Anti-Gay Marriage

[Chiki]

http://www.oceangrove.org

They're God's square mile at the Jersey shore, apparently. At least check your facts before making ignorant claims.

[Dwalin2010]

http://www.nomblog.com/29727

A New Jersey court ruled not allowing a gay civil union ceremony in a church as discrimination.

I join the people who asked here the question: what's the point of trying to force a church at all costs to hold the ceremony when they can have a civil union or something without any problems?

[Chiki]

Well, according to the post you quoted, they couldn't have a gay civil union without problems.

[eclipse]

They were also accepting tax dollars for the pavilion; thus, I don't really have a problem with that. Now, if that was a private facility, it might be different.

[Chiki]

http://www.oceangrove.org/pages/aboutus

Pretty sure this is a private organization too. Plenty of private organizations accept taxpayer money.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Olwen

[Bluedoom]

An honest question; why would you want to get married in a place whose management (for lack of a better word) feel so strongly what you are doing is wrong they refuse to officiate your marriage?

Ever wondered why people argue with others who refuse to admit their arguments have a fallacy/their beliefs are immoral? That's the same reason here: its a lost cause but people don't want to give up. And imagine if something like what you said was pulled off successfully by a couple- it would go on the headlines and would surely have a big effect- whether its positive or negative, Idk.

[eclipse]

http://www.oceangrove.org/pages/aboutus

Pretty sure this is a private organization too. Plenty of private organizations accept taxpayer money.

You accept taxpayer money, you're bound to the government's discrimination laws. My church, from what I can tell, doesn't accept taxpayer money, so I don't think it would happen.

[Constable Reggie]

http://www.oceangrove.org

They're God's square mile at the Jersey shore, apparently. At least check your facts before making ignorant claims.

If you'd actually read the "about us" page, they're a non-profit corporation, aka a fucking business entity. Religious undertone does not negate this. Why would I have to look up more info about them when the first link makes it painfully obvious that they're a business entity, due to them renting out paviliion space? Would you rather I base my assumption on a marketing title like you?

Even if they were strictly a religious group, renting out property is still a business activity unrelated to religious exercise.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

You accept taxpayer money, you're bound to the government's discrimination laws. My church, from what I can tell, doesn't accept taxpayer money, so I don't think it would happen.

I'm pretty sure some private organizations accept taxpayer dollars. Just because they're completely private doesn't mean they should be allowed to discriminate.

If you'd actually read the "about us" page, they're a non-profit corporation, aka a fucking business entity. Religious undertone does not negate this. Why would I have to look up more info about them when the first link makes it painfully obvious that they're a business entity, due to them renting out paviliion space? Would you rather I base my assumption on a marketing title like you?

Even if they were strictly a religious group, renting out property is still a business activity unrelated to religious exercise.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations

Non-profit organizations include churches,

Ha ha ha.

http://www.yourministryhelper.com/how-to-form-a-non-profit-corporation-church-or-ministry.html

At this point, you are ready to form your church or ministry as a Non-Profit Corporation.

You really know nothing about the world.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Olwen

[Balcerzak]

Okay, let's try to keep this a little more civil tone here.

Also, just read through the comments section on that link you posted. Found this interesting.

After much research and prayer we opted not to pursue incorporation and thus we do not have to concern ourselves with issues of “hate” speech when taking a Biblical position on homosexuality or abortion – corporations, as created entities, are not provided the same protections of freedom of speech as “individuals” are.

Don't have time to dive into any full research at the moment, but take that as you will.

[Narga_Rocks]

Ever wondered why people argue with others who refuse to admit their arguments have a fallacy/their beliefs are immoral? That's the same reason here: its a lost cause but people don't want to give up. And imagine if something like what you said was pulled off successfully by a couple- it would go on the headlines and would surely have a big effect- whether its positive or negative, Idk.

But how can you justify forcing people to go against firmly held religious beliefs? If the couple can have their civil ceremony in a regular building with regular people like most other atheists are happy to do (how many atheists actually get married in a church these days?) then why are same-sex couples insisting on bashing down the doors of an institution that rejects their practice? What is there to gain from forcing a church to go against its beliefs? Sometimes I wonder if people just get off on making Christians do stuff they don't like for the fun of it. I just can't otherwise see a gain from all this work. And why can't people just let the church hold its beliefs within their doors?

For all the talk of tolerance, it's funny who the intolerant people are when you really think about it.

[Constable Reggie]

Nah, fuck it, it's not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with Olwen of all people.

If the couple can have their civil ceremony in a regular building with regular people like most other atheists are happy to do (how many atheists actually get married in a church these days?) then why are same-sex couples insisting on bashing down the doors of an institution that rejects their practice?

Do you think church institutions should be allowed to discriminate in terms of their employment?

For instance, do you think a church is okay in refusing to hire a christian homosexual? What about a christian who originates from Canada? Or an African American christian? A christian with narcolepsy?

Edited May 5, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Bluedoom]

But how can you justify forcing people to go against firmly held religious beliefs? If the couple can have their civil ceremony in a regular building with regular people like most other atheists are happy to do (how many atheists actually get married in a church these days?) then why are same-sex couples insisting on bashing down the doors of an institution that rejects their practice? What is there to gain from forcing a church to go against its beliefs? Sometimes I wonder if people just get off on making Christians do stuff they don't like for the fun of it. I just can't otherwise see a gain from all this work. And why can't people just let the church hold its beliefs within their doors?

For all the talk of tolerance, it's funny who the intolerant people are when you really think about it.

Well for starters I'm not justifying it but merely brainstorming on the topic. But let's see:

In the given situation you can see two bulls locking heads and both are strongly opinionated as you can see. In such a 'battle' the loser is always looked down upon. This is a pretty big battle of egos as you can see- backing down or not fighting means society will look at them the wrong way. As for why would the couple fight for a church marriage? Reasons, I can think a few.

One would be a genuine " God tells us to love everyone as brothers and sisters, we need to show people this message.", in hopes of seeking external validation they might do this. Obviously this doesn't really show anything but some people are optimistic about these 'messages that they send' I honestly don't see the point in it. Yes, the statement in quotes has almost no connection with what they're really doing but hey, this is irrational optimism. And it exists in more people than one would assume. Reminds me of a debate on some other subject months ago and I got the "we're sending a message" argument which was just BS.

Then there are those people for political propaganda- this one's obvious.

Some do it out of spite- they're no different from homophobes, yes.

But whatever the case, its clear that once you're into an argument, and that too with an opponent that apparently hates you and thinks you are 'evil', you don't want to back down. Backing down is a sign of 'weakness' to many people. For starters if gay couples(some of them anyway) just got a civil ceremony they would still feel like they're conforming to society and not being true to themselves, instead of being happy that at least what they're doing is legal now. "Why should we be having marriage in some other building? We're Christians too, why should we be looked down upon? We're God's Children too!We should be allowed to marry in a church!" Do you see how the ego is bruised?

And this is all from an observer's perspective. I personally don't see anything great about minority groups or the groups which 'defend the majority from the minority' because they're really just big ego battles.

[-Cynthia-]

Nah, fuck it, it's not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with Olwen of all people.

Do you think church institutions should be allowed to discriminate in terms of their employment?

For instance, do you think a church is okay in refusing to hire a christian homosexual? What about a christian who originates from Canada? Or an African American christian? A christian with narcolepsy?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-upholds-religious-exemption-to-employment-discrimination-laws/

The above link may be relevant to this discussion. Apparently in the eyes of the Supreme Court, it acceptable for the church to discriminate as long as the job has religious functions. If the job itself is entirely secular (say a janitorial position), churches are subject to the same discrimination laws as any other organization.

[Sundus64]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

[Saint of Games]

Going by that definition then;We never procreated in the Stone ages which is patently false.

Edited May 5, 2013 by the SMT fan

[shadykid]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

hey, CR and Olwen can finally stop arguing semantics!

[Saint of Games]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

Are you implying that stuff like politics never factored in it? Surely... You are not so naive?

[Bluedoom]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Animals reproduce and raise children. How come they don't have this thing you call 'marriage'? You might be speaking of monogamous relationships: and yes, they happened so that the man could allocate resources to the raising of his, and only HIS children. Meanwhile the woman also benefits in raising her child since she has a reliable partner in getting resources. There are also assumptions that monogamous relationships started due to meat eating- since meat was heavy, one needed partners to carry more food: Monogamy ensured there was a reliable way to get resources.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Bluedoom

[Phoenix Wright]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Marriage is a legal process that binds spouses together and gives them certain rights and benefits. Do you think sterile straight couples should be barred from marriage?

"Entirely different," is extremely poor wording, borderline insulting to homosexual couples; it's different only in the way that there would be two men or two women instead of one each. Homosexuals can do everything heterosexuals can in a marriage--buy property, raise families, and anything else you can think of, really.

Oh, and most would argue that the Earth is not necessarily underpopulated at the moment, anyway.

[I.M. Gei]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

So basically...

[shadykid]

dang it why isn't this available here like it is on something awful

it's so fitting for stuff like this

Edited May 5, 2013 by shadykid

[Rehab]

There are heterosexual married couples who chose to never have children, despite being physically capable of doing so. Are they doing marriage wrong? And if they aren't, then what's the big difference between them and same-sex couples that choose not to adopt?

If you're saying that same-sex couples also aren't capable of a high-enough quality of love to find companionship in each other in the same way as heterosexual ones, and also that same-sex couples are demonstrably worse at bringing up children, I'd love to see the evidence behind the claim, because I've seen not a whit of it, and enough anecdotal evidence to the contrary that if it were all printed out, it could kill a grown adult if all of it were dropped on them at once.

Maybe they don't fit an old definition of marriage, but it imposes on nobody for the meaning of the word to change, such that their living together is called "marriage." And when homosexual couples are denied things like hospital visitation rights, health-insurance coverage extended to spouses, and visa-extension, it becomes discrimination to not call their union marriage.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-upholds-religious-exemption-to-employment-discrimination-laws/

The above link may be relevant to this discussion. Apparently in the eyes of the Supreme Court, it acceptable for the church to discriminate as long as the job has religious functions. If the job itself is entirely secular (say a janitorial position), churches are subject to the same discrimination laws as any other organization.

Yeah, I was specifically referring to that court case (narcolepsy), though I probably should have been more clear and specify ministerial jobs (though this definition is left intentionally vague, since Perich only performed religious duties 45 min a day) . Apparently it's pretty evenly split in popular opinion on whether or not churches should be allowed to do this, so I thought it'd be something interesting to discuss.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

This is part of the reasoning my parents use against necessarily supporting gay marriage, that the term is so intertwined with past and/or religious culture that calling traditional and same-sex unions the same thing would be wrong. I don't really consider this argument valid, since marriage as a legal term has never been clearly defined as a man-woman union until Baker v. Nelson, and officially in DoMA, which is likely to get thrown out by the SC pretty soon. If those two legal precedents are thrown out, opposition will only stem from arguments of cultural influence. I don't believe that culture alone should be the deciding factor on something as significant as the legality of marriage.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Sublime Manic]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Thank you so much for enlightening us all as to what marriage declaratively is and has always been, without the definition never changing! Your insight is a beacon to us all! All this time, I was under the impression that language and definitions for words had the capacity to change over time. I even believed that marriage was formerly business transaction in which property was exchanged and a woman was owned by a man, often with her not having any say in the matter. I even thought this was still the case in some parts of the world, in spite of it disagreeing with your clear knowledge on the matter. I also had no clue that marriage had such a specific and primary purpose to it for making and raising children. We need to get the word out IMMEDIATELY that marriages of convenience, marriages made for political purposes, and childless marriages are all failing the purpose of marriage. We should probably call those something other than marriage, too, since they're entirely different from the definition you've put forth and, as you so brilliantly pointed out, "Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing" and marriage has always been the same thing without ever changing at all, EVER.

And here I thought marriage was something legal, created by humans, and having nothing to do with nature, but you've set me straight! Here, I thought gay marriage would eventually afford me the same legal protections and benefits afforded to my heterosexual counterparts, but apparently, marriage has NOTHING to do with such things.

You, madam, are a scholar and beacon of insight beyond compare. Thank you SO MUCH for clearing this all up for everyone!