|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 7, 2007 4:16:31 GMT -5
I believe strongly that gay people should be able to get married. If gay people can't get married, then I think that nobody else should be able to either. All or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 12, 2007 6:07:22 GMT -5
The only argument I have been able to understand is the one that suggests that churches would eventually be forced by the people attending it to do do gay marriage ceremonies, and that's a slippery slope too.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 13, 2007 13:33:54 GMT -5
Hey Kizzume. I am sorry I don't have much time these past couple to respond everywhere. I will probably be able to tonight or tomorrow! Been a very busy couple days.
Anyway, to answer your question from my perspective, you know I am a firm supporter of gay marriage. No church would be forced to hold ceremonies. The way they would do it is that any church that WANTS to can, but really it is the legal certificate that matters, since the ceremony is only symbolic to the law. A lot of people don't even go to a church to get married. They just go see a judge who makes it official. (One of my friends did it that way.) Everyone has to buy a marriage certificate anyway, its just that some churches may go through that process for you.
Another option is you could simply google churches in your area that do it (which I am sure some definitely will if it becomes legal) and have them do it. If it goes into law, there will be churches that do it, no doubt. Another option if you wanted, is you could have a friend you trust go online and get 'ordained' which takes about 15 minutes, (I am legally ordained to marry people) and everyone can do it, and you could have a friend marry you with whatever ceremony you want.
But nobody is getting forced to do anything. The churches won't lose their right to marry who they please based on their religious practices. Ceremonies are symbolic-- they have nothing to do with the law. It is the certificate that matters. The fear that churches will be forced to go against their practices is just another right-wing spin intended to make church goers fear you and keep voting against your rights. Just like they do with gun control ('OH NOES, THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS!!111111) and everything else.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 13, 2007 13:37:45 GMT -5
PS, if they were forced 'by the people,' meaning their goers, I don't see that as wrong. A church, should represent the beliefs of its followers, right? They would still have the legal right to refuse that sort of ceremony based on principle, and I am sure there will always be enough homophobes that there will be churches that still don't do it.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 13, 2007 13:58:10 GMT -5
I'm totally with you there. I really can't see any TRULY valid arguments against gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 14, 2007 22:35:53 GMT -5
I don't know that a church should necessarily represent the beliefs of their followers. If a church is following a structured, organized religion, the members shouldn't be able to shake the structure. If they could, how stable is the religion's particular belief system anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 15, 2007 6:54:01 GMT -5
True, but it would still be that way if gay marriage was legalized. The pressure just might be greater.
I think that churches that in the past have rigidly stuck to a particular structure are going to continue to stick to that structure regardless.
You definitely make a good point though.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 15, 2007 15:33:46 GMT -5
Well, look at the Catholic church as of late. They seem pretty flimsy to me. It just makes them look like they don't have any core beliefs. Who wants anything to do with that? They've been around a while, no?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 15, 2007 20:09:30 GMT -5
Well, you've got me thinking again. That's good.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 2:15:11 GMT -5
I don't know that a church should necessarily represent the beliefs of their followers. If a church is following a structured, organized religion, the members shouldn't be able to shake the structure. If they could, how stable is the religion's particular belief system anyway? Keep in mind that if a church didn't support its followers it wouldn't be a church. what I mean is, you need a congregation in order to have a church right? I mean, the dictionary offers 17 definitions for Church, but one of them seems the most accurate to me in concept: "a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: " You'd need a body of Christians for that definition, and if the institution doesn't represent the followers, I doubt it will maintain very many, thus making it into something other than a church. In conclusion, I'd say churches are represented by their followers through default, because they don't exist without their followers.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 2:36:51 GMT -5
I didn't say that a church shouldn't support it's followers. Nor should it represent the followers. It is a place to gather for the purpose of like-minded people coming together in unity. Church, at least in the context you use it, has to use a system of checks and balances derived from the Bible to be healthy, since the church you mention was established because the Bible said to. Remember, the church was God's idea, and when you let man determine the course, the course gets twisted. As far as the conclusion you draw, the most powerful, anointed churches I've ever been to have very small congregations. Generally this is because people leave when the church requires it's members to be accountable to the Bible. Churches of 5,000 people that I've been to are watered down in short because they "represent" the members. Just my take.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 2:45:06 GMT -5
I don't know man. It seems like those huge black baptist churches from the south would be the coolest to be a part of. I mean they really get down and praise Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 3:10:41 GMT -5
If I was to go to a church again, I would probably go to either a really tiny one, or a black baptist church where people put so much feeling and physical energy into their praises.
But I'm kind-of going off subject....
Many churches will bend and allow gay marriage. Many will not. Those that don't will start to be called names. Eventually those that don't will be basically demonized by media and a whole bunch of others. I think this is what people fear.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 3:44:18 GMT -5
If I was to go to a church again, I would probably go to either a really tiny one, or a black baptist church where people put so much feeling and physical energy into their praises. But I'm kind-of going off subject.... Many churches will bend and allow gay marriage. Many will not. Those that don't will start to be called names. Eventually those that don't will be basically demonized by media and a whole bunch of others. I think this is what people fear. I disagree. I think it will be the other way around. I think those that do marry gay people will be demonized, maybe not by the media, but by the vast amount of churches that will still refuse to marry gay people. I really don't think gay rights are a coming plague that is going to end religion as we know it. I think that is just a right wing spin.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 3:44:25 GMT -5
I think that they shouldn't bend to that if they claim that it's wrong according to their beliefs. No matter what the media does. You're absolutely correct though.
|
|