What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You guys can all be sarcastic but I really am curious why he thinks that. There seem to be a lot of people who feel this threatens their religion and I don't find it logical. I would like someone who feels that way to explain to me why.

I can understand the people who think that we should live by their particular belief system being upset. This takes away the legal constraints to people doing what they believe is wrong (according to their religion). I don't understand how it is anti-religion. It does not impede a particular religion from practicing their belief system. The rule that was overturned forced people to abide by a belief that did not encompass everyone's beliefs. There are many churches that recognize same sex marriage and they were not able to practice their beliefs. (Please don't argue that this means we can marry animals, plants or minerals. Humans are humans whatever their gender).
 
Last edited:
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

leswp1 said:
You guys can all be sarcastic but I really am curious why he thinks that. There seem to be a lot of people who feel this threatens their religion and I don't find it logical. I would like someone who feels that way to explain to me why.
I can understand the people who think that we should live by their particular belief system being upset. This takes away the legal constraints to people doing what they believe is wrong (according to their religion). I don't understand how it is anti-religion. It does not impede a particular religion from practicing their belief system. The rule that was overturned forced people to abide by a belief that did not encompass everyone's beliefs. There are many churches that recognize same sex marriage and they were not able to practice their beliefs. (Please don't argue that this means we can marry animals, plants or minerals. Humans are humans whatever their gender).
Click to expand...
I think some folks believe people that want to get married in churches that do not believe in gay marriages will use the courts to get their marriage in that church. Simple as that.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

walrus said:
I think some folks believe people that want to get married in churches that do not believe in gay marriages will use the courts to get their marriage in that church. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever been able to force a church to do a religious rite against their religion? (serious question) I thought they can be totally discriminatory about who they admit, who performs rites, who they exclude etc. Example- religious schools- they can exclude everyone they want. Or better example- Westboro Baptist "church" (using term church with tongue in cheek).
 
leswp1 said:
Has anyone ever been able to force a church to do a religious rite against their religion? (serious question
Click to expand...

No. The closest example i can think of is something like a child of a Jehovah's witness receiving an involuntary blood transfusion against the parent's religious convictions. Nothing says churches have to wed a gay couple anymore than they have to wed an atheist couple.

What they're really afraid of is having to provide services to gay people in a non-religious context. Ie, you're a devout evangelical baker who makes the best wedding cakes in town. A gay couple asks you to make a wedding cake for them, but you don't want to serve them because you're a bigot err because of your religious convictions. That's a wholly different argument dealing with anti-discrimination laws, though, and has nothing to do with gay marriage and DOMA itself.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

leswp1 said:
Curious how this pushes an agenda down a religion's throat. It doesn't require any religion to participate or condone it. It does not require any religion to abide by another religion's belief that marriage should not occur. What does it have to do with religion?

The founding father's wanted church and state separate. This is keeping it separate. I see it as religious neutral and takes religion out of the legal marriage. Church has no business dictating requirements for marriage. Which church do you decide is dominant? Should it be the Catholic version, the Hindu version, the Westboro Baptist 'Church' version, Islamic, Mormon, ELCA, Missouri Synod? My church does not think same sex marriage is wrong. Should we use only my Church's belief system? The answer is it should be up to the church to practice what it believes within it's walls. The secular world is on a different plane and should not need to abide by religious beliefs.

Many people (heterosexuals) never get married in a religious ceremony. Their marriage is legal. Why should this be different. When my in-laws got married in France they had it right. They go to the town hall and do the civil thing, process down the village street to the church and get married in the religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

It falls under the same pretense of how the huff-and-puffer ilk whine about how a private establishment refuses the right to service, and the person refused coincidentally happens to be of a specific sexual orientation. We had this argument about ten pages ago. Say that a priest is the only person in town who performs marriages, and does so under a religious pretense. The religion happens to forbid same-sex marriages. Are you going to force that minister to go against the church because of this law?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
It falls under the same pretense of how the huff-and-puffer ilk whine about how a private establishment refuses the right to service, and the person refused coincidentally happens to be of a specific sexual orientation. We had this argument about ten pages ago. Say that a priest is the only person in town who performs marriages, and does so under a religious pretense. The religion happens to forbid same-sex marriages. Are you going to force that minister to go against the church because of this law?
Click to expand...

Is there a place in the US where a local government official does not perform marriages? There are plenty of non-religious marriages all over the country.

So if that priest was also the offical that does marriages, then then would not be allowed to deny a civil marriage- if legal in that state. But that would not be in the church, and would be part of the resposibility of being a public servant.

Basically- no, can't force a church to perform the marriage. But you can force a public servant to carry out their legaly responsible duty to perform a civic marriage in a civic location.
 
leswp1 said:
You guys can all be sarcastic but I really am curious why he thinks that. There seem to be a lot of people who feel this threatens their religion and I don't find it logical. I would like someone who feels that way to explain to me why.

I can understand the people who think that we should live by their particular belief system being upset. This takes away the legal constraints to people doing what they believe is wrong (according to their religion). I don't understand how it is anti-religion. It does not impede a particular religion from practicing their belief system. The rule that was overturned forced people to abide by a belief that did not encompass everyone's beliefs. There are many churches that recognize same sex marriage and they were not able to practice their beliefs. (Please don't argue that this means we can marry animals, plants or minerals. Humans are humans whatever their gender).
Click to expand...

I had a discussion on a broader theme with joecct some time ago, and I'll say it again. People like him are normal people who've been driven nuts by right wing propoganda, which they all claim not to listen to. So, Obama putting out a relatively innocuous statement about how this doesn't affect religious marriages gets turned into some anti-religious diatribe from an anti-religious President, and how can the rest of us not see that because everybody knows Obama hates religion. Obviously this is all ludicrous, but you have to ask yourself what would make a guy like joecct even go there? Or better yet, how did these ideas get planted in his head? Now if he's doing this just to get a rise out of poeple God bless 'em. If he truly believes that God help him. :(
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

alfablue said:
Is there a place in the US where a local government official does not perform marriages? There are plenty of non-religious marriages all over the country.

So if that priest was also the offical that does marriages, then then would not be allowed to deny a civil marriage- if legal in that state. But that would not be in the church, and would be part of the resposibility of being a public servant.

Basically- no, can't force a church to perform the marriage. But you can force a public servant to carry out their legaly responsible duty to perform a civic marriage in a civic location.
Click to expand...

But...but... TEH GAYS!!!!!!
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

alfablue said:
Is there a place in the US where a local government official does not perform marriages? There are plenty of non-religious marriages all over the country.

So if that priest was also the offical that does marriages, then then would not be allowed to deny a civil marriage- if legal in that state. But that would not be in the church, and would be part of the resposibility of being a public servant.

Basically- no, can't force a church to perform the marriage. But you can force a public servant to carry out their legaly responsible duty to perform a civic marriage in a civic location.
Click to expand...

So then what's the problem with someone going to a shop in the next town to get what they want? Let's say the couple is in Newcomb NY, and the closest civil place is 40 miles away.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

alfablue said:
Is there a place in the US where a local government official does not perform marriages? There are plenty of non-religious marriages all over the country.

So if that priest was also the offical that does marriages, then then would not be allowed to deny a civil marriage- if legal in that state. But that would not be in the church, and would be part of the resposibility of being a public servant.

Basically- no, can't force a church to perform the marriage. But you can force a public servant to carry out their legaly responsible duty to perform a civic marriage in a civic location.
Click to expand...
Can you force a person who disagrees with gay marriage to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage?
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Shirtless Guy said:
Can you force a person who disagrees with gay marriage to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage?
Click to expand...
Can you force a person who doesn't like black people to sell a wedding cake to a black couple (or worse yet, an interracial couple)?
 
Shirtless Guy said:
Can you force a person who disagrees with gay marriage to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Depends on the state. But where sexual orientation is protected, yes. Selling a wedding cake is not a religious function.

Put another way, if you can be sued for not selling a car to a gay man because he is gay, you can be sued for not selling him a cake for the same reason.

State and federal antidiscrimination laws are wholly separate from the constitutional provisions at play when discussing marriage and the government's recognition thereof.
 
Last edited:
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I've always thought that a business has the right to choose who the do business with. You can't force a business to serve a specific customer. They have the right to refuse service. If they refuse service because of a reason that someone disagrees with, then that someone shouldn't be able to go to court, but they sure can go on Twitter, and Facebook, and the 5:00 news and tell people their story.

edit: I re-read my post, and I should be more clear, these are my opinions, and not how it actually is
 
bigblue_dl said:
I've always thought that a business has the right to choose who the do business with. You can't force a business to serve a specific customer. They have the right to refuse service. If they refuse service because of a reason that someone disagrees with, then that someone shouldn't be able to go to court, but they sure can go on Twitter, and Facebook, and the 5:00 news and tell people their story.

edit: I re-read my post, and I should be more clear, these are my opinions, and not how it actually is
Click to expand...

Up to a point I'd say. Someone wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday and I'm fairly sure you can decline their business. :eek:. However, you can't deny an interracial couple a cake because you don't think they should marry.
 
bigblue_dl said:
I've always thought that a business has the right to choose who the do business with. You can't force a business to serve a specific customer. They have the right to refuse service. If they refuse service because of a reason that someone disagrees with, then that someone shouldn't be able to go to court, but they sure can go on Twitter, and Facebook, and the 5:00 news and tell people their story.

edit: I re-read my post, and I should be more clear, these are my opinions, and not how it actually is
Click to expand...

You have the right to refuse service for any legal reason. Doing business in a state means you agree to abide by the laws of the state. Most states say you can't deny service to people because of their race, or gender, or disability. Some include sexual orientation as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top