Gay Marriage: Churches' Decision?

[Scarface]

There's a big issue about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Either way, the church, the thing that's being either "protected" or "demoralized", has no say in it. The law of the state decides whether or not gay marriage is legal. Since the churches are the ones performing the actual marriages, shouldn't it be their decision?

Let me explain it: There would be no law forcing churches to marry gays, or preventing them from doing so, so the government would have no say in it. That way, each individual church would be free to decide whether or not they want to allow gay weddings.

In addition to that, the government could allow civil marriages between gays (as opposed to religious ones, which are the ones people are usually arguing about), so that no matter what, gays could have the same opportunities that heterosexuals do.

What do you think of that idea, Newgrounds?

[yurgenburgen]

I think gay marriage should be legal, completely, and I don't think any organisation that performs marriages should be free to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry one another in their building.

If the people who run the church don't want to perform marriages for gays/lesbians, they should find another job. Easy as that.

[Teddyriffic]

I don't think it's necessary just like different states having different laws . It would probably make it more complicated than it already is for gay people to get married

[BlackAstral]

At 9/15/11 04:38 PM, Addict wrote:

fuck getting married in a giant house worshiping imaginary figures

Don't you mean the flying spaghetti monster?

[NekoMika]

Should allow it for the most part but they should also keep in mind no one is making them get married in a church really. That and the only reason gay marriage is a problem is because people make it a problem rather than just letting them go about their day. Most aren't even forcing their sexuality on others anyways.

[kidd25]

the problem is the government is controlling the people, and the people forgot that it is us who choose. Also marriage in the biblical sense was to make a couple two raise children and help each other through their life.

[NekoMika]

At 9/15/11 04:51 PM, kidd25 wrote: the problem is the government is controlling the people, and the people forgot that it is us who choose. Also marriage in the biblical sense was to make a couple two raise children and help each other through their life.

Pretty much but think of it this way as well. Gay married people can't really have kids but it would help solve the orphan surplus problem.

[All-American-Badass]

At 9/15/11 04:39 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: If the people who run the church don't want to perform marriages for gays/lesbians, they should find another job. Easy as that.

The church is a private organization though, thus can regulate anything they want and because it's also a recognized religious institution the government has no say in what ceremonies they can perform.

[Bolo]

The question in gay marriage I think centers almost entirely around the legal perspective, rather than the religious one. It's no secret that many religions are morally opposed to homosexuality and will never condone or accept it, and I do not think that anyone in the US is seriously trying to revoke that discretion which is clearly provided to churches.

However, the legal concept of marriage is totally separate from the religious concept. In the legal concept, certain literal rights and abilities, many of them financial, are provided to the married couple by the government. One does not need to have a priest perform a marriage service in order to be legally married, but only to obtain a marriage license. This is where homosexuals are seeking parity, as some states have sought to ban them from legally seeking a marriage license. So legal marriage has never been the right of the church to oversee, though some Christians have stated that they would prefer it if the government was not involved at all, as they believe it is a corruption of the "covenant" between the couple and a god.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 9/15/11 05:46 PM, Bolo wrote: This is where homosexuals are seeking parity, as some states have sought to ban them from legally seeking a marriage license. So legal marriage has never been the right of the church to oversee, though some Christians have stated that they would prefer it if the government was not involved at all, as they believe it is a corruption of the "covenant" between the couple and a god.

I would like to point out that Christians did not pioneer the the concept of marriage, so the church acting as if the concept belongs solely to them is quite dismaying.

[Bobbybroccoli]

Since most religions talk about being kind to everyone, they act mighty hypocritical about some subjects.

Either choose another religion, or start a movement in your home town.

[RacistBassist]

The problem is that it also bans legal marriages, and that getting married in a church means nothing on its own if you don't go through the legal process.

[estrago1]

That, sir, is a very logical solution. However, you forget that religion and government are two system devoid of logic.

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

At 9/15/11 04:39 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: I think gay marriage should be legal, completely, and I don't think any organisation that performs marriages should be free to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry one another in their building.

If the people who run the church don't want to perform marriages for gays/lesbians, they should find another job. Easy as that.

I disagree. If you want a wedding, you don't have to do it religiously. The Church shouldn't be forced by the government to do something against its beliefs. Separation of Church and State goes both ways. I support gay marriage. But I also support the freedom of the Church to oppose it.

[slipstrike]

At 9/16/11 06:22 PM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote:
I disagree. If you want a wedding, you don't have to do it religiously.

Exactly. My folks didn't get married in a church, they tied the knot in a court. Perhaps the decision to marry gay couples should be left to individual churches, for better or worse, but that won't mean gays can't get married.

Why would you want to get married anyway? Half the time married is spent arguing, and the other half is spent trying desperately to avoid arguing.

[ModernPatriot]

The abible says that homosexuality is a sin, so the churches shouldn't have to marry them:

You don't need to get married in a church, you know.

[Wolfos]

If the church had anything to say in it, we'd be burning homosexuals at a stake.

[Suprememessage]

At 9/15/11 04:40 PM, BlackAstral wrote:

At 9/15/11 04:38 PM, Addict wrote:

fuck getting married in a giant house worshiping imaginary figures

Don't you mean the flying spaghetti monster?

Of course not because he is actually REAL.

[Elfer]

Churches shouldn't be compelled to perform ceremonies that they disagree with.

The real issue with gay marriage is whether or not they can be issued a marriage license, which is granted by the government, not the church.

[Rahmemhotep]

The state has a say because marriage is legally binding. You're thinking is flawed.

[Rahmemhotep]

At 9/16/11 06:48 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: The state has a say because marriage is legally binding. Your thinking is flawed.

So is my grammar. Fixed.

[Razz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_
of_church_and_state
Churches, mosques, synagogue, and so fourth are for religion. Not for the creating legislature.

[Elfer]

At 9/16/11 06:48 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: The state has a say because marriage is legally binding. You're thinking is flawed.

Yeah, but churches aren't the sole issuer of marriage licenses. The system described by OP is pretty much how it works here in Canada, and there have been no problems so far.

Incidentally, churches in the US can already perform gay marriage ceremonies, they just can't issue a license to the couple (with the obvious exception of states where it's legal to do so).

[Yrtnej]

The bitch that made this topic has never heard of separation between church and state.

[Elfer]

At 9/16/11 07:18 PM, Yrtnej wrote: The bitch that made this topic has never heard of separation between church and state.

Not really, he's pointing out the difference between the legal institution of marriage and a marriage ceremony.

Not that it matters, because there are no laws pertaining to marriage ceremonies.

[Rahmemhotep]

At 9/16/11 07:17 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/16/11 06:48 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: The state has a say because marriage is legally binding. You're thinking is flawed.

Yeah, but churches aren't the sole issuer of marriage licenses.

........................................
........................................
...................................... I was implying this, thanks.

Incidentally, churches in the US can already perform gay marriage ceremonies, they just can't issue a license to the couple (with the obvious exception of states where it's legal to do so).

Yeah, t-... Are you trying to point out the obvious or something? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because people are stupid and you gotta drill shit into their heads just to get a point across, but really?

[RacistBassist]

At 9/16/11 07:21 PM, Elfer wrote: Not really, he's pointing out the difference between the legal institution of marriage and a marriage ceremony.

Not that it matters, because there are no laws pertaining to marriage ceremonies.

He never made the distinction that marriage should be legal, he only said churches should decide if they are allowed.

[Elfer]

At 9/16/11 07:23 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: Yeah, t-... Are you trying to point out the obvious or something? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because people are stupid and you gotta drill shit into their heads just to get a point across, but really?

I guess I'm not sure who you were saying had flawed thinking then?

Also, the part about marriage ceremonies was more for the benefit of OP, who was proposing a system of marriage ceremonies that already exists.

At 9/16/11 07:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote: He never made the distinction that marriage should be legal, he only said churches should decide if they are allowed.

Did you read the whole post?

"Let me explain it: There would be no law forcing churches to marry gays, or preventing them from doing so, so the government would have no say in it. That way, each individual church would be free to decide whether or not they want to allow gay weddings.

In addition to that, the government could allow civil marriages between gays (as opposed to religious ones, which are the ones people are usually arguing about), so that no matter what, gays could have the same opportunities that heterosexuals do."

In other words: Make gay marriage legal, don't compel the church to perform the ceremony.

[Razz]

At 9/16/11 07:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote: He never made the distinction that marriage should be legal, he only said churches should decide if they are allowed.

That doesn't make sense, so he thinks any marriage should be allowed whether it's recognized in the state as valid or not? It's not a marriage without a marriage license, which is how this topic becomes one regarding the legality of homosexual marriage. Unless you're saying couples should be allowed to have a ceremony for their civil union inside a church, in which case it's obvious that if the church allows it and you want it, there's no problem. But churches cannot create legislature so they are unable, nor will ever be able, to make marriage licenses between homosexual couples legal to obtain; that's up to the states.

[Lumber-Jax12]

How is this a problem?

The gays clearly won't be getting married in a church anyway, you know due to the hate 'both' parties have on one another, as to who is right or wrong, i will not say in an un-biased P.O.V since both are entitled to their beliefs/practices.

That being said, I personally believe, the chruch shouldn't get too bent out of shape about it, however I do go to a catholic school, (you know the reasonable branch of the religion), and they basically say 'Sex is between a man and wife' because they hate pre-marital sex.

Since the 'stereotypical gay', don't lie you know they are a sub-group but due to their self-centered attitude they try to "represent" everyone who is gay, has nothing but 'pre-marital' sex that is where the problem is. They dislike gays, but accept homosexuals. Difference is that to them, be homosexual but don't have sex, I know its a bit of a paradox, but all they're saying is they don't hate the homosexual as a person, just the practices they have, irregardless homosexuals will still be sent to heaven, hate the sin no the sinner, and all that good stuff.