Bert and Ernie agenda

[PepperElf]

Current legislation allows church organizations to choose not to provide sectarian services to those who are not part of their religious sect. And the state stays out of it.

In fact, the state stays out of it so much, and people have accepted this status quo so fully, that I'm having difficulty even finding any references to lawsuits against churches who wouldn't perform sectarian services. If you can provide links to any of these, I would appreciate it.

^-.-^

ok that's a far cry from "discrimination"
people are talking about churches as if they can legally tell say, a black/white couple "no you can't get married" when they're both members of the same church.

and sure i know someone will bring up the past but i'm talking about right here and now. if a church said that are you saying there would be no lawsuit over it?

and that is why many people think that if this becomes a legal "right" that churches will be pressured to perform marriages they disagree with. and yes there will be some who want to say it's a crazy unfounded fear and that people are skeered, but ... frankly i do not believe that i will never happen as others here seem to think.

[HYHYBT]

What you said at the beginning was that you thought gay marriage would lead to churches being forced to change. Nowhere have you given an explanation of why that would be, GIVEN THAT it's proven untrue for any other comparable situation. What makes *gay* marriage different *in that regard* than interracial marriage, marriage after divorce, marriage to someone of a different faith, etc?

[AdminAssistant]

ok that's a far cry from "discrimination"
people are talking about churches as if they can legally tell say, a black/white couple "no you can't get married" when they're both members of the same church.

The "church" may not say that, but an individual pastor/preacher/priest/Justice of the Peace certainly can. In order to get married, you have to find a qualified individual who is willing to marry you. That person can decide that they don't want to marry you for just about any reason. That will not change, ever. It is my hope that religious folks eventually become enlightened enough to not tolerate such discrimination or hate speech from the pulpit. But the government can't, and won't, force that.

[Gravekeeper]

Bull shit. Yes YOU might feel your cause is worthy and is the right way, but that doesn't mean it IS the right way.

Cept it is the right way. Because its a human rights issue. End of story. You don't have to support it, and I don't consider you a "hater" for not supporting it, but your reason for opposing it was misguided and don't be surprised if people take issue with that. Seeing as inaction / apathy / ignorance are very real threats to this particular issue.

And yes there WILL be people here who still think, "but my way IS the right way therefore it's OK to judge you for not supporting it".... that doesn't make it true. That's just an attempt to justify your own hatred and intolerance.

....Okay.

And since I've already found attempts online of people suing - or trying to - sue churches for not performing gay marriages it's hard to say "it won't happen" when it already has.

As has already been pointed out, lawsuits are not precedents and the scenario you're worried about will frankly never happen in a free country. Especially not in the US of all places.

[Ladeeda]

So we're going down the "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" route?

[smileyeagle1021]

I don't remember suggesting that they would win, but that there could end up becoming a precedent where the government ends up trying to tell churches what they can and cannot do. which is in effect a violation of the first amendment.

At which time it would be appropriate to fight against first amendment violations.
As of yet, there is no threat to first amendment protections, the argument that if marriage equality becomes law churches will be forced to change is a red herring at best.

Using the logic that it might, by some series of events that can't exactly be explained or predicted, lead to the government violating the first amendment therefor we have to stop it from happening makes about as much sense as saying I may get hit by a car so we should outlaw cars.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I'd throw out that it's not that different than drunk driving.
Drunk drivers do not hate pedestrians, drunk drivers do not hate other drivers, but that does not make them any less responsible for the harm they cause.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that comparison.

A Drunk Driver makes a conscious decision to put him/herself into a state where their judgement will be impaired. This action can directly lead to someone being killed by the later actions of the inebriated driver.

In other words, they hit someone else and kill them.

Not voting for marriage equality is not likely to get someone killed as a direct result.

Before you say "Well someone could die as a result of the intolerance", let me just say that it would be an indirect result (as opposed to the drunk plowing into someone personally) AND that it is equally likely that someone can be killed because people DID vote for marriage equality and for the same reason...

...the aforementioned intolerance.

In a very real sense, you are talking about a situation that can be compared to the equal rights movements. That by voting against it you could indirectly harm people by fostering the air of intolerance that lead to violence against the Black Community, that by voting FOR it you could indirectly harm people by pissing off the intolerant then took it out on the Black Community, and you could harm people by not voting thus creating an air of apathy and indifference which led to a continuance of the violence against the Black Community because people didn't care enough to stop it.

The same applies here. There are people who hate homosexuals and that hatred can and sometimes manifests as violence. Voting one way or the other or abstaining will not stop those people from committing that violence.

Thus the people who vote are not directly responsible for any death unless they go out there and personally kill someone.

[PepperElf]

So we're going down the "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" route?

O now I'm a hater AND intolerant.
All because I am not running around supporting gay marriage.


So that means YOU hate all veterans. Are you supporting the DAV?
No? What do you have against disabled vets? Seriously, what's wrong with you that you can't support their rights?



See? I just did the same thing. I decided that all people who don't support the DAV hate disabled vets.

Cept it is the right way.

Yes supporting disabled vets is the right way. Start donating to the DAV!




That's my point. You can't just automatically declare "everyone who doesn't see things my way is a hater and intolerant". It's unrealistic.


Just as it's unrealistic for me to assume you all hate disabled vets.

[Ginger Tea]

If for example Churches of all demominations never performed marriages and all services were a civil matter performed in courts or similarly appointed venues, regardless of your religion and all were performed as a faithless ceremony as its a legal issue not a religious one, would you say that supporting the right to gay weddings is a good thing?

Were not fighting for gay couples to be wed in churches or for religions of America (in this case) to be more accepting of gay people and welcoming them to x y or z religion, just that a man can marry (in a registry office) another man and the same for two women.

Keeping the church well away from marriage.
Two athiests can get married (not necesarily in a church) and it's not an affront to god (not that they would believe in one) it's two people committed to each other and want to spend their lives together, not that being married changes much.

If marriage was something that only happened to Jewish derived religions then I would not give a flying fuck about it as it would be a religious issue, my parents were not religious, so I like alot of people these days would be born out of wedlock.

Marriage has not been the sole domain for the church for so long I have not seen the point of their involvement bar fancy locations.
Unmarried hetrosexual couples have fought and in some countries won the right to have similar standings to married couples, most are to do with tax and inheritance, but it has not diluted marriage, both love each other as much as a married couple, they just chose not to get married.

[Andara Bledin]

The whole right for two people to marry without regard to gender is a basic human rights issue.

Either you're for human rights. Or you're against human rights (in which case you're a hater, even if merely a weak one). Or you're apathetic about human rights and it'll be in part your own damn fault when those who are against go after you because you don't conform to their narrow world-views.

And it's a legal contract we're discussing here, so religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and shouldn't even be brought up.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

So that means I really can say you're against human rights because you're not supporting the DAV.

Gotcha.



cos apparently what i suspect is true... individuals decide "my choice is the right choice! Anyone who doesn't jump on my bandwagon is against everything good... and they hate puppies too! and you support evil!"



that's the problem i guess.
just because YOU think one way does not mean everyone else is wrong.

cos otherwise i could do that too. you'd disagree with me but ... "my way is right your's isn't!"
but you don't like that do you? you probably don't like me telling you stuff like that or even suggesting it.
which is why it's fine for you to do it to me, right? because you are "right". because your reasoning is right and mine... who says my reasoning isn't right? You? so what.


so i guess it comes down to that... can we bash people for disagreeing with our choices?
but what if we're "right"?

cos hey claiming "i'm RIGHT" excuses everything of course.

[Andara Bledin]

If you can come up with a single, rational reason to not support the right for any two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract of marriage, I'd like to hear it.

So far it's just been a lot of lies, misinformation, FUD, hyperbole, and straw men out of everyone who wants to deny their fellow humans the same rights they, themselves enjoy.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

You're conflating financially contributing to an organization (the DAV) with morally supporting their cause. You can morally support/agree with causes while not financially contributing to them. I support both PFLAG and the DAV and think both organizations are terrific. I don't contribute to them because I'm freakin' broke. There's a difference.

[Evandril]

PepperElf, if there was a magical way we could insure churches would not be forced to preform marriages they find objectionable, would you then support gay marriage?

That seems to be the main sticking point...and seeing how many rights the government has trampled as of late, I *can't* say for certain they wouldn't decide this is another one they want to play fast and loose with the rules...though I do find it *highly* unlikely.

As far as someone being called a 'hater'...hate is an emotion, and trying to say how someone feels seems even more farfetched, if they disagree with your statement. Harmful is another story, and I do agree that quite a few people who are against gay marriage are taking actions directly harmful to society. Society, as a whole, tends to try and destroy that which it conciders 'bad', and quite a bit of the retoric against gay marriage paints gays as 'bad'...And is having the expected results.

I do happen to support the DAV, being in the military, but how would you feel if I was actively *against* the DAV? Not just not supporting it, but saying it's a bad idea, because it will take money from other services for the disabled, and waste money by spreading it out through multiple agencies? If we were actively against the DAV, I'm sure you'd not be pleased with us...Doubly so if our reasons, to you, were without merit.

[PepperElf]

ah. now there's the rub. ... no matter what reasons someone brings up... who is to decide what is a "rational" reason.

which is also why i really disbelieve this "harmful" bullshit too.

yeah i know someone's going to quote that line about "when good men do nothing to stop evil"... but there you go assuming what is good and evil for you is good end evil for everyone else and that their own beliefs and faiths should come secondary to what you feel is the truth.


why should you decide for me what is good and bad?
who made you the ruler of what is right and wrong?


i mean hell... i've seen discussions here where people get pissed the fuck off at any faith that declares "this is the right way". people want them instead to say "well we believe this but... you may also be right"


ironic how that theme changes from "we think this may be right and the truth ... but you can also be right" to "my way is the right way".... at least when it's something you personally believe in.

but other people and their beliefs... nope they can't dare say that. it might offend someone.