As SCOTUS is gearing up for a landmark decision, which side of history are you on?

[Wickabee]

I have no desire to be married in a church if I ever get married. But if I found a woman that wanted to I'd probably concede, but it's much easier to mask being an atheist than gay. I doubt many churches would have issue marrying atheists if it was a church that didn't require being part of the church or any other restrictions like that.

Most churches only require one of the two be a member of that religion (not church).
So, for example, if the woman you marry is Anglican, you two can get married in an Anglican church, but probably not a Catholic, Baptist, etc.

[Wickabee]

do you think Jewish or Islamic churches would marry them?

I think it would go directly against their beliefs as with Christians, so no.

[JustAlex]

I see....so now the goal posts have changed once more?

Gay marriage is OK, but once it happens it will inevitably lead to gays forcing religious churches to marry them?

This is the initial problem to begin with.....What does a church have to say about marriage in our modern, secular society?

Marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper!

It is imaginary.

Nothing happens when you marry another human being.

The only attributes it brings is CERTAIN rights in respect to government benefits such as taxes and whatnot.


Marrying is nothing more than signing your name on a paper.....that's it!

The nonsense of walking down the aisle, dressing up in stupid costumes, spending a fortune, and inviting the whole darn town to see it....has no effect or legal standing on the piece of paper.

And as such...I would only hope that Gays understand this, and don't fight to let illogical churches "marry them".....you can have your stupid ceremony elsewhere....hell, it probably would be a million times better than a church filled with crucifixes and statues.

[shrewsbury]

what about logical churches?

[Wickabee]

I see....so now the goal posts have changed once more?

No.

Gay marriage is OK, but once it happens it will inevitably lead to gays forcing religious churches to marry them?

Yes, they will. I'm not using it as an argument against legal gay marriage. It would be stupid to do so. As such, it's irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage and will become an issue unto itself, but that doesn't mean I won't agree when someone says it.

With all of that in mind, especially the part where no one is using it as an argument to stop gay marriage, please explain how it's post-shifting.

This is the initial problem to begin with.....What does a church have to say about marriage in our modern, secular society?

Absolutely nothing, other than being able to perform the ceremony. As such, I feel they should be allowed to deny gays the ability to be married in the church. Like you say, let them get married somewhere else.
The rest of your post was pointless ranting, so I won't bother responding to it.

[JustAlex]

Yes, they will.

I don't believe so.

The last time I checked.....gay marriage has been LEGAL in several parts of the U.S for some years now, including Massachusetts (since 2004) and I have not heard much about this issue.

Furthermore....consider THIS:

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/arch...&view=comments

Nothing will change for churches that disapprove of same-sex marriage once same-sex marriage is legalized. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and there have been no lawsuits. No jack-booted government thugs have dragged away priests that refused to marry same-sex couples. The same rules that apply right now to interfaith couples, or non-believers, or insufficiently Catholic/Mormon/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu couples will apply after same-sex couples are allowed to wed: civil marriage will be open to all, i.e. the right of marriage. Churches that want to marry us will be able to marry us—and these marriages will be recognized by the state—churches that don't want to marry us won't be forced to. Churches that disapprove will have the freedom to deny us the rite of marriage.

^I think that makes it quite clear.

So, any other concerns guys?

[imronron]

Just a thought…
1. Marriage hasevolved throughout history, so it can change again.
Different cultures have treated marriagedifferently. Some promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries.Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which they couldforge family alliances.

But all these variations still embraced thefundamental, unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, asa public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for the sake ofgenerating and raising children.
This understanding predates any government orreligion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even incultures that had no law or faith to promote it.
Yet, even supposing the essence of marriagecould change, would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life suchas medical research and nuclear physics that just because you can do somethingdoesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or serve thecommon good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it would notnecessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of marriage.
2. Same-sexmarriage is primarily about equality.
This argument is emotionally powerful since weall have deep, innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history hasgiven us many failures in this area, including women banned from voting andAfrican-Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, iswhether same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry eachother.
To answer that, we first must understandequality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every personor every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women haveequal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separaterestrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not thingsthat are fundamentally different.
Second, there are really two issues here: theequality of different people and the equality of different relationships. Thecurrent marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarriedwoman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law isneutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.
The real question is whether same-sexrelationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and theanswer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot producechildren, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother andfather. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types ofrelationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarilytreat them as if they were the same.
Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’sdiscriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With allof the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set ofrelationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, itwould then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. Theargument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.
3. Everyone has theright to marry whomever he or she loves.
Though catchy, few people truly believe thisslogan. Most of us acknowledge there should be at least some limitations onmarriage for social or health reasons. For example, a man can’t marry a youngchild or a close relative. And if a man is truly in love with two differentwomen, he’s legally not allowed to marry both of them, even if both agree tosuch an arrangement.

So, the real question here is not whethermarriage should be limited, but how. To answer that, we must determine why thegovernment even bothers with marriage. It’s not to validate two people who loveeach other, nice as that is. It’s because marriage between one man and onewoman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government isdeeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotesand regulates this specific type of relationship above all others.
To put it simply, in the eyes of the state,marriage is not about adults; it’s about children. Claiming a “right to marrywhomever I love” ignores the true emphasis of marriage.
Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he orshe can or cannot love. Every person, regardless of orientation, is free toenter into private romantic relationships with whomever he or she chooses. Butthere is no general right to have any relationship recognized as marriage bythe government.
4. Same-sexmarriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?
Since marriage is a relationship between twoindividuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, itsounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is apublic institution, redefining it would affect all of society.
First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sexmarriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The samehappened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning andpurpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.
Second, it would affect education and parenting.After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Boardimplemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.”They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted bothhomosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despiteparents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove theirchildren from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that whenmarriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless oftheir parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral andreligious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusettsand Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer providecharitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere,Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human RightsCommission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching onhomosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefiningmarriage threatens religious freedom.
5. Same-sexmarriage will not lead to other redefinitions.
When marriage revolves around procreation, itmakes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the onlyrelationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage assimply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principledreason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is,multiple-person — relationships as marriages?
Thomas Peters, cultural director at the NationalOrganization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution ofmarriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefiningit to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.
This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypotheticalslippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries thathave legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands,three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage.After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal actionto have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, theCalifornia Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or moreparents.
Procreation is the main reason civil marriage islimited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primarypurpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.
6. If same-sexcouples can’t marry because they can’t reproduce, why can infertile couplesmarry?
This argument concerns two relatively raresituations: younger infertile couples and elderly couples. If marriage is aboutchildren, why does the state allow the first group to marry? The reason is thatwhile we know every same-sex couple is infertile, we don’t generally know thatabout opposite-sex couples.
Some suggest forcing every engaged couple toundergo mandatory fertility testing before marriage. But this would beoutrageous. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also be anegregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority ofcouples.
Another problem is that infertility is oftenmisdiagnosed. Fertile couples may be wrongly denied marriage under such ascenario. This is never the case for same-sex couples, who cannot producechildren together.
But why does the government allow elderlycouples to marry? It’s true that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (thoughwomen as old as 70 have been known to give birth). However, these marriages areso rare that it’s simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Also, elderlymarriages still feature the right combination of man and woman needed to makechildren. Thus they provide a healthy model for the rest of society, and arestill capable of offering children a home with a mother and a father.
7. Children willnot be affected since there is no difference between same-sex parents andopposite-sex parents.
This argument was most famously stated in 2005when the American Psychological Association (APA) wrote that “not a singlestudy has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in anysignificant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
However, several recent studies have put thatclaim to rest. In June, LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paperin Social Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the APA relied onfor its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the studies used a large,random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children.Several used extremely small “convenience” samples, recruiting participantsthrough advertisements or word of mouth, and many failed to even include a controlgroup. Furthermore, the studies did not track the children over time and werelargely based on interviews with parents about the upbringing of their ownchildren — a virtual guarantee of biased results.
One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerusreleased a comprehensive study titled “How Different Are the Adult Children ofParents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” His research used a large, random andnational sample and its scope was unprecedented among prior work in this field.Contrary to the APA, Regnerus found that for a majority of outcomes, childrenraised by parents with same-sex relationships drastically underperformedchildren raised in a household with married, biological parents.
He quickly noted that his study didn’tnecessarily show that same-sex couples are bad parents, but that it diddefinitively put to rest the claim that there are “no differences” amongparenting combinations.
8. Opposition tosame-sex marriage is based on bigotry, homophobia and religious hatred.
These accusations are not so much an argumentfor same-sex marriage as personal attacks designed to shut down real dialogue.Let’s look at each one.
First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook,Twitter or any online comment box confirms that for many people, support for traditionalmarriage is tantamount to bigotry. This holds off-line, too. In November,Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien was pegged “Bigot of the Year” by a gay rightsgroup for simply opposing same-sex marriage in public.
So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definitionof bigotry is “unwilling to tolerate opinions different than your own.”However, tolerating opinions does not require enshrining them through law. Onecan tolerate advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously engage the idea,while still rejecting it for compelling reasons.
Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear ofhomosexuality, and the assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriagedo so because they’re irrationally afraid. But as this article shows, there aremany good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do withfear. Branding someone “homophobic” is typically used to end rationaldiscussion.
Third, religious hatred. Some people disagreewith same-sex marriage solely for religious reasons. But, again, as thisarticle demonstrates, one can disagree for other reasons, without appealing tothe Bible, divine revelation or any religious authority. You don’t needreligious teachings to understand, analyze and discuss the purpose of marriageor its effects on the common good.
If these accusations were all true, it wouldmean that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time — who by andlarge supported traditional marriage — would likewise be homophobic, intolerantbigots. That would include the most profound thinkers in many differenttraditions: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, Plutarch,St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. Most people would rejectsuch an absurdity.
9. The struggle forsame-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The suggestion here is that sex is similar torace, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem,however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantlydifferent.
For instance, nothing prevents interracialcouples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelongrelationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, theanti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracialcouples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreationand, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.
It’s important to note that African-Americans,who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generallydisagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sexmarriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a stateamendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percentof African-Americans voted in favor.
According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriageto interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans,who are shocked at such a comparison.”
10. Same-sexmarriage is inevitable, so we should stand on the right side of history.
On Nov. 6, voters in three states — Maine,Maryland and Washington — voted against marriage as it has traditionally beenunderstood. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend the stateconstitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Manyadvocates of same-sex marriage considered this a sign that the marriage tidesare turning. But is that true? And if so, how does that shift impact the casefor same-sex marriage?
First, if the tide is in fact turning, it’sstill little more than a ripple. The states that voted in November to redefinemarriage did so with slim margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of thevote. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages,sitting governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support amongthe media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states hadvoted on the definition of marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirmmarriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of the six states thatrecognized same-sex marriage before the November election, none arrived therethrough a vote by the people. Each redefinition was imposed by statelegislatures and courts. Overall, Americans remain strongly in favor oftraditional marriage. Most polls show roughly two-thirds of the country wantsto keep marriage as it is.
Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted,that does not make arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We don’t look toother moral issues and say, “Well, people are eventually going to accept it, sowe might as well get in line.” We shouldn’t do that for same-sex marriage,either.

[bud7562]

do you think jewish or islamic churches would marry them?

no

[Wickabee]

I don't believe so.

The last time I checked.....gay marriage has been LEGAL in several parts of the U.S for some years now, including Massachusetts (since 2004) and I have not heard much about this issue.

Furthermore....consider THIS:

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/arch...&view=comments


^I think that makes it quite clear.

So, any other concerns guys?

That is clear...when has that stopped anyone?
Look, I'm not saying this against gays as much as I'm saying it against any group. If it were interracial marriage (and interracial marriage were against religious belief, before anyone gets bogged down in the idea of hypothetical) I would think the same. If it were a white issue, I'd say the same.
It's human nature. Win one fight, look for the next. They aren't fighting for church marriage yet because they don't have federal marriage recognition. Again, this isn't about gays, it's about people.

[duane1969]

I don't think they would sue. If they do it's not a valid suit in my opinion.

Yet they are already suing for the right to be married in churches.

Homosexuality is also prohibited in Judiasm as well as Islam so no synagauge or mosque worth its salt will perofm a gay marriage. The question is why would a homosexual couple want to perform a meaningless religious ceremony in a building that houses a religion that is hostile to their lifestyle?

I agree. It is a good question why homosexuals would want to be married in a church that doesn't believe in gay marriage. Yet it is already happening. So the real question that begs to be asked is why homosexuals have taken on a fascist mentality that all who oppose must be forced to submit and why them forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on anyone else is any more right that other people imposing their beliefs and lifestyle expectations on homosexuals.

I don't believe so.

The last time I checked.....gay marriage has been LEGAL in several parts of the U.S for some years now, including Massachusetts (since 2004) and I have not heard much about this issue.

Britain threatens to sue churches if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. First comes the government legalization, then comes the government enforcement upon churches.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/br...rriages-317845

Lesbians claim discrimination by Methodist church over not being allowed to use church campground for wedding ceremony.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/aug/07082104