Same-Sex Marriage

[Michael Hardner]

You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion!

They may be a religious organization, but they aren't free to discriminate under the law.

It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa.

You have a point here. Unfortunately, this cause tends to be focussed on Christians, not Jews or Muslims who hold much the same views.

KoC hall can be a fund-raising option for this group. It is unlike any business places. Since it is a religious property, based on their religion...they can impose rules that do not go against their faith.

If the RC church owns rental property, should they have the right to deny housing to gays ? How about denying housing to non-Christians ?

Government interference is too much...that some of its impractical rules are costing businesses unnecessary expenses. But then, that's for another thread. biggrin.gif

That argument was also used against LBJ's Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The argument said that if black Americans were allowed to go into any restaurant, the whites wouldn't go out to eat and the restaurant owners would go bust.

[betsy]

Btw, I hope we don't start comparing the plight of blacks to that of the homosexuals!. The blacks were fighting for civil rights!

[betsy]

You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion!

They may be a religious organization, but they aren't free to discriminate under the law.

They do have the right to freely practice their religion. And everyone knows by now, especially gays and lesbians, the stance of most Christian religion regarding homosexuality. Our religion and our belief regard homosexuality as a deviancy. It is a sin!

Those lesbians have no right to dictate that KoC disregard their own rules for their sake! They are using this organization and this particular incident to further their petty agenda! For what? Just to make some petty statement about their so-called rights!

Why do they care if they are turned down on the basis of religious freedom? In the same token, why do they care so much to be accepted in THIS PARTICULAR venue....when there are so many venues to be had?

Wouldn't they rather hold their so-called "marriage" celebration in a place that welcomes them with open arms? Isn't this so-called "marriage" feasting a cause for celebration? Why would they want to insist on having it in such light and atmosphere? It's supposed to be a happy occasion for these two lesbian.

I think I know why they keep challenging the church and religion. They want validation.

Without over-all recognition in church...or even a semblance of acceptance by religion....the ruling of the judge means nothing!

SSM may be recognized by law....but it still means nothing if religious groups refuse to recognize such unholy matrimony!

In the eyes of most religious practitioners from mostly all religion, SSM is nothing but a big joke to some (nudge-nudge-wink-wink)....an abomination to others.....and a slap in the face of God!

[betsy]

If the RC church owns rental property, should they have the right to deny housing to gays ? How about denying housing to non-Christians ?

The RC do not descriminate on giving charity to anyone. Even prostitutes or mass murderers. I am sure the RC will not refuse roofing over the heads of homosexuals.

But the difference on this incident is that these lesbians are demanding a religious organization to disregard their religious belief.

Giving charity is one thing....having to defend your church, your religion and your belief is another!

[betsy]

The charter prohibits against discrimination against "other groups".

That, obviously, is open to interpretation but homosexuals in society today are definitely a group that are discriminated against.

Discriminated in what way?

Don't they have their civil rights now? Aren't they free to enter any church...or any establishments?

This group is like a dinner guest who is welcomed to come to your home...and then have the audacity to demand that you change your rules in your own house.

So what does the beleaguered host want to do? Kick this guest out of his house!

You know, there would've been acceptance for gay couples if they just opted to coin their own word for their union. What their ridiculous callous audacity only accomplished is alienating religious members. Quite negative...for now you'll see tolerance being dented.

[PocketRocket]

Tradition: In many coutries marriage is indeed man-woman, but all through history there have been gay unions, and many gay marriages are also historically recorded.

There may be gay unions...but never heard of any gay marriages in history. Can you give an example as to when or where in history?

Just curious.

A couple years ago I researched this at length for another forum. Don't have time to do that today, but for a brief indication, go here.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

[Michael Hardner]

Betsy:

Btw, I hope we don't start comparing the plight of blacks to that of the homosexuals!. The blacks were fighting for civil rights!

Yes, the two struggles are very similar. When the Civil Rights Act was introduced, many people had 'practical' reasons that it was a bad idea. For example, it was bad for business etc. They didn't see equality as an issue that needed to be prioritized.

I believe that gays are persons and have every right that straights do.

They do have the right to freely practice their religion. And everyone knows by now, especially gays and lesbians, the stance of most Christian religion regarding homosexuality. Our religion and our belief regard homosexuality as a deviancy. It is a sin!

Those lesbians have no right to dictate that KoC disregard their own rules for their sake! They are using this organization and this particular incident to further their petty agenda! For what? Just to make some petty statement about their so-called rights!

Being Catholic myself, I feel it is completely unChristian to treat gays with anything less than Christian love.

It's still considered a sin for somebody to remarry after divorce - would the KoC deny such a marriage ceremony ? I doubt it. Christians are supposed to live by example, and sinners will be drawn to the faith. They're not supposed to put up walls and castigate sinners.

Rather than follow the Gospel and opening their hearts, the KoC people are hardening their hearts. It's easy and natural to do that but in no way Christian.

Why do they care if they are turned down on the basis of religious freedom? In the same token, why do they care so much to be accepted in THIS PARTICULAR venue....when there are so many venues to be had?

Wouldn't they rather hold their so-called "marriage" celebration in a place that welcomes them with open arms? Isn't this so-called "marriage" feasting a cause for celebration? Why would they want to insist on having it in such light and atmosphere? It's supposed to be a happy occasion for these two lesbian.

I think I know why they keep challenging the church and religion. They want validation.

Without over-all recognition in church...or even a semblance of acceptance by religion....the ruling of the judge means nothing!

SSM may be recognized by law....but it still means nothing if religious groups refuse to recognize such unholy matrimony!

In the eyes of most religious practitioners from mostly all religion, SSM is nothing but a big joke to some (nudge-nudge-wink-wink)....an abomination to others.....and a slap in the face of God!

And religious ceremonies will stand. They can't be changed and I will oppose any effort by the state to do so.

Yes, they were probably trying to make a point by renting the hall. It's still within their legal right.

The RC do not descriminate on giving charity to anyone. Even prostitutes or mass murderers. I am sure the RC will not refuse roofing over the heads of homosexuals.

But the difference on this incident is that these lesbians are demanding a religious organization to disregard their religious belief.

Giving charity is one thing....having to defend your church, your religion and your belief is another!

User is offlineProfile CardPM

How is it disregarding their religious belief ? The RC chuch doesn't disallow same sex people from loving each other, just from the sexual act itself. If the RC church can provide shelter for prostitutes, I don't see why the KoC can't provide shelter for a same sex wedding.

[Liam]

They do have the right to freely practice their religion. And everyone knows by now, especially gays and lesbians, the stance of most Christian religion regarding homosexuality. Our religion and our belief regard homosexuality as a deviancy. It is a sin!

Gambling is a sin, yet I see Bingo games in virtually every parish and Monte Carlo nights in KofC halls. Some people are being very selective about their rage against sin.

[Liam]

A friend just emailed me this interesting opinion piece from the NY Times (registration may be required)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin

My favorite line was about the ex-gay movement: if a Christian is so convinced the ex-gay movement works, would he really want his daughter to marry one?

[betsy]

Betsy:

Btw, I hope we don't start comparing the plight of blacks to that of the homosexuals!. The blacks were fighting for civil rights!

Yes, the two struggles are very similar. When the Civil Rights Act was introduced, many people had 'practical' reasons that it was a bad idea. For example, it was bad for business etc. They didn't see equality as an issue that needed to be prioritized.

I believe that gays are persons and have every right that straights do.

The blacks have a legitimate reason to fight for their civil rights. The gays had fought for their civil rights and had won. I'm sure most of us here practically agree that gays should enjoy the same benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. There is no problem in that regard.

But don't tell me dictating to a religious group how to conduct their business is part of that civil rights. I call that, "stepping on our rights!"

See what happens when you extend an arm? They end up wanting the whole body!

[betsy]

Being Catholic myself, I feel it is completely unChristian to treat gays with anything less than Christian love.

It's still considered a sin for somebody to remarry after divorce - would the KoC deny such a marriage ceremony ? I doubt it. Christians are supposed to live by example, and sinners will be drawn to the faith. They're not supposed to put up walls and castigate sinners.

Rather than follow the Gospel and opening their hearts, the KoC people are hardening their hearts. It's easy and natural to do that but in no way Christian.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

I find it very disrespectful, to say the least, for these two lesbians to impose their will on a religious group.

Following the gospel does not mean having to follow the way of the sinners. Or whatever it is that wants to change the laws of the church and the teachings of God.

Funny when we start invoking "Christian ways" as a tool to undermine real Christian values.

[betsy]

Betsy:

How is it disregarding their religious belief ? The RC chuch doesn't disallow same sex people from loving each other, just from the sexual act itself. If the RC church can provide shelter for prostitutes, I don't see why the KoC can't provide shelter for a same sex wedding.

We may disagree with the principles of organizations...or the interpretations of others. It's free to voice it out.

However, the fact still remains that the two lesbians were not there for the purpose of love. They're there to further an agenda.

[betsy]

Yes, they were probably trying to make a point by renting the hall. It's still within their legal right.

Well then, it's perfectly within the legal rights of the organization to make it a point that they don't get toyed with by the frivolity of some inconsiderate individuals...who are most probably doing it for their 15 minutes of fame....at the expense of others.

[betsy]

Gambling is a sin, yet I see Bingo games in virtually every parish and Monte Carlo nights in KofC halls. Some people are being very selective about their rage against sin.

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins.

But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice.

[fixer1]

I am now more then ever starting to wonder just what all the fuss is about. What I need to know is, where does it make a difference other in just a definition, of whether SS is defined as married or as a civil union or partnering etc. Are there any rights or accesses that would be denied to these people. Is there a law or special clause that would have then in any way treated differently. Or is this really about semantics and wanting to change a long standing definition, to suit the wants of the few?

I personally do not care anymore about the definition of marriage, and if I could do it all over again I would never marry officially on paper, because I believe it is a complete farce. As long as I would get the same treatment under the law while being common law then that would be good enough for me. I have learned over the years that I seldom ever have cause to believe in an almighty, and after seeing all the religions I have looked at, I have no need to feel at home with any of them. So, other then the definition of the word marriage, what is there to make all this such a burning issue? Of the few gay people I know, none care one bit about any of this, and laugh at all the kerfulle it has caused. Now I must admit the gays I know are not the type to be flaunting their homosexuality around, but they will openly tell you thye are gay. So is there a certain type of gay person that is pushing all this. Of my gay friends, they tell me is is mostly the gay activist type that seem to push this. I asked what they meant by that, and I must admit each one had a different answer. So that is why I am now asking here, if there are any even tiny differences in the laws or benefits to gay couples that would be joined by civil union.

[betsy]

It's still considered a sin for somebody to remarry after divorce - would the KoC deny such a marriage ceremony ? I doubt it. Christians are supposed to live by example, and sinners will be drawn to the faith. They're not supposed to put up walls and castigate sinners.

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not?

There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom.

[Michael Hardner]

The blacks have a legitimate reason to fight for their civil rights. The gays had fought for their civil rights and had won. I'm sure most of us here practically agree that gays should enjoy the same benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. There is no problem in that regard.

They don't enjoy the same rights and benefits as I do. They are legitimately barred from teaching in religious schools (in theory, not in practice) for example.

And there are still some backwaters where they are mistreated.

But don't tell me dictating to a religious group how to conduct their business is part of that civil rights. I call that, "stepping on our rights!"

I'm sorry but you don't get your way on this. Conducting business in Canada means adhering to the law.

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not?

There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom. biggrin.gif

More likely, the RC church - which is one of the most conservative - will eventually come around as others have.

[Hicksey]

The blacks have a legitimate reason to fight for their civil rights. The gays had fought for their civil rights and had won. I'm sure most of us here practically agree that gays should enjoy the same benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. There is no problem in that regard.

They don't enjoy the same rights and benefits as I do. They are legitimately barred from teaching in religious schools (in theory, not in practice) for example.

And there are still some backwaters where they are mistreated.

But don't tell me dictating to a religious group how to conduct their business is part of that civil rights. I call that, "stepping on our rights!"

I'm sorry but you don't get your way on this. Conducting business in Canada means adhering to the law.

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not?

There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom. biggrin.gif

More likely, the RC church - which is one of the most conservative - will eventually come around as others have.

Why is it that it is always us that have to come around? Why is it that one has to believe whatever the prevailing liberal view is on an issue or you're called a bigot? Because we don't choose to change the boundaries of what we consider moral whenver liberals decide to move the moral goalpost ever wider, we're all a bunch oif right-wing-religious-bigots?!

I am so tired of being told this just because I have differing beliefs than you. Why the arrogance? Why MUST everyone agree with you? Are liberals' beliefs all of a sudden the judgement tool against one's beliefs must be compared before they can be right, or worthy?

I have compassion for all. My views are tempered between my moral grounding in religion and common sense that we can't all be expected to believe the same, and that as such there needs to be real compromise. I haven't closed my mind to your beliefs, but people seem to automatically do that to mine anymore. My beliefs aren't just ignored. People expect--no they demand--that I simply bow to theirs or risk being labelled prejudiced and a bigot.

I think it is inherently hypocritical to demand tolerance for others in the face of intolerance toward my beliefs. Please understand that I'm not seeking to label anyone specific here.

[Black Dog]

But don't tell me dictating to a religious group how to conduct their business is part of that civil rights. I call that, "stepping on our rights!"

Anyone bother checking out the B.C. tribunals decision? They ruled the KoC had the right to refuse to rent the hall, but that the manner in which they refused (after they had already agreed to rent to the couple) constituted discrimination. In other words, if they had said up front: "Sorry, we're Catholic, no lesbian weddings allowed," there would not have neen a problem. For their part, the couple in question claim they were unaware of the KoC's affiliation with the Caholic Church and, had they known about it, they wouldn't have approached the organization.

[Spike22]

Great so the vast majority have to again succumb to the gay wishes of a minority. I am glad that the queers don't have the same rights and believe they never should. Now lets all go and portage in the canoe, accross the hershey highway to the chocolate autobahn.

[Liam]

Gambling is a sin, yet I see Bingo games in virtually every parish and Monte Carlo nights in KofC halls. Some people are being very selective about their rage against sin.

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins.

But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice.

No one in gay marriage debate has *ever* attempted to dictate to a religious organization how they should or should not honor certain marriages. I would never support that. What we want is equal access to a certain state-issued license.

[Liam]

It's still considered a sin for somebody to remarry after divorce - would the KoC deny such a marriage ceremony ? I doubt it. Christians are supposed to live by example, and sinners will be drawn to the faith. They're not supposed to put up walls and castigate sinners.

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not?

There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom.

That's fine, but it does not solve the underlying problem for 99% of the gays who live in the western hemisphere: they live in places where the state will not issue them a license to join in union of any kind. The only places in the western hemisphere where the government will give gay people a marriage license is Canada and here in Massachusetts. In the rest of the western world, gay people are truly second class citizens in that the right to marry -- which is routinely granted to the most capricious, drunk, careless, insincere straight person visiting the local wedding "chapel" -- is denied them.

Forming a gay church would not cure the underlying denial of equal access to a state-issued license.

[betsy]

Gambling is a sin, yet I see Bingo games in virtually every parish and Monte Carlo nights in KofC halls. Some people are being very selective about their rage against sin.

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins.

But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice.

No one in gay marriage debate has *ever* attempted to dictate to a religious organization how they should or should not honor certain marriages. I would never support that. What we want is equal access to a certain state-issued license.

I meant the KoC case. KoC has their own rules. Whether we agree or not with their interpretations (like the examples you've given above), it is still their own organization and their own policy. We have no right to dictate to changes just to suit anyone who objects to it.

The simplest and most logical solution would've been for the lesbians to look elsewhere to hold their celebration. Their action only supports what some of us suspect, that the next step for the gay after having won through the courts would be to challenge religious freedom.

[betsy]

That's fine, but it does not solve the underlying problem for 99% of the gays who live in the western hemisphere: they live in places where the state will not issue them a license to join in union of any kind. The only places in the western hemisphere where the government will give gay people a marriage license is Canada and here in Massachusetts. In the rest of the western world, gay people are truly second class citizens in that the right to marry -- which is routinely granted to the most capricious, drunk, careless, insincere straight person visiting the local wedding "chapel" -- is denied them.

I find it hard to believe that they cannot get licenses to join in UNION of any kind. I'm talking of Canada.

We all would be supportive if gays will come up with their own version of marital union. Look at UK! They did well there! There was no major upheaval...everyone seems to be happy!

But when you talk of the word "marriage"....I bet gays will go through an endless battle over this.

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

[Liam]

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Are you consistent with family and friends who are not married in a church -- that their union is somehow invalid and/or less than yours?