Posted on Nov 14, 2014
Gay Rights and the Church. How far do gay rights go?
9.41K
51
40
1
1
0
If you go to a Christian Church and they do not want to do Gay Marriages, should they be forced to? Or should they find a church who believes in the rights of gay? Should churches be mandated to teach acceptance of these rights of at the very least, tolerance?
And should the Texas Mayor have been allowed to subpoena sermons?
And should the Texas Mayor have been allowed to subpoena sermons?
Protest
Church
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 14
6
6
0
SSgt (Join to see), I believe that a Christian church should not be forced to perform gay marriages. If I were in that position (gay and wanting to marry), I would want to go to a church that would welcome me. I don't think churches should be forced to perform or allow gay marriages in their facilities. Just my personal opinion. No offense to anyone.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Churches should not be forced to perform any marriage that violates their tenets. Neither should they be allowed to 'force' their views on the remainder of society.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ William Guglielmi Yes and do you know who is forcing whom? It sure isn't the church forcing anyone on most matters but we had a Texas try to regulate the sermons in a church, even after President Obama's pals did the same thing in their congregrations.....
(2)
(0)
MAJ William Guglielmi
SSgt Olson, we are in complete agreement. No government official should ever to force a church (or clergyman) to comply with any local law regarding marriage as was tried by that mayor in Texas. What I meant by churches forcing their views was simply the following--churches, as entities, suing to overturn civil marriages where the voters had approved them.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Believe it or not, the church of the middle ages was more progressive than the modern church. There were actual same sex commitment ceremonies that were carried out by the church.
I think that the government and religion should stay out of the whole marriage mess. A church shouldn't be forced to participate in something that violates their principles, but there will be some that will go against the grain and willing to participate. Eventually the problem will take care of itself as there will be those that will defy doctrine and help those in need.
I think that the government and religion should stay out of the whole marriage mess. A church shouldn't be forced to participate in something that violates their principles, but there will be some that will go against the grain and willing to participate. Eventually the problem will take care of itself as there will be those that will defy doctrine and help those in need.
Beliefs; A study of medieval rituals in same-sex unions raises a question: what were they...
If these words, taken from a manuscript preserved in the Vatican and dating from the year 1147, were for a bride and bridegroom, no one would find them startling: "Send down, most kind Lord, the grace of Thy Holy Spirit upon these Thy servants, whom Thou hast found worthy to be united not by nature but by faith and a holy spirit. Grant unto them Thy grace to love each other in joy without injury or hatred all the days of their lives."
(2)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
SSG Marc Wagner , the history is much more documented than that, but it is more credible than many other sources, since most other sites are more opinion based and don't cite any previous texts but here is another one that lists sources to books on the topic.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
There is also this page which is reviewing a book on the topic that I didn't originally include since it did only referenced the book in question.
When A Medieval Knight Could Marry Another Medieval Knight
Despite the risks, devotional relationships between men were common in Europe [during the Middle Ages], at least among the literate, and many of these affairs must have included sex at some point. Knights, aristocrats, and especially clerics left expansive evidence ...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
Then there is this one which attempts to refute another book that says that the Catholic church tolerated homosexuality in Premodern European History, although the writer of that one is using more subjective arguments against the conclusions of Tom Boswell.
So SSG Marc Wagner feel free to look at those links and decide for yourself if the idea that older civilizations were more tolerant than modern cultures is plausible, or if you feel that this was also scholars making wild leaps to come up with revisions of history to justify their personal beliefs.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm
So SSG Marc Wagner feel free to look at those links and decide for yourself if the idea that older civilizations were more tolerant than modern cultures is plausible, or if you feel that this was also scholars making wild leaps to come up with revisions of history to justify their personal beliefs.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell - Book review by Marian Horvat
Critique of the thesis that homosexuality was accepted and tolerated in the Middle Ages
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
SSgt Alexander Ingram, I'm not here to make this a theological debate on what is moral and what isn't. I'm just showing that history is quite a bit different than we picture it, and that the Roman Catholic Church had a more liberal history in its past.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's all about freedom of religion. if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple or they want to make sermons against gay marriage they should be allowed to. Also the same way, if a church wants to marry a gay couple or make sermons that go with gays then they should be allowed to. It's up the the congregation and the pastor to decide these things not the state.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
In my upbringing in the Catholic Church I understood it as "hate the sin but not the sinner". Now, don't pounce everyone, I'M not stating being gay is a sin, but for those that believe it is, using the philosopy of "hate the sin-not the sinner" makes it clear the church would/should be accepting of the member in the church (tolerance) but not necessarily be willing to further what they see as a sin by performing gay marriages. I believe that's pretty fair... you don't have a right to the church, either you accept it in whole or in part, but they don't have to bend to your need. If you don't like any given church and belief, find one that suits your need. But I'd ask, if a person looks for a church that suits their specific need is it a church they are seeking or a support group. Because, in my mind a religion is founded on a set of beliefs and they just aren't changed by daily whims or fads. They aren't founded to make us feel good about whatever we choose to do. They are based on a foundation of beliefs that either we conform to or don't.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Churches have rights too. Freedom of religion should allow them to deny weddings to homosexuals. They can go to a judge.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Every religion should teach tolerance, but no, it would be an abuse of power to force churches to perform marriages that go against their beliefs, however archaic they may be.
If I remember the Texas church subpoena story correctly, it was to look for political drivel, which if present should force the churches to lose their tax exempt status, so for that I will say yes, keep any/all god(s) out of politics and politics out of god(s).
If I remember the Texas church subpoena story correctly, it was to look for political drivel, which if present should force the churches to lose their tax exempt status, so for that I will say yes, keep any/all god(s) out of politics and politics out of god(s).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"'Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,' Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The U.S. Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices, e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, 'would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.'"
Discussions like this one raised by SSgt (Join to see) have been dancing around this court decision ever since. Should churches be mandated to teach acceptance and tolerance? The answer to that depends on your interpretation of the court precedent quoted above.
Do I think that christian churches should be forced to officiate homosexual weddings? No, it's my personal belief that it should be their right to refuse (that said my stance on the federal government denying homosexual marriages is completely different). My personal beliefs aside the federal government is completely within its power to force this upon a religious institution if it's judicially determined that said institution violates social duties or is subversive to good order, which arguably disenfranchising an entire demographic could be construed as.
Discussions like this one raised by SSgt (Join to see) have been dancing around this court decision ever since. Should churches be mandated to teach acceptance and tolerance? The answer to that depends on your interpretation of the court precedent quoted above.
Do I think that christian churches should be forced to officiate homosexual weddings? No, it's my personal belief that it should be their right to refuse (that said my stance on the federal government denying homosexual marriages is completely different). My personal beliefs aside the federal government is completely within its power to force this upon a religious institution if it's judicially determined that said institution violates social duties or is subversive to good order, which arguably disenfranchising an entire demographic could be construed as.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC David W (I would tag you but apparently your privacy settings prohibit that), you broke my statement in half and completely ignored the part omitted. To reemphasize, my full statement was as follows.
"My personal beliefs aside the federal government is completely within its power to force this upon a religious institution if it's judicially determined that said institution violates social duties or is subversive to good order, which arguably disenfranchising an entire demographic could be construed as."
The federal government can, and does, expressly forbid certain religious practices. An extreme example would be human sacrifices. The beauty of our judicial process is that it's decisions are largely subjective and open to interpretation. You may not like that at some future date the federal government might enforce it's will in this matter (homosexual marriages), but it can and might. To deny that it has this power is just factually incorrect as all it would take is a subjective court decision.
"My personal beliefs aside the federal government is completely within its power to force this upon a religious institution if it's judicially determined that said institution violates social duties or is subversive to good order, which arguably disenfranchising an entire demographic could be construed as."
The federal government can, and does, expressly forbid certain religious practices. An extreme example would be human sacrifices. The beauty of our judicial process is that it's decisions are largely subjective and open to interpretation. You may not like that at some future date the federal government might enforce it's will in this matter (homosexual marriages), but it can and might. To deny that it has this power is just factually incorrect as all it would take is a subjective court decision.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
How many Christian churches are forced to perform interracial marriages against their will?
MAJ (Join to see)
SSgt Alexander Ingram I did see your qualification - and I agree with it. Didn't mean to push back at you directly, but more at the general idea of calling gays "sinners". The bible outlines all kinds of sins that nobody would even think twice about today or even consider being in the least bit "bad". I find it frustrating that many want to select certain passages to support their personal beliefs, while ignoring all the rest. Take a look at the 10 commandments and I'm willing to bet that many who are against same sex marriage have broken at least a few of those - and there's no mention of homosexuality there.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSgt Alexander Ingram Here's the thing - I don't believe that sexual orientation is chosen. I think it's like race - you are who you are. My uncle is gay (and probably why I'm a little passionate about this issue) and I've talked to him many times about this topic. He never CHOSE to be gay anymore than you (I assume) or I chose to be attracted to women. It's a biological fact. I could no more "choose" to be gay than my uncle could "choose" to be straight. I don't really care what the bible says. People are as they are, and sexual identification is one of the most powerful and influential of all biological traits. My wife is filipina - for whatever reason, I find Thai and Filipina women attractive. THAT is something I could choose (could have married a blonde), but I could NEVER "choose" to find men attractive just like gays can't "choose" to find the opposite sex attractive. By the time I was 5-6 yrs old I knew that I liked girls - just like my uncle knew by 5-6 yrs old that he liked guys. It's built in and so calling somebody "sinful" when they're not hurting anyone and simply acting on biological instincts I find a little wrong. And beyond the moral implications, I find it more wrong to deny people certain rights that you and I get just because they were born different than us.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Christians always seem to forget that all sins are equal to god. This means Homosexuality is equal to any other sin in the bible.Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, They also forget that it is not their right to judge that is left up to god Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us. That is only one verse of many in the bible about judging. However; I still do not belief that a church should be forced to conduct a marriage that goes against their believes.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSgt Alexander Ingram I don't really believe in the bible, so "picking and choosing" isn't really an issue. I consider the teachings of Jesus to be some great outlines for life, but the bible itself is now a text that was heavily edited for centuries by the church to make it be more of a document to keep the masses under church suppression (and retain church authority) vs a life lesson. There's a reason that translating it from latin was illegal for centuries - the church wanted to "tell people" what it said vs what it actually says. Beyond that, writing analysis have been done, and it's clear that the text was not all generated pre-Jesus. To use that text to "condemn" somebody who isn't hurting anyone is wrong, in my opinion. Ever play the game where you whisper into somebody's ear a phrase, let that go down the line, and then see what comes out? That's the bible. Some great thoughts 2000 years ago that have been mistranslated and misused since then.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google