Gay rights and the church

[JLives]

Ok I don't want to sidetrack the mormon thread anymore so I'll start a new topic.

I think the solution to stop the back and forth of gay rights vs. religious rights can be solved quite simply. Churches should not be allowed to be involved in legal contracts outside of anything pertaining to the actual church building.

If you want to be married or adopt you must go through a government agency. If you would like to have a white wedding in your church then that is fine but it is for ceremonial purposes only and not legally binding. If you want to adopt a child you will be assured you are not discriminated against by going through a government agency. When it comes to civil rights it is our job to protect minorites from discrimination. The church is getting in the way of that.

The purpose of a church is the worship of a god, is it not? I believe we should clearly define what that means in a legal sense and stop letting religious organizations have any say in politics, social policy or anything else that is not directly worshiping thier god in thier church.

[Mr Danksworth]

You mention all the groups that marry all the time, the problem with that comparison is that they are not of the same sex and trying to redefine what marriage is.

Where exactly is this definition of marriage you speak of.

Can you let me know how it is appropriate to target people for voting their beliefs??

When that 'belief' is bigoted and discriminatory the yes, it is perfectly acceptable.

[chickenlittle]

Ok I don't want to sidetrack the mormon thread anymore so I'll start a new topic.

I think the solution to stop the back and forth of gay rights vs. religious rights can be solved quite simply. Churches should not be allowed to be involved in legal contracts outside of anything pertaining to the actual church building.
If you want to be married or adopt you must go through a government agency. If you would like to have a white wedding in your church then that is fine but it is for ceremonial purposes only and not legally binding. If you want to adopt a child you will be assured you are not discriminated against by going through a government agency. When it comes to civil rights it is our job to protect minorites from discrimination. The church is getting in the way of that.

Not sure how this would solve the problem. Christians view marriage as a union between a man and a women. Where a homsexual couple signs the papers will not change many Christians views on homosexual marriage being legal. Why would not allowing a Christian couple to be legally married in alignment with their religious views be any more unfair than not allowing a gay couple to joined in a civil union?

Don't Christians have a "civil right" to practice their faith?

I am a Christian. I believe that Homosexual behavior is wrong. That being said I also believe that dishonest behavior is wrong; that gossiping is wrong; that extra marital sex is wrong. I do not believe the government should make lying, gossiping and one night stands illegal so following the same logic I do not believe that the government should make homosexual marriage illegal. However, no church should be forced to marry a homosexual couple if it goes against the docterine of their faith. In the same way a church should not be allowed to prevent the marriage of a homosexual couple if they choose to do it in another way.

No one should have their freedom of speech restricted. A church saying that they believe homosexual marriage is wrong is no different than an atheist saying Christians are wrong. We are all entitled to our opinions.

The purpose of a church is the worship of a god, is it not? I believe we should clearly define what that means in a legal sense and stop letting religious organizations have any say in politics, social policy or anything else that is not directly worshiping thier god in thier church.

That one purpose of a church. The main purpose of the "Church" is to spread the good news of the Grace that is offered to us in Christ. Christ's salvation is offerred freely to all who CHOOSE to accept it. In my opinion, this means that Christians should not force our values on others but live our lives in such a way that it encourages others to want to do the same.

Christians are entitled to have a public voice as much as any other group. There is no way to fairly ban any group from having a say in politics and social policy. Restricting free speech is not going to solve the problem. Should we keep environmentalists from having their say? How about industrialists?

The reality is that the only system any person would be truly happy with is one that completely aligns with his/her own word view. As we all have different opinions this is never going to happen. So the only way to make it work is to allow all of us (who want to) to have our say.

[Big ned]

Sorry soulra, you are wrong. If there is a free and open vote on something, it is not only wrong, but illegal to target people for voting their conscience. What is the point of having a democracy if people are not free to vote based on their opinions? I know, you are a lot like the far left in the united states.... preach tolerance unless someone disagrees with you, then you bash their heads in. Nice.

[JLives]

People have every right to practice thier faith. That is where the church comes in or in your home of course. They have every right to believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral or marraige is only suitable between one man and one woman. They also have every right to be married in their god's eyes through thier own church ceremony.

What right religious people or churches don't have is the right to press thier beliefs on other people including "spreading the good word". If I want to go look for the good word I'll find it but I'd advise you not to present it to me thank you very much.

A big reason alot of people voted the way they did is because they were lied to and told their church would have to marry gay people. Ned this has been your main argument against gay marraige. You are allowed to hold whatever beliefs you have but never, ever at the expense of denying rights to others and that is what is happening here. Beliefs and legal contracts should never be intertwined. That is where the seperation of church and state comes in. So if you want to be married in the legal sense of the word then you must go to a government agent. This way everybody is equal and no rights are denied.

[usquebaugh]

I don't know all that many LGBT couples who would even want to be married in a church. For that matter, when gay marriage was legalized in California, LGBT couples flocked to courthouses to get married by Justices of the Peace.

The LDS church and others of its ilk also lied by saying that gay marriage would taught in schools. Furthermore, since when has heterosexual marriage been taught in schools? I certainly never heard those vows taught in my day as a child, nor was I ever expected to repeat them on an exam.

[Glacier]

This way everybody is equal and no rights are denied.

I guess the real question is how do we define what a right is?

[usquebaugh]

This way everybody is equal and no rights are denied.

I guess the real question is how do we define what a right is?

If straight people are allowed to be married, but the same permission is being denied to a minority group, such as LGBT couples, then I'd say someone's rights are being trampled.

What gives heteros the right to marry?

[Mr Danksworth]

Where exactly is this definition of marriage you speak of.

I've asked a few times, but no answer yet.

[chickenlittle]

What right religious people or churches don't have is the right to press thier beliefs on other people including "spreading the good word". If I want to go look for the good word I'll find it but I'd advise you not to present it to me thank you very much.

So people with the same views as you are allowed to express their opinions, but when people with different beliefs than you share those beliefs with you they are attempting to "press their beliefs on other people". Sorry Jenny, the world does not work that way. Everyone believes something. By telling Christians that they should not be allowed to share their beliefs you are, in fact, pressing your beliefs on them.

A big reason alot of people voted the way they did is because they were lied to and told their church would have to marry gay people. Ned this has been your main argument against gay marraige. You are allowed to hold whatever beliefs you have but never, ever at the expense of denying rights to others and that is what is happening here. Beliefs and legal contracts should never be intertwined. That is where the seperation of church and state comes in. So if you want to be married in the legal sense of the word then you must go to a government agent. This way everybody is equal and no rights are denied.

How do we define what "rights" are? What as humans do we have guaranteed rights to? The interesting thing about human rights is that everyone comes to believe that they have a right to what they want. In the end it all comes down to personal beliefs. How do we draw the line at which groups beliefs we are willing to accept as a society? Why is someone's belief that there is no god really any different than someone's belief that there is? Do animal rights activists have a right to lobby government for the more humane treatment of animals? What if they define humane as never using animal products for anything? Other's believe humane is minimizing the suffering of the cow before it becomes steak. Should we forbid either group from expressing their opinion?

A evolutionist can argue that natural law (survival of the fittest) does not support homosexual being a natural or healthy lifestyle. Pretty hard to procreate in a way that the plumbing isn't set up for. Now we have a logical, non-religious reason to not allow homosexual marriage. Based on that should we ban gay marriage? It is after all backed up by the accepted science (no matter how much we may want to deny it) of the day. Is the evoultionist more right than the gay rights activist? Does his/her opinion carry more weight because it is not a religious point of view.

My point is you cannot eliminate the right of any group to express their opinions whether you like their opinions or not. Everyone thinks what they believe is correct. Why should some have more right to express their point of view than others?

[Big ned]

but Jenny... you keep missing my point... the gay lobbyists have already give precident to our suspicion. did they leave the church based adoption agency alone? Are you now saying churches should not have the right to adopt children out to religious parents that want them?

And what about bi sexual people? should they have the right to marry two people because the prefer both? Let's change the definition of marriage to include multiple partners, children and animals. Now let's start forcing the churches to perform these marriages or sue them until they have to shut down.

The lobbyists are transparent and they have already shown their hand. And to say that nothing promoting homosexual lifestyles is being or will be taught in schools is ridiculous. It's already happening.

Now it may not be what the gay people want... most of them may just really want to call their civil union a marriage... but the lobbyists will push and push. They may eventually get their way... but that doesn't mean people of religion can't push back for what they believe in.

And by the way, I read earlier that churches teach that homosexuality is a choice... I don't believe that and my church doesn't teach that. I do believe we have control over our actions and that is what we are accountable for.

[JLives]

I'm not missing your point Ned, I just see no substance to it.

I'm saying religious organizations should not be allowed to write any legal documents including those for adoption and marraige. Let's keep the seperation of church and state truly seperate. Legal marraige through your government, spiritual marraige through your church. There, everyone's happy and noone's losing rights.

I myself believe people are gay due to overpopulation. I beleive it is evolution's way of slowing down population growth and allows for other adults to care for the children who do not have people to take care of them. It is natural, it is not a choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Other species have different family structures then a monogamous mom and dad as well. Are they being immoral too? A few cryptic passage from a book wrote by people a few thousand years ago is certainly no reason to deny LBGT people equal rights to a family of thier own.

Why are you comparing gay people to bestiality Ned? Aside from being a disgusting comparison, a gay relationship is between consenting adults. Of course bisexuals should be able to marry whoever they want. I also couldn't care less how many partners are in the marraige as long as they are consenting adults. Marraige is supposed to be about love, not making babies. That's what sex is for. I have two kids and am not married but I've been with their father for almost 10 years now. I don't really believe in marraige as a sacred institution but I would never presume I could force that on others. I wish religious people were just as capable.

[chickenlittle]

I'm not missing your point Ned, I just see no substance to it.

I'm saying religious organizations should not be allowed to write any legal documents including those for adoption and marraige. Let's keep the seperation of church and state truly seperate. Legal marraige through your government, spiritual marraige through your church. There, everyone's happy and noone's losing rights.

Actually the religious would be losing their right to be legally married in their faith. There is already several ways for the non religious to be joined legally in marriage. Why do you need to take away the "right" of a religious organization to marry people of their faith in order to make things fair? You yourself have choosen to live common law, which under our laws amounts to the same thing as marriage after a certain period in time. So if you can have it your way, why can't the religious continue to have it theirs?

I myself believe people are gay due to overpopulation. I beleive it is evolution's way of slowing down population growth and allows for other adults to care for the children who do not have people to take care of them. It is natural, it is not a choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Other species have different family structures then a monogamous mom and dad as well. Are they being immoral too? A few cryptic passage from a book wrote by people a few thousand years ago is certainly no reason to deny LBGT people equal rights to a family of thier own.

Is there any evidence to back that up or is it something that just makes you feel better? All behavior is a choice. If I feel hungry I can choose to eat. If I desire the attention of others I can choose to seek fame. If I desire the opposite sex I choose to have relations with them.
On the opposite side. If I desire to hit someone I can choose not to. If I desire something I cannot afford I can choose not to steal to get it.

It is really what separates us from the animals... we can always choose our response to a stimulus.

Why are you comparing gay people to bestiality Ned? Aside from being a disgusting comparison, a gay relationship is between consenting adults. Of course bisexuals should be able to marry whoever they want. I also couldn't care less how many partners are in the marraige as long as they are consenting adults. Marraige is supposed to be about love, not making babies. That's what sex is for. I have two kids and am not married but I've been with their father for almost 10 years now. I don't really believe in marraige as a sacred institution but I would never presume I could force that on others. I wish religious people were just as capable.

Just because we desire something does not make the behavior right. So although a bit crude Ned's argument does have some creedence. For example, What if a person thought Fluffy the sheep was the sexiest thing on earth? He could argue that he was born with those feelings. He could argue that it is victimless. Afterall maybe the sheep likes the attention (we can't really ask her can we?). Should he be able to marry the sheep? Afterall marriage is not about procreation. Its all about love.

I guess my question to you is how do we decide to draw the lines? You claim that homosexuality is evolutions way of slowing down population growth. How did evolution know that there are too many of us here? Wouldn't that mean evolution has an intelligence? Maybe evolution is making Fluffy look good to some people?

Are you not forcing your belief on others by forcing the religious to have more than one ceremony to become married?

[usquebaugh]

Being LGBT isn't a choice, as you presume chickenlittle.

[usquebaugh]

Are you not forcing your belief on others by forcing the religious to have more than one ceremony to become married?

You're forcing your beliefs on someone else by not allowing them to have a single marriage ceremony.

Stop it with the bloody comparisons to bestiality. LGBT couples are consenting human beings. It is entirely different, and for you to say otherwise is the height of ignorance.