If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[b.k. barunt]

Ok ok! So let the mos and bos get married. It seems to be the politically correct thing to do and the supporters of such would champion their rights to marry their fooking Chihuahuas if they were told that was progressive behavior. I for one am willing to give in here - let them marry. Enough already. However, for the sake of simple clarity if nothing else, the brides of these absurd unions must never be allowed to wear white.


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

Ok ok! So let the mos and bos get married. It seems to be the politically correct thing to do and the supporters of such would champion their rights to marry their fooking Chihuahuas if they were told that was progressive behavior. I for one am willing to give in here - let them marry. Enough already. However, for the sake of simple clarity if nothing else, the brides of these absurd unions must never be allowed to wear white.

I have wondered if that particular tradition is even followed any longer. For instance, my wife shouldn't have worn white (she was pregnant at the time), but she wanted to wear my mother's wedding dress (which was white). So she did.

[Bones2484]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

Obama is smart like the devil, and fundamental transformation is in process. Same sex marriage, whatever your position on it, is being used, and once they get it, it will be abused.

I'm sure next you'll be telling me that you still aren't making any slippery slope arguments in this thread.

[thegreekdog]

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

[thegreekdog]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

Obama is smart like the devil, and fundamental transformation is in process. Same sex marriage, whatever your position on it, is being used, and once they get it, it will be abused.

I'm sure next you'll be telling me that you still aren't making any slippery slope arguments in this thread.

PS is ignoring a lot of things here.

First, as someone indicated before, religions aren't required to marry anyone, even for racially based reasons.
Second, a few months ago Phatscotty was railing about how President Obama used to be against gay marriage and had flip-flopped; now he's saying President Obama had this all planned from the beginning.
Third, slippery slope argument, which I've outlawed. So I'm still waiting.

[notyou2]

Ok ok! So let the mos and bos get married. It seems to be the politically correct thing to do and the supporters of such would champion their rights to marry their fooking Chihuahuas if they were told that was progressive behavior. I for one am willing to give in here - let them marry. Enough already. However, for the sake of simple clarity if nothing else, the brides of these absurd unions must never be allowed to wear white.


Honibaz

See if you can talk his Phatness into it.

[Juan_Bottom]

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.

Well, the deal is that Churches perform Weddings.
They don't perform Marriages, because that's a legally binding contract. For that you need to involve the government.

And so, the logical argument is that each church can decide on their own what type of Weddings they will perform, while the government will handle the legal aspect of Marriage Contracts.

[BigBallinStalin]

Given that (again talking in the USA here) a church can refuse to marry someone for a whole variety of reasons (spouse of different religion/denomination, previous divorces, etc) I think that churches in the US are safe from being forced (again, separation of church and state, works both ways)

PS and many of them simply disagree.

[tzor]

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

Why?

Why is it absurd?

It's not much of a slippery slope. In states where same gender marriage is legal we already have precedent that any business that is open to the public must equally support same gender and mixed gender. This includes everyone from bed and breakfasts to cake bakers. If you open your church to non members of your church you are "open to the public."

In some countries where same gender marriage is legal they have laws that force churches to allow same gender marriages.

It's not absurd at all; it's a poor attempt to dodge the issue by claiming it is so.

[Bones2484]

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

Why?

Why is it absurd?

It's not much of a slippery slope. In states where same gender marriage is legal we already have precedent that any business that is open to the public must equally support same gender and mixed gender. This includes everyone from bed and breakfasts to cake bakers. If you open your church to non members of your church you are "open to the public."

In some countries where same gender marriage is legal they have laws that force churches to allow same gender marriages.

It's not absurd at all; it's a poor attempt to dodge the issue by claiming it is so.

I appreciate your ability to make a post in this forum, but without a single credible source proving that a US State Government forced a church to marry a gay couple your post is completely useless. I don't give a shit what has happened in other countries as that is not on the table here and has never been. What other countries do is their business.

Furthermore, "forcing" public businesses to serve everyone has been around a lot longer than gay marriage. Most states cover this in anti-discrimination laws dating way back to as early as the 1960s.

[Lootifer]

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

Why?

Why is it absurd?

It's not much of a slippery slope. In states where same gender marriage is legal we already have precedent that any business that is open to the public must equally support same gender and mixed gender. This includes everyone from bed and breakfasts to cake bakers. If you open your church to non members of your church you are "open to the public."

In some countries where same gender marriage is legal they have laws that force churches to allow same gender marriages.
It's not absurd at all; it's a poor attempt to dodge the issue by claiming it is so.

This is usually because there are very limited places you can get married; not because of the slippery slope argument you are making.

For example: In NZ you can get married where-ever the f*ck you like; chance of them forcing churches marry everyone here? zero to none. In England (correct me if I am wrong) you can only get married in a church or at the civil office; chance of them forcing churches to marry everyonme? probably quite high.

Note I am pro same sex marriage; but very much against forcing churches to have to marry them if required.

[Phatscotty]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

Obama is smart like the devil, and fundamental transformation is in process. Same sex marriage, whatever your position on it, is being used, and once they get it, it will be abused.

I'm sure next you'll be telling me that you still aren't making any slippery slope arguments in this thread.

Bones, what is a slippery slope argument, and why does accusing someone of using a slippery slope get one out of the subject matter they were talking about?

[Phatscotty]

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

Why?

Why is it absurd?

It's not much of a slippery slope. In states where same gender marriage is legal we already have precedent that any business that is open to the public must equally support same gender and mixed gender. This includes everyone from bed and breakfasts to cake bakers. If you open your church to non members of your church you are "open to the public."

In some countries where same gender marriage is legal they have laws that force churches to allow same gender marriages.
It's not absurd at all; it's a poor attempt to dodge the issue by claiming it is so.

This is usually because there are very limited places you can get married; not because of the slippery slope argument you are making.

For example: In NZ you can get married where-ever the f*ck you like; chance of them forcing churches marry everyone here? zero to none. In England (correct me if I am wrong) you can only get married in a church or at the civil office; chance of them forcing churches to marry everyonme? probably quite high.

Note I am pro same sex marriage; but very much against forcing churches to have to marry them if required.

So, basically...it makes the religious institutions who were simply marrying people before, "discriminatory" now, right?

[Phatscotty]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.

What basis is there for that prediction?

What happened last year in Massachusetts, for one

Catholic orphanages were told they would be forced to give orphans to same sex married people, in direct violation of their beliefs, or else they cannot operate in Massachusetts.

[b.k. barunt]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.

What basis is there for that prediction?

What happened last year in Massachusetts, for one

Catholic orphanages were told they would be forced to give orphans to same sex married people, in direct violation of their beliefs, or else they cannot operate in Massachusetts.

Point.

Anyone whose religion is based on the Bible will (if they're a part of the minority of professing "Christians" who are actually familiar with the Bible) have serious problems with homosexuality. Homosexuals understandably feel threatened by this and have marked anyone who takes a Biblical stand on the matter as racist and hateful. Any chance to attack this population with charges of "hate crimes" will be jumped on. Freedom of religion is irrelevant and just another constitutional casualty.


Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

Woodruff got it right. "Forcing religions to marry gays" is one of the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage opponents use. It's absurd.

Why?

Why is it absurd?

It's not much of a slippery slope. In states where same gender marriage is legal we already have precedent that any business that is open to the public must equally support same gender and mixed gender. This includes everyone from bed and breakfasts to cake bakers. If you open your church to non members of your church you are "open to the public."

In some countries where same gender marriage is legal they have laws that force churches to allow same gender marriages.

It's not absurd at all; it's a poor attempt to dodge the issue by claiming it is so.

As someone else indicated, you shouldn't really care what has occurred in other countries, but I've love to read more on the subject so if you could provide some links, that would be great.

Name for me the Supreme Court decision or law that requires a religious institution to marry a couple (in the United States).

So, basically...it makes the religious institutions who were simply marrying people before, "discriminatory" now, right?

Sure. They are already discriminatory. For example, my wife and I could not have gotten married for Jewish purposes. That discriminates against my religion.

What happened last year in Massachusetts, for one

Catholic orphanages were told they would be forced to give orphans to same sex married people, in direct violation of their beliefs, or else they cannot operate in Massachusetts.

You're confusing religious practice and government licensing again. It's something you do in these kinds of threads. A religious institution's recognition of marriage is a religious issue, not a state or federal issue (thanks to the operation of the First Amendment). A religious institution is not required to be licensed by the state in order to perform a religious marriage ceremony. In order to run an orphanage, the religious institution must be licensed under state law as an orphanage and are therefore subject to the requirements of the state. The choice, therefore, becomes whether to be licensed under state law and then subject to state rules or to stop running an orphanage. This is not a matter of religious freedom.

Point.

Anyone whose religion is based on the Bible will (if they're a part of the minority of professing "Christians" who are actually familiar with the Bible) have serious problems with homosexuality. Homosexuals understandably feel threatened by this and have marked anyone who takes a Biblical stand on the matter as racist and hateful. Any chance to attack this population with charges of "hate crimes" will be jumped on. Freedom of religion is irrelevant and just another constitutional casualty.

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

Here's what I need - find proof in countries that have accepted gay marriage for legal purposes that those countries require the Catholic Church or Hasidic Jews or Muslims to marry gay couples. I would also like to see the relevant countries' constitutions and their stance on religion, but that's less important. Good luck.

[b.k. barunt]

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

I would say that (at least) 90% of professing Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Their religion is a social phenomenon, i.e. they are part of a club. True religion has already become "less important" as the same holds true (although possibly on a lesser scale) with Muslims. The increase in ignorant Catholic Hispanics only underscores this fact. All of these people will accept homosexuality and anything else that the leaders of their churches sanction. However, those Christians and Muslims who believe what the Bible and the Koran teach will not only be targeted by the mos and the bos for any expression of their beliefs, but they will also be targeted by the churches as "radicals".


Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

I would say that (at least) 90% of professing Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Their religion is a social phenomenon, i.e. they are part of a club. True religion has already become "less important" as the same holds true (although possibly on a lesser scale) with Muslims. The increase in ignorant Catholic Hispanics only underscores this fact. All of these people will accept homosexuality and anything else that the leaders of their churches sanction. However, those Christians and Muslims who believe what the Bible and the Koran teach will not only be targeted by the mos and the bos for any expression of their beliefs, but they will also be targeted by the churches as "radicals".


Honibaz

Cool. What does that have to do with anything? If the religion starts letting gays get married, then there's no freedom of religion problem, and thus, who gives a shit?

[crispybits]

I think the main point re: the right to freedom of religion is that just like you're fine to wave your fists around however you like, that ends where someone else's nose begins. Similarly, you have a right to practice whatever your religion preaches (within reason), however fundamentalist that may come across to society, but that right ends where it has impact on anybody else's life. If you are religious (using the general "you" rather than talking about anyone in particular here) then more power to your elbow for your beliefs and structuring your own life around those, but you have absolutely no right to expect anyone else to be held to the same structures, principles and rules just coz "God says so".

[b.k. barunt]

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

I would say that (at least) 90% of professing Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Their religion is a social phenomenon, i.e. they are part of a club. True religion has already become "less important" as the same holds true (although possibly on a lesser scale) with Muslims. The increase in ignorant Catholic Hispanics only underscores this fact. All of these people will accept homosexuality and anything else that the leaders of their churches sanction. However, those Christians and Muslims who believe what the Bible and the Koran teach will not only be targeted by the mos and the bos for any expression of their beliefs, but they will also be targeted by the churches as "radicals".


Honibaz

Cool. What does that have to do with anything? If the religion starts letting gays get married, then there's no freedom of religion problem, and thus, who gives a shit?

My point is irrelevant if you equate "religion" with the organized church, in which case you have missed the point of constitutional freedom of religion entirely. It was the organized churches (primarily Roman Catholic) that caused our founding fathers to seek religious freedom, i.e. the right to seek and follow God without having the dictates of powerful organized churches imposed on you. You suggest that "there could come a time" when people who are religious would be outnumbered by atheists and agnostics, hence creating a problem for those who are religious. My point is that time is already here - the churches are full of agnostics and atheists.


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

I would say that (at least) 90% of professing Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Their religion is a social phenomenon, i.e. they are part of a club. True religion has already become "less important" as the same holds true (although possibly on a lesser scale) with Muslims. The increase in ignorant Catholic Hispanics only underscores this fact. All of these people will accept homosexuality and anything else that the leaders of their churches sanction. However, those Christians and Muslims who believe what the Bible and the Koran teach will not only be targeted by the mos and the bos for any expression of their beliefs, but they will also be targeted by the churches as "radicals".


Honibaz

Cool. What does that have to do with anything? If the religion starts letting gays get married, then there's no freedom of religion problem, and thus, who gives a shit?

My point is irrelevant if you equate "religion" with the organized church, in which case you have missed the point of constitutional freedom of religion entirely. It was the organized churches (primarily Roman Catholic) that caused our founding fathers to seek religious freedom, i.e. the right to seek and follow God without having the dictates of powerful organized churches imposed on you. You suggest that "there could come a time" when people who are religious would be outnumbered by atheists and agnostics, hence creating a problem for those who are religious. My point is that time is already here - the churches are full of agnostics and atheists.
Honibaz

Some of those "founding fathers" who came to the United States from Europe also came here specifically because they couldn't impose their religion on others as much as they wanted to, and they found the ability to do so here.

[b.k. barunt]

Your reference to a few of Cromwell's wankers as "Founding Fathers" is a bit absurd. The term "Founding Fathers" was given primarily to those who founded our form of government and framed our Constitution, not to a smattering of Puritans who burned a few witches and had nothing to do with "founding" anything other than a town or two. Try again.


Honibaz

[thegreekdog]

Freedom of religion is fortunately still relevant. I suppose there could come a time when 90% or more of the country is atheist or agnostic and religion becomes less important, but given the increase in religious Hispanics in this country, I doubt it. You guys worry too much.

And hence... the slippery slope argument.

I would say that (at least) 90% of professing Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Their religion is a social phenomenon, i.e. they are part of a club. True religion has already become "less important" as the same holds true (although possibly on a lesser scale) with Muslims. The increase in ignorant Catholic Hispanics only underscores this fact. All of these people will accept homosexuality and anything else that the leaders of their churches sanction. However, those Christians and Muslims who believe what the Bible and the Koran teach will not only be targeted by the mos and the bos for any expression of their beliefs, but they will also be targeted by the churches as "radicals".


Honibaz

Cool. What does that have to do with anything? If the religion starts letting gays get married, then there's no freedom of religion problem, and thus, who gives a shit?

My point is irrelevant if you equate "religion" with the organized church, in which case you have missed the point of constitutional freedom of religion entirely. It was the organized churches (primarily Church of England) that caused our founding fathers to seek religious freedom, i.e. the right to seek and follow God without having the dictates of powerful organized churches imposed on you. You suggest that "there could come a time" when people who are religious would be outnumbered by atheists and agnostics, hence creating a problem for those who are religious. My point is that time is already here - the churches are full of agnostics and atheists.


Honibaz

Okay. My point is still - so what? The religious institution of marriage is carried on by religious institutions (e.g. the Catholic Church, a Jewish synagogue, etc.)

Also, corrected for historic accuracy.

[Lootifer]

So, basically...it makes the religious institutions who were simply marrying people before, "discriminatory" now, right?

Yup, but nothing needs to, or should be, done about their discrimination.

This is because the counter-discrimination caused by doing anything about it is greater than the original discrimination (the counter discrimination being removing the churches religious freedom). The original discrimination still exists, however it has no practical manifestations (in this case, assuming you don't have to be married in a church, gay couples are no longer prevented from being recognised as married in society).

[Phatscotty]

He's trying to explain to you how this will end up being used as a tool to bash religion and speech.

Which is more important, that 1/10th of 1% of the population gets to feel warm and fuzzy that they can get a marriage instead of a civil union, or that 100% of the population can have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

btw: do you identify more as a Catholic, or more as a supporter of homosexual marriage?