Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.
Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o
Well, it's about people. Some of them are gay.
By that logic, they shouldn't ever play the Imperial March from Star Wars; Threepio was a little too prissy, if you catch my drift.
The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.
It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand
Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.
As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.
Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.
not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.
The difference is someone can go get married in an Episcopalian church and the Catholic church doesn't give two shits. Here they're actively protesting it. No one is asking the Catholic church to marry gays, the Catholic church is saying it will punish any of its membership that supports gay marriage.
I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around an institution enjoying the First Amendment freedoms granted by the very progressive Western nation hosting it, yet also at the same time thinking they enjoy some kind of authority beyond the powers of said nation and should encourage members who politically represent that nation to act against the very provisions that allow them to exist.
TL;DR - "Hey, thank God we have a diocese in a country that protects our viewpoints and teachings at a Constitutional level. Now let's go and fuck people over."
The Catholic Church has always had a pretty rocky relationship with the United States, given that the church is fundamentally opposed to underlying Enlightenment values that the U.S. is based on. Up until Vatican II, the Church was pretty explicitly opposed to ideals like separation between church and state and free exercise of religion.
Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.
Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o
Well, it's about people. Some of them are gay.
By that logic, they shouldn't ever play the Imperial March from Star Wars; Threepio was a little too prissy, if you catch my drift.
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
But then I hated the movie so I wasn't paying all that much attention. Also, R2 was the robot with the visible giant mecha penis so maybe he's a bigger worry.
Also, YES, Catholic Church, please start excommunicating the smart people. Please please please. I'll fucking start saying the rosary again if you do; totes pinky promise.
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
Four of the eight primary characters are gay/bisexual. And two of the heterosexual characters have HIV.
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
Four of the eight primary characters are gay/bisexual. And two of the heterosexual characters have HIV.
Hell, two of the major songs in the movie are directly about the gay couples
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
The Catholic Church already makes hetero couples jump through some ridiculous hoops to get married by a priest.
It varies by the priest but I've heard everything from giving them total control of the ceremony to being forced to take couple's classes beforehand
Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.
As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.
Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.
not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.
Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.
Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o
Well, it's about people. Some of them are gay.
By that logic, they shouldn't ever play the Imperial March from Star Wars; Threepio was a little too prissy, if you catch my drift.
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
But then I hated the movie so I wasn't paying all that much attention. Also, R2 was the robot with the visible giant mecha penis so maybe he's a bigger worry.
Also, YES, Catholic Church, please start excommunicating the smart people. Please please please. I'll fucking start saying the rosary again if you do; totes pinky promise.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
They can refuse to marry you for any reason at all.
Also, isn't a marriage only referred to as a Civil Union by the government? Marriages are the realm of churches, right? Or is my terminology wrong?
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Huh. Well, that pretty well invalidates the whole line of reasoning!
I'm actually glad to learn this argument against gay marriage is flawed.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
They can refuse to marry you for any reason at all.
Also, isn't a marriage only referred to as a Civil Union by the government? Marriages are the realm of churches, right? Or is my terminology wrong?
There's a difference between legal marriage and religous marriage, but they're both "marriage."
State employees empowered to marry people, though, have to marry anyone legally eligible to be married, if it's part of their job. Religious organizations can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Or even marry people that aren't allowed to get legally married (it just won't count in the eyes of the law).
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
Four of the eight primary characters are gay/bisexual. And two of the heterosexual characters have HIV.
Hell, two of the major songs in the movie are directly about the gay couples
Holy balls, really? Damn, I must have zoned out big time on that movie.
There's a difference between legal marriage and religous marriage, but they're both "marriage."
State employees empowered to marry people, though, have to marry anyone legally eligible to be married, if it's part of their job. Religious organizations can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Or even marry people that aren't allowed to get legally married (it just won't count in the eyes of the law).
Religious "marriage" is just a ceremony with no legal status. (Well, except for the last part where the priest/minister/whatever says "by the power vested in me by the state of so-and-so", and even then, the actual "marriage" doesn't really take place until you've all signed the legal marriage document.) You're going to church and the guy is reading out of a different part of his book. It's honestly a co-opting and usurpation of actual marriage, since all marriage is (or, was at least) about is the combination of assets. Churches just decided you'd be an outcast if God didn't preside over your marriage.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Absolutely. The Mormon church did not perform temple marriages for blacks until the 1970s.
Even today, the Catholic church can (at its option) refuse to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a member of any other faith. There is a list of reasons as long as your arm for why they can refuse to perform a church marriage for a couple. You could have both the bride and groom as baptized, confirmed Catholics, and the priest can refuse to marry them if they were living together before being married, or even if the priest isn't satisfied with their performance during pre-Cana. It's highly variable and depends how conservative/traditional the church wants to be.
This isn't something special about the Catholic church, either. No church or religion is required to marry anyone. There are groups who will be happy to marry anyone who feels like having a church ceremony, and still more who will happily marry any straight couple that vaguely espouses something like what that particular group believes. That doesn't mean they're required to do it or they owe the service to anyone.
Hell, my Catholic high school told the choir (of which I was part) that we couldn't sing "Seasons of Love" from RENT, because the musical is about gay people. Is the song? Not even a little.
Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o
Well, it's about people. Some of them are gay.
By that logic, they shouldn't ever play the Imperial March from Star Wars; Threepio was a little too prissy, if you catch my drift.
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
But then I hated the movie so I wasn't paying all that much attention. Also, R2 was the robot with the visible giant mecha penis so maybe he's a bigger worry.
Also, YES, Catholic Church, please start excommunicating the smart people. Please please please. I'll fucking start saying the rosary again if you do; totes pinky promise.
Nope, I didn't see that part. I'm going horrible tangent here but that really looks carefully crafted to be a guy and girl singing. Did they ever even show Angel out of makeup except when he was dying?
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Huh. Well, that pretty well invalidates the whole line of reasoning!
I'm actually glad to learn this argument against gay marriage is flawed.
Didn't that guy in the South refuse to marry a bi-racial couple but then ended up losing his job over it? It muddies the line of thinking up a bit.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Huh. Well, that pretty well invalidates the whole line of reasoning!
I'm actually glad to learn this argument against gay marriage is flawed.
Didn't that guy in the South refuse to marry a bi-racial couple but then ended up losing his job over it? It muddies the line of thinking up a bit.
Yes, but he was a justice of the peace if I remember right, it wasn't a religious thing. He was just a racist asshole.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's honestly a co-opting and usurpation of actual marriage, since all marriage is (or, was at least) about is the combination of assets. Churches just decided you'd be an outcast if God didn't preside over your marriage.
That's the craziest part about all of this. Churches don't actually even have a legal say in marriage.
You'll get no quarrel with me if you argue that the Church isn't uniformly applying the standard. That isn't the same thing as arguing they're wrong in the application. They certainly do have a duty to deny communion to any Catholic who remarried without an annulment if they also do so for supporting gay marriage against the wishes of the Church.
Well see, the thing is about Christianity is you're commanded to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. And the ability of the State to recognize a contractual arrangement between 2 consenting adults is definitely a "Caesar" issue.
At least, you have to do that if you want to claim to be a good Christian.
So the Church has a choice, as framed by God/Jesus: they can either be good Christians, or they can continue down their current path.
Now down to brass tacks. The Church's real issue is the gay sex itself, regardless of whether it occurs within a state-recognized marriage or not. The Church can demand repentance for that act all it wants, but it has nothing to do with the state recognizing a marriage contract between 2 same-sex persons.
Further, endorsing a state-recognized state of marriage is not endorsing any sexual act. For every "Oh c'mon, you know the 2 married dudes are sodomizing (anally)", you could also say "Oh c'mon, you know a married man and woman are sodomizing (orally)." So if endorsing state recognition of gay marriage = endorsing the sinful act of gay sodomy, then endorsing state recognition of straight marriage = endorsing the sinful act of straight sodomy. Neither are accepted by the Church.
It seems the only proper position for a Catholic politician to take is to be against all marriage, based on the fact that the vast majority of all marriages, gay or straight, will lead to the commission of sodomy.
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Absolutely. The Mormon church did not perform temple marriages for blacks until the 1970s.
Even today, the Catholic church can (at its option) refuse to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a member of any other faith. There is a list of reasons as long as your arm for why they can refuse to perform a church marriage for a couple. You could have both the bride and groom as baptized, confirmed Catholics, and the priest can refuse to marry them if they were living together before being married, or even if the priest isn't satisfied with their performance during pre-Cana. It's highly variable and depends how conservative/traditional the church wants to be.
This isn't something special about the Catholic church, either. No church or religion is required to marry anyone. There are groups who will be happy to marry anyone who feels like having a church ceremony, and still more who will happily marry any straight couple that vaguely espouses something like what that particular group believes. That doesn't mean they're required to do it or they owe the service to anyone.
However churches will sometimes change their policies when their bottom line is affected. The major reason behind the LDS policy change regarding blacks was that their old policy was bad for business as they expanded into African and South America (particularly Brazil, where mixed-race bloodlines are prevalent, and it was increasingly difficult to exclude people with any African blood from the church).
No one has a right to wear cat ears. The church can't refuse to marry you if you're black... This will, eventually, be the argument for attempts to force the catholic church to marry gay couples.
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
Absolutely. The Mormon church did not perform temple marriages for blacks until the 1970s.
Even today, the Catholic church can (at its option) refuse to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a member of any other faith. There is a list of reasons as long as your arm for why they can refuse to perform a church marriage for a couple. You could have both the bride and groom as baptized, confirmed Catholics, and the priest can refuse to marry them if they were living together before being married, or even if the priest isn't satisfied with their performance during pre-Cana. It's highly variable and depends how conservative/traditional the church wants to be.
This isn't something special about the Catholic church, either. No church or religion is required to marry anyone. There are groups who will be happy to marry anyone who feels like having a church ceremony, and still more who will happily marry any straight couple that vaguely espouses something like what that particular group believes. That doesn't mean they're required to do it or they owe the service to anyone.
However churches will sometimes change their policies when their bottom line is affected. The major reason behind the LDS policy change regarding blacks was that their old policy was bad for business as they expanded into African and South America (particularly Brazil, where mixed-race bloodlines are prevalent, and it was increasingly difficult to exclude people with any African blood from the church).
Didn't they change some big thing when their tax exempt status was threatened as well?
For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
Eating meat is contradictory to veganism.
State recognition of a marriage contract between 2 dudes is not contradictory to Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly says that some issues are earthly civil issues to be governed by the state. Just as Caesar's face was on the Roman coin used to pay taxes, so too is the state seal of New York on a NY-issued civil marriage license.
Frankly, it's already pushing it that the Church freeloads off America without paying taxes, despite their use of various public services. Their only out there is that that command comes from Paul, not Jesus.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
But hey, it's not like Jesus and Paul are important to Christianity or anything, right?
For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
Eating meat is contradictory to veganism.
State recognition of a marriage contract between 2 dudes is not contradictory to Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly says that some issues are earthly civil issues to be governed by the state.
It is however, contradictory to the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic Church, and many other churches. Those "clubs" have specific rulesets, not just the Bible, that governs how they perceive the morality of an action. Are there any major sects of Christianity (or any religion?) that aren't against gay marriage? Most just use the Leviticus quote. Or the "be fruitful and multiply" bit, as far as I know.
For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
Eating meat is contradictory to veganism.
State recognition of a marriage contract between 2 dudes is not contradictory to Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly says that some issues are earthly civil issues to be governed by the state.
It is however, contradictory to the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic Church, and many other churches. Those "clubs" have specific rulesets, not just the Bible, that governs how they perceive the morality of an action. Are there any major sects of Christianity (or any religion?) that aren't against gay marriage? Most just use the Leviticus quote. Or the "be fruitful and multiply" bit, as far as I know.
It doesn't matter. The government is not forcing the Catholic church to: Marry gays, accept gays, have gays as parishioners, or perform any services for gays.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It seems the only proper position for a Catholic politician to take is to be against all marriage, based on the fact that the vast majority of all marriages, gay or straight, will lead to the commission of sodomy.
And half end in divorce!
And over 90% of all marriages don't involve Catholics at all!
And half of all Catholic marriages only involve one Catholic spouse!
In the face of such overwhelming odds, wherein two Catholic people get married, stay married, and never engage in sodomy, . . . how does the Church even persist?!
Atomika on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Even today, the Catholic church can (at its option) refuse to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a member of any other faith. There is a list of reasons as long as your arm for why they can refuse to perform a church marriage for a couple. You could have both the bride and groom as baptized, confirmed Catholics, and the priest can refuse to marry them if they were living together before being married, or even if the priest isn't satisfied with their performance during pre-Cana. It's highly variable and depends how conservative/traditional the church wants to be.
I'm marrying a heathen. I had to apply for a special dispensation from the Bishop to get married in the church.
Bubba, I think you're misunderstanding the gospel story of Jesus responding to the questioners with "render unto Caesar...". They were trying to trap him into a false dichotomy, and into a position where he would either stand against Rome or against the Jews. His answer was ambiguous and took the middle road - it's no ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
Either that, or you're trying to perform the same feat as the questioners.
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
If you run a church that doesn't want to marry a gay couple, fine. You don't have to do it. Just as their loves lives are not anyone's to control, neither is your church. If you (as a pastor/bishop/whatever) or your congregation do not want that in your church, fine. That is your decision. No one can force you to marry people that you don't want to marry.
But you should also understand that since you have that freedom, gay people have the freedom to go get married at another church or at the courthourse or wherever they choose because that is what freedom is.
It's really a simple concept if you think about it.
I'm just being devil's advocate here, but as I understand it, the freedom thing is seen the other way by the other side. I mean, gays already have the freedom go get married at another church. It's not like if a church tried to hold a wedding for two men, SWAT teams would crash in the windows. The issue is about whether the rest of the community, including the church that doesn't love teh gheys, or even an atheist who just doesn't love teh gheys, is required by law to also recognize it as a marriage.
I agree that the government really shouldn't be so involved in such things, and shouldn't concern itself so much with how two people feel about each other, and what it's called. The problem with my stance is that the Gay Rights side doesn't like it, because it neuters the issue instead of giving them a resounding Civil Rights victory. They're not typically libertarians and would greatly prefer a government-backed triumph over society rather than the government just taking the ball and going home. And the other side, particularly the religious aspect that makes up the vast majority of it, doesn't like this solution, and would also probably be unfairly vindicated by it, because it could easily be misconstrued as their prophecized "destruction of marriage."
But no one is telling the Catholic church they have to recognize the marriages. The legal issue is that right now, if two gay guys go to their local whatever and apply for a marriage license, they'll be told no. The Church has absolutely zero to do with that.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
I would certainly argue that the Church should have no interest in marriages that take place outside the Church.
I can't parse the logic that dictates such strong opposition to gay marriage when the same logic and argument is not applied to Muslim marriages or Hindu marriages or Wiccan marriages or atheist marriages.
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
I would certainly argue that the Church should have no interest in marriages that take place outside the Church.
I can't parse the logic that dictates such strong opposition to gay marriage when the same logic and argument is not applied to Muslim marriages or Hindu marriages or Wiccan marriages or atheist marriages.
Because you can have 2 gay Catholics that want to get married. You can't have a Wiccan Catholic.
This still doesn't make sense in my brain, but that's why I support gay rights!
I agree that the government really shouldn't be so involved in such things, and shouldn't concern itself so much with how two people feel about each other, and what it's called. The problem with my stance is that the Gay Rights side doesn't like it, because it neuters the issue instead of giving them a resounding Civil Rights victory. They're not typically libertarians and would greatly prefer a government-backed triumph instead of just removing the problem. And the other side, particularly the religious aspect that makes up the vast majority of it, doesn't like this solution, and would also probably be unfairly vindicated by it, because it could easily be misconstrued as their prophecized "destruction of marriage."
What needs to be repeatedly pointed out to churches is that they have no power whatsoever to actually marry anyone. The state does. It is 100% a legal contract. All the fancy crosses and incense flinging don't make you married. A service in Latin means dick to the tax collector. The only thing that matters is you have a signed marriage license and it's presided over by someone recognized by the state as able to legally marry you.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
What needs to be repeatedly pointed out to churches is that they have no power whatsoever to actually marry anyone. The state does. It is 100% a legal contract. All the fancy crosses and incense flinging don't make you married. A service in Latin means dick to the tax collector. The only thing that matters is you have a signed marriage license and it's presided over by someone recognized by the state as able to legally marry you.
I know, and I realized that I probably needed to say more since what I was talking about was already being discussed in more detail that I thought.
The marriage we're talking about, yes, is the government recognition of marriage. It's what you go file with your local government, not what led up to it. And the issue is then what that legal document means, where it makes a difference, and so forth. It includes various things about how the government views the two of you, and also includes several things about how other private citizens must treat you. The latter part I think is where there is a complication on the idea that this has nothing to do with the non-gay person.
EDIT: But what I said is still true - it seems that the logical solution would be to just go ahead and really separate the contract from the historic institution, and simply have the government recognize civil unions or life partnerships, only where it has a compelling interest in doing so, and remove gender and family and other needless destracting details from it. People can have whatever ceremony they like and call what they like, and they can also do a simple "partnership" or "union" contract along with it, that ties together the numerous legal issues that citizens need to be able to lump together without undue complexity. But I don't think that this is what either side wants. Both sides want a clear, government-backed, philosophical and societal victory over the other.
Since the last gay rights thread got mired in religious talk
Isn't that almost necessarily the case though? At least with regard to gay marriage, I've yet to hear a single argument in opposition that wasn't rooted in religion.
Since the last gay rights thread got mired in religious talk
Isn't that almost necessarily the case though? At least with regard to gay marriage, I've yet to hear a single argument in opposition that wasn't rooted in religion.
There is approximately one secular argument against gay marriage and it completely falls apart under any analysis (that being they can't procreate and do not satisfy the state's interest in procreation). The last thread started with the caveat that religion shouldn't be discussed in the gay rights thread, but unfortunately, as you point out, almost all (99.999999%) of anti-gay marriage/rights arguments come from a religious grounding.
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
Well, sometimes the justification is that it isn't a traditional definition of marriage (regardless of religion) and therefore there is no substantive or equal protection right to equal marriage beyond a man and woman. (I don't agree with this but if you are an originalist it works)
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.
Posts
Well, it's about people. Some of them are gay.
By that logic, they shouldn't ever play the Imperial March from Star Wars; Threepio was a little too prissy, if you catch my drift.
The Catholic Church has always had a pretty rocky relationship with the United States, given that the church is fundamentally opposed to underlying Enlightenment values that the U.S. is based on. Up until Vatican II, the Church was pretty explicitly opposed to ideals like separation between church and state and free exercise of religion.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Really? Some were gay? I must have missed that. The hetero relationship splashed all over constantly was too distracting I guess. I know Angel was a drag performer with AIDS but I don't remember the movie ever saying he was actually gay.
But then I hated the movie so I wasn't paying all that much attention. Also, R2 was the robot with the visible giant mecha penis so maybe he's a bigger worry.
Also, YES, Catholic Church, please start excommunicating the smart people. Please please please. I'll fucking start saying the rosary again if you do; totes pinky promise.
Four of the eight primary characters are gay/bisexual. And two of the heterosexual characters have HIV.
Hell, two of the major songs in the movie are directly about the gay couples
Actually, I say that with authority but I'm not sure. Can a church refuse to marry you if you're black?
....really? You missed that Angel was gay?
Yes, they can refuse to marry you if you're black.
They can refuse to marry you for any reason at all.
Also, isn't a marriage only referred to as a Civil Union by the government? Marriages are the realm of churches, right? Or is my terminology wrong?
Huh. Well, that pretty well invalidates the whole line of reasoning!
I'm actually glad to learn this argument against gay marriage is flawed.
State employees empowered to marry people, though, have to marry anyone legally eligible to be married, if it's part of their job. Religious organizations can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Or even marry people that aren't allowed to get legally married (it just won't count in the eyes of the law).
Holy balls, really? Damn, I must have zoned out big time on that movie.
Absolutely. The Mormon church did not perform temple marriages for blacks until the 1970s.
Even today, the Catholic church can (at its option) refuse to allow a marriage between a Catholic and a member of any other faith. There is a list of reasons as long as your arm for why they can refuse to perform a church marriage for a couple. You could have both the bride and groom as baptized, confirmed Catholics, and the priest can refuse to marry them if they were living together before being married, or even if the priest isn't satisfied with their performance during pre-Cana. It's highly variable and depends how conservative/traditional the church wants to be.
This isn't something special about the Catholic church, either. No church or religion is required to marry anyone. There are groups who will be happy to marry anyone who feels like having a church ceremony, and still more who will happily marry any straight couple that vaguely espouses something like what that particular group believes. That doesn't mean they're required to do it or they owe the service to anyone.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Nope, I didn't see that part. I'm going horrible tangent here but that really looks carefully crafted to be a guy and girl singing. Did they ever even show Angel out of makeup except when he was dying?
Didn't that guy in the South refuse to marry a bi-racial couple but then ended up losing his job over it? It muddies the line of thinking up a bit.
That's the craziest part about all of this. Churches don't actually even have a legal say in marriage.
Well see, the thing is about Christianity is you're commanded to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. And the ability of the State to recognize a contractual arrangement between 2 consenting adults is definitely a "Caesar" issue.
At least, you have to do that if you want to claim to be a good Christian.
So the Church has a choice, as framed by God/Jesus: they can either be good Christians, or they can continue down their current path.
Now down to brass tacks. The Church's real issue is the gay sex itself, regardless of whether it occurs within a state-recognized marriage or not. The Church can demand repentance for that act all it wants, but it has nothing to do with the state recognizing a marriage contract between 2 same-sex persons.
Further, endorsing a state-recognized state of marriage is not endorsing any sexual act. For every "Oh c'mon, you know the 2 married dudes are sodomizing (anally)", you could also say "Oh c'mon, you know a married man and woman are sodomizing (orally)." So if endorsing state recognition of gay marriage = endorsing the sinful act of gay sodomy, then endorsing state recognition of straight marriage = endorsing the sinful act of straight sodomy. Neither are accepted by the Church.
It seems the only proper position for a Catholic politician to take is to be against all marriage, based on the fact that the vast majority of all marriages, gay or straight, will lead to the commission of sodomy.
However churches will sometimes change their policies when their bottom line is affected. The major reason behind the LDS policy change regarding blacks was that their old policy was bad for business as they expanded into African and South America (particularly Brazil, where mixed-race bloodlines are prevalent, and it was increasingly difficult to exclude people with any African blood from the church).
Didn't they change some big thing when their tax exempt status was threatened as well?
Eating meat is contradictory to veganism.
State recognition of a marriage contract between 2 dudes is not contradictory to Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus explicitly says that some issues are earthly civil issues to be governed by the state. Just as Caesar's face was on the Roman coin used to pay taxes, so too is the state seal of New York on a NY-issued civil marriage license.
Frankly, it's already pushing it that the Church freeloads off America without paying taxes, despite their use of various public services. Their only out there is that that command comes from Paul, not Jesus.
But hey, it's not like Jesus and Paul are important to Christianity or anything, right?
It is however, contradictory to the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic Church, and many other churches. Those "clubs" have specific rulesets, not just the Bible, that governs how they perceive the morality of an action. Are there any major sects of Christianity (or any religion?) that aren't against gay marriage? Most just use the Leviticus quote. Or the "be fruitful and multiply" bit, as far as I know.
And half end in divorce!
And over 90% of all marriages don't involve Catholics at all!
And half of all Catholic marriages only involve one Catholic spouse!
In the face of such overwhelming odds, wherein two Catholic people get married, stay married, and never engage in sodomy, . . . how does the Church even persist?!
I'm marrying a heathen. I had to apply for a special dispensation from the Bishop to get married in the church.
Either that, or you're trying to perform the same feat as the questioners.
Also, I think your conclusion that the church has no interest in marriage is missing some premises.
I agree that the government really shouldn't be so involved in such things, and shouldn't concern itself so much with how two people feel about each other, and what it's called. The problem with my stance is that the Gay Rights side doesn't like it, because it neuters the issue instead of giving them a resounding Civil Rights victory. They're not typically libertarians and would greatly prefer a government-backed triumph over society rather than the government just taking the ball and going home. And the other side, particularly the religious aspect that makes up the vast majority of it, doesn't like this solution, and would also probably be unfairly vindicated by it, because it could easily be misconstrued as their prophecized "destruction of marriage."
I would certainly argue that the Church should have no interest in marriages that take place outside the Church.
I can't parse the logic that dictates such strong opposition to gay marriage when the same logic and argument is not applied to Muslim marriages or Hindu marriages or Wiccan marriages or atheist marriages.
Because you can have 2 gay Catholics that want to get married. You can't have a Wiccan Catholic.
This still doesn't make sense in my brain, but that's why I support gay rights!
Oh, you'd be surprised.
The marriage we're talking about, yes, is the government recognition of marriage. It's what you go file with your local government, not what led up to it. And the issue is then what that legal document means, where it makes a difference, and so forth. It includes various things about how the government views the two of you, and also includes several things about how other private citizens must treat you. The latter part I think is where there is a complication on the idea that this has nothing to do with the non-gay person.
EDIT: But what I said is still true - it seems that the logical solution would be to just go ahead and really separate the contract from the historic institution, and simply have the government recognize civil unions or life partnerships, only where it has a compelling interest in doing so, and remove gender and family and other needless destracting details from it. People can have whatever ceremony they like and call what they like, and they can also do a simple "partnership" or "union" contract along with it, that ties together the numerous legal issues that citizens need to be able to lump together without undue complexity. But I don't think that this is what either side wants. Both sides want a clear, government-backed, philosophical and societal victory over the other.
Haha I don't think those people count. :P
Isn't that almost necessarily the case though? At least with regard to gay marriage, I've yet to hear a single argument in opposition that wasn't rooted in religion.
There is approximately one secular argument against gay marriage and it completely falls apart under any analysis (that being they can't procreate and do not satisfy the state's interest in procreation). The last thread started with the caveat that religion shouldn't be discussed in the gay rights thread, but unfortunately, as you point out, almost all (99.999999%) of anti-gay marriage/rights arguments come from a religious grounding.
An originalist in this stance would also argue that a black man and a white woman have no right to marry as well.