dude can be common law married to 3 women even as the government doesn't recognize it. A person would get married based on how they planned to get married in the first place.Most people are married by law in a marriage contract. If you advocate taking that right away, then they cannot get married as they wanted in the first place. DUH! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 27, 2018 23:08:40 GMT
Marriage is only based on legality because the government says it is, but it means nothing since marriage is more important as a commitment than a law. That's why a dude can be common law married to 3 women even as the government doesn't recognize it. A person would get married based on how they planned to get married in the first place.Most people are married by law in a marriage contract. If you advocate taking that right away, then they cannot get married as they wanted in the first place. DUH! That isn't true. You honestly think that people are getting married for their state's acknowledgement? They want acknowledgement of the commitment they have for each other. If the government had no option for marriage whatsoever, people would still be getting married based on their religious, social, or culture preferences. Since the government is involved, people go through that step as well. |
|
