Religion and homosexuality

[byco42]

But nobody is telling the churches that they have to marry gay people!!!!! If you want someone to lecture about this, do it with the churches that are marrying gay people!

Just wait. It will happen. It's inevitable. Someone will sue a church for "discrimination" and the ball will roll downhill.

 

[Monster]

Just wait. It will happen. It's inevitable. Someone will sue a church for "discrimination" and the ball will roll downhill.

Oh come on. We've been through this. Churches have always had their say on who they marry. After Interracial marriage was determined to be legal, the same thing was probably said and the Christian faith has done nothing but grow larger since that time. I don't think you have a reason to worry.

 

[byco42]

Oh come on. We've been through this. Churches have always had their say on who they marry. After Interracial marriage was determined to be legal, the same thing was probably said and the Christian faith has done nothing but grow larger since that time. I don't think you have a reason to worry.

Transcript of oral arguments on 4-28-15:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case,the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage of interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI (Solicitor General,Department of Justice, who supports same-sex "marriages") : You know, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.

I recognize the word "church" is not present. But the logical extension is that it will be at some point included. And if a Catholic University (even those in name only) refuse to accommodate a same-sex function, wedding, et. al ... two birds with one stone.

This is not some basement blogger: http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

He is grossly mistaken and uninformed, but he sees the connection that I see.

 

[Michchamp]

yes, because losing tax exempt status means you're no longer a practicing Christian.

you'll go to hell if your college/church has to pay taxes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

yes, because losing tax exempt status means you're no longer a practicing Christian.

you'll go to hell if your college/church has to pay taxes.

I think they do pay taxes in Germany. But everyone pays a religion tax too, and the government distributes it to the religions.

 

[byco42]

yes, because losing tax exempt status means you're no longer a practicing Christian.

you'll go to hell if your college/church has to pay taxes.

No, it will result in the dissolution of many churches who otherwise are staying operational. Yet, Planned Parenthood will remain a 501(c)(3) because it is "charitable."

 

[jwlcosu]

I think they do pay taxes in Germany. But everyone pays a religion tax too, and the government distributes it to the religions.

Not everyone pays a religion tax. It is easy to opt out.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Not everyone pays a religion tax. It is easy to opt out.

That makes more sense, but it's still goofy.

 

[Sbee]

I think all christian heterosexuals should file for divorce now since the sanctity of their marriage has been devauled

 

[Thumb]

I sense your micro-aggression. God made marriage a Sacrament. One of the seven in the Church.

When did this happen?

My understanding is all but the 10 commandments (which I'll assume Moses memorized 100% correctly after being awake for 40 days and 40 nights on a mountaintop before smashing them) are the only things actually written by god in the Bible. The rest is translation, interpretation, wild guesses, and contradictions.

 

[tomdalton22]

When did this happen?

My understanding is all but the 10 commandments (which I'll assume Moses memorized 100% correctly after being awake for 40 days and 40 nights on a mountaintop before smashing them) are the only things actually written by god in the Bible. The rest is translation, interpretation, wild guesses, and contradictions.

I was raised a catholic. I went to a catholic school from first grade through my senior year. I remember as a young child asking one of the nuns how someone could live for 600 years (one of the stories in the bible). Needless to say, even at a young age, I came to the opinion that the bible is a story book. My teachers weren't too happy with my opinion.

 

[byco42]

When did this happen?

My understanding is all but the 10 commandments (which I'll assume Moses memorized 100% correctly after being awake for 40 days and 40 nights on a mountaintop before smashing them) are the only things actually written by god in the Bible. The rest is translation, interpretation, wild guesses, and contradictions.

Source: USCCB

Marriage is an original gift from God to humanity. Although sin entered the world damaging the marital relationship, this gift was not lost but redeemed by Christ and raised to a sacrament (see Eph. 5:28-32; see also Mtt. 19:4-6). Sacred Scripture proclaims that God created humanity in "His image" as "male and female" (see Gen. 1:27). So unique is this relationship that the marital union makes of the husband and wife "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Procreation, Scripture teaches, is a gift from God (Gen. 1:28). When spouses conceive new life, they participate in the Lord God's creative power. This is an awesome privilege and sacred responsibility!

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Jesus is quoted liberally throughout the New Testament. If you say it's all fabrication, I ask you: who would endure the mechanics of recording the NT with the tools of the day, with full and prior knowledge it was all fiction, and what would be gained by doing so?

If you say "power and influence" keep in mind that the authors of the NT were hunted men and all were martyred except for John.

 

[Michchamp]

Source: USCCB

Marriage is an original gift from God to humanity. Although sin entered the world damaging the marital relationship, this gift was not lost but redeemed by Christ and raised to a sacrament (see Eph. 5:28-32; see also Mtt. 19:4-6). Sacred Scripture proclaims that God created humanity in "His image" as "male and female" (see Gen. 1:27). So unique is this relationship that the marital union makes of the husband and wife "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Procreation, Scripture teaches, is a gift from God (Gen. 1:28). When spouses conceive new life, they participate in the Lord God's creative power. This is an awesome privilege and sacred responsibility!

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Jesus is quoted liberally throughout the New Testament. If you say it's all fabrication, I ask you: who would endure the mechanics of recording the NT with the tools of the day, with full and prior knowledge it was all fiction, and what would be gained by doing so?

If you say "power and influence" keep in mind that the authors of the NT were hunted men and all were martyred except for John.

Power, influence, and money? Those who kept these writings alive since then certainly have those in abundance.

 

[byco42]

Power, influence, and money? Those who kept these writings alive since then certainly have those in abundance.

As if the Gospel writers knew or cared about that?

 

[jwlcosu]

Just wait. It will happen. It's inevitable. Someone will sue a church for "discrimination" and the ball will roll downhill.

Yep, so true. In fact, the prediction here is that some young couple will "shop around" until they find a church that says no, and then sue the shit out of them.

Welcome to the brave new world, fellas, where its now cool for five members of the politically appointed Supreme Court to pass law. Be careful what you wish for, its here. Most of you never saw it coming and don't know what it means. Worse, you don't even get that it's happened!

 

[Thumb]

Yep, so true. In fact, the prediction here is that some young couple will "shop around" until they find a church that says no, and then sue the shit out of them.

Welcome to the brave new world, fellas, where its now cool for five members of the politically appointed Supreme Court to pass law. Be careful what you wish for, its here. Most of you never saw it coming and don't know what it means. Worse, you don't even get that it's happened!

This is ridiculous, as pointed out many, many times in both this thread and the other one, churches are not required to marry anyone, period. This idea is right-wing sensationalism at it's dumbest.

The Supreme Court did not pass any laws dumb-dumb. They did what they are supposed to, and declared the laws that existed in some states unconstitutional. No fucking law was passed saying the LGBT community have the right to marry, because they always had it, you know....as citizens of the United States of America.


I realize that after you read this you will have no more understanding then when you read the previous mentions of this in both these threads, so maybe ask a small child that you know who's mind has not yet been corrupted with hate and moral superiority, and have them explain it to you.

 

[jwlcosu]

Sorry, Thumb, that's where you're not nuanced in your thinking. Did the Court pass a law? Technically no, but effectively yes. Gay marriage was going to happen throughout the land. It was happening, state, by state, by state. Naturally, over time and by the will of the people, the way things are supposed to happen. Rather than to let things evolve, however, the Court inserted itself and its activist behavior had the unquestionable effect of making law.

Another factor is that two of the justices, Ginsburg and Kagan, had already presided over multiple gay weddings. Impartial jurors? Hardly. Shame on them for failing to recuse themselves.

Its a brave new world. Get used to it.

 

[Michchamp]

yes, seems totally inappropriate for the court to hear this one... a national divide in the legality of an issue that affects a fundamental personal right...

and if Kagan and Ginsburg should've recused themselves, then Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas should have as well, as they all made clear their reasoning was based on religious morals, and therefore had no business playing a role in determining the Constitutionality of United States law.

 

[byco42]

Kennedy's opinion as gays being "excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions" fundamentally alters the meaning of the term as defined by previous SCOTUS judgments on marriage.

 

[jwlcosu]

if Kagan and Ginsburg should've recused themselves, then Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas should have as well, as they all made clear their reasoning was based on religious morals, and therefore had no business playing a role in determining the Constitutionality of United States law.

Maybe the court should have not taken the case and allowed things to play out through the states?