Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: beezzer

Sorry for the delay - dog got loose and catching a half husky / half German shepard three month old is FUN! ( not ).

You mentioned the words "slippery slope" in another reply. I will use them here to address your statement:

According to some tenets of some religions, they tend to frown on same-sex marriage.

Some religions also frown upon women showing their faces in public. We cannot possibly, as a society, entertain the tenets of all religions. In fact we should not entertain the tenets of any. Show them respect as best we can? Absolutely. Let any of them dictate how we behave as a society? No way.

In the case of the religion I believe you ascribe to, the problem is already addressed, though you are choosing to ignore it. It is addressed with the following:

If thine eye offends you, then pluck it out.
Judge not lest ye be judged

As a person who has read the Bible, the only time I can remember Jesus being offended was over money - period. Nowhere do I recall him hating on a single person because of what they did, believed, or otherwise. In fact he praised a non-believer over his followers at one point ( The Roman who came on behalf of his slave ).

Funny how all that is, today, twisted totally around.

If Jesus were alive today? He'd probably have gay friends.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

That's my issue.

I see so many here jumping for the side of government.

I have serious doubts that many here would support religion if government started imposing sanctions.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I would, but that's not what's happening here.

It's very much akin to anti-miscegenation arguments in the mid-20th century. Example:

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that (they) should not marry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with (them) down through the ages indicates that (their) marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage? If you really, truly are advocating for the repeal of things like the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act then...well...we're just going to have to disagree.

a reply to: Hefficide

I have not a single issue with what you describe.

On a personal level, I don't even have a problem with same-sex marriage.

What I do have a problem with, is government dictating to any religion, dictating to any religious members.

a reply to: beezzer

For the side of the people.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

For the side of the people.

I don't believe you.

Sorry, but I don't.

Government won't just say, "We're imposing sanctions on religion", they'll couch it in terms that will be meant for your safety and freedom.

And since it is coming from government and will be against religion, many will eat it hook, line and sinker because of their general disdain towards religion.

a reply to: beezzer

No, they won't. People, regardless of how much they hate religion will not tolerate oppression of anyone, you might be willing to accept oppression of Gays but those of us who aren't won't tolerate it against anyone.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

The minute that happens, I would be right beside you defending the right of religious practice. I bet almost all of us would.

See ya soon

a reply to: beezzer

Perspective. If the State ( Nation ) says that gay marriage is legal and the law of the land, then would it not be the religion in opposition that is seeking to dictate?

TBH Beez, your stance on this one catches me a bit off guard. If the word "gay" were to be removed and any other label were to be put into the same place - I honestly feel you'd have a reversed opinion. I am left to assume that you personally view being gay as a choice?

That is the only way I can reconcile your position on this issue.

a reply to: beezzer

Granting the legal recognition of marriage to gay couples isn't attacking anyone's religion.

a reply to: beezzer

Exactly, and this goes hand in hand with those on a certain side of the divide who use the term "worship" as if it were interchangeable with "religion." The two are very different, and it's a very dangerous difference. You can lose your freedom of religion and still retain your freedom to worship.

And, if you lose the freedom of religion, the entire 1st Amendment is undermined. I'm not sure anyone wants to also lose freedom of speech (especially political speech), freedom of assembly and freedom to petition government for redress of grievances. However, if you strike part of the 1st, you risk striking all of it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Granting the legal recognition of marriage to gay couples isn't attacking anyone's religion.

It is if you compel people of religious conviction to act against their conscience.

a reply to: Hefficide

The State shall make no law respecting the free exercise thereof.

The state is reneging on a promise and position it started out with.

If my faith and religious conviction and conscience says that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then compelling me by force of law prohibits me from the free exercise of my religious belief by forcing me to act counter to my faith.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Granting the legal recognition of marriage to gay couples isn't attacking anyone's religion.

6 months in jail for every day you refuse to marry 2 gay people isn't an attack?

a reply to: ketsuko

Your free exercise thereof has not been hampered one bit, as proven by the statement you just made. You are exercising your religious freedom right now by stating that you disagree upon religious grounds.

That is exercising your religion.

Tell me again how the state is undermining that?

a reply to: beezzer

I have no problem with gay marriage, I embrace it and enjoy the fact that all are equal in this respect as far as it pertains to government entitlements.

With that said, I am an ordained minister who happens to be of the Christian faith. I would not under any amount of duress perform a gay marriage. The reason why is quite simple, no gay people I know are Christian and as such, should not be married by a minister of the Christian faith. Those marriages should be performed by a judge of the state.

Marriage in it's traditional form is one often associated with the Christian faith. Gay marriages, assuming the participants are not Christian should be performed by a state representative or by the minister of their designated faith. To try to force any minister to operate outside of their religious views is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment and quite frankly.... Appalling.

a reply to: ketsuko

I worked for a couple who owned a bar and a restaurant. They were Mormons and didn't even touch coffee or cola. Religious people need to choose what businesses offend their senses and stay away from them.

It appears that these people have invested in the wrong business for them. They either need to hire someone who isn't religiously offended to officiate gay weddings or they need to get out the "hitchin" business.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: ketsuko

Your free exercise thereof has not been hampered one bit, as proven by the statement you just made. You are exercising your religious freedom right now by stating that you disagree upon religious grounds.

That is exercising your religion.

Tell me again how the state is undermining that?

By forcing me to marry two people who I cannot in good conscience marry because they are not a man and a woman. That goes against my conscience and my beliefs and is a sin for me to do.

Now if they want to go to any of the people who will marry them, fine, let them do so. The state allows it now, but for the state to threaten me with legal action for saying I cannot be party to it on religious grounds is making a law that takes away my freedom of religion.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Granting the legal recognition of marriage to gay couples isn't attacking anyone's religion.

6 months in jail for every day you refuse to marry 2 gay people isn't an attack?

Gays have the right to NOT be discriminated against. If that is the penalty for violating a person's civil rights, then so be it.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

Perspective. If the State ( Nation ) says that gay marriage is legal and the law of the land, then would it not be the religion in opposition that is seeking to dictate?

TBH Beez, your stance on this one catches me a bit off guard. If the word "gay" were to be removed and any other label were to be put into the same place - I honestly feel you'd have a reversed opinion. I am left to assume that you personally view being gay as a choice?

That is the only way I can reconcile your position on this issue.

Just because I am on this side of the debate, don't confuse me with someone who has that attitude towards gays.

I'm also for freedom of speech. Doesn't matter who's talking or the subject.

I don't qualify my support with issues I only personally agree with.