On the subject of gay marriages....do you think same sex couples should be allowed to get... - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebula 

I don't think anyone is born gay- some may have a certain chromosome that leans that way, but it certainly isn't the way God intended it. However, they have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as does anyone. If they want to get married, great- if not- that's OK too.

I understand. I go to a baptist church, but im not "Baptist", I am a Christian who happens to attend a Baptist church. My preferred church would be a NT functioining one They met daily. In Homes, and shared (no sermon or pastor etc). I despise labels.

 

Not all of the men who formed the constitution were Christian, Washington was a Deist for starters, and jefferson took the miracle of Jesus out of the Bible!! Said it was only good for "moral persuasion"

 

The "One Nation" the "Under God" Part was not even added to the pledge until 1925, it wasn't in the original. And the US "motto" "In God We Trust" wasn't added to paper notes until we lost the gold standard.

 

Luther: Great man of God, great story, great movie.

 

I strongly disagree with you here. I knew I liked girls when I was 3 years old and instead of chasing boys around the playground I chased girls. At 3 I had no idea what it was to be gay/lesbian or bisexual was. I just knew that I liked little girls instead of little boys, as I got older my attraction to women grew. I was married to a man for 2 years and with  him for 7 years  and in the closet about it for reasons that are not relevant to this post, but let's just say it had a lot to do with people shoving what I should and shouldn't do in order to go to heaven down my throat. I was afraid about being open and honest about who I was because I was afraid of the reactions of those I held dear to me. When I finally came out, I was right to fear the reactions...I found out who my true friends were. I have been out for 4 years  now and couldn't be happier. I believe in God and I am a christian. I know that Only God Can Judge Me!!! No one can condemn me to an eternity anywhere but him. My husband is transgendered Female to male, and I could not be happier with my life now, it is exactly as I always dreamed it should be, but before anyone states that 'No one is born gay' they should get to know some gay people and hear their story out.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carolina 

IMHO if God created all of us in his likeness.... it created them too, in his likeness..... They were created BY GOD, just like US. And deserve to be happy, to have fuller lives, to experience love, to have a family, and to love God, if that is what they believe, just like US.
Gay, straight, black, white, yellow, blue.... No matter who you are..... if you truly believe in God, you also believe, IMHO, that all of us are God's children, and were created in his likeness....
We are not better or worst than anyone..... We are all brothers and sisters..... with our own lives to live.....
Judging to me, is what is not God like.
Being gay..... That is not a matter of choice - it is just a matter of being - the same way as I am straight and I just am.
I wish that one day people would get to that conclusion..... That God, as the creator..... created them too...... and they have every right to be who they are, and that is not a sin. Existing, being who they were meant to be; who they were created BY GOD to be... is not a sin. IMHO.

Well Said!!!! Thank you so much for this!!!!!

 

I too believe that sexual orientation is something you are born with.  I am straight and I can't imagine myself being with a woman. Someone who is gay and in the closet keeps that life going by being with someone of the opposite sex. That would be like me being with someone of the same sex and I really don't think I would be able to do it.  It would be great if all churches would accept gay couples and allow them to be married in the church.  Many don't though and it isn't the governments place to tell them that they have to, it's a major part of the constitution that says that the government can't do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speakhandsforme 

It looks like New Hampshire is getting ready to decide on this too.

Quote:

Mr. Bates said Monday that he was working on ways to broaden the bill’s support in both chambers, like changing or removing a sentence that states, “Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples.”

Wait... what? Wouldn't that ban adoption (by any couple) or in vitro fertilization? Hmm. I guess that's why he's trying to change it.
IMO, the rights of a minority (the rights of gay couples to get married) should never be decided by vote of the majority (a ballot initiative)... like they were in Florida in 2008.

I agree about the rights of a minority.  How long would it have taken to desegregate schools, get rid of laws that outlawed interracial marriage, or give racial minorities the chance to go into the professions and work their way into management if civil rights laws had been left up to a popular vote.  Many areas would still be stuck back in the Jim Crow era.
 

do you think same sex couples should be allowed to get married in a church?

I believe in separation of church and state.  Therefore there should be no law that would REQUIRE any church to marry ANY couple.  It should be up to the clergy of that particular church to decide whom they deem worthy of marrying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruthyb 

I have just heard a debate advertised on tv...Is it right to let gay couples get married in a church? I will be very interested in your answers.

 

 

"Right?"  That depends on the beliefs of the church.  While those basic tenets of faith may change over time, still, a church has the right to believe what it believes.  No legislature in the U.S. can make laws affecting those beliefs, so long as they don't violate the basic laws of the land.  In other words, human sacrifice is strictly out of bounds. 

The basic problem in this argument is that while there are laws regarding marriage, most of those laws have to do with responsibilities to the spouse and children and property.  I think those laws are just fine.  Where legislatures run into trouble is confusing those responsibilities with ceremonies prescribed by a church.

So, a church is perfectly within its rights to say that they will not marry same-sex couples.  And a legislature is perfectly within its rights to say that same-sex couples can get married and take on the rights and responsibilities of marriage.  But the legislature cannot say that a church has to perform the ceremony committing that couple to those responsibilities. 

Edit:  A legislature is also perfectly within its rights prohibiting same sex couples from getting married, at least according to the law of the land as it now stands.  These things change, and that may well change over the coming years.  Remember, I can remember when it was illegal for a white person to marry any person that was as much as 1/16 black.

The sticking point in this discussion is that legislatures generally reflect the majority opinion in their constituency, so they are unlikely to pass anything that goes against the the general consensus in the state.  That's what elections are for, and that's why elections have consequences.

Those who are unable to make that distinction are bound forever to be confounded in this argument.

I am in a same-sex relationship of nearly three years. The debate on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to get married in a church is outright silly in my opinion (not silly on behalf of the original poster, just silly that the public is debating it in television). Churches are voluntary and, therefore, should imply it is up to all parties (the couple and the church) if it is a right fit. I have known churches to deny heterosexual couples to marry in their church because it was not a right fit.

Personally, I feel the need for progressive attitudes about same-sex couples is lagging in America. Whether you live in a state that allows same-sex marriage or not does not negate the fact so many rights of marriages are still denied to same-sex couples. If I was in a fatal car accident tomorrow, my partner would be denied social security death benefits. We still need to have power of attorney paperwork done because if we travel to another state (presuming we live in a state that allows same-sex marriage) that does not allow marriage, and we were in a bad accident, that state could deny us the right to see our partner if one of us were hospitalized.

The right to marry is a mere fraction of the debate. Even if I could marry my partner, I am still denied many of the rights of marriage...

Personally, I think it should be decided by the individual church.  I attend a non denominational church and it would never happen there.  I wonder if most same sex couples even desire to be married in a church, or what kind of problems they have finding a church they are comfortable attending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueRexBear 

I agree with everything in the quote below except the part in BOLD...I will explain below:
 

That is not true.  Settlers came to America so they could worship GOD - not Allah, not Buddah, not the sun or the planet.  GOD.   Our constitution was written by Christian men, our nation was founded on Christian principals and values.  One nation, Under God.  Now we have moved far from that foundation and have become more about "religious freedom" in this day and age.  ...but it absolutely did not start that way. 

 

As for same sex marriage...sure, why not?  My ex step-dad is gay and has hid it most of his life (hence how he was once my step-dad).  I love him dearly and he lives a committed life with his partner and has for longer than I have been married to my husband.  If he wants to legally get married, then he should be able to do so.  Will it be recognized by God?  That is not for me to answer or judge...but as far as being recognized by the state...it should be.  They have been together for over 10 years, but if he died today, his partner wouldn't get nearly what a wife or husband would have gotten from their spouse's death...yet they live committed, loving and peaceful lives together.  They should not be "punished" because they were born gay.

 

Being married in a church?  If the church will marry them, great.  Most won't though...and that will probably be the "norm."  I have to say, though, the Lutheran story is AWESOME!  Imagine accepting people for what they are and loving them anyway?  How Christlike!  My one hot button with the Baptist doctrine is this lack of acceptance and welcoming...as if it is THEIR church and not God's! (I am "Baptist" btw...but I stray hard on this point of contention).

 

Agree. 

On that note, I will add, I don't have a problem with gay people-My uncle is married, with 2 little boys (adopted, obviously) and he and his husband are great parents. My niece is married and just became a mom (her egg, fertilized, and implanted in her wifes uterus) and they are also great moms. If gay people want to get married in a church, let them find a church that will marry them. I am Catholic, and there will not be gay marriage in the Catholic church. The issue is that being gay, is NOT against the laws of the church-it is ACTING upon your gay tendency. It is the  gay sexual act that is against Church law. To me, who was married by a Justice of the peace (who was also a rabbi) and then married in the Catholic Church, (Same guy, same marriage) it made no difference to me when I got married by the JOTP, since I wasn't very religious at the time. I was married, shared a last name, bought a house, and was married. If a person is gay, and having a gay sexual relationship, they are not a practicing Catholic, so what is the point of asking the Catholic church to marry them. Is it a challenge because they say they won't do it, I wonder. Go to a nondenominational church and get married. They say it's in Gods eyes, and if that's what the Gay couple is looking for-they've got it.

On another note, I do not support those who abuse and talk down to and about gay people. Love is love. So what business is it of anyone's if you love someone. People can be in a heterosexual relationship to a completely awful person, but since it's hetero, it's ok I suppose. NO. If someone finds love and happiness, I don't honestly care who it's with. Love and be happy. There is such misery in the world. Faith hope and love are a few things He gave us-and the greatest of these is LOVE. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcat 


It's the Roman Catholic Church/Vatican you have to take issue with; resqchick summarized the official stance of the Catholic Church, which you can read in this 1999 "American Catholic" newsletter: What the Church Teaches About Homosexuality

 

 I have no problem with taking issue with the Catholic Church. Shall I start a list?

The tins 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFM 

 

 I have no problem with taking issue with the Catholic Church. Shall I start a list?

 

The tins 

I have no problem DISAGREEING with the church on some issues, but that for me is not the same as disobeying the church that I believe in deeply. I also have no problem listening to peoples issues with the Catholic church, since to a person who is not a faithful member-it must seem rather extreme. (I can name several sects and religions that make us look rather liberal) however, I don't ever bash other religions, and I cannot fathom disrespecting such a thing. I talk down extremists, but not regular religions. Therefore, when a conversation turns from healthy disagreeing and conversing, to bashing a religion and calling it's believers crazy or other names-I will bow out before I get angry. 

So, no. I don't want you to start a list, simply because I'm interested in this conversation, and it would be a shame to leave if bashing and belligerence begins. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFM 

Resqchick - read the posts after the bold you quoted. It pretty much debunks what you just 'agreed' with. And I have to take exception to your post. It has a 'bless their heart' tone to it that I find off-putting. From the way I read it, you are saying gay people are capable of love, capable of having a loving home and family and doing EVERYTHING else loving families do, but hey, they still can't get married because it's against some 'biblical' law that you ascribe to. You do realize that not everyone believes in that law, correct? Why should they be held to your standard only?
What I find absolutely hysterical in the gay marriage argument is that those against it are using the same arguments used in the 50's and 60's against interracial marriage. Yes folks, we have progressed so far in the past 70 years in technology and knowledge, however the best arguments we can come up with on gay marriage are recycled from 60 years ago. The arguments were ridiculous then and they are even more ridiculous today.
And regarding the separation of church and state....I am in complete agreement. Each church should have the right to decide whom they marry. However, that separation also means that churches using their pulpits to preach politics should lose that tax exemption and become public entities held to the standard of any other business.

It's actually NOT the same argument. This is a religious belief of the Church, Mixed race marriages are a racist thing. The Catholic Church has no problem with that!  As Jcat said-I told you what I believe, and I told you what the Churches stance is. I was not being condescending, I have family members who are married gay people, and while the church disagrees with their unions, I do not. Everyone is capable and deserving of love, and that is MY standard. Everyone is also deserving of being full partners in life, and legally. I cannot imagine being in a relationship for what I consider life long, and when something happens I can't be admitted to a hospital or make any decisions for that person. Hurtful, and humiliating. My husband got hurt (fell off a roof) and the decisions I had to make were unbelievable, what if I couldn't make those decisions, and I had to still live with the decisions made by someone else. No. Nobody deserves to have nothing. 
 

And the Church claims tax exemption as a charity. The catholic church, you may not be aware of, is possibly the largest and most giving charitable organization in the world. To EVERYONE. They take no consideration to religion, color, or anything else. The simply give and help. They don't receive 401c-3 status for marrying people. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carolina 


I was born and raised Catholic..... I am no longer one.
IMHO.... Sorry, but I have to disagree here.... As possibly the richest institution on earth - EVER, their charity work is IMHO, pocket change.
Furthermore... They might not get 401-c for marrying people.... but they do get money - for every single event.... and we are not talking about little money.
And they are not naive either, when it comes to keeping the money within the church.... by the single fact that priests don't get married/in theory don't have kids to leave inheritance for, the money that comes in, never gets out - upon death, it goes right back to the church. Smart, very smart.

What I stated was the REASON that the US government gives 401c-3 status is because the Church IS a charity. The biggest in the world. Yes, people give money every Sunday. Plenty don't. If they are rich, there's a problem with that, I guess. I'm glad they do the work they do. Do you know how much it costs to support the programs they have. I can only imagine. But it's rather shallow to say, "Well, so what if they save lives and give so much-they're rich, so they can afford it". I am simply grateful for what people DO get from them, I hardly have the time or mind to question it. Priests don't have anything to leave anyone. They are fully supported by the church, fed, housed, and provided with clothes and transportation. None of it actually belongs to the Priest. 100% of nothing is nothing. what they use, they borrow, and yes, when they die, it goes back to the next priest that takes his place. What do you think priests have that is theirs. What do you think they'd leave to a family upon their deaths anyway. Deacons get a salary, with which they support their families-and yes-they own their stuff and leave it to their families. Nuns are the same as priests. Lay people, religious educators, are either volunteers, or are paid. By who you may ask-oh the church. The volunteers in my Parish get a dinner in their honor. Which I have to say is really nice. So, the money comes in, and it goes right back out to poor people, volunteers, new church items, refurbishing churches, helping to support schools, and all the people that live within the church. I hardly think they keep it all. 

Why do you begrudge the church it's money when it supports so many, do you also resent wealthy people. (I have no question mark on my computer so assume there's one there) how about Bill Gates. Do you resent him having all that money and being charitable. Do you resent the fact that he's not leaving much to his family but is giving it away. Yes, the Church is rich, but considering what they do, I find it hard to resent their having 401c-3 status in ONLY the US. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by speakhandsforme 


I think it is the same argument, though. Back when mixed-race marriages were illegal, people used religious arguments to try to keep them illegal, too. Check out the trial court judge's opinion in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which was the landmark US Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage:

Quote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

To me, this shows that he was using a religious argument as a cover for bigotry.
Using a religious argument as a cover for not letting gay people get married is no different: bigotry. Just because your religion tells you it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong, and saying "but my religion told me so" doesn't make it right.
Now, does this mean the Catholic church should have to marry gay people? No! No church should have to marry ANYONE. Like I said, churches are voluntary institutions. (Do I think churches should have to pay taxes? Absolutely.)
But does it mean that those who would outlaw gay marriage in the public sphere can use a religious argument, like this guy tried to do? No. Saying "but god said it was wrong!" as an argument against a PUBLIC law doesn't work. That's that whole Establishment Clause thing in action.

To me it is very different. If one court person made a statement using God as a reference, it doesn't mean the Church was at fault. Men and women are different, they come in many races, but the two sexes are different. to the church, marriage is to have a family. Two women cannot have a baby without a man, and two men cannot have a baby without a woman. I also want to add, that I don't think the church ever had a church law against mixed marriages, but if the law states that interracial marriages are not valid, well, then the church's position wouldn't matter once the couple left the church steps. 

When the church stops all it's charitable work, and simply becomes a business for profit only-then I have no issue with them losing their 401c-3 status, but until then, they are still a charity. Once they stop helping others, they become nothing I want a part in believing in, but I would ask them for a job!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcat 

This thread is going off on a tangent. Please try to stay a little more on topic. Whether the Catholic church is a charity and the role of celibacy would better be discussed in a separate thread, as one denomination is being targeted.

I'm done, but thanks. I don't feel it is my job to defend my belief as it is attacked YET AGAIN. 

Let the gays get married. The Catholic church, the Baptist Church, the Christian church, the Islamic temples, and and Born Again houses of worship, will not have it done in their house either, But apparently the CATHOLICS are evil.

Someone should do a comparison of religions. You'll find Catholicism is pretty darned mild. 

Tricia, I just have to point out one thing that some people may not know then we'll get back to the original scheduled program.

I also grew up in the Catholic church and there are different orders of priests. Some take a vow of poverty (like the Franciscan Friars of my church) and other orders don't. The vow of poverty mean they get a small living allowance to pay for person items like underwear, shoes, socks, shaving cream, etc. Everything else is provided by the church (housing, food, second hand car, etc). Other orders do actually get a pay check and can own their own car, house, whatever. I worked at my church in high school as a receptionist and was good friends with the pastor. So much so, he had me start balancing his check book at the end of each month. I saw how much he got and it was less than minimum wage for a 40 hr wk and he was on call 24/7. I don't know how it works when you move up to Bishop or Cardinal status, but it probably goes by what vows you take. If you get an actual paycheck you pay goes up (kind of like government workers going up a pay grade so yeah they could get rich). If you took a vow of poverty you personally are still poor but you get more perks (again, kind of like government perks).

Now, basically, this thread was about whether or not churches should marry same sex couples. I think the general consensus is that legally it's fine but it's up to each individual church if they want to recognize and perform the ceremony and the government shouldn't get involved in religion. Does that sum it up in a nut shell? Hopefully we're back on track.  

The last time I knew how much a parish priest here made it was 15 years ago. At that time it was $10000 a year. A house and utilities were provided but the priest had to take care of buying a car and paying the expenses that went with that. All medical,dental and retirement expenses were also covered. Even 15 years ago I don't think the priesthood at least here for a parish priest was a road to wealth.

I'm jumping right at the original question: Yes I think gay people should be allowed to be married in a church. Any church who turns away or tries to convert a gay person, and refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple is not a church I want to go near.

note: I don't mean to say churches should be required by law to marry gay couples..in fact I know they are not required by law to marry anyone, they can refuse to issue a marriage license just because they don't like you, or something silly like that.. it's their game, their rules and participation is optional..